In June 1391, just a few months after his accession, the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1350–1425) was compelled to assist the Ottoman sultan Bayezid on a campaign. The campaign, which took place between June 1391 and January 1392, was directed against the Turkish emirates in the Black Sea region. Furthermore, sultan Bayezid, who was bent on uniting the Anatolian territories under his rule, also intended to force Kadı Burhan-al-din, the Mongolid ruler of the Eretna emirate, to give up his designs on these lands.Footnote ¹ Thus, Manuel II left his capital on 8 June and spent several months fighting for the Ottomans. In his eight surviving letters from this campaign, Manuel complained about the difficulties of warfare, the harsh conditions of the Anatolian topography, the scarcity of the provisions and the humiliation he felt at being obliged to serve his enemies.Footnote ² Manuel declared to his correspondent and beloved former mentor Demetrios Kydones that Bayezid had significantly consolidated his power in Anatolia through the campaign — and in a twist of irony — he, the Byzantine emperor, had contributed to this Ottoman success.Footnote ³ After the campaign, the Ottoman army retreated to Ankara to spend the winter there. In Ankara, the Byzantine emperor was hosted by a scholar of Islamic theology, a müderris, and spent many nights conversing with him about Christianity and Islam. It was based upon these conversations that Manuel composed his famous Dialogue with a Persian.Footnote ⁴

Manuel's decision to pen a lengthy literary/theological work based upon these conversations is not a surprising one as he was a prominent writer of his period and a prolific one too. Although the majority of modern scholars mainly know Manuel's letter collection, his Funeral Oration and the Dialogue on Marriage with the Empress Mother (all of which have been translated into English), the remainder of Manuel's oeuvre is not as well known.Footnote ⁵ However, in addition to these aforementioned works, the emperor also wrote poems, prayers, sermons, rhetorical exercises, orations, ethico-political works and theological treatises. None of these have been translated into English, while some still remain unpublished.Footnote ⁶ Thus, as an author, Manuel still largely remains a neglected figure. Despite the bulk and variety of his oeuvre, only a few of his works have been studied, and mostly for historical purposes, that is, in order to gain ‘information’ about the politics of the period and Manuel's policies as emperor.Footnote ⁷ While his writings indeed constitute invaluable sources for the study of the period, Manuel deserves attention not only as an emperor but also as an author. His works are not only significant historical sources but are also fine specimens of Byzantine literature. In other words, Manuel's works merit discussion as literary artefacts.Footnote ⁸ Among this vast oeuvre, the Dialogue with a Persian especially stands out as a remarkable literary work on account of several features.

The exact composition of the Dialogue with a Persian is unclear, but evidence points to the years 1392–1399.Footnote ⁹ As the work is quite long — 300 pages in modern editions — and as Manuel often revised his works extensively before their ‘publication’, it is quite possible that the work remained in progress for a long period of time, perhaps even several years. At any rate, the manuscript evidence indicates that it was completed by 1399, before Manuel embarked on his celebrated journey to Western Europe (1399–1402). Thus, the work was composed at most within a few years span of the winter of 1391, when Manuel claims to have held the conversations with the müderris. The Dialogue is available in two editions. The first one was published by Erich Trapp in 1966, while Karl Förstel introduced some minor amendments to the Trapp version in 1993–1996, also providing a German translation of the entire work.Footnote ¹⁰ The seventh dialogue has been respectively translated into English and German by Theodore Khoury, W. Baum and R. Senoner.Footnote ¹¹

The Dialogue acquired fame in 2006 when Pope Benedict XVI quoted a line from the seventh dialogue in his Regensburg lecture, relying on Khoury's translation. However, until now, the Dialogue has not attracted a lot of scholarly attention apart from a few exceptions. Erich Trapp worked on several linguistic aspects of the dialogue.Footnote ¹² Michel Balivet has devoted an article to the identity of the müderris in the work, while two articles by John Demetracopoulos and Ioannis Polemis have dealt with some of the theological aspects of the work.Footnote ¹³ Finally, in another article, Stephen Reinert deals with the müderris and Manuel's representation of himself as the winner of the debates.Footnote ¹⁴ Apart from these, despite its rich historical, theological and literary content, the Dialogue is often discussed by merely repeating basic historical information found in other secondary literature.Footnote ¹⁵ This article will attempt to discuss several prominent literary features of the work, especially focusing on Manuel's self-representation and his portrayal of the Ottomans in the dialogue. As such, the article will attempt to offer the first study of the Dialogue with a Persian from a literary point of view.

The Byzantine tradition of writing polemical treatises against Islam had emerged in the eighth century as a response to the rise of Islam, and can be traced throughout the centuries.Footnote ¹⁶ Although the corpus of these works is large, some notable works include those of John Damascus (8^th c.), Niketas Byzantios (9^th c.), George Monachos (9^th c.), Zigabenos (12^th c.) and Niketas Choniates (12^th c). Byzantine anti-Islamic works had their roots in the Adversus Iudaeos literature, which were works written against Jews and Judaism. Like the Adversus Iudaeos texts, anti-Islamic works were not composed as comparative studies of Christianity and the opposing religion, but in order to utterly refute Islam and to vindicate Christianity. Thus, both the anti-Jewish and anti-Islamic texts were composed with the sole goal of establishing the superiority of Christianity.

