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.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 828 of 1256
Words from 224903 to 225196
of 342071
