1 The most detailed study of this campaign is Zachariadou, E. A., ‘Manuel II Palaeologus on the strife between Bayezid I and Kadi Burhan al-Din Ahmad’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 (1980) 471–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This study also makes excellent use of Manuel's letters from the period to illuminate the conquests that took place during the campaign. Henceforth, Zachariadou, ‘Strife’.

2 See Letters 14 to 21 in The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus, ed. and trans. Dennis, G. T. (Washington, D. C. 1977)Google Scholar. Henceforth, Manuel's letters will be cited by their numbers.

3 The Ottomans conquered Osmancık and Kırkdilim: see Zachariadou, ‘Strife’, 477. For Manuel's remarks, Letter 19, lines 34–8, ‘ἀντὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων κινδύνων καὶ πόνων καὶ συχνῶν ἀναλωμάτων, ἃ πολλὴν αὑτῷ (Bayezid) παρεσχηκέναι ῥοπὴν κατὰ τῶν πολεμίων χρηματίζων ὁμολογεῖ. . . .’

4 The work has been edited twice, Palaeologus, Manuel, Dialogue mit einem Perser, ed. Trapp, E. (Vienna 1966)Google Scholar and Förstel, K., Dialoge mit einem Muslim, 3 vols (Würzburg- Alternberg 1993–96)Google Scholar, with some minor emendations to the Trapp edition and with a German translation. As it is the more accessible version, the Trapp edition will be relied upon in this article. Henceforth, cited as Dialogue with a Persian. Although the work consists of twenty-six dialogues, since the work is formed of consecutive dialogues and thus forms one coherent, unified work, I will refer to the text as Dialogue, and not Dialogues.

5 Palaeologus, Manuel, Dialogue with the Empress Mother on Marriage, ed. and trans. Angelou, A. (Vienna 1991)Google Scholar and Palaeologus, Manuel, Funeral Oration to His Brother Theodore, ed. and trans. Chrysostomides, J. (Thessalonike 1985)Google Scholar. Henceforth, Dialogue on Marriage and Funeral Oration.

6 A list of Manuel's complete oeuvre is given in Dendrinos, Ch., An Annotated Critical Edition (editio princeps) of Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus’ Treatise On the Procession of the Holy Spirit (PhD dissertation, University of London, 1996) 430–45Google Scholar.

7 While his monograph on Manuel is a masterly historical study, John Barker also uses only some of Manuel's works in order to retrieve information about the period, ignoring their literary aspects. See Barker, J. W.. Manuel II Palaeologus (1391–1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick 1969)Google Scholar. Henceforth, Barker, Manuel II. Similar approaches to Manuel's oeuvre can be seen in Dennis, G. T. in his introduction to Manuel's letters and The Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessalonica (1382–1387) (Rome 1960)Google Scholar, as well as several articles by Stephen Reinert, collected in Reinert, S.. Studies on Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman History (Farnham 2014)Google Scholar. Finally, a recent PhD dissertation, Leonte, F.. Rhetoric in Purple: the Renewal of Imperial Ideology in the Texts of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (PhD dissertation, Central European University, 2012)Google Scholar, deals with imperial ideology in several of Manuel's texts and discusses how Manuel attempted to proliferate political messages through his works and literary networks.

8 In my doctoral dissertation, Çelik, S.. A Historical Biography of Manuel II Palaiologos (1350-1425) (PhD dissertation, The University of Birmingham, 2016)Google Scholar, I have attempted to write a new biography of Manuel, focusing on him as an author and a personality. I have worked on the complete literary, philosophical and theological oeuvre of the emperor, arguing for his literary merit. I am currently preparing my dissertation for publication as a monograph.

9 Dialogue with a Persian, *55–6.

10 See note 4 above.

11 Entretiens avec un Musulman, 7e controverse, ed. and trans. Khoury, Th. (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar and Kaiser Manuel II Palaiologos: Dialog Über den Islam und Erziehungsratschläge, trans. Baum, W. and Senoner, R. (Vienna 2003)Google Scholar.