As in the case of the Adversus Iudaeos texts, anti-Islamic works could also be composed as dialogues, as a debate between a Muslim and a Christian, or between multiple collocutors. The debates would invariably end with the victory of Christianity. Although Byzantine authors discussed a variety of topics in these anti-Islamic works, ranging from the life of the Prophet Mohammed to the origins of Islam, polygamy and the authenticity of the Quran, Islam was never accurately represented. Instead, the authors would insert rather fanciful stories about Islam and its traditions. As such, the information offered by the authors of anti-Islamic works is not reliable and cannot be used to reconstruct Islam. Likewise, starting with John Damascus, several authors, such as Niketas Byzantios and Zigabenos, also represented Islam not as a religion on its own right, but rather as a Christian heresy. Byzantine authors did not conduct in-depth studies of Islam and its various aspects but usually re-cycled the ‘distorted’ information found in earlier and contemporary anti-Islamic texts. As such, these texts did not engage objectively with Islam, but rather attempted to refute and sometimes even ridicule it.

The tradition of Byzantine anti-Islamic literature did not emerge as an isolated genre but as a response to the rise of Islam and was closely connected with the increase in Byzantine-Muslim contacts. For instance, the Seljukid conquests and conversions to Islam in the twelfth century led to a great increase in the production of these texts. Similarly, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the rapid Ottoman conquests, increasing conversions to Islam and face-to-face contacts between the Christians and the Muslims again led to a proliferation of such anti-Islamic works. One such notable example is that of Gregory Palamas in the fourteenth century. When captured by the Ottomans, he held debates with the Ottoman audience on Islam and Christianity, later writing works based on these discussions.Footnote ¹⁷ Most crucially, Demetrios Kydones, also the former teacher and a close friend of Manuel II, translated into Greek Ricoldo di Monte Croce's Contra Legem Saracenorum, an important anti-Islamic Latin treatise. Manuel II's maternal grandfather John VI Kantakouzenos also wrote anti-Islamic works relying on this Greek translation of Ricoldo di Monte Croce's Contra Legem Saracenorum.Footnote ¹⁸ During the late fourteenth century and mid-fifteenth century, many people among Manuel's literary circle, such as Makarios Makres and Joseph Bryennios, also wrote anti-Islamic works.Footnote ¹⁹

Manuel's Dialogue with a Persian fits in well with the broader framework of Byzantine anti-Islamic works. Like them, it was composed not as a comparative study of Islam and Christianity, but as a refutation of the former. The majority of the topics discussed by Manuel, such as the life of the Prophet Mohammed, polygamy, violence in religion and the Islamic perception of Trinitarian theology, were quite commonplace in other anti-Islamic works. As is the case for other such works, Manuel also does not represent Islam accurately, but weaves many spurious stories into his discussions. Finally, as was the case with other anti-Islamic or Adversus Iudaeos dialogues, in Manuel's work, too, Christianity utterly prevails.

Although the Dialogue with a Persian does not show strong textual parallels or influences of the specimens of former anti-Islamic literature, the works of Kydones and Kantakouzenos were crucial to Manuel's dialogue. It has been demonstrated that the work of Kantakouzenos relied very heavily on Kydones’ translation of Ricoldo. In turn, Manuel seems to have relied, to a degree, on Kantakouzenos’ work.Footnote ²⁰ Not only does Manuel's discussion of the life of the Prophet Mohammed display remarkable similarities to that of Kantakouzenos, but also several textual parallels between the works can be attested concerning the discussions of pleasure, the arc of Noah, polygamy and violence in Islam.Footnote ²¹ Furthermore, the emperor also acknowledges Kantakouzenos’ work in the preface, recalling him as ‘our blessed grandfather the emperor’.Footnote ²² Apart from Kantakouzenos, Manuel betrays only very few parallels with other anti-Islamic works.Footnote ²³ Instead, the emperor chiefly relies on the four gospels, the psalms and the Church Fathers in his arguments. As such, despite being part of the much wider anti-Islamic polemical tradition, Manuel's dialogue does not display strong influences from the earlier Byzantine polemical writings, but stems from a new line of Byzantine treatises generated by Kydones’ translation of Ricoldo di Monte Croce.Footnote ²⁴

