Download PDF | Siren Çelik - Manuel II Palaiologos (1350–1425) A Byzantine Emperor in a Time of Tumult-Cambridge University Press (2021).
472 Pages
MANUEL II PALAIOLOGOS (1350–1425)
Few Byzantine emperors had a life as rich and as turbulent as Manuel II Palaiologos. A fascinating figure at the crossroads of Byzantine, Western European and Ottoman history, he endured political turmoil, witnessed no less than three sieges by the Ottomans and travelled as far as France and England. He was a prolific writer, producing a vast corpus of literary, theological and philosophical works. Yet despite his talent, Manuel has largely been ignored as an author.
This biography constructs an in-depth picture of him of as a ruler, author and personality, as well as providing insight into his world and times. It offers the first analysis of the emperor’s complete oeuvre, focusing on his literary style, self-representation and philosophical/theological thought. By focusing not only on political events, but also on the personality, personal life and literary output of Manuel, this biography paints a new portrait of a multifaceted emperor.
siren c¸elik obtained her PhD at the University of Birmingham. Her main research interests are Late Byzantine history, Byzantine literature, history-writing and daily life. She has been a Junior Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks and has received postdoctoral fellowships from Koç University-ANAMED, Boğaziçi University and Harvard University.
Acknowledgments This book began its journey as a PhD thesis at the University of Birmingham (2012–16), and my doctoral work there was made possible by a generous scholarship from the College of Arts and Law at the University of Birmingham. While working on Manuel II Palaiologos, I held various fellowships at Dumbarton Oaks, the Research Center for Anatolian Studies, Koç University, the Byzantine Studies Center of Boğaziçi University and finally, at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University. I am grateful to these institutions and their staff for facilitating this project. My deepest gratitude goes to my supervisors, Dr Ruth Macrides and Professor Dimiter Angelov.
For years, Professor Angelov has generously supported my work on Manuel II, and I am grateful to him for his feedback, patience, kindness, encouragement and for many stimulating discussions. Dr Macrides was not only a model mentor, but also a beloved friend; she provided valuable feedback and support, and she shared my enthusiasm for all things Manuel. Her love for Byzantium, her friendship and affection, her joy of life and humour occupied a very special place in my life, and her loss means more to me than words can express – it is to her that this book is dedicated.
Over the years, I have accumulated debts of gratitude to many people. Foremost among them are my parents for their unconditional love and support. This book would not have been possible without them. I would also like to thank Professor Nevra Necipoğlu for her unwavering support since my undergraduate days; on several occasions, the late Dr Niall Livingstone helped me to unravel Manuel’s Greek; and at Harvard, as I put the last touches to the book, I had many fruitful discussions with Professor Cemal Kafadar. I am also grateful to Professor Anthony Kaldellis for his support during the last stages of this book. I am indebted to Dr Charalambos Dendrinos for his generous help over years, especially for sharing his own transcriptions of Manuel’s then unpublished works with me.
Likewise, the late Professor John Barker, whose masterly book on Manuel guided my own research, was always warm and generous in his encouragement. His kindness, and the enthusiasm he showed for my book, meant a lot to me. He will be greatly missed. I am also indebted to my collegues Alessia Rossi, Aslıhan Akışık, George Makris and Suna Çağaptay, for their support and friendship. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the two anonymous readers of this book for their time and for their insightful feedback. My editor, Dr Michael Sharp has been extremely supportive and patient through all stages of bringing the project to publication, and I am grateful to him and to the team at Cambridge University Press for their professionalism and meticulous work.
Introduction
Few Byzantine emperors had a life as eventful and as rich as Manuel II Palaiologos (1350–1425). Living and ruling during the last decades of the empire, Manuel witnessed rapid territorial loss, dire socio-economic problems and civil wars between his own family members. Both his father, paternal grandfather and maternal grandfathers were emperors – not to mention his brother and nephew. The last two Byzantine emperors were Manuel’s sons. His own reign saw the Ottomans lay no less than three sieges on Constantinople and intense communications with Rome for a Church union. Even as a prince, he faced rebellions and was left behind as a hostage in foreign territories by his father. As a young man, Manuel ruled Thessalonike, one of the major cities of the empire, in his own right and withstood a siege of the city for five years. As emperor, he was compelled to accompany the Ottoman sultan on his campaigns, fighting to ensure the success of the rival empire. He had to strive against the centrifugal tendencies of the Byzantine elite and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor. Theological disputes further engulfed his society.
In 1399–1402, when he travelled to Western Europe to seek help against the Ottomans, Manuel also became famous as the only Byzantine emperor to visit London and Paris. This celebrated voyage was recorded in Europe both in textual and visual sources. In short, Manuel sat at the crossroads of Byzantine, Western and Ottoman history. He was part of a fascinating era that witnessed the rise of the Ottoman Empire and the beginnings of the Italian Renaissance. He crossed paths with many influential figures. In Europe he was hosted by Charles VI, the mad king of France, and Henry IV of England, and he visited their courts at a time when authors such as Christine de Pizan and Chaucer flourished. Manuel feasted and exchanged gifts with the uncle of the French king, the renowned art collector Jean de Berry. He campaigned, hunted and clashed with Sultan Bayezid, the Ottoman ruler nicknamed ‘the Thunderbolt’. The emperor was also in contact with
early Renaissance scholars such as Guarino of Verona, as well as with French and Ottoman theologians. Manuel’s own Byzantine literary circle boasted famous figures such as Demetrios Kydones, Manuel Chrysoloras, Joseph Bryennios and Isidore of Kiev; all famed literati, authors and teachers of the period. Even more exceptionally, Manuel himself was a notable author. He penned thirty-three surviving works across an impressive array of genres. These works amount to more than 1000 pages in modern editions: letters, orations, sermons, poems, prayers, dialogues, ethico-philosophical and theological treatises. His oeuvre is remarkable for its erudition, its literary style and the insights it provides into the emperor’s own life.
