The Travels of Marco Polo Volume 1 - Marco Polo and Rustichello of Pisa
Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78
It will be well, before going further, to give the essential parts of the
passage in the History of Bishop Otto of Freisingen (referred to in vol i.
p. 229), which contains the first allusion to a personage styled Prester
John:
"We saw also there [at Rome in 1145] the afore-mentioned Bishop of Gabala,
from Syria.... We heard him bewailing with tears the peril of the Church
beyond-sea since the capture of Edessa, and uttering his intention on that
account to cross the Alps and seek aid from the King of the Romans and the
King of the Franks. He was also telling us how, not many years before, one
JOHN, KING and PRIEST, who dwells in the extreme Orient beyond Persia and
Armenia, and is (with his people) a Christian, but a Nestorian, had waged
war against the brother Kings of the Persians and Medes who are called the
Samiards, and had captured Ecbatana, of which we have spoken above, the
seat of their dominion. The said Kings having met him with their forces
made up of Persians, Medes, and Assyrians, the battle had been maintained
for 3 days, either side preferring death to flight. But at last PRESBYTER
JOHN (for so they are wont to style him), having routed the Persians, came
forth the victor from a most sanguinary battle. After this victory (he
went on to say) the aforesaid John was advancing to fight in aid of the
Church at Jerusalem; but when he arrived at the Tigris, and found there 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.
Halting there for some years[2] in expectation of a frost, which never
came, owing to the mildness of the season, he lost many of his people
through the unaccustomed climate, and was obliged to return homewards.
This personage is said to be of the ancient race of those Magi who are
mentioned in the Gospel, and to rule the same nations that they did, and
to have such glory and wealth that he uses (they say) only an emerald
sceptre. It was (they say) from his being fired by the example of his
fathers, who came to adore Christ in the cradle, that he was proposing to
go to Jerusalem, when he was prevented by the cause already alleged."
Professor Bruun will not accept Oppert's explanation, which identifies
this King and Priest with the Gur-Khan of Karacathay, for whose profession
of Christianity there is indeed (as has been indicated--supra) no real
evidence; who could not be said to have made an attack upon any pair of
brother Kings of the Persians and the Medes, nor to have captured Ecbatana
(a city, whatever its identity, of Media); who could never have had any
intention of coming to Jerusalem; and whose geographical position in no
way suggested the mention of Armenia.
Professor Bruun thinks he finds a warrior much better answering to the
indications in the Georgian prince John Orbelian, the general-in-chief
under several successive Kings of Georgia in that age.
At the time when the Gur-Khan defeated Sanjar the real brothers of the
latter had been long dead; Sanjar had withdrawn from interference with the
affairs of Western Persia; and Hamadan (if this is to be regarded as
Ecbatana) was no residence of his. But it was the residence of Sanjar's
nephew Mas'ud, in whose hands was now the dominion of Western Persia;
whilst Mas'ud's nephew, Daud, held Media, i.e. Azerbeijan, Arran, and
Armenia. It is in these two princes that Professor Bruun sees the
_Samiardi fratres_ of the German chronicler.
Again the expression "extreme Orient" is to be interpreted by local usage.
And with the people of Little Armenia, through whom probably such
intelligence reached the Bishop of Gabala, the expression the _East_
signified specifically Great Armenia (which was then a part of the kingdom
of Georgia and Abkhasia), as Dulaurier has stated.[3]
It is true that the Georgians were not really Nestorians, but followers of
the Greek Church. It was the fact, however, that in general, the
Armenians, whom the Greeks accused of following the Jacobite errors,
retorted upon members of the Greek Church with the reproach of the
opposite heresy of Nestorianism. And the attribution of Nestorianism to a
Georgian Prince is, like the expression "_extreme East_," an indication of
the Armenian channel through which the story came.
The intention to march to the aid of the Christians in Palestine is more
like the act of a Georgian General than that of a Karacathayan Khan; and
there are in the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem several indications
of the proposal at least of Georgian assistance.
