This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/Map_of_Angelino_Dulcert_cropped.jpg 2015-06-12T11:00:17-07:00 Letter to Prester John 15 image_header 2024-01-27T19:32:59-08:00
  Letter To Prester John (1177)
  
  In 1177, Pope Alexander composed a letter to Prester John, "the illustrious and magnificent John King of the Indies," and sent Master Phillip, his personal physician, as envoy to petition for John’s instruction in Catholicism. We never hear back from Master Phillip. While Alexander’s letter is typically read at face-value as a genuine attempt to reach out to an eastern Christian priest-king, it also has the effect of re-inscribing ecclesiastical power, in that Alexander establishes himself as the custodian of doctrinal Catholicism, the adherence to which should be considered the most important feature of any imperial project.
   
  Brewer (pp. 94-6) provides an English translation of Alexander's letter. Although most critics understand this letter as a response to the Letter of Prester John, Brewer maintains "that is emphatically not the case." He sees the letter instead as a "curious anomaly."
   
  For the Latin text of the letter, see Zarncke. Read Latin version online at Google Books (pp. 935-946).
   
  Bernard Hamilton reads the letter as a kind of public rhetorical performance, a stance he supports by noting that Alexander made several copies of his letter (184). Although scholars, including Hamilton, have tried to explain the legend as a hoax perpetuated by Frederick’s inner circle that spiraled out of control, this explanation fails to account for the survival of the legend beyond the political intrigues of the twelfth century.
   
  From Hamilton, "Prester John and the Three Kings of Cologne":     

  “[T]he aim of the author of this letter is to show that Frederick’s concept of church-state relations, unlike that of Alexander III, produced harmony in the Christian world, and enabled Christians to unite against the enemies of the faith” (180).

  “That Alexander III took the letter seriously is evident from the reply which he wrote to it from Venice on 27 September 1177. Significantly he omits the title ‘Priest’ and addresses John as ‘illustrious and magnificent king of the Indies.’ Alexander states uncompromisingly that he is the head of the church on earth, and then explains his reasons for writing. Philip, his physician, had been sent on a mission to John and had met some of his subjects who, he discovered, held heretical opinions about some points of doctrine. They had asked to be given a church in Rome and an altar at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, to which their clergy might come to be instructed in the Catholic faith. The pope is therefore sending Philip back to John to give him Catholic instruction and to discover what his true wishes are” (183).

  “It is often supposed that this letter gives a factual account of Alexander III’s attempts to make contact with Prester John… It is, however, possible that the pope’s letter was written for a quite different reason. When Prester John’s letter began to circulate Alexander III was on excellent terms with Manuel Comnenus and would have been able to verify that he had not sent the letter to Frederick I. He may therefore have inferred, just as modern scholars have done, that it was a western forgery. It clearly originated in Barbarossa’s circle and implicitly defended the kind of Christian society which the emperor was trying to implement. The timing of the pope’s reply is significant: he waited for twelve years after the publication of the letter until the Peace of Venice had been concluded… On 27 September, after the practical details of the Peace had been arranged, Alexander wrote to Prester John, emphasizing that the emperor of the Indies… had now agreed to be instructed in the truths of the Catholic religion by the only competent authority, St. Peter’s vicar. Arguably this letter was not written to an eastern Christian prince whom the pope had wrongly identified as Prester John, but to the faithful west who had read and been misled by Prester John’s letter” (183).

   
  Nicholas Jubber, eight hundred years later, attempts to re-trace the emissary’s route and deliver Alexander’s reply (despite the obvious facts standing in the way of this feat).