Nearly a quarter of a century later Prester John appears upon the scene, in the outline, at least, of the character which long adhered to him, viz., that of a Christian conqueror and potentate of enormous power and splendour, who combined the characters of priest and king, and ruled over vast dominions in the far East. This idea was universal in Europe from about the middle of the 12th century to the end of the 13th or beginning of the 14th. The Asiatic story then gradually died away, but the name remained as firmly rooted as ever, and the royal presbyter was now assigned a locus in Ethiopia. Indeed, as we shall see, it is not an improbable hypothesis that from a very early date in the history of this phantom its title was assigned to the Abyssinian king, though for a time this identification was overshadowed by the prevalence of the Asiatic legend. At the bottom of the double allocation there was, no doubt, that association or confusion of Ethiopia with India which is as old as Virgil, and perhaps much older.

The first mention of Prester John occurs in the chronicle of Otho or Otto, bishop of Freisingen. This writer states that when at the papal court in 1145 he met with the bishop of Gabala (Jibal in Syria), who related how “not many years before one John, king and priest (rex et sacerdos), who dwelt in the extreme Orient beyond Persia and Armenia, and was, with his people, a Christian but a Nestorian, had made war against the brother kings of the Persians and Medes, who were called Samiards (or Saηjards), and captured Egbatana their capital. The battle with those princes endured three days, but at last Presbyter John— for so he was wont to be styled—routed the Per sians with immense slaughter. After this victory the aforesaid John was advancing to fight in aid of the church at Jerusalem; but, when he arrived at the Tigris, and found no possible means of transport for his army, he turned northward, as he had heard that the river in that quarter was frozen over in winter-time. After halting on its banks for some years (per aliquot annos) in expectation of a frost he was obliged to return to his own land. This personage was said to be of the ancient race of the Magi mentioned in the gospel, to rule the same nations that they ruled, and to have such a plenitude of wealth and glory that he used none but a sceptre of solid emerald. It was as fired by the example of his ancestors (they said) that he was proposing to go to Jerusalem when thus obstructed.” We cannot say how far the report of the bishop of Gabala, or other rumours of the events on which this was founded, made an impression on Europe at that time. But there can be no doubt about the impression that was made some twenty years later (c. 1165) by the wide circulation of a letter which purported to have been addressed by the potentate in question to the Greek emperor Manuel. This letter, professing to come from “Presbyter Joannes, by the power and virtue of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords,” is filled with the most extravagant details of the greatness and splendour of the writer. He claims to be the greatest monarch under heaven, as well as a devout Christian and protector of Christians. And it was his desire to visit the Holy Sepulchre with a great host, and to subdue the enemies of the Cross. Seventy-two kings, reigning over as many kingdoms, were his tributaries. His empire extended over the three Indies, including that Further India where lay the body of St Thomas, to the sun-rising, and back again down the slope to the ruins of Babylon and the tower of Babel. All the wild beasts and monstrous creatures commemorated in current legend were to be found in his dominions, as well as all the wild and eccentric races of men of whom strange stories were told, including those unclean nations whom Alexander Magnus walled up among the mountains of the north, and who were to come forth at the latter day,—and so were the Amazons and the Bragmans. His dominions contained the monstrous ants that dug gold and the fish that gave the purple; they produced all manner of precious stones and all the famous aromatics. Within them was found the Fountain of Youth; the pebbles which give light, restore sight, and render the possessor invisible; the Sea of Sand was there, stored with fish of wondrous savour; and the River of Stones was there also; besides a subterranean stream whose sands were of gems. His territory produced the worm called “salamander,” which lived in fire, and which wrought itself an incombustible envelope from which were manufactured robes for the presbyter, which were washed in flaming fire. When the king went forth to war thirteen great crosses made of gold and jewels were carried in waggons before him as his standards, and each was followed by 10,000 knights and 100,000 footmen. There were no poor in his dominions, no thief or robber, no flatterer or miser, no dissensions, no lies, and no vices. His palace was built after the plan of that which St Thomas erected for the Indian king Gondopharus. Of the splendour of this details are given. Before it was a marvellous mirror erected on a many-storied pedestal (described in detail); in this speculum he could discern everything that went on throughout his dominions, and detect conspiracies. He was waited on by seven kings at a time, by sixty dukes and 365 counts; twelve archbishops sat on his right hand, and twenty bishops on his left, besides the patriarch of St Thomas’s, the protopope of the Sarmagantians (Samarkand ?), and the archprotopope of Susa, where the royal residence was. There was another palace of still more wonderful character, built by the presbyter’s father in obedience to a heavenly command, in the city of Bribric.

Should it be asked why, with all this power and splendour, he calls himself merely “presbyter,” this is because of his humility, and because it was not fitting for one whose sewer was a primate and king, whose butler an archbishop and king, whose chamberlain a bishop and king, whose master of the horse an archimandrite and king, whose chief cook an abbot and king, to be called by such titles as these. But the extent of his power and dominion could only be told when the number of the stars of heaven and of the sands of the seashore could be told.