The life of the author-emperor, Manuel II Palaiologos offers a fascinating window into the last decades of the Byzantine Empire. Naturally, this intriguing Byzantine historical figure has attracted a fair amount of scholarly interest. Many works have been devoted to aspects of Manuel’s life, especially those concerning his reign and political career.1 In the last decades, editions of the emperor’s works have also significantly progressed, while studies have also started to emerge on selected works of his oeuvre, and of his philosophical and theological thought.2 Undoubtedly, the monumental monograph by John Barker, written in 1969, remains the authoritative work on Manuel.3 It is a comprehensive and masterly study of the political aspects Manuel’s reign and is of immense value as a narrative history of the emperor’s statesmanship. Since its priorities and aims were different, however, it largely leaves out the voluminous literary output and the personal life of Manuel.
Aims and Methodologies of this Study This book is not a narration of Manuel’s reign, nor is political history at its core. Rather, it is a biography that seeks to construct an in-depth portrait of Manuel as a writer, ruler and a personality. Despite his fame as a scholar-emperor, Manuel’s works are generally used to extract information about the political and socio-economic circumstances of the period. The literary features of these works are seldom discussed and Manuel’s authorship is mostly valued mainly because he was an emperor.
However, he also deserves recognition as an author, and not solely for providing scholars with ‘historical data’ and ideological insights through his politically charged works. I will focus on Manuel as an author, and on discussing his literary, theological and philosophical works. This biography offers, for the first time, a comprehensive study of his complete oeuvre. Several of the emperor’s works are analysed for the first time, while his more well-known works are given new interpretations. The biography focuses especially on Manuel’s self-representation in his works and examines some features of his literary style. Related to his study as an author, the book also traces several aspects of Manuel’s philosophical and theological views.
Another major theme of this biography is a more ‘personalized’ study of Manuel’s life, including his relationships with family, friends and foes; his everyday life; his thoughts and feelings on people and on events and the world around him. Although a portrayal of the emperor as a personality may not alter the Palaiologan historical narrative, it can enrich our understanding of Manuel as a person; a real human being who once lived, loved, hated and hoped. After all, history is not only about political, socioeconomic, religious or cultural phenomena, but also people themselves. Although the book will offer some new insight into his rulership, an exploration of Manuel’s rulership is a subsidiary subject here and thus will not become a central discussion. As a whole, I envision this present study as an amalgam of literary and personal biography, supplemented by discussion of Manuel’s rulership. The developments in the study of Byzantine literature over the last two decades are especially relevant and merit some discussion for any treatment of Manuel and his oeuvre. It is against this scholarly backdrop that I look at Manuel’s works and authorship. Scholarship on Byzantine authors and texts has not only flourished, but also drastically changed its approach. Previously, Byzantine texts were considered a poor imitation of antiquity; their lofty language, veneration of ancient authors and adherence to the classical literary tradition were frowned upon. Their high register Attic Greek, complex and difficult language, metaphors, puns, quotations and allusions were discarded as being mere artifice and unnecessary ornamentation.
The abundance of these elements, the reliance on established rhetorical forms, the references to classical and biblical works were all seen as manifestations of a lack of sincerity, creativity and as a sign of the ‘unoriginality’ of Byzantine texts and those who composed them. Scholars generally conceded that Byzantine texts could very rarely – that is, almost never – be read for pleasure and enjoyment. One could only use these works, be they letters, orations or histories, to extract the historical data that was hidden under ‘the veneer of rhetoric’. Similarly, Byzantine authors were deemed as lacking in creativity and thus literary merit. Manuel II Palaiologos, also suffered his fair share of such critiques.
This unfortunate understanding has now been largely discarded. The study of Byzantine literature has been transformed thanks to the pioneering works of scholars such as Alexander Kazhdan, Margaret Mullett, Panagiotis Agapitos, Paolo Odorico and Stratis Papaioannou. Now, Byzantinists emphasize the need to study Byzantine literature in context and on its own terms. These works were composed as ‘literary’ artefacts, and not as receptacles of historical information for future historians to plunder; they deserve serious study of their literary features.4 It is also argued that what a Byzantine author and reader might have enjoyed in these texts was drastically different from the modern scholar’s preferences. Atticizing Greek, complex sentence structures, classical and biblical allusions and rhetorical devices were not considered by the Byzantines to be signs of literary artifice or insincerity.
They were an indispensable part of their literary tradition, essential elements that they desired and appreciated in compositions.5 Quotations, allusions, puns, similes, metaphors and other such devices were the features that imbued these works with their aesthetic quality, lending them beauty and affording pleasure to the reader. More often than not, these also presented the reader and the audience with additional layers of meaning that could be peeled away through slow and careful thought. Adherence to literary tradition, or established rhetorical forms and devices, was likewise a much-desired feature for the Byzantine audience. Imitation (mimesis) of authors such as Plato, Demosthenes or Gregory of Nazianzos was an integral part of the Byzantine literary tradition. Contrary to modern values, mimesis was imbued with positive qualities; imitation was seen as a praiseworthy emulation of models of virtue.6 The preoccupation with ‘originality’ and ‘creative genius’ is a far more recent phenomena which chiefly emerged in the eighteenth century.
Hence, Byzantine authors and audience did not share this concern with modern readers. Moreover, as recent studies have amply demonstrated, staying within the confines of tradition does not render one author indistinguishable from the another. While operating within the established forms and practices, many Byzantine authors developed their own style and introduced ‘innovative’, personalized touches to the established textual practices. One can thus speak of ‘originality’ and ‘individual style’ within tradition – that is, innovation and change did not take place against the tradition, but rather within it. Recent research has also demonstrated that many Byzantine texts were intended for circulation and for oral performance. This also changes our perception of the intended audience and the composition.7
One example illustrating this change in scholarly approach is the case of Byzantine epistolography. Earlier scholarship considered Byzantine letters to be artificial and empty displays of rhetorical flourish: the language was unduly complex, and they were adorned with puns, metaphors and allusions. Moreover, they were seen to contain little ‘concrete’ information, as the author seldom referred to his or her life, nor to the socio-political or economic situation of the empire. Letters read as if they had been composed in a timeless vacuum, and were laced with constant themes of separation, friendship and the desire for aesthetic pleasure.
