Manuel

(Μανουὴλ ὁ Κομνηνός), emperor of Constantinople A. D. 1143-1181, the fourth child and son of the emperor Calo-Joannes (Joannes II.), was born about A. D. 1120, and succeeded his father in 1143. Of his three elder brothers, Alexis and Andronicus had both died before their father; but the third, Isaac Sebastocrator, was still alive, and would have had better claims to the crown than Manuel, but for a special declaration of the late emperor, who preferred the younger to the elder on account of his martial qualities. Manuel was with his father when the latter lost his life through an accident in Cilicia; and fears were entertained that Isaac, who was then in Constantinople, would seize the supreme power. But no sooner had John expired than the faithful minister, Axuch, hastened to the capital, seized Isaac, confined him in a prison, and succeeded in causing Manuel to be recognized in Constantinople, where he met with a brilliant reception, on his arrival from Cilicia, a short time afterwards. Manuel was scarcely seated on his throne, when he was involved in an uninterrupted series of wars with the nations of the East as well as the West, in which, though not always successful, he distinguished himself so much by his undaunted courage and heroic deeds as to deserve the name of the greatest hero of a time when there was no lack of extraordinary achievements in the field. The discovery that his brother Isaac seemed not to entertain ambitious designs, and the re-establishment of a good understanding between the two brothers, allowed Manuel to devote himself entirely to the conduct of his wars and to those endless intrigues and negotiations in which he found himself involved. As early as 1144 his general, Demetrius Branas, forced Raymond, the Latin prince of Antioch, who had shaken off his allegiance towards the emperor, to submit to Greek valour, and to renew, in Constantinople, the bonds of his vassalship. In the following year Manuel set out against the Turks, who had invaded Isauria, defeated them in several pitched battles, and cast such a terror among the Turkish soldiers, that they would no longer keep the field; whereupon peace was concluded to the advantage of the victor. About this time Manuel found reason to distrust his brother Isaac, who was deprived of his title of Sebastocrator; but as there was no direct evidence of treason against him, he was allowed to live on condition of retiring into a convent, where he spent the rest of his life. In the same year, 1147, Manuel received information from king Louis VII. of France, that the Western princes, headed by the king and the emperor Conrad III. of Germany, had resolved upon a new crusade, and desired his alliance. Manuel promised it, but gave secret information of the approaching storm to the Turks. Nevertheless he allowed Conrad to pass through his dominions with a vast army, and subsequently the French king also.