Albeit relying partially on Kantakouzenos, Manuel's work differs from that of his grandfather through its richer content and wider scope of argumentation. The discussions in the Dialogue with a Persian are much more wide ranging: the nature of angels, paradise, rationality in men and animals, the life of the Prophet Mohammed, Trinity, Christology, icons and the lives of the apostles.Footnote ²⁵ For instance, although Manuel relies on Kantakouzenos and the Kydones translation of Ricoldo for the discussion of the Life of the Prophet, his own discussion is much more detailed and extensive.Footnote ²⁶ Similarly, the discussions of rationality in men and animals, and icons are absent in Kantakouzenos and Kydones. Most importantly, several of the topics discussed by Manuel in the Dialogue with a Persian are not attested in any other work. In this regard, the most prominent theme is the discussion of the nature of the angels, where Manuel represents Islam as viewing the angels as mortal and corruptible — an argument attested neither in Byzantine, nor in Islamic sources. Other such topics are a tale of Enoch and Elias, the discussion of rationality in animals and the so-called Islamic belief of Mohammed as the Paraklete.Footnote ²⁷ Therefore, although most of the topics in the Dialogue with a Persian were very common in the anti-Islamic literature, in a few instances, Manuel does introduce new discussions.

Finally, unlike other specimens of the anti-Islamic polemical texts, the topics discussed in the Dialogue with a Persian are not limited to the defence of Christian dogma. Manuel also touches upon other issues such as choice (προαίρεσις), free-will, desire and the changeability of fortune; questions in which he displays a continuous interest throughout his lifetime. In the 1410s, these topics would constitute the central questions of his ethico-political works, namely the Foundations of Imperial Conduct and the Seven Ethico-Political Orations.Footnote ²⁸

In the Dialogue with a Persian, while discussing Christianity, as mentioned above, Manuel draws upon the Byzantine theological and patristic literature. As such, his theological arguments are not ‘original’. However, while Manuel cannot be considered a theologian of the calibre of John Damascus and his likes, it is also unfair to label his reliance on the existing theological literature as a sign of ‘unoriginality’. It was on the contrary, the norm to refer to the Fathers and other theological works; this was not perceived as ‘unoriginality’ by the Byzantines, but as operating within the framework of the theological traditions.Footnote ²⁹ Manuel's aim in composing the Dialogue was not to come up with new arguments but to produce a detailed apology of Christianity vis-à-vis Islam. Unlike the modern reader, the emperor's audience did not expect new arguments from the work. Finally, as Erich Trapp also pointed out, Manuel was a not a mere compiler, but added new dimensions to the polemic against Islam; as mentioned previously, the work does discuss several topics that are not attested in other works.

The Dialogue with a Persian consists of twenty-six dialogues; the collocutors are Manuel II and the anonymous müderris. An audience made up of the müderris’ intellectual circle and Manuel's entourage is also present, possibly along with some Ottoman individuals who wished to hear the discussions. Although the müderris is not named, the emperor describes him as an old scholar who had just arrived from Babylon. As he had recently arrived, he was greatly honoured amongst the Ottomans; the emperor claims all judges and teachers of Islamic wisdom hung upon his words. He was called mouteritzes (μουτερίτζης), which Manuel explains, was an epithet of precedence and honour. It thus can be concluded that the emperor's collocutor was an Islamic theologian of high standing. Throughout the dialogues, there are hints that he has command of both Persian and Arabic. Moreover the müderris is sometimes summoned by the dignitaries of Ankara, suggesting that he was held in great esteem. Finally, Manuel points out that he had two sons who were old and knowledgeable enough to aid their father in the debates.Footnote ³⁰

Based upon the above-mentioned information, Balivet has attempted to identify the Islamic scholar in question, suggesting Hacı Bayram Veli and Şemsettin Fenari as the two most likely candidates.Footnote ³¹ Plausible and convincing as these hypotheses are, unfortunately as yet, it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion. However, there is also no valid reason for being sceptical about whether this müderris actually existed and whether these conversations really took place. Although the emperor clearly expanded upon and modified the actual debates, the liveliness of the character portrayal and the existence of several discussions that are not attested in any other Byzantine or Latin source, such as the tale of Enoch and Elias, Mohammed as the Paraklete, the corruptible nature of the angels, the story of Ashoka and the column, make it likely that the conversations had indeed taken place.Footnote ³² Finally, the increasing contacts between the Byzantines and the Ottomans prepared the ground for such exchanges, the most prominent example being that of the aforementioned Gregory Palamas in the 1340s, who had held debates about Islam and Christianity with an enthusiastic Ottoman audience.Footnote ³³