What, then, scholars asked, was the purpose of writing a letter at all? Margaret Mullett’s work on the letters of Theophylact of Ochrid, however, demonstrated that Byzantine authors did not compose these works in the same spirit as ‘modern’ letters, that is, to convey concrete information to their recipient, but rather as beautifully ornate, polished compositions filled with literary features. The chief goal of a Byzantine letter, unlike a ‘modern’ one, was not to convey information about one’s mundane life. Further, if necessary, such messages could be orally delivered by a letter-bearer. Thus in sending a letter the author signalled several things to his/her recipient: that he or she wished for contact, that he/she deemed the recipient worthy of receiving a letter and that he/she valued the recipient’s friendship.
The mere act of sending of a letter was a message in itself; it expressed a desire for communication and regard for the recipient. Instead of offering concrete information, a letter thus aimed at providing literary delight to the recipient; sophisticated language, metaphors, allusions and quotations were highly desired and appreciated features in this context. For instance, Manuel’s allusions to Aristophanes in his letters from Asia Minor in 1391 were not mere embellishments, they imbued layers of meanings to the text and lent it a sense of humour.
A Byzantine letter was meant to be read aloud and re-read many times, discovering new layers of meanings in its metaphors or allusions with each reading. In this context, it now also understood that letters were not private communications between two people. Letters were meant to be circulated among a literary circle, and sometimes performed aloud in literary gatherings called theatra. A letter was to be made known to many people, each of whom evaluated its literary features and gave an ear to its political or personal messages. In this manner, one advertised his or her views and formed a network. Through this network, letter writers sought patrons, political and literary support, as well as asked for favours or help.
When these letters are analysed in this way, scholars gain invaluable insights into the Byzantines’ own aesthetic criteria, as well as into the social and cultural functions of the letter. Another current research topic in Byzantine literature which has significance for Manuel’s biography, is the issue of self-representation. The primary example of this is Stratis Papaioannou’s insightful study of Michael Psellos and his self-representation.8 It produces a detailed examination of Psellos’ self-representation and omnipresence in his texts: how did Psellos fashion his self-image in his writings? What were the factors that influenced his opting for a particular persona, and under which circumstances? How did he contextualize his self-representation in the Byzantine literary tradition, and on which models did he build? Psellos’ ‘I’ voice in the texts is not an organic and direct reflection of Psellos himself, but rather a constructed literary persona; an act of self-portraiture. This holds true not only for Psellos, but also for all Byzantine authors.
Hence, it is not Psellos’ psyche that is examined through his texts, but rather his selfrepresentation. This self-representation bears traces of his predilections, fears and desires, as well as being conditioned by audience, occasion, style and genre. It reflects how the author wished to perceived by the audience and for posterity. Through such analysis of self-representation, one gains invaluable insight into Psellos’ authorship and also for other Byzantine authors. Another crucial debate in the scholarship surrounds the the questions: what is Byzantine literature? How does one decide which Byzantine texts are literature and which are not? And how did the Byzantines conceive their own texts?
These are questions that naturally pertain greatly to Manuel’s case as an author. Did he produce literature, and how can one classify his texts? It has been amply demonstrated that the Late Antique and Byzantine concept of literature was distinct from our modern sense, if such a concept existed at all. Many of these texts were produced with aesthetic pleasure as a secondary goal. They had political, social and educational goals that have nothing to do with our modern perception of literature. Rhetoric supplied all of the tools for any textual production, be it a letter, poem or theological treatise. All texts sprang from patterns, practices and devices found in rhetorical manuals and earlier models. The Byzantines did not even have a word that directly and exclusively corresponded to literature.
The term logos (pl: logoi) was used for literary, rhetorical, philosophical and theological works. Logos was also used to signify learning, belleslettrès and even literate education in broad subjects. Thus, the modern term literature and logoi do not overlap strictly. The Byzantines also employed the word techne, skill or art, to refer to the act of writing. They could use the term logos to denote any work and refer to an author’s techne when speaking about writing. In this regard, a prominent scholar has pointed out that it is no coincidence that the modern Greek word for literature is a combination of the two: logotechnia. 9 There is thus no proper definition of literature in a Byzantine context. Nor is there scholarly consensus on what constitutes Byzantine literature or on the requirements for a text to be considered ‘literary’. As one scholar succinctly illustrates: ‘... these texts have an undeniable literary dimension – though it remains to be discovered what it is.’ 10
A marked preoccupation with textual aesthetics can lead to a text being considered literary. A surplus of rhetorical/literary devices, such as the employment of features like characterization, allusions, sound harmony, metaphors and imagery, can also result in a particular text being recognized as ‘literary’, though not always. To complicate matters further, the boundaries between Byzantine literary, rhetorical, philosophical and theological were blurred; philosophical works could be composed as elegant poems, and literary letters could have theological digressions. Further, official documents might include elegantly composed preambles replete with rhetorical elements. Ultimately, defining a Byzantine work as ‘literary’ or ‘literature’ is a difficult and complicated issue. Is an imperial oration ‘literature’ because it makes use of beautiful imagery? Likewise, when the preamble of an imperial document is laden with rhetorical/literary elements, does it become literature?
What about the Acts of the church synods? Is a rhetorical school exercise of character portrayal literary or not? These questions have been met with a wide range of answers from scholars: some believe that the majority of Byzantine written artefacts should be considered literary, while others propose that these texts should be considered non-literary works, albeit with a pronounced rhetorical flavour. The boundaries for defining the literary are as flexible as opinions are diverse.