How great was the popularity and diffusion of this letter may be judged in some degree from the fact that Herr Zarncke in his elaborate treatise on Prester John gives a list of close on a hundred MSS. of it. Of these there are eight in the British Museum, ten at Vienna, thirteen in the great Paris library, fifteen at Munich. There are also several renderings in old German verse. Many circumstances of the time tended to render such a letter acceptable. Christendom would welcome gladly the intelligence of a counterpoise arising so unexpectedly to the Mohammedan power; whilst the statements of the letter itself combined a reference to and corroboration of all the romantic figments concerning Asia which already fed the curiosity of Europe, which figured in the world-maps, and filled that fabulous history of Alexander which for nearly a thousand years supplanted the real history of the Macedonian throughout Europe and western Asia.

The only other surviving document of the 12th century bearing on this subject is a letter of which MS. copies are preserved in the Cambridge and Paris libraries, and which is also embedded in the chronicles of several English annalists, including Benedict of Peterborough, Roger Hovedon, and Matthew Paris. It purports to have been indited from the Rialto at Venice by Pope Alexander III. on the 5th day before the calends of October (2 7th September), data which fix the year as 1177. The pope addresses himself as Alexander episcopus, servus servorum dei, carissimo in Christo filio Johanni, illustro et magnifico indorum regi [Hovedon’s copy here inserts sacerdoti sanctissimo], salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. He recites how he had heard of the monarch’s Christian profession, diligence in good works, and piety by manifold narrators and common report, but also more particularly from his (the pope’s) beloved son Master Philip, his physician and confidant (medicus et familiaris noster), who had received information from honourable persons of the monarch’s kingdom, with whom he had intercourse in those (Eastern) parts. Philip had also reported the king’s anxiety for instruction in Catholic discipline and for reconciliation with the apostolic see in regard to all discrepancies. Philip had also heard from the king’s people that he fervently desired to have a church in Rome and an altar at Jerusalem. The pope goes on to say that he found it too difficult, on account of the length and obstructions of the way, to send any one (of ecclesiastical position 1) a latere, but he would despatch the aforesaid Philip to communicate instruction to him. And on accepting Philip’s communications the king should send back honourable persons bearing letters sealed with his seal, in which his wishes should be fully set forth. “The more nobly and magnanimously thou conductest thyself, and the less thou vauntest of thy wealth and power (quanto . . . minus de divitiis et potentia tua videris inflatus), the more readily shall we regard thy wishes both as to the concession of a church in the city and of altars in the church of SS. Peter and Paul, and in the church of the Lord’s Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and as to other reasonable requests.”

There is no express mention of the title “Prester John” in what seem the more genuine copies of this letter. But the address and the expression in the italicized passage just quoted (which evidently alludes to the vaunting epistle of 1165) hardly leave room for doubt that the pope supposed himself to be addressing the (imaginary) author of that letter. To whom the reports of Philip the physician in reality referred is a point that will be discussed below. We do not know how far the imaginations about Prester John retained their vitality in 1221, forty-four years after the letter of Pope Alexander, for we know of no mention of Prester John in the interval. But in that year again a rumour came out of the East that a great Christian conqueror was taking the hated Moslems in reverse and sweeping away their power. Prophecies current among the Christians in Syria of the destruction of Mohammed’s sect after six centuries of duration added to the excitement attending these rumours. The name ascribed to the conqueror was David, and some called him the son or the grandson of Prester John of India. He whose conquests and slaughters now revived the legend was in fact no Christian or King David but the famous Jenghiz Khân. The delusion was dissipated slowly, and even after the great Tartar invasion and devastation of eastern Europe its effects still influenced the mind of Christendom and caused popes and kings to send missions to the Tartar hordes with a lingering feeling that their khâns, if not already Christians, were at least always on the verge of conversion.

Before proceeding farther we must go back on the bishop of Gabala’s story and elucidate it as far as we can. The most accomplished of modern geographical antiquaries, Μ. d’Avezac, first showed to whom the story must apply. The only conqueror whose career suits in time and approximates in circumstances is the founder of Karâ-Khitâi, which existed as a great empire in Central Asia during the latter two-thirds of the 13th century. This personage was a prince of the Khitâi or Khitaian dynasty of Liao, which had reigned over northern China and the regions beyond the Wall during a great part of the 10th and 11th centuries, and from which came the name Khitâi (Cathay), by which China was once known in Europe and still is known in Russia. On the overthrow of the dynasty about 1125 this prince, who is called by the Chinese Yeliu Tashi, and who had gone through a complete Chinese education, escaped westward with a body of followers. Being well received by the Uighurs and other tribes west of the desert, subjects of his family, he gathered an army and commenced a course of conquest which eventually extended over eastern and western Turkestan. He took the title of Gur Khân or Kor Khan, said to mean “universal” or “supreme” khân, and fixed at Balasaghun, north of the T’ian Shan range, the capital of his empire, which became known as that of Karâ-Khitâi (Black Cathay). In 1141 the assistance of this Khitaian prince was invoked by the shâh of Kharezm against Sanjâr, the Seljfi⅛ sovereign of Persia, who had expelled the shâh from his kingdom and killed his son. The Gur Khân came with a vast army of Turks, Khitaians, and others, and defeated Sanjâr near Samarkand (September 1141) in a great battle, which the historian Ibn al-Athir calls the greatest and most sanguinary defeat that Islam had ever undergone in those regions. Though the Gur Khân himself is not described as having extended his conquests into Persia, the shâh of Kharezm followed up the victory by invading Khorâsan and plundering the cities and treasuries of Sanjâr. In this event—the defeat of Sanjâr, whose brother’s son, Mas’ùd, reigned over western Persia—occurring just four years before the story of the Eastern conqueror was told at Rome to Bishop Otto, we seem to have the destruction of the Samiardi fratres or Sanjâr brothers, which was the germ of the story of Prester John.