The Dialogue with a Persian is clearly modelled as a Platonic dialogue. Dialogue was a widespread and popular literary form in Byzantium throughout the centuries.Footnote ³⁴ Several prominent examples in this vast corpus are the works of John Damascus (8^th c.), Soterichos Panteugenos, Eustratios of Nicaea, Theodore Prodromos (all 12^th c.), George Scholarios (15^th c.) and the two well-known satires, the Timarion (12^th c.) the Journey of Mazaris to Hades (15^th c.).Footnote ³⁵ Byzantine dialogues built on the heritage of Ancient Greek and Hellenistic dialogues, the two most prominent models being Lucian and Plato. Furthermore, dialogue was frequently employed by Byzantine authors while composing works on complex philosophical and theological issues. Similarly, dialogue was a very popular stylistic choice in polemical texts composed against Jews, Latins, Armenians and Muslims. As such, the times in which philosophical and theological debates were most in evidence also witnessed an upsurge in the production of dialogues. Such an increase can be observed in the twelfth and fourteenth- fifteenth centuries when theological debates were intensified both with the Latins and the Muslims.Footnote ³⁶ Thus, Manuel's decision to compose an anti-Islamic treatise in the form of a dialogue was influenced by a well-established Byzantine dialogical tradition. Furthermore, as a literary form, dialogue was flexible; it allowed authors to accommodate various discussions, interactions between the collocutors and sometimes even humour. In the Dialogue with a Persian, Manuel, too, relies on the dialogue form to blend theological discussions, amusing everyday life scenes and jokes between the discussants.

While Byzantine authors imitated the Lucianic dialogue for satirical works, Plato would be the preferred model for theological and philosophical discussions, as is the case of Manuel's Dialogue with a Persian. While composing dialogues modelled on the Platonic tradition, Byzantine authors could adopt Plato's methods of philosophical inquiry and employ the Platonic dialogue model as a literary ploy, as well as combining both these aspects. In the Dialogue with the Persian, Manuel, too, employs the Socratic elentic method, that is, to guide and to refute the arguments of the opponent through questions.Footnote ³⁷ However, although the emperor's style of philosophical discussion resembles that of the Platonic dialogues, ultimately he chiefly employs the Platonic model as a literary ploy.Footnote ³⁸ The opening of the Dialogue with a Persian is not ex abrupto, but highly resembles the introductory scenes of the Platonic dialogues. Several Platonic dialogues start with a collocutor asking Socrates’ opinion on a philosophical question, usually while they are sitting among a group of friends, be it in a symposion or near a fresh spring. Manuel's Dialogue, too, starts as the two collocutors and several other people are sitting by a fireplace after dinner, when the müderris asks the emperor to satisfy his curiosity about Christianity. Furthermore, Platonic modes of address such as ‘ὦ βελτίστε’ or ‘ὦ ἀγαθέ’ are sprinkled throughout the entire work. Although at times the discussions become long monologues on the part of Manuel, many quick ‘question and answer’ sections found in the text closely resemble the style of Plato. Finally, as in the case of many Platonic dialogues, the Dialogue with a Persian is in reported speech, making Manuel both a speaker and the narrator. The emperor, who seems to have truly appreciated Plato as an author, also wrote two other dialogues based on the Platonic model, the Discourse to Kabasilas (1387) and the Dialogue on Marriage with the Empress Mother (c. 1396).Footnote ³⁹ However, the vividness, the flow and the lively character portrayal of the Dialogue with a Persian surpasses these two shorter works by far.

The lively conversational style, the witty literary allusions and the representation of the characters in the dialogue arguably make the Dialogue with a Persian the most remarkable of Manuel's works. While analysing the work one has to bear in mind that the emperor did not write it as a transcription of the conversations or as documentary evidence of his sojourn in Ankara. Therefore, one should not expect to find a depiction of ‘reality’ or an extremely faithful report of the debates that took place. First of all, this blurred line between ‘reality’ and fiction is prevalent in most of the other Platonic dialogues in Byzantium; we cannot use these texts to reconstruct real life dialogues.Footnote ⁴⁰ Furthermore, while parts of these discussions in the Dialogue with a Persian may have indeed taken place, and some of the everyday life scenes Manuel scattered across the work probably did indeed stem from his actual experiences, the Dialogue with a Persian is mostly fiction; a fictionalized, modified and embellished version of the actual conversations. This is also plainly evident from Manuel's representation of himself and Christianity as the utterly prevailing side; the müderris never makes a sound argument, quotes the Quran or another Islamic theology text. The painstaking and lengthy argumentations on Manuel's part also indicate that the emperor expanded upon and modified whatever actual discussions might have taken place.

Its ‘fictional’ qualities should not detract from the value of the work but rather enhance it as a complex, multilayered literary work. First of all, producing a faithful, minutely accurate narration of the actual debates was not the purpose of the work; this was not Manuel's intention. Instead, the emperor penned the Dialogue to produce a defence of his Christian faith vis-à-vis Islam, adding to the line of polemical treatises that were highly ‘fashionable’ among the literati of the period. There is nothing surprising in the fact that Manuel, himself very much interested in theology, chose to join this intellectual trend; neither is it strange that he represented himself and Christianity as the winning side. What is remarkable is the style of the work as a lively Platonic dialogue, adorned with amusing anecdotes about the relationship between the emperor and the müderris.