Thus, we return to an important question for this book: did Manuel produce literature? None of Manuel’s works can be called literature in the modern sense, since they were all composed with political, social and educational goals that have very little to with the function of modern works of literature. As the definition of Byzantine literature is so elusive, in this biography none of Manuel’s writings are referred to specifically as works of literature. Nor does this study attempt to strictly categorize his oeuvre as literary, rhetorical or philosophical. Instead, I will speak of ‘literary features’ or ‘literariness’. Although classifying Manuel’s orations as rhetorical compositions is easy, in the case of a work like the Dialogue with a Persian, a theological dialogue displaying remarkable literary features, it is much more difficult.
The Dialogue is a theological work, but on occasion, it has almost novel-like qualities. Manuel’s entire oeuvre, be it a theological treatise, a letter or a prayer, reveals his remarkable interest in and penchant for literary aspects of writing: characterization, complex strategies of self-representation, imagery and metaphors. And it is in these elements that one can observe Manuel’s style as an author as well as his personal touches to the textual traditions. Thus, when attempting to discuss the emperor as an author one needs to study his complete body of work. How did the Byzantines themselves evaluate their texts? What would have made Manuel’s works ‘good’ in the eyes of his audience? Byzantine rhetorical manuals give us some insight into the Byzantines’ own criteria for their logoi.
These handbooks assign a more secondary role to aesthetics, and instead focus on the ethical and educational dimensions of a text. However, this does not mean that textual aesthetics did not matter; quite the contrary. This is also suggested by the common Byzantine association of painting or sculpture, with writing. Several significant criteria can be gleaned through rhetorical handbooks and the texts of several Byzantine authors, including Michael Psellos, Theodore Metochites and Demetrios Kydones.11 Notions such as gracefulness and charm (charis), clarity (saphenia), dignity (semnotes) and force (deinotes) dominate their criteria. These could be achieved by employing the appropriate style and form for the occasion, by harmonizing the sound, and by combining various rhetorical/ literary elements in a seamless, organic fashion.
An advisory oration, for instance, should have a persuasive and forceful style, and powerful and ear-catching sounds. Similarly, a work of history could charm by incorporating myths or allusions appropriate to the occasion. Along with the flow and rhythm of language, the sound harmony and the well-blended presentation of rhetorical/literary elements, the ideas presented and the emotional expression were of equal importance. Other important criteria included the ability to communicate many things with a few words and to choose the most appropriate style and form for each occasion. Thus, imagery, metaphors, allusions, puns, jokes or quotations were not meant to be piled upon each other indiscriminately, in the best cases they were chosen with care to fit the text; not merely adorning it but enriching its meaning.
All textual composition relied on the earlier models, devices and strategies found in rhetorical handbooks. However, many Byzantine authors introduced their own touches by deviating from set practices, altering and cancelling patterns, and by experimenting with and mixing various elements.12 An author could thus alternate forms, styles and produce variations on established devices such as commonplace imagery. In this way, if two Byzantine authors relying on the same pre-existing model were to compose, say, imperial orations on the same topic, they never produced identical works. The adherence to established forms and practices, moreover, did not mean that the Byzantines did not appreciate ‘personal’ touches and departures from tradition. Any variation, whether it pertained to textual structures or elements such as metaphors, was noted and appreciated.
This appreciation of variation can be seen in the comments made by many Byzantine authors who evaluated the ancient or contemporary authors. It has been proposed that looking at verse or prose rhythm, archaic or elated language, fiction, story-telling and the intent to charm, educate or entertain, is beneficial when studying Byzantine texts and their ‘literariness’. After all, such features clearly and consciously reveal a preoccupation with the literary. However, this leads to another debate that asks: what is the exact difference between a rhetorical device and a literary feature? And is there a strict division between the two? Characterization, sound patterns, imagery, metaphors and all other such devices were discussed in Byzantine rhetorical handbooks. Similarly, conveying ideas and feelings appropriate to a given text and occasion, setting the mood, or how to evoke the desired emotion, were explained in rhetorical manuals. Rhetoric was indeed the
foundation of the written Byzantine culture and it formed the basis for composing any text, be it an oration, a letter or a philosophical treatise. There was no Byzantine distinction between two; works were not sorted into different categories of ‘rhetorical’ and ‘literary’, indeed all texts were logoi. When the Byzantines spoke of rhetorical skill or art (rhetorike techne) and called each other rhetoricians, they referred to all aspects of textual composition and aesthetics. Some scholars may prefer to speak of ‘rhetorical skill’ or ‘rhetoricality’ when discussing any Byzantine text.
Still, there are many scholars who seem to acknowledge implicitly these above-mentioned elements as literary features – that is, as indicators of the ‘literariness’ of a given text. When looking at the scholarship on Byzantine literature, one can see textual features such as genre combination, imagery, puns, allusions, character portrayal, sound patterns or the evoking of specific feelings as discussed in relation to the literary aspects of texts. It is on the basis of these elements that scholars discuss ‘history-writing as literature’ or analyse the ‘literary’ style of letter writers.13
These features are discussed in Byzantine rhetorical handbooks, but modern scholars refer to them as ‘literary’. Furthermore, as previously pointed out, there was no strict distinction between a rhetorical device and a literary feature in a Byzantine context, or even between a rhetorical text and a literary one. For instance, ethopoiia, characterization, is seen as a form of rhetorical exercise and is listed as such in Byzantine handbooks. Yet it constitutes the basis of character portrayal not only in texts such as orations, but also in histories and romances – texts that are considered to be ‘literary’ by some scholars.