12 Trapp, E., ‘Der Sprachgebrauch Manuels II in den Dialogen mit einem ‘Perser’’ Jahrbuch der Österrreichischen Byzantinistik 16 (1967) 189–97Google Scholar.

13 Demetracopoulos, J. A., ‘Pope Benedict XVI's use of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos’ dialogue with a Muslim muteritzes’, Archiv für Mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur 14 (2008) 264–304 Google Scholar and Polemis, I., ‘Manuel II Palaiologos between Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas’, in Knežević, M. (ed) The Ways of Byzantine Philosophy (Alhambra, CA 2015) 353–60Google Scholar. Henceforth, Demetracopoulos, ‘Pope’.

14 Reinert, S., ‘Manuel II Palaeologus and his Müderris’, in The Twilight of Byzantium, eds. Ćurčić, S. and Mouriki, D. (Princeton 1991) 39–51 Google Scholar, repr. in Reinert,’ Studies on Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman History (Farnham 2014) study IX. Henceforth, Reinert, ‘Müderris’.

15 Barker points out that he had not been able to consult the work at the time of the publication of his monograph, Barker, Manuel II, 97. For several references to the Dialogue, see Karpozilos, A., ‘Byzantine apologetic and polemic writings of the Palaeologean epoch against Islam’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 15 (1970) 213–48Google Scholar; Trapp, E., ‘Quelques textes peu connus illustrant les relations entre le Christianisme et l'Islam’, Byzantinische Forshungen 29 (2007) 437–50Google Scholar; Balivet, M., ‘Rhomania byzantine et Diyar-ı Rum turc: une aire de conciliation religieuse (XIe-XVe siècles’)’, in Balivet, M. (ed), Byzantins et Ottomans: relations, interaction, succession, (Istanbul 1999) 111–17Google Scholar; Ducellier, A.. Chrétiens d'Orient et Islam au Moyen Age, VIIe- XVe siecle (Paris 1966) 90–106 Google Scholar; Ducellier, , ‘L'Islam et les musulmanes vus de Byzance au XIVe siecle’, Byzantina 12 (1983) 95–134 Google Scholar; Zachariadou, E. A., ‘Religious dialogue between the Byzantines and Turks during the Ottoman expansion’, in Religionsgespräche im Mittlelalter, eds. Lewis, B. and Niewöhner, F. (Wiesbaden 1992) 289–304 Google Scholar, repr. in Zachariadou, , Studies in Pre-Ottoman Turkey and the Ottomans (Aldershot 2007) study IIGoogle Scholar.

16 The following discussion is based upon Trapp's introduction, Dialogue with a Persian, *13–35; Khoury, Th.. Les théologiens Byzantins et l'Islam: texts et auteurs (VIIIe-XIIIe siècles). (Louvain and Paris 1969)Google Scholar; Cameron, A., Arguing It Out: Discussion in Twelfth -Century Byzantium (Budapest 2016), especially 120–35Google Scholar (henceforth, Cameron, Arguing it Out) and Karpozilos, A., ‘Byzantine apologetic and polemic writings of the Palaeologean epoch against Islam’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 15 (1970) 213–48Google Scholar; Khoury, Th.. Polémique Byzantine contre l'Islam; VIIIe-XIIIe siècles. (Leiden 1972)Google Scholar.

17 Kantakouzenos’ work, consisting of four apologies and four orations, is found in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 154, cols. 371–692 and Kydones’ translation of Ricaldo di Monte Croce's Contra Legem Saracenorum in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 154, cols. 1035–1170. On Kantakouzenos’ work, see also Todt, K. P., Kaiser Johannes VI Kantakouzenos und der Islam. Politische Realität und theologische Polemik im palaiologenzeitlichen Byzans (Würzburg-Altenberge 1991)Google Scholar. See also Eichner, W., ‘Accounts of Islam’, in Cameron, A. and Hoyland, R. (eds), Doctrine and Debate in the East Christian World (Farnham 2011) 109–72, 115Google Scholar, points out that Kantakouzenos’ knowledge of Islam seems to be solely based on Kydones’ translation of Ricoldo, and shows no dependence on earlier Byzantine anti-Islamic literature.