All these features of the Dialogue are a stark contrast to the styles of other such contemporary theological treatises, even if they were also written in the form of a dialogue. For instance, there is no attempt at characterization in the anti-Islamic dialogue of Manuel's contemporary Joseph Bryennios, while the latter's other dialogue with a Latin only has a brief exchange of greetings in the beginning, but still, has no real character portrayal. Similarly, another member of Manuel's literary circle, Demetrios Chrysoloras, authored a theological dialogue between the then deceased Demetrios Kydones, Neilos Kabasilas and himself. This work does have some attempt at characterization in the case of Kydones. In one instance, he is represented as lamenting his unpopularity and getting angry when refuted. However, apart from this brief instance, there is really no characterization of the collocutors; although the names of the speakers are indicated, their voices cannot be distinguished from each other.Footnote ⁴¹ The dialogue of Gregory Palamas, also based on real experiences and actual debates like that of Manuel, also has no attempt at character portrayal.Footnote ⁴² However, in his own work, Manuel seems to have attempted to enhance the literariness of his dialogue, engaging his audience by delighting them with his character portrayals and the witty anecdotes he scattered across the work.Footnote ⁴³ On the basis of its vivid character portrayal and other literary features, it can be argued that the Dialogue with a Persian is a notable and distinct work in Late Byzantine literature.

The two chief collocutors in the work are Manuel and the müderris, with occasional remarks from the audience. Unsurprisingly, it is Manuel who emerges as the undisputed winner of each debate; Christianity is continuously vindicated against Islam. Moreover, while Christianity is expanded upon, Islamic theology is not really discussed in detail; the müderris does not even once quote the Quran or refer to the opinions of Islamic scholars. Thus, the emperor very openly represents himself as the intellectually superior party. Moreover, the müderris and the Ottoman audience are represented as acknowledging Manuel's intellectual superiority. It is the müderris who first approaches the emperor to converse, claiming that he had never met with a Christian who could completely satisfy his curiosity. This serves as a hidden eulogy for Manuel, who albeit graciously tried to decline the offer, will shortly do what all the others failed to do, to convince the müderris of the worth of Christianity.Footnote ⁴⁴ Throughout the dialogue, the müderris is represented as being the one who is excited and overjoyed by the debates, coming very early each morning to Manuel's chambers. He is moreover unable to sleep at night since he ponders the arguments with such intensity. He is depicted as being so enthusiastic about the emperor's conversation that he threatens to kill the roosters since they announce the arrival of morning, hence the end of the debate.Footnote ⁴⁵ The audience is also depicted as showering praise on the emperor; at one point some audience members even cling, albeit kindly, to Manuel's cloak to prevent him from leaving.Footnote ⁴⁶

In contrast, Manuel is full of self-control concerning the debates, as graciously accepting to converse only in order to please and enlighten his host. While Palamas and Kantakouzenos also claim that they were approached by the Muslims and agreed to ‘enlighten’ them, Manuel's self-representation as a sought-after teacher of Christianity goes beyond these examples.Footnote ⁴⁷ The emperor neither shows any sign of excitement or passion concerning the debate, nor any curiosity about Islam. This great contrast between Manuel and the müderris serves to highlight the intellectual superiority of the emperor, as well as his ‘cultural’ superiority as a calm, restrained Christian freed from the almost childish excitement and curiosity of his Ottoman opponent. In the dialogue, Manuel adopts the role of Socrates.Footnote ⁴⁸ He is the one who is approached to enlighten the collocutors and is clearly in control of the discussions. Like Socrates, all participants look up to him; employing sometimes the elenctic method, he undoes all counter arguments. Finally, significantly, Manuel represents himself as operating alone and unaided in the debates, while the müderris gets help from his two sons and the audience, even gathering in private to prepare in advance and switching to Arabic or Persian when they wish to discuss amongst themselves, so as to avoid being recorded by the translators.Footnote ⁴⁹

While Manuel depicts the müderris as a learned and amiable man, nevertheless the latter never succeeds in undermining the arguments of the emperor. His part of the dialogue is also far shorter than that of Manuel. Indeed, in the preface, the emperor significantly refers to him as being ‘a lover of listening’ (φιλήκοος), thus assigning the müderris a passive role even from the very beginning.Footnote ⁵⁰ When compared to the figure of Manuel, he comes across almost as a young student despite his white beard. In contrast to the cool demeanour of Manuel, the müderris continuously blushes, is saddened by his defeats and on one occasion, almost becomes tearful.Footnote ⁵¹ Manuel also frequently accuses his opponent of ‘fleeing’ (φυγεῖν) when the latter tries to avoid answering the questions, sometimes openly declaring that it was not easy to defend himself against the emperor.Footnote ⁵² Finally, at the very end of the work, the müderris professes a wish to visit Constantinople to get better acquainted with Christianity, which serves to highlight the triumph of the emperor over his opponent and of Christianity over Islam.Footnote ⁵³