Thus, one might indeed refer to literary features when discussing Byzantine texts. Moreover, as previously mentioned, though all Byzantine authors based their text on earlier models and relied on rhetorical manuals, they did not merely reproduce an earlier exemplar or pile on various stylistic devices that they copied from such texts. When employing devices such as amplification, imagery or attempted to lend force or persuasiveness to their text, many Byzantine authors developed their own style and added their personal touches to the suggestions made in the rhetorical manuals. Although they share common sources, models and techniques, no two Byzantine
histories, letters, dialogues or orations are identical. The highly selective process of evaluation means that modern scholars have many subjective reasons for preferring one text or author over another, or finding one text to be more pleasing, moving, graceful, interesting or entertaining than another. The reasons for such preferences (for any text and author from any era) are elusive and subjective. But what becomes apparent is that by modifying, embellishing and combining various models, genres and the devices found in rhetorical manuals, Byzantine authors displayed literary merit and talent. For these reasons, while discussing Manuel’s works in this biography, I have opted to refer to devices such as imagery, metaphors, allusions, sound harmony or character portrayal as literary features.14 By employing these devices, Manuel displays his own style, personalizing the existing models and commonplaces.
His works are not mere pastiches of forms, ideas, emotions and images found it manuals or earlier texts; he exhibits creativity and a penchant for textual aesthetics. In my opinion, all these features help us to discern Manuel’s literary merit. Naturally, any such study of Manuel and his oeuvre is a subjective one. I am aware that there may be scholars who arrive at different assessments. Similarly, when evaluating an author and his/ her compositions, Byzantine literati did not have a strict and universal definition of what made an author or a text a ‘good’ one.
While their criteria relied on rhetorical handbooks, it was still a matter of personal taste.15 Ultimately, this biography seeks to present a portrait of Manuel as an author. This requires that we look at his complete oeuvre rather than a few select texts. Furthermore, when discussing themes such as Manuel’s ideas on the imperial office, his political use of his works or his attitude to the Church, all of his texts must come into the discussion. For instance, although the emperor’s well-known Funeral Oration is politically very charged, two works that deal chiefly with theological matters, the Dialogue with a Persian and the Epistolary Discourse to Iagoup, are equally laced with political statements.
If these works are omitted in a discussion of such themes, such as Manuel’s self-representation, his advertisement of his rule, or his views on the Church, the emerging picture will be limited and incomplete. In this attempt to explore Manuel as an author, this book focuses on select aspects. As many of his works have been now published and the aims of this study do not necessitate it, there are no in-depth analyses of his manuscripts and their production process.16
The emperor’s selfrepresentation strategies and their political goals will be a key and recurrent thread throughout this biography. How did Manuel fashion his selfportrait in his works, and what did he strive to achieve through selfrepresentation? Did he ever rely on previous models or adopt a specific persona under varying circumstances? What does his self-representation suggest about Manuel as an author and emperor? Some insights into Manuel’s literary style, including his imagery and metaphors, will also be provided. How did the emperor manifest his own literary style while also operating within the Byzantine tradition? How does he converge or diverge from established models and practices, such as text structures or commonplace imagery? In this regard, attention is paid to how he shaped his own self-portrait, as well as his imagery and metaphors, as I believe that these best reveal Manuel’s creativity and his literary merit.
Further analysis will focus on the allusions Manuel makes to classical authors in order to exhibit his wit and to suggest the presence of different layers of meaning. It has now been demonstrated that allusions or quotations were not mere ornamentation, but that they opened up new layers of meaning that are often lost on the modern reader, including jokes and subtle political statements. Such an analysis of Manuel’s works allows for a deeper understanding of the content and the intended meaning of the text. Manuel’s portrayal of others, including his family members and the Ottomans, will also be investigated, especially in the case of his dialogues.
How did he represent the people in his life and why? Can one gain an insight into Manuel’s relationships with his family, friends and foes through his portrayal of others? Finally, where appropriate, some comparisons are drawn between the emperor and his contemporaries, as well as between Byzantine authors from earlier periods. Ultimately, this biography seeks to make the case that Manuel deserves study not only because he was an emperor-author, but also because he was a gifted one. The discussion of some aspects of Manuel’s ethico-political and theological thought is another recurrent theme in this book. More recently, his Seven Ethico-Political Orations and the On the Procession of the Holy Spirit have been the subject of extensive commentaries by their respective editors, while several articles have explored his theological notions.
The works of Charalambos Dendrinos, John Demetracopoulos and Ioannis Polemis have greatly advanced our understanding of the emperor’s theological thought, and this work relies heavily on their studies. This biography traces Manuel’s ethico-political thought across his lifetime and in his complete oeuvre, including in his ‘non-philosophical’ works. Similarly, some key themes in his theological thought are highlighted. The main goal here is to trace some themes and patterns across his life, not to produce an in-depth analysis of each of his philosophical and theological works. An exploration of the emperor’s thought system is worthwhile, as his period witnessed significant philosophical and theological phenomena such as Palamism, increasing fluidity between Orthodox and Catholic theology and the rise of humanism.
In this regard, his friendship with pro-Latin figures such as Demetrios Kydones, his contacts with Gemistos Plethon, and various Italian scholars, have raised speculation as to whether Manuel shared similar views with them. These issues will be touched upon in this biography. Various other points of focus include Manuel’s blending of ancient philosophy and Christian thought, his stance towards Orthodoxy and Catholicism, his opinions on the relationship between theology and philosophy and finally, his interest in Aristotelian ethics. As in the case of the study of Byzantine literature, scholarship on Byzantine philosophy and theology has also transformed over the last decades. Recent studies have demonstrated that instead of merely preserving and transmitting classical philosophy, Byzantine authors actively engaged with these works. While tension between philosophy and Christianity did exist in Byzantium, this also resulted in distinctive blends of Christian, Platonic and Aristotelian thought.17 The recent scholarly work on Late Byzantine theology and fifteenth-century Palamism, is especially relevant for Manuel’s biography.18
It is within this scholarly framework that the emperor’s thought will be discussed. As this study is a biography and not a political narrative, the focus is on Manuel himself rather than on his reign. This book therefore offers a more personal portrait of Manuel as opposed to representing him as a distant figure who merely undertook political decisions and signed imperial documents. Through an in-depth analysis of his writings and other primary sources, I will try to gain an insight into the emperor’s personality, as well as his thoughts, feelings and reactions to events. At first glance, perhaps, such an endeavour might seem trivial. After all, Manuel’s childhood, family relationships, favourite pastimes or daily life can be seen as insignificant in the grander scheme of things, and these insights do not necessarily alter our understanding of his reign or of the corresponding period of Late Byzantine history. However, history is also about people, and not solely a string of political, socio-economic or cultural narratives.
