John VII Palaiologos

15th-century portraits of Andronikos IV, John VII and Manuel II (from a 15th-century codex containing a copy of the Extracts of History by Joannes Zonaras)

John VII Palaiologos was born in 1370[1] as the only son[lower-alpha 1] of Andronikos IV Palaiologos and Keratsa of Bulgaria, a daughter of Emperor Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria.[4] Andronikos IV was the first-born son of Emperor John V Palaiologos (r. 1341–1391) and thus the legitimate heir to the Byzantine throne.[5][6]

The Palaiologos dynasty, in power since 1259/1261,[7][8] was often plagued by infighting, with the emperors and princes of the family often being unable to cooperate among themselves, to the detriment of the empire.[9] The main enemy of the Byzantines at this time was the Ottoman Empire, which throughout the 14th century conquered vast swaths of former imperial territory.[10] John V had even agreed to serve the Ottoman sultan Murad I (r. 1362–1389) as a tributary vassal.[11] At this time, despite geopolitical adversity, Byzantine and Ottoman aristocrats were in close contact with each other.[12]

While John was serving on an Ottoman campaign in Anatolia, as per his vassalage agreement with Murad I,[11] Andronikos and one of Murad I's sons, Savcı Bey, co-ordinated simultaneous revolts against their fathers.[9] The two princes were defeated, captured and imprisoned within a few months, as their fathers joined forces to put down the revolts.[11] Andronikos and Savcı suffered harsh punishment.[9] Savcı was blinded and beheaded by Murad I, and though the sultan ordered John V to blind his son as well, the Byzantine emperor was reluctant, only partially following through.[11] Andronikos was only partially blinded,[9] apparently losing just one of his eyes.[13] Some sources suggest that Andronikos's infant son John, the later John VII, only three years old at the time, was also partially blinded in the same way.[9][14][15] Furthermore, Andronikos lost his right of succession to the throne, with his younger brother, Manuel II Palaiologos, being designated as heir by John V instead.[6][9][11]

Imprisoned with his family in the Prison of Anemas in Constantinople,[15] Andronikos escaped in July 1376, together with his wife and son, to Galata, a colony of the Republic of Genoa on the other side of the Golden Horn, where he was enthusiastically received by the Genoese. The Genoese preferred Andronikos over John V, due to the latter having recently granted the island of Tenedos to their rival, the Republic of Venice, thus hurting their commercial interests.[16] Andronikos also retained the support of a large fraction of Byzantine society, despite his rebellious actions, and successfully took Constantinople on 12 August that same year,[6][17] with Genoese and Ottoman support.[9] John V and Manuel were imprisoned, and Andronikos ruled as emperor for three years before they escaped and deposed him.[6][9] During his father's reign (12 August 1376 – 1 July 1379), John VII was proclaimed co-emperor, probably in 1377.[17] Even after being deposed, Andronikos never renounced his claim to the throne, residing in Galata and openly declaring his intentions to retake the capital.[6][9]

The standoff between Andronikos and the emperors in Constantinople lasted until 1381, when an agreement was reached that Andronikos and his son John were to be John V's successors as emperors.[9] Furthermore, Andronikos was once more recognised as junior co-emperor and was allowed to retain and use the title of basileus (emperor).[1] Andronikos also received lands around Selymbria as an appanage in 1382.[1][17]

Andronikos predeceased John V, dying on 25 or 28 June 1385.[13] John VII inherited his father's lands around Selymbria and, as per the 1381 agreement, also inherited the right to use the title basileus, becoming a junior co-emperor of the Byzantine Empire. He also inherited his father's claim to be John V's legitimate heir.[1] From his position as junior emperor, John VII received support from the Ottoman Empire, especially from the time of Bayezid I's accession (1389) onwards, and from the Genoese.[18] The Genoese support did not escape the attention of John V. At some point between 1387 and 1391, John V is recorded as having complained to the Genoese that the inhabitants of Galata were acclaiming and saluting John VII as if he were the senior emperor, while denying John V the appropriate honours.[19]

The Gate of Charisius, through which John VII entered Constantinople on 14 April 1390