While the Crusaders were fighting with the Turks, Manuel was involved in a war with Roger, the Norman king of Sicily, who possessed likewise a large portion of Southern Italy, and who, thinking that the new crusade would prevent the Greek emperor from maintaining great forces in Europe, prepared for an invasion of Greece. This war, which broke out in 1148, is by far the most remarkable in the history of Manuel, who, however, did not engage in it alone, but found an ally in the republic of Venice. Marching at the head of his veterans towards Macedonia, he was informed, while at Philippopolis, that the Patzenegnes had crossed the Danube, probably excited by king Roger. Without hesitating a moment, Manuel wheeled to the right, fell upon the barbarians, drove them back into the Dacian wildernesses; and after receiving hostages for their future good behaviour, returned with rapid marches towards Macedonia. embarked at Thessalonica, and landed his host in Corfu before the end of the year. There he was joined by a Venetian army. The fortress of Corfu yielded to him after an obstinate and protracted siege, signalised by the death of his brotherin-law, Stephanus Contostephanus, Magnus Dux, who was succeeded in the command by the faithful Axuch. The surrender of that important fortress was delayed by a bloody quarrel which broke out between the Greeks and the Venetians. In this siege Manuel was foremost among those who stormed the town; and his fleet having one day made several fruitless attempts to drive the Sicilians from some outworks near the sea, he put himself on the poop of a galley, and cheered his men on while showers of arrows and other missiles came down upon the spot where he stood. His boldness excited the admiration of the Sicilians, who ceased for a moment to make him the aim of their weapons. They would, however, soon have despatched him but for the voice of their commander, who cried out that it would be dishonourable to kill an hero like Manuel. The emperor intended to attack Roger within his own dominions, but the crafty Norman enticed the Servians and Hungarians to make a diversion on the Danube. The former were vanquished in two campaigns, when they begged for peace; and the Hungarian war lasted till 1152, when their king, Geisa, after having been beaten in many pitched battles, promised to desist from molesting the empire. The peace, however, was of short duration. In the same year, 1152, Manuel experienced a repulse in a war with the Turks in Cilicia; but in Italy his armies met with glorious success. The Greeks having landed in Italy, took Brundusium, Bari, and other places of importance; the fleet of the Sicilians was defeated in several decisive engagements; and it seemed that John Ducas, the gallant commander-in-chief of the Greeks, would find no more obstacles in re-uniting Southern Italy with the Byzantine empire. The sanguine hopes of Manuel were blighted by William, the successor of king Roger, who fell upon Alexis Comnenus, the successor of John Ducas; and after a severe struggle, routed the Greeks. At the same time the Greek fleet was defeated off Negropont; and Maius, the Sicilian admiral, sailed without loss of time for Constantinople, where he landed a considerable force. The inhabitants were thrown into the utmost consternation; but their fears soon ceased, since Maius was not strong enough to attempt any thing of importance, and consequently sailed home, satisfied with some booty and captives. These checks produced a great effect upon the mind of Manuel, who, having received a very noble letter from king William, with offers of an honourable peace, accepted the proposition, and thus this memorable war terminated in 1155. The conquests on both sides were given back, as well as all the captives, except those Greeks taken by the Sicilians who were silk-weavers, and who were to remain in Italy, where they laid the foundation of the flourishing state of Italian silk manufactures. The following years were signalised by hostilities with Raymond, prince of Antioch, who was soon brought to obedience; and Az-ed-din, the Turkish Sultan, who met with no better success, and went to Constantinople to sue for peace.

The tranquillity of Asia was no sooner settled, than a new and terrible war broke out in the north. King Geisa of Hungary fancied that the forces of the empire were exhausted by protracted warfare, and accordingly crossed the Danube. Manuel intended to lead his armies in person, but he yielded to the entreaties of his subjects and his ministers, who wanted a firm head in the capital during the approaching storm; and the command of the army was consequently entrusted to Andronicus Contostephanus. Under Andronicus were Andronicus Lampados, Andronicus Comnenus, and Demetrius and Georgius Branas. The armies met not far from Zeugminum, the present Semlin; and after one of the most bloody and obstinate contests recorded in history, in which Demetrius Branas was slain, and the left wing of the Greeks completely routed, Andronicus Contostephanus at last carried the day. So terrible was the loss of the Hungarians, that king Geisa sued for immediate peace, which was granted to him; and during a considerable period the Byzantine influence was so great in Hungary as to cause to its inhabitants great uneasiness for their further independence. A few years afterwards Manuel set out for Asia, and in an interview with king Amalric, who had just come to the throne, and intended to persuade Manuel to send him some auxiliaries for an expedition into Egypt, Manuel accepted the proposition with joy; but instead of a subordinate force, he equipped a fleet of 220 large ships, with a sufficient army on board, under the command of Andronicus Contostephanus (1169). When this powerful armament appeared off Ascalon it excited the jealousy of Amalric, who was justly afraid that his share in the projected conquests would not answer his expectation; and this jealousy gradually instilling itself into the minds of all the party, became the cause of the final failure of the whole undertaking. The combined Latin and Greek forces marched by land upon Damietta, where the fleet appeared soon afterwards. The siege was long; but the town was at last reduced to such extremity, that everybody expected its hourly surrender, when the treachery of either Amalric himself or one of his generals obliged the assailants to raise the siege and retreat into Palestine. In order to clear himself from any blame, Amalric went to Constantinople, where he met with a splendid reception from Manuel, who was ready to join him in a second expedition, when he was unexpectedly involved in two wars, with the Venetians and the Turks. In 1176 Manuel suffered a dreadful defeat near Myriocephalus from Sultan Az-ed-din, in spite of his almost incredible personal valour, and completely surrounded by superior forces, was comnpelled to make a dishonourable peace, promising, among other conditions, to raze the fortresses of Sableium and Dorylaeum (1176). * Roger de Hoveden, the English historian, was present at this battle, serving as a volunteer in the Grtek army. Anxious to revenge himself for such unexpected disgrace, Manuel broke the peace, and the war was renewed this time with better success for the Greeks, who routed Az-ed-din in Lydia, and finally obtained an honourable peace (1177). Manuel now proposed to the emperor Frederic an alliance against king Henry of Sicily, whom he intended to deprive of all his dominions; but the negotiations to that effect were carried on slowly; and it seemed that Manuel had lost his former energy. In fact, the defeat at Myriocephalus preyed upon his mind; his strength was undermined by a slow fever; and in the spring of 1180 he was compelled to keep to his bed, from which he never rose again. After a painful and long illness, he died on the 24th of September following, at the age of sixty. The reign of Manuel was glorious, yet presents nothing but an uninterrupted series of bloodshed and devastation. Manuel was perhaps the greatest warrior of his time, but he was far from being a great general. When young he was virtuous, but after he had ascended the throne he plunged into all those vices by which the Greeks, and especially the Comnenian family, disgraced themselves. He oppressed his subjects by heavy war-taxes, yet he did not pay his troops, though he gave large pensions to ministers or other men of influence at foreign courts, where he was constantly intriguing. He is said to have been deeply versed in theology, but was certainly rather a great talker than a great thinker on religion. His first wife was Bertha (Irene), niece of Conrad III., emperor of Germany; and his second Maria (Xene), daughter of Raymend, prince of Antioch. His concubinage with his niece, Theodora Comnena, was a great disgrace to him. He was succeeded by his only son, Alexis II. (Cinnam. lib. i. iv.; Nicet. lib. ii. iii.; Guill. Tyrensis, lib. xvi. We have more Latin or Western than Byzantine sources on the history of the time.) [W.P]

(Μανουήλ ὁ Παλαιολόγος), emperor of Constantinople A. D. 1391-1425, was the son of the emperor John VI., in whose life is related the history of Manuel previous to his sole accession, which took place on the death of John, in A. D. 1391. Manuel was then an hostage at the court of sultan Bayazid, but no sooner was he informed of the death of his father, than he escaped from Nicaea, and hastened to Constantinople, fearing lest his brother Andronicus should seize the crown. His flight enraged the sultan, who, without declaring war, advanced with his main army against Constantinople, and laid siege to it, swearing he would not retire till he had taken the city, and put the emperor to death. In this extremity Manuel implored the assistance of the Western princes, with whom he had constant negotiations: his efforts were crowned with success, inasmuch as a powerful army, composed of Hungarians, Germans, and French, headed by the flower of European chivalry and nobility, appeared on the Turkish frontier, and obliged Bayazid to raise the siege, and defend his own kingdom. The unfortunate battle of Nicopolis, in 1396, where the allies were routed, and 10,000 of them, who were taken prisoners, massacred by the victors on the field of battle, seemed to be the signal for the final destruction of the Greek empire, for no sooner had Bayazid obtained that decisive victory on the banks of the Danube, than he changed the blockade of Constantinople into a close siege. The obstinate resistance of the inhabitants, and the attention which the sultan was obliged to pay to the appreaching danger arising from the conquests of Timur, delayed the surrender of the Greek capital; and after a blockade and siege of nearly six years, the belligerent parties came to terms. Manuel turned the friendship of Bayazid for John, the son of the blinded Andronicus, to his own advantage. He gave his nephew the government of Constantinople, reserving for himself the Peloponnesus, whither he proceeded with his family, and then set out for Europe, to beg succour from the Western princes. Italy, France, and Germany, received the imperial suppliant with all the honours due to 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 helpless 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 religion. To these John was compelled to add a fourth; and besides, the sultan obtained the privilege of establishing in the capital a " mehkeme," or court of justice, where a Turkish " kadi," or judge, administered justice in the name of the sultan, 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 resolved, 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 time the seat of a Turkish pasha. The fall of Constantinople now seemed to be inevitable, and Bayazid had already assembled an army for its speedy reduction, when the great Timur invaded Asia Minor with a countless 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 perceiving 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 (2.13) was witness when the emperor openly said that he negotiated 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 understanding between the East and the West, it became 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 (VII.), whom he had by his wife Irene, daughter of Constantine Dragas, and whom he created co-emperor in 1419. (Laonic. 1.2; Ducas, 100.12-15; Phranza, 1.16, &c.) [W.P]

(Μανουήλ), literary and ecclesiastical.

1. Of Byzantium. Among the writers enumerated by Joannes Scylitzes Curopalates, who lived in the latter part of the eleventh century, in the commencement of his Σύνοψις ἱστοριῶν, 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 term οἱ λοιποὶ Βυζάντιοι, "the other Byzantines."

2. Bryennius. [Bryennius.]

3. Calecas. [Calecas.]

4. Charitopulus (ὁ Χαριτόπουλος), or Sarantenus (ὁ Σαραντηνός), or the Philosopher, a Greek ecclesiastic of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, acquired a high reputation by his philosophical 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 Leunclavius (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 judgment of Leunclavius, as not founded on evidence; and with better reason adjudges them to Manuel II. Ephraem of Constantinople celebrates Charitopulus as Φύλαξ ἀκριβὴς καὶ νόμων καὶ κανόνων, " an exact observer of the laws and canons." (Georg. Acropolit. Annal. 100.19, p. 17, ed. Paris, p. 35, ed. Bonn; Ephraem. de Patriarchis CP. vs. 10251, ed. Bonn; Anonymus (supposed by some to be Niceph. Callist.), de Patriarchis CPolitanis Carmen Iambicum, and Patriarchae CPoleos, apud Labbe, de Histor. Byzant. Scriptorib. Προτρεπτικόν ; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. i. col. 278; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 1240, vol. ii. p. 297, ed. Oxford, 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 Germanus II. [Germanus, No. 8] in A. D. 1240. Charitopulus was the predecessor of Germanus, not his successor; Manuel II. was his successor, though not immediately, for the brief patriarchate of Methodius II. and a vacancy in the see, of considerable but uncertain length, intervened. Manuel's death is distinctly fixed as having occurred two months before that of the emperor Joannes Ducas Vatatzes [Joannes III.], which occurred 30th Oct. A. D. 1255. The duration of his patriarchate is fixed by Nicephorus Callisti, according to Le Quien, at eleven years, but the table in the Protrepticon of Labbe assigns to him fourteen years; so that A. D. 1241 or 1244 will be assumed as the year of his accession, according as one or the other of these authorities is preferred. Manuel held, before his patriarchate, a high place among the ecclesiastics of the Byzantine court then fixed at Nice, and was reputed a man of piety and holiness " though married," and of mild and gentle disposition, but by no means learned. The three Sentenliae Synodales of the patriarch Manuel, given in the Jus Graeco-Romanum, undoubtedly belong to this patriarch, not to Charitopulus [see No. 4], for the second of them, De Translatione Episcoporum, is expressly dated July, Indict. 8, A. M. 6758, era of Constant. = A. D. 1250. Some works in MS., especially a letter to pope Innocent, by " Manuel Patriarcha CPol.," probably belong to the subject of this article. (Georg. Acropolit. Annual. 100.42, 51, 52, 53, pp. 39, 54, 56, 57, ed. Paris, pp. 77, 107, 110, 112, ed. Bonn; Ephraem. de Joan. Duca. Vatatze, vs. 8860; De Theod. Duca. Lascare, vs. 8922; De Patriarch. CP. vs. 10.267, &c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. vol. i. col. 279; Cave and Oudin, as in No. 4; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 668.)