The personage in question is said to have come from the country of the
Magi, from whom he was descended. But these have frequently been supposed
to come from Great Armenia. E.g. Friar Jordanus says they came from
Moghan.[4]
The name _Ecbatana_ has been so variously applied that it was likely to
lead to ambiguities. But it so happens that, in a previous passage of his
History, Bishop Otto of Freisingen, in rehearsing some Oriental
information gathered apparently from the same Bishop of Gabala, has shown
what was the place that he had been taught to identify with Ecbatana, viz.
the old Armenian city of ANI.[5] Now this city was captured from the
Turks, on behalf of the King of Georgia, David the Restorer, by his great
_sbasalar_,[6] John Orbelian, in 1123-24.
Professor Bruun also lays stress upon a passage in a German chronicle of
date some years later than Otho's work:
"1141. Liupoldus dux Bawariorum obiit, Henrico fratre ejus succedente in
ducatu. Iohannes Presbyter Rex Armeniae et Indiae cum duobus regibus
fratribus Persarum et Medorum pugnavit et vicit."[7]
He asks how the Gur-Khan of Karakhitai could be styled King of _Armenia_
and of India? It may be asked, _per contra_, how either the King of
Georgia or his _Peshwa_ (to use the Mahratta analogy of John Orbelian's
position) could be styled King of Armenia and of _India_? In reply to
this, Professor Bruun adduces a variety of quotations which he considers
as showing that the term _India_ was applied to some Caucasian region.
My own conviction is that the report of Otto of Freisingen is not merely
the _first mention_ of a great Asiatic potentate called Prester John, but
that his statement is the whole and sole basis of good faith on which the
story of such a potentate rested; and I am quite as willing to believe, on
due evidence, that the nucleus of fact to which his statement referred,
and on which such a pile of long-enduring fiction was erected, occurred in
Armenia as that it occurred in Turan. Indeed in many respects the story
would thus be more comprehensible. One cannot attach any value to the
quotation from the Annalist in Pertz, because there seems no reason to
doubt that the passage is a mere adaptation of the report by Bishop Otto,
of whose work the Annalist makes other use, as is indeed admitted by
Professor Bruun, who (be it said) is a pattern of candour in controversy.
But much else that the Professor alleges is interesting and striking. The
fact that Azerbeijan and the adjoining regions were known as "the East" is
patent to the readers of this book in many a page, where the Khan and his
Mongols in occupation of that region are styled by Polo _Lord of the_
LEVANT, _Tartars of the_ LEVANT (i.e. of the East), even when the
speaker's standpoint is in far Cathay.[8] The mention of _Ani_ as
identical with the Ecbatana of which Otto had heard is a remarkable
circumstance which I think even Oppert has overlooked. That this Georgian
hero _was_ a Christian and that his name _was_ John are considerable
facts. Oppert's conversion of Korkhan into Yokhanan or John is anything
but satisfactory. The identification proposed again makes it quite
intelligible how the so-called Prester John should have talked about
coming to the aid of the Crusaders; a point so difficult to explain on
Oppert's theory, that he has been obliged to introduce a duplicate John in
the person of a Greek Emperor to solve that knot; another of the weaker
links in his argument. In fact, 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: "They held the office of _Sbasalar_
or Generalissimo of all Georgia. All the officers of the King's Palace
were under their authority. Besides that they had 12 standards of their
own, and under each standard 1000 warriors mustered. As the custom was for
the King's flag to be white and the pennon over it red, it was ruled that
the Orpelian flag should be red and the pennon white.... At banquets they
alone had the right to couches whilst other princes had cushions only.