18 See footnote 24 below.

19 However, these works are dated later than the Dialogue with a Persian. See Argyriou, A.. Macaire Makrès et la polémique contre l'Islam (Vatican City 1986) 239–330 Google Scholar for the treatise of Makres. See Argyriou, A., ‘ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Βρυεννίου μετὰ τίνος Ἰσμαηλίτου Διάλεξις', Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 35 (1966-1967) 141–95 for the dialogue of Joseph BryenniosGoogle Scholar.

20 This has been studied in detail and demonstrated by Trapp, see Dialogue with a Persian, *66–86. For several textual parallels with Kantakouzenos, identified by Trapp, Dialogue with a Persian, 29, 33, 34, 51, 52, 54, 79, 134.

21 Dialogue with a Persian, *66.

22 Dialogue with a Persian, 6. ‘ὁ θειότατος πάππος ἡμῖν, ὁ πάντ’ ἄριστος καὶ θαυμάσιος βασιλεύς. . .'

23 Once with Niketas Byzantios and a few times with John Damascus, see Dialogue with a Persian, 58 and 195–6.

24 Dialogue with a Persian, *66.

25 Dialogue with a Persian, *62–84, for an extensive summary of these discussions.

26 Dialogue with a Persian, *66.

27 Dialogue with a Persian, *86.

28 I have discussed these aspects of Manuel's thought in my doctoral dissertation. See note 8 above.

29 Furthermore, proposing new theological arguments could be dangerous. The author could be accused of ‘innovating’ (καινοτομία). For instance anti-Palamites such as Barlaam, and later Prochoros Kydones were accused of ‘innovating’ and condemned by the Church. On the other hand, Palamas, who had actually also raised new debates was accepted as producing valid arguments. See Podskalsky, G., Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz. Der Streit um die theologische Methodik in der spätbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte (14/15 Jhr.) (Munich 1977) 80–1Google Scholar. Another such case is Gregory of Cyprus, who had argued for an eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son and had thus raised a new point. However, as he had provided the Orthodox with a strong argument against the Latins, his interpretation was accepted as being valid. See Papadakis, A., ‘The Byzantines and the rise of Papacy: points for reflection (1204–1453)’, in Hinterberger, M. and Schabel, C. (eds), Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204–1500, (Leuven 2011) 19–42 Google Scholar and in the same volume, T. Kolbaba, ‘Repercussions of the second Council of Lyon (1274): theological polemic and the boundaries of Orthodoxy’, 43–68.

30 Dialogue with a Persian, 5 and 8.

31 Balivet, M., ‘Le soufi et le basileus: Haci Bayram Veli et Manuel II Palaéologue’, Medievo-Graeco 4 (2004) 19–31 Google Scholar.

32 Dialogue with a Persian, 86.

33 See Philippides-Braat, A., ‘La captivité de Palamas chez les Turcs, dossier et commentaire’, Travaux et Mémoirs 7 (1979) 109–22Google Scholar. Henceforth, Philippides-Braat, ‘La captivité de Palamas’.

34 A recent volume, Cameron, A. and Gaul, N. (eds), Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium (London and New York 2017)Google Scholar, deals extensively with various types of dialogue in Byzantium and offers case studies of many prominent dialogues. Henceforth, Dialogues and Debates. For dialogue’ especially in the twelfth century, see Cameron, Arguing it Out, 10–52.

35 Many of these works have been studied in Dialogues and Debates, see note 34 above. On the Timarion and Mazaris, see also Krallis, D., ‘Harmless satire, stinging critique: notes and suggestions for reading the Timarion’, in Angelov, D. and Saxby, M. (eds), Power and Subversion in Byzantium, Papers from the 43rd Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 2010, (Farnham 2013) 221–45Google Scholar and Garland, L., ‘Mazaris’ journey to Hades: further reflections and reappraisal’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61 (2007) 183–214 Google Scholar.

