Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/938

924 MANUEL. his rank ; but his prayers for assistance were in vain, and he returned to Constantinople in 1402, at a moment when a great political crisis made his presence most necessary. During his absence, John reigned with absolute power, having obtained his recognition from Bayazid, on conditions which show the state of lielpless weakness into which the small remnant of the Byzantine empire was sunk. At that period there were already three mosques in Constantinople, where a numerous Mohammedan population enjoyed the free exercise of their reli- gion. To these John was compelled to add a fourth ; and besides, the sultan obtained the privi- lege of establishing in the capital a " mehkeme," or court of justice, where a Turkish " kadi," or judge, administered justice in the name of the Bultan, who increased the number of Mohammedans by settling a numerous colony of Turkmans at Kiniki, a borough in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople. A yearly tribute of 10,000 ducats was added as another condition. Considering Constantinople a prey which he could seize at the first opportunity, Bayazid re- solved, first to subdue Greece, the greater part of which was then governed by Latin princes, among whom the dukes of Delphi and Athens were the principal. Greece was an easy conquest, and Athens, which the Turks still called the city of philosophers, became for some lime the seat of a Turkish pasha. The fall of Constantinople now seerned to be inevitable, and Bayazid had already assembled an army for its speedy reduction, when the great Timur invaded Asia Minor with a count- less host. At Angora (1402) the Turkish army was annihilated by the Tatar ; and Bayazid, with his son Musa, fell into the hands of the victor. This unexpected event saved Manuel. Bayazid died soon after his captivity ; and Timur, who left Asia Minor for the purpose of conquering China, died in 1405. Meanwhile, the sons of Bayazid seized each a portion of their father's empire ; and the Tatar having withdrawn from Asia Minor, a civil war broke out between the Turkish princes, which ended in the undisputed government of prince Mohammed, the first of the sultans of that name (1415). During these disturbances Manuel acted with diplomatic skill : he first removed his nephew, John, from the government ; and per- ceiving the rising fortune of Mohammed, joined him ; and in 1413 he contributed to the defeat and death of prince Musa, who had succeeded his brother Suleiman, in 1410, in the government of European Turkey. In reward for his assistance, Manuel received from Mohammed several places on the Euxine, Thessalonica and its territory, and several districts in the Peloponnesus. The latter part of the reign of Manuel was quiet. Still hoping that the Western princes would finally unite for the purpose of putting an end to the Turkish dominion and restoring the Greek empire, he sent ambassadors to the Council of Constance with seeming instructions to effect a union of the Latin and Greek churches. But his real intentions were quite different ; he never earnestly wished for such an union ; and Phranza (ii. 13) was wit- ness when the emperor openly said that he nego- tiated with the Western princes for no other purpose but causing fear to the Turks. This was well known in Europe ; and while Greek fickleness and duplicity prevented a cordial under- standing between the East and the West, it be- MANUEL. came one of the principal causes of the destruction of the Greek empire. Manuel died in 1425, at the age of 77, and was succeeded by his eldest son John (VIL), whom he had by his wife Irene, daughter of Constantine Dragas, and whom he created co-emperor in 1419. (Laonic. i. 2 ; Ducas, c. 12— 15 ; Phranza, i. 16, &c.) [W. P.] MANUEL (Maj/oinjA.), literary and ecclesias- tical. 1. Of Byzantium. Among the writers enu- merated by Joannes Scylitzes Curopalates, who lived in the latter part of the eleventh century, in the commencement of his SuVoil/ts laropiay, as having written on historical subjects, but in a very imperfect manner, after Theophanes, is Manuel of Byzantium. It is probable that he was of very inferior reputation even in the days of Scylitzes, as Cedrenus (p. 2, ed. Paris, vol. i. p. 2, ed. Bonn), in transcribing the passage, does not mention his name, but comprehends him under the somewhat contemptuous terra ot onro BvCdpTioi, " the other Byzantines." 2. Bryennius. [Bryennius.] 3. Calecas. [Calecas.] 4. Charitopulus (o Xaptrc^TrouAos), or Saran- TENUS (o 2apavTr)v6s), or the PiiiLOSOPHER, a Greek ecclesiastic of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, acquired a high reputation by his phi- losophical attainments. He was appointed patriarch of Constantinople on the death of Maximus II., which occurred in A. D. 1215, and held the patri- archate for five years and seven months, dying about the middle of A. D. 1221. Three synodal decrees of a Manuel, patriarch of Constantinople, are given in the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leun- clavius (lib. iii. p. 238, &c.), who assigns them to Charitopulus, and is followed by Cave and Oudin, who have confounded Charitopulus with another Manuel [No. 7]. Le Quien objects to this judg- ment of Leunclavius, as not founded on evidence ; and with better reason adjudges them to Manuel II. Ephraem of Constantinople celebrates Charitopulus as </)uAa| aKpiSrjs Kal vofiuv kou Kavovwv^ " an exact observer of the laws and canons." (Georg. Acro- polit. Annul, c. 19, p. 17, ed. Paris, p. 35, ed. Bonn ; Ephraem. de PatriarcMs CP. vs. 10251, ed. Bonn ; Anonymus (supposed by some to be Niceph. Callist.), de Palriarchis CPolitanis Car- men lambicuiriy and Patriarcliae CPoleos^ apud Labbe, de Histor. Dyzant. Scriptorib. TlpoTpeiTTiK6v; Le Quien, Oriens Chrisiianus, oL i. col. 278 ; Cave, Hint. Litt. ad ann. 1240, vol. ii. p. 297, ed. Ox- ford, 1740 — 42 ; Oudin, Comment, de Scriptorib, et Scriptis Eccles. vol. iii. col. 177.) 5. Chrysoloras. [Chrysoloras.] 6. Of Constantinople, 1. [No. 4.] 7. Of Constantinople, 2. There were two Manuels patriarchs of Constantinople, Manuel I. Charitopulus [No. 4.] and Manuel II., the subject of the present article. Cave, Oudin, and others, seem to have confounded the two, for they state that Manuel Charitopulus succeeded Gernianus II. [Germanus, No. 8J in a. d. 1240. Charitopulus was the predecessor of Germanus, not his successor; Manuel II. was his successor, though not imme- diately, for the brief patriarchate of Methodius II. and a vacancy in the see, of considerable but un- certain length, intervened. Manuel's death is distinctly fixed as having occurred two months before that of the emperor Joannes Ducas Vatiitzes [Joannes III.], which occurred 30th Oct. a. d. i