This study of Manuel’s life will seek to breathe life into his biography and to flesh out his experiences and world. It goes without saying that the emperor’s works are of immense help in this undertaking; indeed, it is only their very existence that can enable this kind of study of Manuel. Although he has not left a stand-alone autobiography, many of his works have strong autobiographical elements.19 When analysing his writings, however, one must keep in mind that Manuel had his own literary goals, and that his oeuvre represents the emperor as he wished to be perceived by others. For instance, while an autobiography like Augustine’s famed Confessions provides ample material and facilitates a scholar’s task in writing a biography, it also poses challenges. It is, of course, not a faithful reflection of the individual, but a self-representation – that is, it is a reflection of how Augustine wished readers and posterity to perceive him.
Similarly, when analysing Manuel’s autobiographical narratives in works such as the Funeral Oration or the Discourse to Iagoup, one should bear in mind that we are looking at a carefully constructed presentation of his self and life. The emperor, too, like Augustine, portrayed his life as he wished his audience to perceive it. Consequently, in analysing autobiographical texts, both a ‘naïve’ acceptance of the account and total suspicion of the author, are limiting extremes. Rather, scholars should focus on how autobiography reveals the author and what this self-representation suggests about the individual. For a careful analysis of self-representation, how the author wished to be seen can also offer insight into his/her motives, ideas and desires.
As in Augustine’s case, the voice of Manuel that can be heard across his oeuvre is a constructed literary persona. One thus has to speak of selfrepresentation and not of self-revelation when analysing his writings. These works are not secret diaries into which Manuel poured out his soul or confided his secrets and private thoughts. The persona he presents to the audience is a carefully, deliberately fashioned, and very often, an idealized image of himself. His autobiographical incursions are likewise minutely moulded narratives with political messages. However, in an ironic twist, even analysing this constructed literary persona reveals something about Manuel: we see how he wished to be perceived by the others and why.
This in itself, offers us insights into the emperor. Through a careful analysis of his writings and self-representation, one gains invaluable glimpses into Manuel’s world, such as his relationships with family members, friends and rivals, his piety and his pastimes. Manuel’s writings do reflect his reactions to events and the world around him; sieges, civil wars, his travels and his experiences among the Ottomans. By relying on primary sources like letters and travellers’ accounts, as well as secondary bibliography, this book also seeks to flesh out Manuel’s world. We will envisage the surroundings and the everyday life of the emperor, trying to imagine his environment in Constantinople and other cities, his travels in Asia Minor and Europe, the conditions in the campaigns in which he participated, and his daily life in the palace, fashions and food.
The final goal of this study is to offer some novel discussion of Manuel as a ruler. However, this is a subsidiary theme of the book. His statesmanship has been discussed in-depth by John Barker. Yet as almost fifty years have passed since the publication of Barker’s monograph, many scholarly works on the socio-economic and political aspects of Manuel’s era have modified our understanding of the fourteenth and the fifteenthcenturies.20 The story of Manuel’s reign may thus benefit from an update through a look at these works. His rulership does not form a continuous thread of discussion in this biography, though it is thematically discussed in several instances. Despite its autobiographical aspects, Manuel’s rich oeuvre offers little help when studying his governance. He seldom refers to governmental affairs or to concrete political problems.
There are no surviving letters from him addressed to his imperial secretaries, and only a very few that are addressed to the members of his government or his envoys. This book therefore does not fuse Manuel’s authorship and governance into a single thread of discussion, but rather discusses their points of intersection. The historians narrating Manuel’s reign are likewise of little help in this endeavour, and the surviving official documents are meagre. However, by relying on the insights that can be gleaned from Manuel’s works, the Venetian senate deliberations and the emperor’s official documents, new dimensions may be added to the study of his rulership.
Biography: Uses and Approaches
By focusing on Manuel as an author and a personality through a depiction of his environment and experiences, this book will offer a different kind of biographical writing to the field of Byzantine studies: a more ‘personal’ biography as opposed to a political narrative.21 Indeed, monographs on Byzantine emperors are usually studies of their reigns and various aspects of their times.22 As a writer-emperor, not only does Manuel present a rare case, he also offers ample sources for biography. He is one of the few emperors, and Byzantines in general, for whom a more ‘personal’ biography is even possible.
The vast number and diverse nature of other primary sources also facilitates this task. Although not a wide-spread genre in Byzantine studies, biography has been widely used by scholars of antiquity and the medieval West as a genre of modern history writing. Recent decades have seen a further rise in the number of articles and edited volumes devoted to biography as an academic form; its uses, handicaps and challenges.23 Several influential examples of historical biography include those of Peter Abelard by Michael Clanchy, Augustine by Peter Brown and Frederick II by Ernst Kantorowicz.24 Special mention should also be made of The Merchant of Prato by Iris Origo, an influential and widely read biography of the fourteenth-century Italian merchant, Francesco Datini.25
Scholars of Western medieval history have produced countless other biographies of royalty, aristocracy and intellectuals. Indeed, its popularity as a genre can be connected to its versatility, which allows scholars to pursue a wide range of research interests in relation to one individual. Moreover, academic biographies are more likely to be accessible to a general audience, and this, too, contributes to their appeal for scholars. Although biography does possess a certain novelistic style and is arguably more accessible, it must be emphasized that it still is a way of reconstructing the past.