There is no evidence of any profession of Christianity on the part of the Gur Khân, though it is a fact that the daughter of the last of his race is recorded to have been a Christian. The hosts of the Gur Khân are called by Moslem historians Al-Turk-al-Kuffcir, the kafir or infidel Turks; and we know that in later days the use of this term “kafir” often led to misapprehensions, as when Vasco da Gama’s people were led to take for Christians the Banyan traders on the African coast, and to describe as Christian sovereigns so many princes of the farther East of whom they heard at Calicut. Of the rest of the accretions to the story little can be said except that they are of the kind sure to have grown up in some shape when once the Christianity of the conqueror was assumed. We have said that Prester John was a phantom; and we know out of what disproportionate elements phantoms are developed. How the name John arose is one of the obscure points. Oppert supposes the title “Gur Khân” to have been confounded with Yukhanan or Johannes; and of course it is probable that even in the Levant the stories of “John the patriarch of the Indies,” repeated in the early part of this article, may have already mingled with the rumours from the East.

The obvious failure in the history of the Gur Khân to meet all points in the story of the bishop of Gabala led Professor Bruun of Odessa to bring forward another candidate for identity with the original Prester John, in the person of the Georgian prince John Orbelian, the “sbasalar,” or generalissimo under several kings of Georgia in that age. Space forbids our stating all the ingenious arguments and coincidences with which Professor Bruun supported his theory. Among other arguments he does show some instances, in documents of the 15th century, of the association of Prester John with the Caucasus. In one at least of these the title is applied to the king of Abassia, i.e., of the Abhasians of Caucasus. Some confusion between Abash (Abyssinia) and Abhas seems to be possibly at the bottom of the imbroglio. An abstract of Professor Bruun’s argument will be found in the 2d edition of Marco Polo, vol. ii. pp. 539-542. We may quote here the conclusion arrived at in winding up that abstract. “Professor Bruun’s thesis seems to me more than fairly successful in paving the way for the introduction of a Caucasian Prester John; the barriers are removed, the carpets are spread, the trumpets sound royally,—but the conquering hero comes not. He does very nearly come. The almost royal power and splendour of the Orbelians at this time is on record . . . (see St Martin,. Mém. sur l'Arménie, ii. 77) . . . Orpel Ivane, i.e., John Orbelian, Grand Sbasalar, was for years the pride of Georgia, and the hammer of the Turks. . . . But still we hear of no actual conflict with the chief princes of the Seljukian house, and of no event in his history so important as to account for his being made to play the part of Presbyter Johannes in the story of the Bishop of Gabala.” As regards any real foundation for the title of “Presbyter” we may observe that nothing worth mentioning has been alleged on behalf of any candidate.

When the Mongol conquests threw Asia open to Frank travellers in the middle of the 13th century their minds were full of Prester John; they sought in vain for an adequate representative, nor was it in the nature of things that they should not find some representative. In fact they found several. Apparently no real tradition existed among the Eastern Christians of such a personage; the myth had taken shape from the clouds of rumour as they rolled westward from Asia. But the persistent demand produced a supply; and the honour of identification with Prester John, after hovering over one head and another, settled for a long time upon that of the king of the Nestorian tribe of Kerait, famous in the histories of Jenghiz under the name of Ung or Awang Khân. We may quote an illustration from geographical analogy: “Pre-Columbian maps of the Atlantic showed an island of Brazil, an island of Antiilia, founded—who knew on what?—whether on the real adventure of a vessel driven in sight of the Azores or Bermudas, or on mere fancy and fogbank. But when discovery really came to be undertaken, men looked for such lands and found them accordingly. And. there they are in our geographies, Brazil and the Antilles.”

In Plano Carj>ini ’ s (1248) single mention of Prester John as the king of the Christians of India the Greater, who defeats the Tartars by an elaborate stratagem, Oppert recognizes Jalâluddin of Kharezm and his brief success over the Mongols in Afghânistan. In the Armenian prince Sempad’s account (1248), on the other hand, this Christian king of India is aided by the Tartars to defeat and harass the Saracens, and becomes the vassal of the Mongols. In the narrative of William Rubruquis (1253), though distinct reference is madeto the conquering Gur Khân under the name of Coir Cham of Caracatay, the title of “King John” is assigned to Kushluk, king of the Naimans,...