Their food was served on silver; and to them it belonged to crown the
kings."[9] Orpel Ivane, i.e. John Orbelian, Grand _Sbasalar_, was for
years the pride of Georgia and the hammer of the Turks. In 1123-1124 he
wrested from them Tiflis and the whole country up to the Araxes, including
_Ani_, as we have said. His King David, the Restorer, bestowed on him
large additional domains from the new conquests; and the like brilliant
service and career of conquest was continued under David's sons and
successors, Demetrius and George; his later achievements, however, and
some of the most brilliant, occurring after the date of the Bishop of
Gabala's visit to Rome. 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. Professor Bruun's most
forcible observation in reference to this rather serious difficulty is
that the historians have transmitted to us extremely little detail
concerning the reign of Demetrius II., and do not even agree as to its
duration. Carebat vate sacro: "It was," says Brosset, "long and glorious,
but it lacked a commemorator." If new facts can be alleged, the identity
may still be proved. But meantime the conquests of the Gur-Khan and his
defeat of Sanjar, just at a time which suits the story, are indubitable,
and this great advantage Oppert's thesis retains. As regards the claim to
the title of _Presbyter_ nothing worth mentioning is alleged on either
side.
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, but it was not in the
nature of things but they should find _some_ representative. In fact they
found _several_. Apparently no real tradition existed among the Eastern
Christians of any such personage, but the persistent demand produced a
supply, and the honour of identification with Prester John, after hovering
over one head and another, settled finally upon that of the King of the
Keraits, whom we find to play the part in our text.
Thus in Plano Carpini's 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 Sultan Jalaluddin of Khwarizm and his
temporary success over the Mongols in Afghanistan. In the Armenian Prince
Sempad's account, on the other hand, this Christian King of India is
_aided_ by the Tartars to defeat and harass the neighbouring Saracens, his
enemies, and becomes the Mongol's vassal. In the statement of Rubruquis,
though distinct reference is made to the conquering Gurkhan (under the
name of Coir Cham of Caracatay), the title of _King John_ is assigned to
the Naiman Prince (_Kushluk_), who had married the daughter of the last
lineal sovereign of Karakhitai, and usurped his power, whilst, with a
strange complication of confusion, UNC, Prince of the Crit and Merkit
(Kerait and Merkit, two great tribes of Mongolia)[10] and Lord of
Karakorum, is made the brother and successor of this Naiman Prince. His
version of the story, as it proceeds, has so much resemblance to Polo's,
that we shall quote the words. The Crit and Merkit, he says, were
Nestorian Christians. "But their Lord had abandoned the worship of Christ
to follow idols, and kept by him those priests of the idols who are all
devil-raisers and sorcerers. Beyond his pastures, at the distance of ten
or fifteen days' journey, were the pastures of the MOAL (Mongol), who were
a very poor people, without a leader and without any religion except
sorceries and divinations, such as all the people of those parts put so
much faith in. Next to Moal was another poor tribe called TARTAR. King
John having died without an heir, his brother Unc got his wealth, and
caused himself to be proclaimed Cham, and sent out his flocks and herds
even to the borders of Moal. At that time there was a certain blacksmith
called Chinghis among the tribe of Moal, and he used to lift the cattle of
Unc Chan as often as he had a chance, insomuch that the herdsmen of Unc
Chan made complaint to their master. The latter assembled an army, and
invaded the land of the Moal in search of Chinghis, but he fled and hid
himself among the Tartars. So Unc, having plundered the Moal and Tartars,
returned home. And Chinghis addressed the Tartars and Moal, saying: 'It is
because we have no leader that we are thus oppressed by our neighbours.'
So both Tartars and Moal made Chinghis himself their leader and captain.
And having got a host quietly together, he made a sudden onslaught upon
Unc and conquered him, and compelled him to flee into Cathay. On that
occasion his daughter was taken, and given by Chinghis to one of his sons,
to whom she bore Mangu, who now reigneth.... The land in which they (the
Mongols) first were, and where the residence of Chinghis still exists, is
called _Onan Kerule_.[11] But because Caracoran is in the country which
was their first conquest, they regard it as a royal city, and there hold
the elections of their Chan."
Here we see plainly that the Unc Chan of Rubruquis is the Unc Can or
Unecan of Polo. In the narrative of the former, Unc is only _connected_
with King or Prester John; in that of the latter, rehearsing the story as
heard some 20 or 25 years later, the two are _identified_. The shadowy
_role_ of Prester John has passed from the Ruler of Kara Khitai to the
Chief of the Keraits. This transfer brings us to another history.