The biographer does not merely put sources together, but also analyses these and proposes original arguments. A biography is not a mere narration of a life-story, but a scholarly work that offers new interpretations and ideas pertaining to that individual and their times. By authoring a biography, historians not only narrate an individual’s life, but are also compelled to study the socio-political, economic and cultural history of the period. As the subject of the biography does not exist in a vacuum, but interacts with his or her historical context, and although they seem to focus on a single topic – that is, the individual life of the subject – biographies are in fact wider in scope than they might initially seem. Ultimately, the biographer must deal with a broad array of topics and disciplines, such as socio-political history, economics, cultural history, everyday life, art history or the history of a given geography, including the country or the city of the biography’s subject.
While on the surface, biographies may seem to be narrow and specific, the reality is far more complex. Consequently, biography not only allows scholars to investigate the life of an individual, but also to pursue their own interests. Naturally, the elements that are emphasized in a biography are not only decided by the scholar alone but are also determined by the nature of the sources to an extent. In this regard, the indispensability of written sources must be emphasized. Although archaeology and material culture offer many insights that cannot be gleaned from other sources, this book relies on written sources to sketch a biography. As for choosing the focus of one’s study, the following examples may be illuminating. For instance, Peter Brown focused on Augustine’s representation of the self, his relationship with his homeland in Hippo Regius and religion in society. In Abelard’s biography, Michel Clanchy emphasizes the love story between Abelard and Heloise, investigating their letters and Abelard’s self- representation.
Writing the biography of the saint king of France, Louis IX, Jacques le Goff lacks such autobiographical material, and instead relies on the medieval biographies of the king.26 He focuses on the representation of Louis as a king and a saint. The biography also allows Le Goff to pursue his other interests influenced by the Annales school, such as the long-durée, space and histoire des méntalities. In contrast, thanks to the diaries and letters of Francesco Datini, Iris Origo focuses on the everyday life and the consumption of the merchant; namely, his household items, business interests and his relationship with his wife. It is also possible to write a biography that challenges the scholarly perception – positive or negative – of an individual.
One example of this can be seen in David Abulafia’s work on Frederick II, who was already the subject of several biographies. In his work, Abulafia seeks to demonstrate that Frederick was not the ‘great’ emperor that often appears in scholarship, but rather that he had built on his father’s legacy.27 In this regard, biography is also a selective study since the scholar chooses which aspects he or she wants to emphasize. Again, although this is a highly subjective decision, it is also influenced by the available sources. Similarly, one may choose to focus on Manuel as author or as a statesman, or even to write an intellectual biography of the emperor as a philosopher and theologian. This biographical selectiveness is moreover determined by the concerns of available space. After all, it is not possible to touch on all aspects or to narrate everything in any individual’s life.
Structuring Manuel’s Biography This biography poses several challenges relating to its structuring and content. As the study of a complex and rich life-story, it does not focus on a single topic or thesis, but weaves together several strands of different themes. After examining various models, I have decided to opt for a chronological narrative, embedding my analysis of Manuel’s works and the discussion of other issues into this narrative. With regards to the chapter organization, each section will deal with different chronological parts of Manuel’s life, tracing him from his birth until his death. I did not adopt separate treatments of Manuel’s different faces as a ruler, a writer and a personality, as I felt that it would artificially split his multi-faceted persona and disrupt the narrative of his eventful life.
Moreover, in my view what makes Manuel such an intriguing figure is the interlinking of many simultaneous events and his works, his ruling and his personal life, and thus a chronological approach fits his life-story best. This chosen structure calls for a careful blending of analysis and discussion in order to form a narrative history. While chiefly chronological, I have also inserted thematic topics, such as Constantinople or Manuel’s rulership, into appropriate places in the narrative. Although this is a scholarly study, the biography also needs to read as a life story and thus I do not employ an overly argumentative style, such as openly refuting or confirming scholarly theories. My discussions and arguments are instead embedded in the narrative.
Similarly, in order to avoid disrupting the flow of the narrative, I did not include methodological discussions in the main text – such as various approaches to Byzantine literature. References are given as footnotes in order to facilitate the reader’s consultation of the sources and the quotations of foreign languages. This format is also necessitated by the fact that the notes incorporate supplementary arguments and discussions that could not be incorporated into the main text. A balance between the discussions of Manuel’s writings and personality, and that of his reign and other issues, also has to be maintained. Since a biography is a study of the individual, it is important that the focus remains on Manuel and that the discussions of his reign, surroundings and time are balanced to enrich the background.
The biography cannot offer in-depth insights of every aspect of Manuel’s reign or era; that would require a Palaiologan encyclopaedia. On the other hand, it is important to place Manuel in his socio-political and historical context, especially because as an emperor and a writer, his biography is an important part of larger Byzantine political and literary history. Despite the fact that this book has an emperor at its core, as a biography it focuses on Manuel and his oeuvre – in other words, it is not intended as a Late Palaiologan political, socio-economic or cultural narrative.
Sources and Notes on Style For Manuel’s biography, the primary source material is extremely rich and diverse: histories and chronicles, Byzantine literary, philosophical and theological works, official documents, traveller accounts, Western European histories and document collections, and Ottoman chronicles. The languages used in these materials range from Greek and Latin to Ottoman Turkish, medieval English, French, Italian and Catalan. The analysis of these primary sources poses many challenges both on account of their vast number and nature. In Manuel’s case, unlike the Western medieval kings or saints, no contemporary biography exists, and the available material gives little information as to his personality or private life.
For similar reasons, it is often difficult to gain an insight into the other people in Manuel’s life. The biographer thus has to be careful when deciding if and how these ‘gaps’ should be filled. It is important to select the most relevant sources from the vast material that exists, as well as to carefully analyse the influence of the text’s agenda and bias on the portraiture of Manuel and the events. This book relies mostly on textual sources, supported by scholarly studies on material culture and archaeology. Art history and numismatics will seldom be touched upon, as I am not a material culture specialist. Further, as the textual sources are voluminous and Manuel’s life-story is densely packed, considerations of space also contributed to this decision.