36 Cameron, Arguing it Out, 64 and 132–33.

37 For the depiction of Socrates in Platonic dialogues, see Blondell, R.. The Play of Character in Plato's Dialogues (Cambridge 2002) 42–3, 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Brickhouse, C. T. and Smith, N. D., Plato's Socrates (New York 1994) 3–16 Google Scholar.

38 For the uses of the Platonic dialogue by Byzantine authors as a literary ploy, E. Kechagia-Ovseiko, ‘Plutarch's dialogues: beyond the Platonic example’, in Dialogue and Debates, 8–19, especially 8–10.

39 The Discourse to Kabasilas is edited as Letter 67 in Manuel's letter collection. On the dialogic aspects of the Dialogue on Marriage, see F. Leonte, ‘Dramatisation and narrative in late Byzantine dialogues: Manuel II Palaiologos on Marriage and Mazaris’ Journey to Hades’, in Dialogues and Debates, 220–36.

40 See P. Andrist, ‘Literary distance and complexity in Late Antique and early Byzantine Greek dialogues Adversus Iudaeos’, in Dialogues and Debates, 43–64, for this observation. For fiction in Byzantium, especially in hagiography, see Messis, Ch., ‘Fiction and/or novelisation in Byzantine hagiography’, in Efthymiadis, S. (ed), The Ashgate Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, vol. 2 (Farnham 2014) 313–42Google Scholar.

41 For the edition of the dialogue of Joseph Bryennios, see note 19 above. The dialogue with a Latin is found in Ἰωσὴφ Μοναχοῦ τοῦ Βρυεννίου, ed. Voulgares, E., 2 vols, (Leipzig 1768, Thessalonike 1991)Google Scholar. See Pasiourtides, V.. An Annotated Critical Edition of Demetrios Chrysoloras’ Dialogue on Demetrios Kydones’ Antirrhetic Against Neilos Kabasilas (PhD dissertation, University of London, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, 2013)Google Scholar, especially 28 for the editor's comments.

42 Palamas’ dialogue is edited in Philippides-Braat, ‘La captivité de Palamas’.

43 Many of Manuel's works were performed in a theatron, which can be traced through both internal and external evidence. Trapp raises the question whether the Dialogue with a Persian was performed or not, Dialogue with a Persian, *54–5. I believe that Manuel must have intended it for wider circulation since this was his aim in his other works. Moreover, the prose rhythm of the Dialogue also suggests to me, that Manuel intended it to be performed in a theatron, as in the case of many of his other writings. Finally, there are frequent summaries and reminders of previous debates in the work, which again seem to be indicative of an oral performance, which would perhaps take place in several consecutive gatherings. For theatron in Late Byzantium see, Toth, I., ‘Rhetorical theatron in late Byzantium: the example of Palaiologan imperial orations’, in Theatron, Rhetorische Kultur in Spätantike und Mittelalters, ed. Grünbart, M. (Berlin and New York 2007) 429–48Google Scholar. For a discussion of the performance of dialogues, see N. Gaul, ‘Embedded dialogues and dialogical voices in Palaiologan prose and verse’, in Dialogues and Debates, 184–202.

44 Dialogue with a Persian, 8. ‘Καὶ Χριστιανῶν μὲν οὐδέσιν οὐδεπώποτ’ ἐνέτυχον, οἳ λόγου τε μετεῖχον καὶ πεῖραν ταύτης τοσαύτην εἶχον, ὥστε μοί τι σαφές, καὶ οἷον ἂν βουλοίμην, δύνασθαι φράζειν.’

45 Dialogue with a Persian, 250.

46 Dialogue with a Persian, 119.

47 See Philippides-Braat, ‘La captivité de Palamas’, 142–145. In his apology against Islam, Kantakouzenos also claims that he wrote his work upon the request of Meletios, a monk who had converted to Christianity from Islam and had sent him a letter.