We have already spoken of the extensive diffusion of Nestorian
Christianity in Asia during the early and Middle Ages. The Christian
historian Gregory Abulfaraj relates a curious history of the conversion,
in the beginning of the 11th century, of the King of _Kerith_ with his
people, dwelling in the remote north-east of the land of the Turks. And
that the Keraits continued to profess Christianity down to the time of
Chinghiz is attested by Rashiduddin's direct statement, as well as by the
numerous Christian princesses from that tribe of whom we hear in Mongol
history. It is the chief of this tribe of whom Rubruquis and Polo speak
under the name of Unc Khan, and whom the latter identifies with Prester
John. His proper name is called Tuli by the Chinese, and Togrul by the
Persian historians, but the Kin sovereign of Northern China had conferred
on him the title of _Wang_ or King, from which his people gave him the
slightly corrupted cognomen of [Arabic], which some scholars read _Awang_,
and _Avenk_ Khan, but which the spelling of Rubruquis and Polo shows
probably to have been pronounced as _Aung_ or _Ung_ Khan.[12] The
circumstance stated by Rubruquis of his having abandoned the profession of
Christianity, is not alluded to by Eastern writers; but in any case his
career is not a credit to the Faith. I cannot find any satisfactory
corroboration of the claims of supremacy over the Mongols which Polo
ascribes to Aung Khan. But that his power and dignity were considerable,
appears from the term _Padshah_ which Rashiduddin applies to him. He had
at first obtained the sovereignty of the Keraits by the murder of two of
his brothers and several nephews. Yessugai, the father of Chinghiz, had
been his staunch friend, and had aided him effectually to recover his
dominion from which he had been expelled. After a reign of many years he
was again ejected, and in the greatest necessity sought the help of
Temujin (afterwards called Chinghiz Khan), by whom he was treated with the
greatest consideration. This was in 1196. For some years the two chiefs
conducted their forays in alliance, but differences sprang up between
them; the son of Aung Khan entered into a plot to kill Temujin, and in
1202-1203 they were in open war. The result will be related in connection
with the next chapters.
We may observe that the idea which Joinville picked up in the East about
Prester John corresponds pretty closely with that set forth by Marco.
Joinville represents him as one of the princes to whom the Tartars were
tributary in the days of their oppression, and as "their ancient enemy";
one of their first acts, on being organized under a king of their own, was
to attack him and conquer him, slaying all that bore arms, but sparing all
monks and priests. The expression used by Joinville in speaking of the
original land of the Tartars, "_une grande_ berrie _de sablon_," has not
been elucidated in any edition that I have seen. It is the Arabic [Arabic]
_Baeriya_, "a Desert." No doubt Joinville learned the word in Palestine.
(See _Joinville_, p. 143 seqq.; see also _Oppert_, _Der Presb. Johannes in
Sage und Geschichte_, and _Cathay_, etc., pp. 173-182.) [_Fried. Zarncke,
Der Priester Johannes; Cordier, Odoric_.--H. C.]
[1] A passage in Mirkhond extracted by Erdmann (_Temudschin_, p. 532)
seems to make Bala Saghun the same as Bishbalik, now Urumtsi, but this
is inconsistent with other passages abstracted by Oppert (_Presbyter
Johan._ 131-32); and Vambery indicates a reason for its being sought
very much further west (_H. of Bokhara_, 116). [Dr. Bretschneider
(_Med. Res._) has a chapter on Kara-Khitai (I. 208 seqq.) and in a
long note on Bala Sagun, which he calls Belasagun, he says (p. 226)
that "according to the Tarikh Djihan Kushai (_d'Ohsson_, i. 433), the
city of Belasagun had been founded by Buku Khan, sovereign of the
Uigurs, in a well-watered plain of Turkestan with rich pastures. The
Arabian geographers first mention Belasagun, in the ninth or tenth
century, as a city beyond the Sihun or Yaxartes, depending on
_Isfidjab_ (Sairam, according to Lerch), and situated east of Taras.
They state that the people of Turkestan considered Belasagun to
represent 'the navel of the earth,' on account of its being situated
in the middle between east and west, and likewise between north and
south." (_Sprenger's Poststr. d. Or., Mavarannahar_). Dr.
Bretschneider adds (p. 227): "It is not improbable that ancient
Belasagun was situated at the same place where, according to the T'ang
history, the Khan of one branch of the Western T'u Kue (Turks) had his
residence in the seventh century. It is stated in the T'ang shu that
_Ibi Shabolo Shehu Khan_, who reigned in the first half of the seventh
century, placed his ordo on the northern border of the river _Sui ye_.
This river, and a city of the same name, are frequently mentioned in
the T'ang annals of the seventh and eighth centuries, in connection
with the warlike expeditions of the Chinese in Central Asia. _Sui ye_
was situated on the way from the river _Ili_ to the city of Ta-lo-sz'
(Talas). In 679 the Chinese had built on the Sui ye River a fortress;
but in 748 they were constrained to destroy it." (Comp. _Visdelou_ in
_Suppl. Bibl. Orient._ pp. 110-114; _Gaubil's Hist. de la Dyn. des
Thang_, in _Mem. conc. Chin._ xv. p. 403 seqq.).--H. C.]
[2] Sic: _Per aliquot annos_, but an evident error.
[3] _J. As._ ser. V. tom. xi. 449.
[4] The Great Plain on the Lower Araxes and Cyrus. The word Moghan =
_Magi_: and Abulfeda quotes this as the etymology of the name.
(_Reinaud's Abulf._ I. 300.)--Y. [_Cordier, Odoric_, 36.]
[5] Here is the passage, which is worth giving for more reasons than one:
"That portion of ancient Babylon which is still occupied is (as we
have heard from persons of character from beyond sea) styled BALDACH,
whilst the part that lies, according to the prophecy, deserted and
pathless extends some ten miles to the Tower of Babel The inhabited
portion called Baldach is very large and populous; and though it
should belong to the Persian monarchy it has been conceded by the
Kings of the Persians to their High Priest, whom they call the
_Caliph_; in order that in this also a certain analogy [_quaedam
habitudo_] such as has been often remarked before, should be exhibited
between Babylon and Rome. For the same (privilege) that here in the
city of Rome has been made over to our chief Pontiff by the Christian
Emperor, has there been conceded to their High Priest by the Pagan
Kings of Persia, to whom Babylonia has for a long time been subject.
But the Kings of the Persians (just as our Kings have their royal
city, like Aachen) have themselves established the seat of their
kingdom at Egbatana, which, in the Book of Judith, Arphaxat is said to
have founded, and which in their tongue is called HANI, containing as
they allege 100,000 or more fighting men, and have reserved to
themselves nothing of Babylon except the nominal dominion. Finally,
the place which is now vulgarly called Babylonia, as I have mentioned,
is not upon the Euphrates (at all) as people suppose, but on the Nile,
about 6 days' journey from Alexandria, and is the same as Memphis, to
which Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, anciently gave the name of
Babylon."--Ottonis Frising. Lib. VII. cap. 3, in _Germanic Hist.
Illust. etc. Christiani Urstisii Basiliensis_, Francof. 1585.--Y.
[6] Sbasalar, or "General-in-chief," = Pers. _Sipahsalar_.--Y.
[7] _Continuatio Ann. Admutensium_, in Pertz, Scriptores, IX. 580.
[8] E.g. ii. 42.
[9] _St. Martin, Mem. sur l'Armenie_, II. 77.
[10] ["The Keraits," says Mr. Rockhill (_Rubruck_, 111, note), "lived on
the Orkhon and the Tula, south-east of Lake Baikal; Abulfaraj relates
their conversion to Christianity in 1007 by the Nestorian Bishop of
Merv. Rashideddin, however, says their conversion took place in the
time of Chingis Khan. (_D'Ohsson_, I. 48; _Chabot, Mar Jabalaha, III._
14.) D'Avezac (536) identifies, with some plausibility, I think, the
Keraits with the _Ki-le_ (or _T'ieh-le_) of the early Chinese annals.