As discussed previously, the emperor’s own oeuvre forms the core of his biography. These compositions require a careful and nuanced analysis of Manuel’s constructed literary persona and his own idealized accounts of his life. Yet this multi-layered analysis allows him to emerge further as a complex and engaging individual. The works of the Byzantine literati in the period, form another significant category of sources. Among this vast corpus, one can include the Sources and Notes on Style etters and orations of Demetrios Kydones, works of Manuel and Demetrios Chrysoloras, sermons of Isidore Glabas, letters of Manuel Kalekas, sermons and liturgical works of Symeon of Thessalonike, theological works by Makarios Makres and Joseph Bryennios, as well as the treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit by Makarios of Ankyra. As in the case of Manuel’s writings, these sources, too, need to be analysed carefully.
Like the emperor, all these authors had their literary, political and social goals in composing these works. The context of composition thus has to be taken into account in their interpretation. Where appropriate, their work is occasionally compared to that of Manuel in order to reach a more detailed assessment of Manuel as an author. However, in this biography, these sources are secondary to Manuel’s own oeuvre and are not discussed in equal depth or length. Many of these works require separate articles, even books, in order to be explored fully and is it not possible to do justice to this here. In short, they are consulted here in order to supplement the emperor’s own works and other sources.
Byzantine histories and chronicles are indispensable for the study of the period to the study of Manuel as an emperor. Although two historians who dealt with Manuel’s reign, Michael Doukas and Laonikos Chalkokondyles, were not exact contemporaries, their work is nevertheless informative. Both authors wrote in mid- to late fifteenth centuries, after the fall of the empire. While they are our chief historical accounts for the reign of Manuel, both accounts have chronological confusion, mistakes and omissions of several episodes.28 The account of George Sphrantzes, a member of the courts of Manuel, John VIII and Constantine IX, also contains valuable information. Yet it deals only with the years after Manuel’s return from Europe in 1403, and Manuel’s reign constitutes a minor part of Sphrantzes’ work. Moreover, Sphranztes is clearly biased in favour of Manuel and against his son John VIII.
The short chronicles published by Peter Schreiner are equally crucial for Manuel’s reign. They supplement the information given by the above-mentioned fifteenth-century historians, as well as in some cases, they are the only source to mention certain events. In order to construct a narrative of Manuel’s life, the historian needs to combine and reconcile all these accounts. The histories of Kantakouzenos and Gregoras are also briefly relied upon while investigating Manuel’s childhood and early youth. As in the case of the works of the literati, who had their own agendas, the histories and chronicles, too, require careful analysis. Finally, Byzantine monastic documents are used while discussing some aspects of Manuel’s rulership. Since Manuel had extensive dealings with Europe, both on account of the political situation and his travels in Europe, Western sources also provide ample material for Manuel’s biography.
For instance, the anonymous biography of Mareschal Boucicaut, French nobleman and commander, is an informative source for the discussion of the blockade of Constantinople in 1396–1402. Italian chroniclers such as Marino Sanudo the Younger, Rafaino Caresini and Giorgio Stella also offer valuable information both about Byzantine politics and Manuel’s voyage to Europe. Manuel’s journey is recorded by both English and French sources, most notably by Adam of Usk and Thomas Walsingham for the English side; and by the Chronicle of Saint Denis and Jean Juvenal Ursins for the French. These sources not only provide information on chronology and events, they also offer their own representation of Manuel.
The deliberations of the Venetian senate, summarized by Freddy Thiriet, Nicholae Iorga and Julian Chrysostomides, form the basis of the discussions of the politics during Manuel’s reign. They offer far more concrete information than the Byzantine historians. Papal bulls provide further insight into the political situation of the period. Once more, Manuel’s biography requires the synthesis of all these sources written in Latin, medieval French, English, Italian and Catalan. In relation to Western histories and documentary sources, special mention must be made of travellers’ accounts. Thanks to the increasing contact between Byzantium and foreign polities, Manuel’s reign was touched upon in many travellers’ accounts.
One of the most important of these writers is Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, a diplomat who visited Constantinople in 1402 on his way to the court of Tamerlane. The account of Johannes Schiltberger, a German knight who was captured at Nikopolis in 1396 by the Ottomans, also provides very valuable material. The Russian pilgrim Ignatius of Smolensk is yet another significant source. Having visited Constantinople in 1390–2, he is an eyewitness to the revolt of John VII and to Manuel’s coronation. These travellers’ accounts also help the biographer to flesh out Manuel’s world through the details they give about Constantinople and the life in the city, as well as providing glimpses into the emperor’s daily life. Albeit to a lesser extent, Ottoman chronicles are also relied upon in this biography. The earliest Ottoman chronicles survive from the later fifteenth century, one notable exception being the Ahvâl-ı Sultan Mehemmed Han completed in the 1410s.
The later chronicles of Aşıkpaşazade, Neşri and various anonymous chronicles (Tevârîh-I Âl-i Osman) still provide some information for Manuel’s reign. However, they can only be used as sources ‘supplementary’ to the Byzantine and Western ones. The study of these chronicles are complicated with regards to their sources and their textual relationship with each other. For instance, both Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri contain material attributed to the lost work of Yahşi Fakih and the anonymous chronicles as well as other earlier sources.
The early Ottoman chronicles also exist in different versions. Their creation was thus a process of copying, compiling and altering the texts to serve the chronicler’s own purposes. Furthermore, since they were written in the fifteenth century, the chronicles reflect the so-called ghazi ideology of the period, portraying the early Ottomans as the ideal warriors of Islam who relentlessly fought against the ‘infidel’ Christians. In most cases, the Byzantine involvement in Ottoman politics and the collaboration between the two, are completely marginalized.29 The role played by the Ottoman chronicles in Manuel’s biography is therefore helpful, but not extensive.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق