1 The crucial book on Manuel’s reign is by Barker, J. W., Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, NJ 1968)Google Scholar.

2 Angelou, A., Manuel Palaiologos, Dialogue with the Empress-mother on Marriage (Vienna 1991) 20 (Introduction)Google Scholar.

3 Angelou, Dialogue, 60, 61. The edition has a facing-page English translation. I cite Angelou’s translation in my text.

4 Barker, Manuel II, 84 and 421, respectively.

5 The Russian archimandrite Ignatios of Smolensk witnessed Manuel’s coronation and that of his Serbian wife, Dragaš, Helena. See Le Pèlerinage d’Ignace de Smolensk, 1389-1405, ed. de Khitrowo, B., Itinéraires russes en Orient (St Petersburg 1889) 143-7Google Scholar; cf.Majeska, G. P., Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington, DC 1984) 108-10Google Scholar. Only one Greek source (Vat. gr. 162) states that Helena was ‘one-eyed but prudent by nature’. See Loenertz, R.-J. (ed.), ‘Chronicon breve de Graecorum imperatoribus, ab anno 1341 ad annum 1453 e codice Vaticano graeco 162’, EEBS 28 (1958) 209.65-6Google Scholar; Barker, Manuel II, 99 n. 24. Barker compares this description with the famous portrait of Helena with Manuel and their three sons in the manuscript of Dionysius Aeropagite, stating that there are no traces of deformity in Helena’s face. I was privileged to see this miniature at the Louvre in 1996, courtesy of J. Durand. It is so conventionally painted that one cannot rule out Helena’s defect, although no other chronicler mentions it. On the other hand, Manuel’s blue eyes are only too distinct. The political context of Manuel’s wedding has most recently been discussed by Reinert, S. W., ‘Political dimensions of Manuel II Palaiologos’ 1392 marriage and coronation: some new evidence’, in Sode, C. and Takács, S. (eds), Novum Millennium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck (Aldershot 2001) 291–303 Google Scholar.

6 The conflict is described by John Kantakouzenos himself and by a high official at the court, Nikephoros Gregoras. See Cantacuzenus, Ioannes, Historiae, ed. Schopen, L., II (Bonn 1828)Google Scholar, passim, and Gregoras, Nicephoros, Byzantina Historia, ed. Schopen, L., II (Bonn 1830)Google Scholar, passim. The latest book on this subject is Nicol, D. M., The Reluctant Emperor: A Biography of John Cantacuzene, Byzantine Emperor and Monk, c. 1295-1383 (Cambridge 1996)Google Scholar.

7 As stated explicitly by Ducas, , Historia Byzantina, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1834) 44 Google Scholar. The chronicler adds his negative opinion about the quality of John’s mind.

8 This was far from the idealized pattern of family relations created in the treatise by Andronikos II’s son. See Dąbrowska, M., ‘Family ethos at the imperial court of the Palaiologos in the light of the testimony by Theodore of Montferrat’, Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 2 (1994) 73–81 Google Scholar.

9 Halecki, O., Un empereur de Byzance à Rome. Vingt ans de travail pour l’union des Eglises et pour la défense de l’empire d’Orient 1355-1375 (Warsaw 1930) 33 Google Scholar. Halecki uses the expression ‘le père adoptif’ for the pope, which is repeated by Nicol and gives a very peculiar image of John V’s political intuition and his paternal feelings. Innocent VI did not need a surrogate family, and his expectations were strictly political. See Nicol, D. M., The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453, 2nd edn (Cambridge 1993) 258 Google Scholar. Halecki, Un empereur, 32, was convinced that John deserved more sympathy. On V, John, see now Radié, J., Vreme Jovana V Paleologa (1332-1391) (Belgrade 1993)Google Scholar. This huge study does not really change general opinion on John’s policy. The author’s devotion to details and to the Balkan context should be stressed.