48 I believe that Manuel also represents himself as Socrates in the Discourse to Kabasilas. But it is the Empress Mother Helena who is given the role of Socrates in the Dialogue on Marriage.

49 Dialogue with a Persian, 94, 190 and 212.

50 Dialogue with a Persian, 4.

51 Dialogue with a Persian, 25, 35 and 106.

52 Dialogue with a Persian, 65–6, 92, 198 for a few examples.

53 Dialogue with a Persian, 299. Reinert takes this wish as almost a conversion to Christianity, Reinert, ‘Müderris’, 45–8. Yet, this should not be interpreted as leading to a conversion to Christianity since in his preface, Manuel explains to his brother Theodore that on account of his old age, his opponent clung to his faith like an octopus would cling to a rock, and would not relent. Dialogue with a Persian, 5.

54 Dialogue with a Persian, 50, 190.

55 Dialogue with a Persian, 5. ‘Τῶν ἀτοπωτάτων γάρ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἐνόμιζεν εἶναι, εἰ ἐν οὕτω βαθυτάτῳ τῷ γήρᾳ καὶ τῇ τῆς φύσεως παρακμῇ τῆς πατρῴας ἀθείας ἐκσταίη.’

56 Dialogue with a Persian, 71. ‘Τούτων ἀκούσας ὁ γέρων ἥπτετο μου τῶν γονάτων καὶ προσήκειν ἔφασκε τοὺς ἐκ φιλίας προθυμουμένους περί του διαλέγεσθαι καὶ παρρησίᾳ χρῆσθαι πολλῇ καί, οἷς ἂν γνοῖεν, συνοίσουσι. Πλὴν ὡς οἷόν τε, σοῦ δεήσομαι τῶν δακνόντων ὀνομάτων φείδεσθαι.’

57 Dialogue with a Persian, 146. Islam did indeed recognize Christianity and considered Christ to be a major prophet, while a sura of the Quran is specifically devoted to the Virgin Mary.

58 Dialogue with a Persian, 154–5, 188–9 and 241 for some examples of Manuel referring to the audience as the theatron.

59 Dialogue with a Persian, 22 and 290 for two such instances.

60 Dialogue with a Persian, 7. ‘. . . βάρβαρος ὅμως ἧν. . .’

61 Dialogue with a Persian, 76, 89.

62 Dialogue with a Persian, 54. ‘Καὶ τίς τῶν προφητῶν ταῦτα λέγει; Μωάμεθ ὁ ἡμέτερος. Μόνος ἢ καί τινας ἔχων τῶν πάλαι συμφθεγγομένους; Καὶ ὅς, “αὐτὸς” ἀπεκρίνατο. Πρόσθες δὴ καὶ τὸ “αὐτότατος” ἔφην, εἴ σοι δοκεῖ τῷ Κωμικῷ χαριζόμενος. Οὐκ ἴσμεν, ἔφην, τὸν Κωμικόν. ὄντι δὲ τηλικούτῳ προφήτῃ δεήσει γε μαρτύρων καὶ συνηγόρων;’

63 Aristophanes, Wealth, 83.

64 Dialogue with a Persian, 50. ‘Ταῦτα τούτου μεθ’ ἡδονῆς εἰρηκότος εἰσῄει τις τῶν αὐτοῦ ξύλα τε μεγίστην ἀνάψαι πυρὰν ἱκανὰ καὶ κάρυα καὶ μέλι κομίζων ἡμῖν (τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ ξένια τῶν Περσῶν). Ταῦτα τοίνυν τῷ δακτύλῳ μοι δείξας ἔφη πάλιν ὁ γέρων τοῖς προτέροις παραπλήσια παίζων. Ἥκω σοι κομίζων ὅπλα, οἷς τὸν ἐπιόντα χειμῶνα ἀποσοβήσομεν. Καὶ ἡσθεὶς τῷ τῶν ῥημάτων ἀστείῳ, τοιγαροῦν καταφρακτέον ἔφην, καλῶς, ὅπως ἐν τῷ ἀριστᾶν μὴ ταῖς νιφάσι διενοχλώμεθα. Καθίσας δὲ καὶ τῶν ξενίων ἁψάμενος, ὅσον ἐκείνους μὴ ἀτιμάσαι, ἔπειτα τοῖς περιεστηκόσι πάντα διένειμα.’