Manuel's representation of the Ottomans in the work is nuanced. He does not depict the audience as stereotypical barbarians; he furthermore provides various hints about their daily life. Although he is depicted as being intellectually inferior to the Byzantine emperor, the portrayal of the müderris does not correspond to the uncivilized barbarian portrait that one would expect to find in such a work. Instead, Manuel portrays him as a learned, witty and amiable person. It is indeed possible to sense throughout the dialogue that, despite their religious differences, the emperor had enjoyed the company of his anonymous host. When the müderris makes witty jokes, Manuel admits to being taken by these pleasantries and even endows his collocutor with the quality of urbanity (ἀστειότης), often ascribed to Byzantine literati.Footnote ⁵⁴

Significantly, when telling his brother Theodore, to whom the work was dedicated, that the müderris did not change his faith, Manuel admits that that was to be expected since he was so old and Islam was, after all, the faith of his forefathers.Footnote ⁵⁵ As such, the emperor displays a sensitive approach in the matter of faith and customs. Similarly, the Ottoman audience is depicted as being exceptionally tolerant during the religious debates, more so than Manuel himself, who at one point insults the Prophet Mohammed. It is only then that the müderris becomes angry and asks Manuel to use more considerate words. Notably, this is the only time the verb ὀργίζεσθαι is used in the entire work. Immediately after, in an intimate gesture, the müderris touches Manuel's knee and consoles him by saying that friends have great licence of speech.Footnote ⁵⁶ He himself is represented as being very respectful of Christianity, even claiming that Christ was his rather than the emperor's since the latter believed Christ was crucified, while Islam argued that he directly ascended to heaven. While Manuel uses this exchange to emphasize the müderris’ high regard for Christianity, it should not be considered as a purely literary portrayal since the direct ascension of Christ to heaven was indeed referred to in the Quran.Footnote ⁵⁷

From time to time, Manuel still highlights the ‘otherness’ of the Ottoman collocutors. This can be observed in the few instances where a member of the audience disagrees with Manuel. Notably, Manuel refers to the audience as theatron, contextualizing the debates in a Byzantine framework.Footnote ⁵⁸ Upon disagreement with the audience, the emperor characterizes the latter's speech as ‘barbaric’.Footnote ⁵⁹ Even in the preface, after praising the character and the learning of the müderris, Manuel points out that both in character and in speech, he was nevertheless a barbarian.Footnote ⁶⁰ He often accuses the müderris of subverting the taxis during the course of debates, highlighting that the Ottoman scholar could not really grasp this significant Byzantine concept.Footnote ⁶¹ Similarly, in an amusing passage in the Dialogue, while Manuel tries to demonstrate the implausibility of Mohammed being the only one to announce his own coming as a prophet, without any hints from the Old and the New Testament or the former prophets, the following exchange takes place:

In Aristophanes’ Wealth, the deity Wealth, who has come down to earth, uses the word αὐτότατος in an amusing scene where he desperately tries to convince the others of his identity.Footnote ⁶³ By alluding to Aristophanes and within the context of the Prophet's self-acclamation, Manuel not only undermines but also ridicules the argument of his opponent; a display of wit and urbanity that would be much appreciated by his Byzantine audience but significantly is lost on his Ottoman collocutor. The emperor seems to have used this particular exchange to highlight their ‘cultural’ difference, pointing out the müderris’ lack of knowledge of Greek literature. For all his good qualities, this lack sets the müderris apart from Byzantine literati and shows his level of erudition to be lower.

In addition to these depictions, Manuel allows glimpses into his life among the Ottomans, highlighting the hospitality of the müderris. In one particular instance, the emperor narrates how he had breakfast with the müderris on a cold and stormy winter morning:

The offering of nuts and sweets that the emperor describes was indeed a mark of hospitality; for instance, Ibn Battuta was also served nuts and sweetmeats by almost all his hosts in Turkish Anatolia.Footnote ⁶⁵ Manuel seems to have been intrigued by the Ottomans’ breakfast habits, which he takes care to distinguish from other meals by especially referring to it as ἄριστον.Footnote ⁶⁶ Throughout the work, Manuel often refers to the Ottomans visiting him after having had breakfast. In one case, he conveys their eagerness by remarking that they had come even before the sun's rays and even before having eaten anything, despite their custom of having breakfast before settling down to their tasks.Footnote ⁶⁷ While such references serve to enrich the setting of the work, Manuel seems to have taken particular notice of the breakfast customs.

Yet another such episode is the return of Manuel and his party from the hunt with their spoils, including some wild boars. When the müderris jokingly asks whether they could also feast on the game meat, Manuel replies similarly:

Manuel here is referring to Islamic dietary regulations that forbid the consumption of pork. This amusing exchange highlights the dietary and religious differences between the Byzantine party and their Ottoman hosts. Manuel also describes their Ottoman dinner in detail:

Manuel here is describing the custom of eating around a round bronze platter called sini, which functioned as a dining table.Footnote ⁷⁰ The bread loaves that the emperor described seem to be the Turkish flatbread, with which both he and his brother Theodore were already familiar, thanks to their participation in Ottoman campaigns.Footnote ⁷¹ In order to describe this bread, the emperor seems to have coined a new word, χαρτοεῖδες. Significantly, Manuel strongly hints that he did not like this bread; it was badly baked. While it is possible that Manuel did indeed dislike the flatbread, his negative description of it could also serve to debase Ottoman baking, thus implying a culinary and hence ‘cultural’ inferiority on the part of the Ottomans.Footnote ⁷²