10 The stay in Venice concerned Byzantine financial obligations for the Serenissima. See Nicol, D. M., Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge 1988) 304-7Google Scholar. It was the first visit of a Byzantine emperor to Venice. In the fourteenth century relations between the two powers were drastically changed. Byzantium became a permanent debtor of the republic. In this unfortunate situation for the emperor, it was not Andronikos IV but Manuel who appeared in Venice to help his father in the negotiations. Then he was left in Venice for some months in 1371; he received pocket money, 300 ducats, from the Venetian senate. As a hostage, Manuel was a pawn in Venetian hands. See Loenertz, R.-J., ‘Jean V Paléologue à Venise (1370-1371)’, REB 16 (1958) 217-32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chrysostomides, J., ‘John V Palaiologos in Venice (1370-1371) and the chronicle of Caroldo: a reinterpretation’, OCP 31 (1965) 76–84 Google Scholar. This article presents a view different from Halecki, Un empereur, 228-31.

11 Cf.Dąbrowska, M., Lacinniczki nad Bosforem. Malzenstwa bizantynsko-laciñskie w cesarskiej rodzinie Paleologow (X1II-XV w.) (The Latin Ladies on the Bosphoros. Byzantine-Latiri marriages in the imperial family of the Palaiologoi [13th-15th Centuries]) (Lodz 1996) 98, 114Google Scholar. I follow Barker, Manuel II, 474, who wrote in an e-mail of 5 October 2006: ‘Zampia was born in the 1370s, which might rule out her resulting from a liaison in Venice, though not for sure.’ As we cannot rule out the possibility, I would like to suggest it.

12 I deal with Zampia in a project begun at All Souls in 2001: ‘The double life of the emperor: the illegitimate children of the Palaiologoi and their careers.’ Zampia, a daughter of Manuel II Palaiologos, was married to a Genoese, Hilario Doria, who acted as Manuel II’s envoy in diplomatic missions. See Barker, Manuel II, 158; Andronikos IV could have been sure of his position, as he married Maria-Kyratza from Bulgaria, who bore him the future John VII. See Mešanović, S., Jovan VII Paleolog (Belgrade 1996)Google Scholar. ‘The double life of the emperor’ will be part of a book or an article. I suspended work on it due to my stay at Rice University in Houston, Texas.

13 Chalkokondyles, , Historiarum libri decem, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1843) 81 Google Scholar. See Loenertz, R.-J., ‘Une erreur singulière de Laonic Chalcocondyle: le prétendu second mariage de Jean V Paléologue,’ REB 15 (1957) 176-81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bryer, A. supports this view: ‘Greeks and Turkmen; the Pontie exception’, DOP 29 (1975) 140 Google Scholar. Eudokia was a daughter of Alexios III of Trebizond and of an unknown mother, a widow of Emir Tacedin. M. Carroll does not exclude John’s interest in the woman in analysing the text of Sphrantzes that alludes to this liaison. See Carroll, M., ‘A minor matter of imperial importance in the Sphrantzes’ “Chronicle”’, B 49 (1979) 88–93 Google Scholar. I find her arguments plausible. John V’s wife lived until 1396, but this is not a counter-argument. He did not divorce her and marry off John to the Trapezuntine lady. The history of the Byzantine court knows such triangular situations, e.g. the emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, his wife Zoe, and his mistress Maria Skleraina. See Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A Political History (London 1984) 46 Google Scholar. This ‘trio’ is described by Michael Psellos, Chronographia, ed. Renauld, E., II (Paris 1928) 50–60 Google Scholar.

14 Manuel was crowned in Thessalonica at the age of twenty-three and this ceremony could have been seen as a good omen. He was quickly disappointed by Andronikos’ rebellion and then by his father’s behaviour after regaining the throne. Embittered, Manuel withdrew to Thessalonica. He lived away from the Constantinopolitan court. See Nicol, The Last Centuries, 277-83; Dennis, G. T., The Reign of Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessalonica 1382-1387 (Rome 1960)Google Scholar.

15 Angelou, Dialogue, 96-7: ‘…why should we add further to the welter of our anxieties and divide the mind into two, into things mutually opposing: on the one side, arms and wars and, to be brief, their usual outcome; and on the other side, the education and upbringing of children, anďall the other cares and arrangements to be made for them and for the house; let alone illnesses and deaths of children, mourning for them and following them to their graves’. See Barker, Manuel II, 474.

16 On Theodore’s reign in Mistra in 1383-1407 see Zakythinos, D. A., Le Despotat grec de Morée 1262-1460, I: Histoire politique (Paris 1932) 125-65Google Scholar. After 1379, when John V regained illusory power, his sons had also shared his illusion: Andronikos IV and his son reigned on the north coast of the Sea of Marmara, while Manuel was in Thessalonica and Theodore in Mistra. Nicol, The Last Centuries, 283, calls them puppets in Turkish or Italian hands.