The name K'i-le was applied in the 3rd century A.D. to _all_ the
Turkish tribes, such as the _Hui-hu_ (Uigurs), _Kieh-Ku_ (Kirghiz)
Alans, etc., and they are said to be the same as the _Kao-ch'e_, from
whom descended the _Cangle_ of Rubruck. (_T'ang shu_, Bk. 217, i.;
_Ma Tuan-lin_, Bk. 344, 9, Bk. 347, 4.) As to the Merkits, or
Merkites, they were a nomadic people of Turkish stock, with a possible
infusion of Mongol blood. They are called by Mohammedan writers
Uduyut, and were divided into four tribes. They lived on the Lower
Selinga and its feeders. (_D'Ohsson_, i. 54; _Howorth, History_, I.,
pt. i. 22, 698.)"--H. C.]
[11] [_Onan Kerule_ is "the country watered by the Orkhon and Kerulun
Rivers, i.e. the country to the south and south-east of Lake Baikal.
The headquarters (_ya-chang_) of the principal chief of the Uigurs in
the eighth century was 500 _li_ (about 165 miles) south-west of the
confluence of the Wen-Kun ho (Orkhon) and the Tu-lo ho (Tura). Its
ruins, sometimes, but wrongly, confounded with those of the Mongol
city of Karakorum, some 20 miles from it, built in 1235 by Ogodai, are
now known by the name of Kara Balgasun, 'Black City.'" [See p. 228.]
The name _Onankerule_ seems to be taken from the form _Onan-ou-
Keloran_, which occurs in Mohammedan writers. (_Quatremere_, 115 et
seq.; see also _T'ang shu_, Bk. 43b; _Rockhill_, _Rubruck_, 116,
note.)--H. C.]
[12] Vambery makes _Ong_ an Uighur word, signifying "right." [Palladius
(l.c. 23) says: "The consonance of the names of Wang-Khan and Wang-Ku
(Ung-Khan and Ongu--Ongot of Rashiduddin, a Turkish Tribe) led to the
confusion regarding the tribes and persons, which at M. Polo's time
seems to have been general among the Europeans in China; M. Polo and
Johannes de Monte Corvino transfer the title of Prester John from
Wang-Khan, already perished at that time, to the distinguished family
of Wang-Ku."--H. C.]
CHAPTER XLVII.
OF CHINGHIS, AND HOW HE BECAME THE FIRST KAAN OF THE TARTARS.
Now it came to pass in the year of Christ's Incarnation 1187 that the
Tartars made them a King whose name was CHINGHIS KAAN.[NOTE 1] He was a
man of great worth, and of great ability (eloquence), and valour. And as
soon as the news that he had been chosen King was spread abroad through
those countries, all the Tartars in the world came to him and owned him
for their Lord. And right well did he maintain the Sovereignty they had
given him. What shall I say? The Tartars gathered to him in astonishing
multitude, and when he saw such numbers he made a great furniture of
spears and arrows and such other arms as they used, and set about the
conquest of all those regions till he had conquered eight provinces. When
he conquered a province he did no harm to the people or their property,
but merely established some of his own men in the country along with a
proportion of theirs, whilst he led the remainder to the conquest of other
provinces. And when those whom he had conquered became aware how well and
safely he protected them against all others, and how they suffered no ill
at his hands, and saw what a noble prince he was, then they joined him
heart and soul and became his devoted followers. And when he had thus
gathered such a multitude that they seemed to cover the earth, he began to
think of conquering a great part of the world. Now in the year of Christ
1200 he sent an embassy to Prester John, and desired to have his daughter
to wife. But when Prester John heard that Chinghis Kaan demanded his
daughter in marriage he waxed very wroth, and said to the Envoys, "What
impudence is this, to ask my daughter to wife! Wist he not well that he
was my liegeman and serf? Get ye back to him and tell him that I had
liever set my daughter in the fire than give her in marriage to him, and
that he deserves death at my hand, rebel and traitor that he is!" So he
bade the Envoys begone at once, and never come into his presence again.
The Envoys, on receiving this reply, departed straightway, and made haste
to their master, and related all that Prester John had ordered them to
say, keeping nothing back.[NOTE 2]
Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78