Another important Ottoman figure in the Dialogue with a Persian is sultan Bayezid, against whom Manuel seems to have had a personal hatred on account of his character. Bayezid, who became the Ottoman sultan in 1389, had many face-to-face contacts with Manuel. The Byzantine emperor had accompanied him on a campaign previously in 1390, but no details of Manuel's experiences of this earlier encounter are known.Footnote ⁷³ However, during this campaign of 1391–1392, Bayezid figures prominently in Manuel's letters, where he is depicted quite negatively. The emperor complains how he and the other Christian lords were forced to attend drinking parties in Bayezid's tent, lamenting that the cups of wine only filled him with more sorrow.Footnote ⁷⁴ After the campaign, in 1394, the two rulers would meet in Serres. Manuel would later claim in the Funeral Oration that in Serres, Bayezid had intended to murder him. In 1394, right after the Serres meeting, Manuel would not obey Bayezid's summons, thus triggering the blockade of Constantinople by the Ottomans (1394-1402).Footnote ⁷⁵ Upon Bayezid's defeat by Tamerlane in 1402, and his subsequent death, Manuel would compose a psalm and ethopoiia, literally celebrating his death.Footnote ⁷⁶ As such, it can be said that Manuel and Bayezid had a deeper, more personal relationship of hate that transcended one that could be expected to exist between a Byzantine emperor and an Ottoman sultan.

In Manuel's works, Bayezid makes appearances as a rash, irrational and volatile man. While these portrayals conform to the topoi about the Ottomans, Manuel's detailed and extremely hostile depictions of Bayezid stand out from those of other sultans, such as Murad I and Mehmed I, with whom Manuel also had prolonged personal contact.Footnote ⁷⁷ Furthermore, Bayezid's portrait as a volatile and aggressive person is also partially confirmed by the Ottoman chroniclers, such as Aşıkpaşazade and Neşri. While these chronicles were written much later than Bayezid's reign, and tended to criticize the sultan on account of his defeat at the Battle of Ankara and his deviation from the gazi norms, it is still significant that they exhibit parallels with Manuel's portrayals.Footnote ⁷⁸ In the Dialogue, Manuel refers to Bayezid's nickname Yıldırım, meaning thunderbolt, as κεραυνός. He claims that the sultan received this epithet because of the swiftness of his evil actions.Footnote ⁷⁹ As a criticism, Manuel constantly refers to the immoderate love of hunting of the sultan. The only full description of Bayezid in the Dialogue is an extremely black, almost demonic, portrait:

This description of Bayezid stands in stark contrast to the portrayal of the müderris, especially since the scene that immediately follows the sultan's depiction is that of the müderris bringing in breakfast to Manuel amidst a flurry of witty jokes. Moreover, Manuel's host expresses his delight in the fact that the storm had prevented the emperor from accompanying the sultan to the hunt; he can have Manuel to himself.Footnote ⁸¹ Throughout the Dialogue, the müderris and the audience are represented as siding with Manuel against their own sultan, openly declaring their displeasure when the former is summoned to the hunt, as well as criticizing the immoderation of Bayezid. On one occasion, the müderris even encourages Manuel to find an excuse not to go, effectively suggesting disobedience to his own ruler. While these protests of the Ottomans emphasize their high regard for Manuel's company, the Ottoman audience is significantly nevertheless represented as disapproving of their sultan.Footnote ⁸²

In another such instance in the Dialogue, the emperor strongly contrasts the müderris and his circle with the pleasure-loving court of the sultan:

Yet at another point, the emperor again refers to the difference in the lifestyles of these two factions, when he remarks that the müderris and his circle are seeking the perfect (εὐτελῆ) and the simple (ἀπέριττον) life in order to pursue a life of philosophy.Footnote ⁸⁴ While the representation of these two parties can be seen within the context of a general juxtaposition of a life of philosophy and pleasure, it seems to have been influenced by Nicomachean Ethics, a work in which Manuel displayed a life-long interest. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics was a popular work among the Byzantine literati, widely read and commented upon.Footnote ⁸⁵ Manuel displays a particularly strong interest in this work as his Foundations of Imperial Conduct and Seven Ethico-Political Orations are solidly based upon Nicomachean Ethics. Moreover, some other works by Manuel, such as the Discourse to the Thessalonians, the Panegyric to John V and the Funeral Oration, also can be interpreted as betraying such an influence.Footnote ⁸⁶ As such, it can be argued that the Nicomachean Ethics had greatly influenced the emperor's literary and philosophical work.

