This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

The International Prester John Project: How A Global Legend Was Created Across Six Centuries

Latin version of letter to Prester John

For the still-authoritative critical edition of the Latin manuscripts:

Friedrich Zarncke, “Der Priester Johannes,” Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 7 (1879): 872-934.

Read on Google Books

This page is referenced by:

The Letter of Prester John Some twenty years after Otto's anecdote began to inspire belief in an eastern Christian king, a letter began to circulate (c. 1165) purportedly sent from a king who called himself Prester John (Presbyter Iohannes).

In what came to be known as the "Letter of Prester John," the whispers from twenty years prior grow into the boastful musings a devout Christian king of an immense, militarily powerful kingdom who promises to help fight the enemies of Christendom. Undated and bearing no location, this letter greatly expands on Otto’s account of the Eastern prince, though it does not very much increase its audience’s knowledge of the elusive figure to which both accounts seem to allude. Readers learn little of the actual location of John's lands and even less about his intentions. Instead, the Letter borrows from an impressive array of travel lore, especially as concerns the territory understood in the Middle Ages as India.

In other words, the anonymous "Letter of Prester John" fleshes out the rumors of the eastern priest king not with plausible detail, but with imaginative flourish. Throughout the short document an attentive reader encounters echoes of biblical lore, the Alexander legends, the Sefer Eldad tradition, bestiaries, lapidaries, and other classical and medieval geographical texts.

The letter begins with an invitation to visit John's kingdom and a promise to fight the enemies of Christendom. The tone is unequivocally boastful. Such diplomacy makes up only a small fraction of the document, however. The majority of the letter is dedicated to a description of the eastern territory over which Prester John reigns. Within the letter, John models a form of rule that domesticates even the most heterogeneous lands. This eastern warrior priest-king possesses the richest kingdom on earth, replete not only with a vast store of jewels, spices, and Christian soldiers, but also home to Muslims, pagans, the ten lost tribes of Israel, along with fantastic creatures such as phoenixes, satyrs, dog-headed men, one-eyed men, giants, and more. All who recognize John's sovereignty are welcome to his realm.

Although the Letter was addressed to the Greek Emperor Manuel Comnenus, its twelfth-century circulation was confined exclusively to the territories of Latin Europe. No Greek “original” has ever been discovered or mentioned by contemporaries, prompting an almost near-consensus among scholars that the Letter was always intended for a Latin Christian audience, and was likely created to suit a political purpose.

Read the interpolated Latin letter.
Read an English translation of the uninterpolated Letter.
Letter to Prester John
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).

This page references:

Friedrich Zarncke