A very pedantic point about medieval history

Having written my senior History thesis on Prester John two and half years ago, I'm pleased to note that Astroboy of the Brotherhood mentions the great man in his article on conspiracy theories. I do have a very pedantic point to make about his reference to him though. The people who spoke of Prester John were mostly not "charlatans"; "Sir John Mandeville" and the anonymous author of the letter of Prester John probably were, but the likes of Hugh of Jabala, James of Vitry, Pope Alexander III, John of Plano Carpini, William of Rubruck, and Marco Polo weren't. Each of the individuals in the latter group earnestly believed in the existence of Prester John and most hoped -- as their writings on him suggest -- that he would play an important role in the conflicts of the time: namely the Crusades and the conflict between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. Although Astroboy is right to see Prester John's mythical kingdom as "bizarre and superfluous" today, a lot of people in medieval and early modern times didn't, because the components of the Prester John myth squared with received wisdom about the Far East, and because he was a politically attractive figure.
Posted by kungfuzi at 11:34 pm |