Manuel's criticism of the sultan and his court in the Dialogue with a Persian is grounded in their immoderation, which is a crucial vice in Aristotelian ethics since Aristotle argues that virtue can be achieved by acting moderately with respect to everything.Footnote ⁸⁷ In his future ethico-political works, Manuel, too, would put great stress on moderation, especially in reference to Nicomachean Ethics. In another instance in the Dialogue, an Ottoman in the audience is depicted as criticizing Bayezid for his immoderation in hunting, pointing out that the hunt is good only if practiced moderately.Footnote ⁸⁸ Moreover, Manuel seems to be using eudaimonia here not in the general sense of happiness but as the philosophical concept of true well being, of reaching the highest form of contentment and fulfilment in life.Footnote ⁸⁹ According to Aristotle, eudaimonia would be perceived differently by different individuals, who would then choose to follow different life styles in order to achieve it; again ideas adopted by Manuel in his own works. Two life styles stand out in Aristotle, one being the Life of Pleasure (βίος ἀπολαυστικός) and the other Life of Contemplation (βίος θεωρητικός), respectively the basest and loftiest forms, with the latter leading to true eudaimonia.Footnote ⁹⁰ Here, Manuel's depiction of the Ottoman court, of those who are supposed to be εὐδαίμονας, seems to be corresponding to the Life of Pleasure, while the müderris and his circle seem to have been represented as attempting to pursue the Life of Contemplation.Footnote ⁹¹ Thus, Manuel seems to have relied on an Aristotelian framework while contrasting these two factions, unsurprisingly identifying with the scholars.

The criticism of Bayezid by the müderris and his circle serves to further highlight their sympathy for Manuel vis-à-vis the deeply flawed sultan; the emperor is represented as being held in higher esteem by the Ottomans than their own sultan. Yet, while these depictions are literary representations fashioned by the emperor, they should not be dismissed. Although they have a negative bias towards Bayezid, it is still significant that the Ottoman chroniclers also depict him as a pleasure loving man, also adorning their narratives with tales of his volatility. Neşri calls him tiz-nefes, volatile, while an anonymous chronicle refers to Bayezid's wrath. In addition, both Neşri and Aşıkpaşazade narrate a curious episode. Becoming angry at the kadıs, the judges, Bayezid ordered all of them to be burned alive, but then was persuaded otherwise on the grounds that they were scholars.Footnote ⁹²

Furthermore, in addition to chronicles, a menakıbname, Ottoman saints’ life, points out that the sultan received criticism from religious sheikhs, especially concerning his drinking. According to this text, Hacı Bayram Veli—a possible candidate for the identity of the müderris—is reported to have proposed that taverns be built on all the four corners of the Grand Mosque in Bursa in order to encourage the sultan's visit.Footnote ⁹³ Thus, while Manuel's depiction of Bayezid and the portrayal of the attitude of the Ottoman scholars too stems from his hatred of the sultan, it is also supported by the Ottoman sources. The müderris with whom Manuel conversed could indeed be one of those critical scholars, contributing to Manuel's obvious sympathy for him. After all, Manuel could have depicted the müderris as a stereotypical ‘barbarian’, which would also serve his literary goals. However, this nuanced, generally positive portrayal hints at genuine regard on Manuel's part. The müderris with whom Manuel conversed could indeed be one of those critical scholars, contributing to Manuel's obvious sympathy for him.Footnote ⁹⁴

In conclusion, the Dialogue with a Persian, composed in the tradition of Byzantine anti-Islamic literature and Platonic dialogue, stands out among Manuel II Palaiologos’ writings on account of its literary features. In contrast with other contemporary dialogues in the Byzantine anti-Islamic tradition, the emperor elegantly blends a theological treatise with a lively Platonic dialogue, vivid character portrayals, adorning the work with witty allusions and amusing everyday life scenes. A close reading of these, such as Manuel's allusion to Aristophanes’ Wealth, or the description of the Ottoman flatbread, reveals to the reader otherwise lost meanings. Although Manuel represents himself as a paragon of learning and the winner of each debate in accordance with the tradition of the Adversus Iudaeos and anti-Islamic dialogues, all in all, the character portrayal in the Dialogue is especially noteworthy. Manuel's self-representation is vivid, detailed and clearly modelled on Socrates. Instead of a ‘stereotypical’ barbarian portrait, the emperor depicts the müderris as a charming and amiable man. He also creates a dramatic contrast between the müderrris and his scholarly circle with that of the pleasure-loving sultan and his court, arguably relying on an ethical framework based on Aristotelian ethics. However, from time to time, he still subtly stresses the ‘otherness’ of the müderris vis-à-vis himself, a learned, calm and collected Christian emperor. Everyday life scenes in the work not only colour the dialogues, but also provide occasions for fleshing out the emperor, the müderris and the audience. Thus, the work reads almost like a ‘novel’. As such, the Dialogue with a Persian of Manuel II Palaiologos deserves to be studied not only for the historical ‘data’ it provides but on account of its literary merit, as a notable work in Byzantine literature.