65 Battuta, Ibn, The Travels of Ibn Battuta: A.D 1325–1354, eds. Defremery, C. and Sanguinetti, B. R., 2 vols. (Cambridge 1962) 411, 428 and 432Google Scholar.

66 See Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. Kazhdan, A. P., 3 vols. (Oxford 1991) 1, 170Google Scholar for ariston in Byzantium, which is usually referred to as a morning meal as opposed to later meals. However, some authors used it in the sense of a generic meal. Here, the text makes it clear that Manuel refers to breakfast.

67 Dialogue with a Persian, 120 and 231, for instance,

68 Dialogue with a Persian, 190. ‘Κἀγω ταὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ ποιῶν καί, μάλ’ ἔξεστιν, εἶπον, εἰ πάντων ἐθελήσαιεν ἀπογεύσασθαι, οὐδὲ γὰρ τὰ μὲν μερίζειν, τὰ δὲ μὴ θεμιτὸν θηραταῖς. Τοῦτο δὲ εἶπον παίζων, τὴν δὲ παιδιὰν ἤδη λέξω. Κάπρον τις τῶν ἡμετέρων μέγαν τε καὶ πίονα σφόδρα δόρατι που κατενεγκὼν μηδενός τινος συνειδότος συρφετώδει χόρτῳ ἑλίξας, ὡς ἂν μὴ ὑπὸ τῶν μηδὲ βλέπειν χοίρους ἀνεχομένων συχνὰς ἀρὰς καὶ προπηλακισμοὺς, τυχὸν δὲ καὶ πληγὰς δέξαιτο, ἐκόμιζεν ἐφ’ ἵππου.’

69 Dialogue with a Persian, 190. ‘Ἡδομένων οὖν πάντων τῷ τοῦ γέροντος λόγῳ (ἀστεῖος γάρ τις ἔδοξεν εἶναι) κατέβην εὐθὺς τοῦ ἵππου καὶ τῆς χειρός με λαβόμενος ὁ πρεσβύτης ἦγεν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον ἐπιχωρίως ξενίσων. Δᾷδες οὖν ἦσαν ἡμμέναι καὶ πῦρ ἱκανὸν χειμῶνος ἐλέγχειν δριμύτητα καὶ πρὸς αὐτῷ τι σκεῦος χαλκοῦν οὐ σμικρόν, γέμον μὲν ὀπωρῶν τούτων δὴ τῶν χειμερίων, ἔχον δὲ καὶ ἄρτους, οὓς οἶσθα, τοὺς χαρτοειδεῖς ἐκείνους καὶ κακῶς ὠπτημένους. . .’

70 Bertrandon de la Brocquière also describes a sini, calling it ‘un pié de rondeur’, while describing his own meal among the Ottomans, which consisted of bread, cheese and fruit, de la Broquière, Bertrandon. Le voyage d'outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière. ed. Schafel, Ch. (Paris 1892) 89 Google Scholar.

71 When Manuel says ‘the bread loaves, which you recognize’, he is directly addressing Theodore, to whom the work was dedicated.

72 It has been noted by several scholars that a negative description of foreign food could serve to emphasize the cultural inferiority of the consumers vis-à-vis the Byzantines. See Tuffin, P. and Mc Evoy, M., ‘Steak à la Hun: food, drink and dietary habits in Ammianus Marcellinus’, in Mayer, W. and Trziconka, S. (eds), Feast, Fast or Famine: Food and Drink in Byzantium (Brisbane 2005) 69–84 Google Scholar; Galatariotou, C. , ‘ Travel and perception in Byzantium’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993) 221–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Kolbaba, T.. The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana 2000) especially 150Google Scholar.