17 Palaeologus, Manuel II, Funeral Oration on bis Brother Theodore, ed. and tr. Chrysostomides, J. (Thessalonike 1985)Google Scholar.

18 Cydonès, Démétrius, Correspondance, ed. Loenertz, R.-J., 2 vols. (Vatican 1956-60)Google Scholar; Kydones, Demetrios, Briefe, , ed. Tinnefeid, F., 1.1, 2 (Stuttgart 1981-2)Google Scholar. Dennis, G. T., The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus (Washington, DC 1977)Google Scholar. The comments of the editors are very useful for analysing the political context of Manuel’s and Kydones’ statements. On Kydones’ devotion to Helena Kantakouzene, see Kianka, F., ‘The letters of Demetrios Kydones to empress Helena Kantakuzene Palaiologina’, DOP 46 (1992) 155-64Google Scholar. Kydones accompanied John V to Rome in 1369 and was in Venice in 1370-1. He returned to the republic in 1390, where he was granted Venetian citizenship in January 1391. He regretted his decision to return to Constantinople because of the political situation. He finally left Constantinople after the disaster at Nikopolis in 1396 and went to Venice, and then to Crete, where he died in 1397-8. See Kianka, F., ‘Demetrios Kydones and Italy’, DOP 59 (1995) 107-10Google Scholar.

19 Dennis, Letters of Manuel Palaeologus, no. 39, 105.14-15. ‘Sad birds’ is an allusion to Plato.

20 For John VII’s marriage see Barker, Manuel II, 463-4. For his child: Dennis, G. T., ‘An unknown Byzantine emperor, Andronikos V Palaeologus (1400-1407?)’, JÖB 16 (1967) 175-87Google Scholar.

21 Angelou, Dialogue, 55 (Introduction).

22 ibid., 71.

23 Ibid., 69.

24 Ibid., 87.

25 Ibid., 117.

26 Ibid., 111.

27 Ibid., 96-7. The text is quoted above in n. 15.

28 Ibid., 51-5 (Introduction). Uncertain about the future of his successors, Manuel is recollecting the loss of the children he had with the Venetian woman.

29 Ibid., 117.

30 Palaiologue, Manuel II, Entretiens avec un musulman: 7e controverse, introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Khoury, T. (Paris 1966)Google Scholar. The whole treatise discusses various aspects of Islamic religion, and only the seventh dialogue, which is devoted to Islamic law, touches upon the problem of marriage, stating only that it is a necessity for a man. See the new edition: Kaiser Manuel II. Palaiologos, Dialog über den Islam und Erziehungsratschlage, ed. Baum, W., tr. Senoner, R. (Vienna 2003)Google Scholar.

31 Ibid., 86. Manuel cites the opinion of Tabarsi a Shi’a, a writer, who says: ‘De votre monde j’ai aimé les femmes et les parfums’, and stresses that ‘mon délice est dans la prière’. This opinion seems to have been shared by Manuel, yet marriage was not necessary for him to enjoy those ‘délices’.

32 Chrysostomides, Funeral Oration, 162.

33 The Duchy of Athens, a product of the Fourth Crusade, was ruled by the Burgundian family, de la Roche, then by the Catalans, who were introduced to the political scene in Constantinople by Roger de Flor, a notorious adventurer. See Setton, K. M., Catalan Domination in Athens (1311-1388) (Cambridge, MA 1948)Google Scholar. Finally, the Duchy was taken over by the family of Florentine bankers, the Acciaiuoli, who had begun their career in Naples. Bartolomea was a good asset of this rule. Theodore hoped that his father-in-law would offer him rights to Athens, but the Duchy remained in Latin hands until the Ottoman conquest.

34 Chrysostomides, Funeral Oration, 218.

35 In 1422 Manuel had his first stroke, which eliminated him from active political life. John VIII became the actual ruler. See Barker, Manuel II, 381.

36 On John VII, see Djurić, I., Súmrak Vizantije: Vreme Jovana VIII Paleologo 1392-1448 (Belgrade 1984)Google Scholar. Presenting a panorama of the last years of the empire, this book can be compared with the work on John V by Radiæ from the Belgrade school of Byzantinists.