8. Holobolus (Ὁλόβωλος), a Byzantine writer of the latter part of the thirteenth century.

When the ambitious Michael Palaeologus [Michael VIII.] deprived his youthful colleague Joannes Lascaris [Joannes IV.] of his eyes and his share in the empire, and sent him into banishment about A. D. 1261 or 1262, Holobolus, then a lad pursuing his studies, was cruelly mutilated by order of Michael, his nose and lips being cut off, because he had expressed grief at the treatment of the young emperor. The mutilated lad was confined to the monastery of the Precursor (τοῦ προδρόμου), where having excellent abilities and good opportunity, he pursued his studies with such success, that the patriarch Germanus III. of Constantinople [Germanus, No. 8], shortly after his accession to the patriarchate, A. D. 1267, procured him to be appointed master of the school for the instruction of young ecclesiastics, and prevailed upon the emperor to remit his punishment, and allow him to quit the monastery. The patriarch also conferred upon him the ecclesiastical office of rhetor, reader and expounder of the Scriptures, and showed him much kindness. When the emperor formed the design of a reconciliation of the Greek and Latin churches, Holobolus was one of the ecclesiastics of whose counsels he availed himself. Holobolus, however, did not enter very heartily into the business; and, having been hurt by a slight offered him by the emperor, he changed sides, and when called upon to give his opinion in a synod at Constantinople, declared against the plan of reconciliation altogether. This drew from the emperor, who was present, an outburst of reproach; to which the angry ecclesiastic gave so blunt and undaunted a reply, that he was near being torn to pieces by the courtiers who surrounded the emperor. He took sanctuary in the great church, but being taken from thence, was banished to the monastery of Hyacinthus at Nice, A. D. 1273. Before long he was brought back to Constantinople, cruelly beaten, and paraded with various circumstances of ignominy through the streets. In A. D. 1283, after the accession of Andronicus II. Palaeologus, son of Michael, who pursued with respect to the union of the churches an opposite policy to that of his father, Holobolus appeared in the synod of Constantinople, in which Joannes Veccus [Veccus] was deposed from the patriarchate of Constantinople, and he took part in the subsequent disputations with that chief of the Latinizing party. Little else is known of Holobolus (Georg. Pachym. de Mich. Palueol. 3.11, 4.14, 5.12, 20; De Andron. Palaeol. 1.8, 34, 35.) Works Versus Politici in Michaelem Palaeologum

Holobolus wrote Versus Politici in Michaelem Palaeologum, cited in the Glossarium in Scriptores Med. et Infim. Graecitatis of Ducange, s. v. Ῥήτωρ. These are probably the same verses which are extant in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, under the title of Versus Politici XXV. de Vanitate omnium Rerum. 2. The Ἑπμηνεῖαι, Scholia in Aram Dosiadae

This may be probably ascribed to our Holobolus. Editions

Published by Valcknaer, in the Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum Dramatum Reliquias (c. xii.), subjoined to his editio of the Hippolytus of Euripides (4to. Leyden, 1768)may be probably ascribed to our Holobolus. Apologia ad Erotemata Francisci Ordinis Praedicatorum Monachi

The Apologia ad Erotemata Francisci Ordinis Praedicatorum Monachi appears to be by a later writer described as "Manuel Rhetor," whom Cave places A. D. 1500, and who lived for many years after that time. Editions

Published, though in a mutilated form, in the Varia Sacra of Le Moyne (vol. i. pp. 268-293). Further Information

Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. xi. p. 669; Cave, Hist. Litt. Appendix, ad ann. 1500, vol. ii. Appendix, p. 224.

9. Moschopulus. [Moschopulus.]

10. Phile. [Phile.]

11. Rhetor. [No. 8.]

12. Straboromanus, a Byzantine writer of the time of Alexius Comnenus. He wrote on astrology, and some of his works are extant in MS. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 670.) [J.C.M]