73 See Barker, Manuel II, 81–2, and Reinert, S., ‘The Palaiologoi, Yildirim Bayezid and Constantinople: June 1389-March 1391’, in Langdon, J. S. et al., (eds), To Hellenikon: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis Jr., 2 vols (New Rochelle, NY 1993) I, 289–365 Google Scholar, repr. in Reinert. Studies on Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman History (Farnham 2014) study IV, 331–32.

74 Letter 16, lines 98–104. ‘ἴσως γὰρ φιλοτησίαν προπιεῖν πάλιν ἐθέλει καὶ βιάσεσθαι πολλοῦ τοῦ οἴνου ἐμφορηθῆναι διὰ κρατήρων τε καὶ ἐκπωμάτων χρυσῶν παντοδαπῶν, τούτοις κατακοιμίζειν οἰόμενος τὴν ἐξ ὧν εἰρήκαμεν ἀθυμίαν, δι’ ὧν, ἂν εἰ καὶ εὐθύμουν, ἀνίας ἂν ἐπληρούμην.’

75 Doukas, . Historia Byzantina, ed. Grecu, V. (Bucharest 1958) 76–7Google Scholar and Chalkokondyles, Laonikos. The Histories, ed. and trans. Kaldellis, A. (Cambridge MA and London 2014) 132–33Google Scholar. See also Necipoğlu, N.. Byzantium between the Latins and the Ottomans: Politics and the Society in Late Empire (Cambridge 2009) 31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 These two works are found in Legrand, E., Lettres de l'empereur Manuel Paléologue (Amsterdam 1962) 103–104 Google Scholar. Barker, Manuel II, 513–5, for English translation.

77 For several such instances see, Funeral Oration, 132–40, Dialogue on Marriage, 98–101 and Letters 14 and 16.

78 Aşıkpaşazade, . Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi (1285–1502), ed. Öztürk, N. (Istanbul 2013) 95 Google Scholar, and Neşri. Kitâb-ı Cihan-nümâ, eds. F. R. Unat and M. A. Köymen, 2 vols. (Ankara 1949–1957) 333. Henceforth, Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri. For the fifteenth-century biases of the chroniclers, see Kafadar, C.. Between Two Worlds (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1995) 60–90 Google Scholar, and Lowry, H.. The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (New York 2003) 24–8Google Scholar.

79 Dialogue with a Persian, 17, ‘. . .τὸν νῦν Χριστιανοῖς ἐπικείμενον ἔφυσε τὸν κεραυνὸν καλούμενον ἐκ τῆς İὀξύτητος τῶν κακῶν.’ For Bayezid see, İnalcık, H., ‘Bayezid I’, in The Encyclopedia of Islam, eds. Gibb, H.A.R, Kramer, J. H., Levi-Provencal, E. and Schact, J., vol. 1(Leiden, 1986) 1117–1119 Google Scholar.

80 Dialogue with a Persian, 50. ‘Νιφετοῦ δὲ ἐξαισίου γεγονότος καὶ ψύχους ὅτι πλείστου εἶρκτο τε ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ὁ σατράπης καὶ τῆς εἰωθυίας ἐπὶ τὰ θηρία ἐξόδου στερόμενος τῇ τοῦ χειμῶνος δριμύτητι σφόδρα τε ἐδυσφόρει καὶ μαινομένῳ ἐῴκει, καὶ ἐπεὶ μὴ αἵμασι θηρίων παρεμυθεῖτο τὴν ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους αὐτοῦ φονῶσαν ψυχήν, ἐκένου δήπου τὸν θυμὸν οἴκοι πίνων ἐπὶ τοὺς οὐκ ἀγαθῇ τινι τύχῃ σμικρόν τι προσκεκρουκότας αὐτῷ (ἴσως δὲ οὐδὲ σμικρόν) πῇ μὲν ὡς μάλισθ’ ὑβρίζων καὶ βλασφημῶν, πῇ δὲ σιδήρῳ διεργαζόμενος (οὐδὲ γάρ, ὡς ἔοικεν, οἷος τ’ ἦν μὴ οὐχὶ κακῶς ἢ λέγειν ἢ ποιεῖν).’