37 Gill, J., Personalities of the Council of Florence and other Essays (Oxford 1964) 105 Google Scholar. The author confuses Cleopa Malatesta, Theodore II Palaiologos’ wife, with Sofia of Montferrat, calling the latter Sophia Malatesta, which was not the case: Gill, Personalities, 108.

38 Nicol, D. M., The Immortal Emperor: the Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans (Cambridge 1992) 24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the role of the Hexamilion during John’s rule see Dąbrowska, M., ‘Hexamilion i Warna, (Hexamilion and Varna)’, Balcanica Posnaniensia 8(1997) 61–70 Google Scholar.

39 Anna was a daughter of the Great Duke Basil I of Moscow. After Manuel’s coronation in 1393, Basil dared to say that the Orthodox, and not ‘the emperor’, ‘had Church’, and Manuel’s name was not commemorated in the Muscovite churches. Patriarch Antonios IV calmed the situation. Anna’s appearance in Constantinople is a proof of the great political ambitions of Basil, who was still dependent on the Mongols. See Nicol, The Last Centuries, 299.

40 As an example, I quote a bitter passage from the end of the treatise. The emperor addresses his mother: ‘Perhaps you remember the time when he [John VII] used to say he regretted what he had done -— it was a sham — and when he used to commend peace warmly in his words and promise that in future he would be as a loving son. And he did all these things as though in secret, while he slyly confided to our worst and impious enemies then at peace with us and under a treaty. His plan was to make them angry at us and cause the present war [the siege of Constantinople, which began in 1394]. He would thus vent his hostility, which he had been fostering for a long time against us. You know, Mother, how I believed him then’ (Angelou, Dialogue, 111). It is evident that the emperor wanted to eliminate the traces of family dispute from the text. John VII was no longer alive, and relations with the Turks were good. Thus the emperor was concerned about the future of the dynasty.

41 Sophia’s disfigured face was described by Doukas, 100-1. See Dąbrowska, M., ‘Sophia of Montferrat or the history of one face’, Acta Vniversitatis Lodziensis, Folia Historica 56 (1996) 177-94Google Scholar. John VIII divorced Sophia in 1426, and in 1427 he married the beautiful Maria of Trebizond, who became the lady of his heart. A rumour spread in Constantinople that she had more than family connections with her brother Alexander. John’s third marriage was childless, and he did not leave any illegitimate children. His infertility was his tragedy, as was that of his brother Constantine XI, who succeeded him and died on the walls of Constantinople on the last day of the siege, on 29 May 1453. See Nicol, The Immortal Emperor, passim.

42 de Mezières, Philippe, Livre de la vertu du sacrement de mariage, ed. Williamson, J. (Washington, DC 1993)Google Scholar.

43 De Mezières, Livre, 43.

44 Before De Mezières, Boccaccio, in his story of Griselda in the Decameron, promoted such a paragon of a faithful wife, ready to sacrifice herself for the family. Petrarch made a Latin translation of Boccaccio’s story, and Chaucer based the Clerk’s Tale in The Canterbury Tales on Petrarch’s version.

45 There is no direct evidence for Isabelle’s liaison with Louis of Orleans. It is known that he paid her many visits and that he was murdered near the queen’s apartments in Paris. See Chronique du religieux de Saint Denis contenant le règne de Charles VI de 1380 à 1422, ed. Bellaguet, M. L., III (Paris 1842) 730 Google Scholar. The supposed or true love affair was treated as an excuse for Jean the Fearless to kill Louis, his political rival: Famiglietti, R. C., Royal Intrigue: Crisis at the Court of Charles VI, 1392-1420 (New York 1986) 4 Google Scholar.

46 Lascaris, Theodorus Ducas II, ‘Ad amicos qui ipsum hortabantur ut uxorem duceret’, in Opuscula rhetorica, ed. Tartaglia, A. (Munich 2000) 109-18Google Scholar. John III Vatatzes’ second wife’s lady-in-waiting was dearer to him than the political profits from this marriage. On Vatatzes’ marriage to Constance (Anna) of Hohenstaufen see Gardner, A., The Lascarids of Nicaea: The Story of an Empire in Exile (London 1912) 308 Google Scholar.