81 Dialogue with a Persian, 121.

82 Dialogue with a Persian, 50, 120, 124–5, 250.

83 Dialogue with a Persian, 121. ‘Οὔκουν οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνα παραδραμεῖν δεῖ τὴν μεθ’ ἡμέραν θήραν, τὴν περὶ τὰ δεῖπνα μετὰ ταῦτα διάχυσιν μίμων τε ὄχλους καὶ αὐλητῶν συστήματα καὶ χοροὺς ᾀδόντων καὶ ἔθνη ὀρχηστῶν καὶ ἠχὼ κυμβάλων καὶ τὸν μετὰ τὸν ἄκρατον προπετῆ γέλωτα, ὧν ὀλίγα ἱκανὰ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀφροσύνης ἐμπλῆσαι. . . . Οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁρῶ γε ὑμᾶς ἀρίστῳ μὲν δεῖπνα συνάπτοντας κατά γε τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν εύδαίμονας εἶναι νομιζομένους, ταυτὶ δὲ αὗ ὕπνοις κἀκείνους πάλιν ἀρίστῳ καθάπερ ἐν κύκλῳ βαδίζοντας, ὡς εἶναι σφίσι τὴν ζωὴν ἐν ἀργίᾳ καὶ χλιδῇ ἀνδράσιν οὐδαμῶς προσηκούσῇ.’

84 Dialogue with a Persian, 65.

85 For Aristotelian ethics in Byzantium, see Barber, C. and Jenkins, D. (eds) Medieval Greek Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics (Leiden 2009)Google Scholar, especially L. Benakis, ‘Aristotelian ethics in Byzantium’, 63-9; Oehler, K., ‘Aristotle in Byzantium’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 5.2 (1964) 133–46Google Scholar.

86 In all these works, Manuel relies on ideas and concepts found in the Nicomachean Ethics, such as the two categories of voluntary and involuntary actions, choice (προαίρεσις), eudaimonia, the importance of moderation and the various ways of life. For the impact of the Nicomachean Ethics on the Seven Ethico-Political Orations, see Kakkoura, C., An Annotated Critical Edition of Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus’ “Seven Ethico-political Orations ” (PhD dissertation, The University of London, Royal Holloway, 2013) 42–3Google Scholar.

87 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II, ii and vi.

88 Dialogue with a Persian, 94.

89 Eudaimonia was a philosophical term signifying a perfect state of well-being attained through virtue and reason, While eudaimonia was generally used by historians and the panegyrists to refer to mere ‘good fortune’/‘prosperity’, in his ethico-political works, Manuel discusses eudaimonia in reference to Aristotelian Ethics, as a perfect state of well-being through virtue. Thus, for Manuel, eudaimonia did not mean mere ‘good fortune’ or ‘happiness’. See also Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I, vii, 9–16.

90 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I, vii, 4–9; I, iv, 5–6; X, vi–vii.

91 See also Manuel's Address from a Benevolent Ruler to his Subjects, which has a similar depiction of the Life of Pleasure, J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 156, cols 562–564.

92 Neşri, 363. An anonymous chronicle refers to his anger as ‘gayet gazaplı idü’, (‘was very prone to wrath’): Tevârîh-i ÂI-i Osman, ed. F. Giese (Istanbul 1992) 34; Neşri, 336–339; Aşıkpaşazade, 95–96.

93 See M. Balivet, ‘Rhomania byzantine et Diyar-ı Rum turc’, 111–179; 130, who refers to the menakıbname of Hacı Bayram Veli.

94 Aşıkpaşazade, 113, also mentions Manuel as being on friendly terms with Fazlullah, the kadı of Gebze.