Political map of the eastern Mediterranean in 1389

Despite the agreement of 1381, which explicitly stated that John VII was the legitimate successor, and Manuel having shown some rebellious tendencies himself,[lower-alpha 2] Manuel remained John V's favoured heir and represented John VII's main obstacle on the way to the throne.[20] When Manuel was away campaigning in Anatolia in 1390, John VII, twenty years old, seized the moment and proclaimed himself sole emperor,[20] laying siege to Constantinople.[21] According to the contemporary Russian chronicler Ignatius of Smolensk, 1390 had seen a strong current of opinion in John VII's favour.[20] John VII had secured the support of the Ottoman sultan Bayezid I and the Genoese; shortly before the siege (probably in late 1389) he had even travelled to Genoa in person to rally support.[21][22] As he travelled back to the Byzantine Empire by land, it is possible that John VII passed through Bulgaria, where he might also have sought the assistance of Ivan Sratsimir and Ivan Shishman, Tsars of Bulgaria in Vidin and Tarnovo, respectively.[23]

In addition to his external allies, a large percentage of the population within Constantinople also supported John VII, and might even have approved of subtle Ottoman intervention in the succession.[20] John entered the city on 14 April 1390,[24] his brief siege having ended through a group of commoners opening the Gate of Charisius, without struggle, and letting him in.[20][21] Though some coercion was used, before long everyone inside the city had recognised and acclaimed John VII as emperor, submitting to his rule.[21]

There is some contemporary evidence that John VII used the name Andronikos at the time of his usurpation. Ignatius of Smolensk, eyewitness to the event, wrote that the soldiers in John VII's service shouted the acclamation "Polla ta eti Andronikou!", rather than the expected "Polla ta eti Ioannou!" and records of the registers of expenses in Galata in 1390 mention that the emperor in Constantinople at the time was Andronico Paleologo.[lower-alpha 3] It is possible that John VII changed his name to Andronikos upon his father's death in 1385 to honour his memory,[25] or adopted it only in 1390, in order to avoid confusion and facilitate his usurpation of the throne. If his soldiers and the people of Constantinople were to depose an emperor named John and proclaim another of the same name, the entire affair could be conducted in bewilderment. By using the name Andronikos, any such issues would be avoided. During his actual reign as emperor, after successfully taking the throne, John VII does not appear to have used the second name, reigning under his birth name. In treaties he signed he is referred to as John, and contemporary Byzantine authors also consistently refer to him by his birth name, ignoring any second name for him.[6]

The few activities recorded to have been conducted during John VII's brief reign suggest that he believed that he was going to rule for a long time.[20] In June, he signed a treaty with Venice and throughout his time as emperor he issued prostagmata (imperial decisions/commands) and minted coins.[20] John VII is also recorded to have supported the restoration of Macarius to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[26] Macarius had been Patriarch of Constantinople during the reign of John VII's father, in 1376–1379.[27]

John VII's reign ended in the same year as it had begun, when Manuel returned from his campaign.[20] With the support of the Knights Hospitaller and the Ottomans, Manuel deposed John VII, who had ruled just five months, on 17 September and restored the rule of John V.[20][24][28] After helping Manuel retake the city for his father, sultan Bayezid I forced him to live at the Ottoman court, acting as a submissive vassal.[28]

Coin of Francesco II Gattilusio, the father of John VII's wife Irene Gattilusio

John VII never gave up his claim to be emperor, and continued to be a powerful political player in the Byzantine Empire for years following his deposition.[29] Sometime before 1397, possibly as early as 1390, John married Irene Gattilusio, daughter of Francesco II Gattilusio, the lord of the island of Lesbos.[24] After John V returned to the throne, Bayezid summoned both junior co-emperors, Manuel and John VII, to join the sultan's campaigns in Anatolia. They were both forced to take part in the Ottoman subjection of Philadelphia, the last Christian city in western Anatolia.[30] When John V died in 1391,[20] Manuel, at Bayezid's court at the time,[28] quickly made his way to Constantinople to pre-empt John VII claiming the throne.[20]

John VII continued to govern Selymbria following John V's death and continued to aspire to become senior emperor following Manuel II's rise to the throne.[20] He ruled Selymbria as a vassal of Bayezid I, which meant that he was forced to aid the sultan in further campaigns in Anatolia.[31] According to historian John W. Barker, John VII attempted to sell his claim to the Byzantine throne to Charles VI of France. In 1397 in Selymbria, John VII supposedly entrusted the French nobles Henry of Bar and John of Nevers with negotiating with Charles VI, with John VII seeking a French castle and a generous pension in return for giving up the title. Barker's hypothesis is based on a real legal document signed on 15 July 1397, possibly at Saray rather than Selymbria, but the document itself contains no mentions of what rights John VII entrusted the French nobles with or what his exact intentions in negotiating with Charles VI were. The idea that John VII intended to sell his claims is based on premature interpretations of the document itself and notes by the nobles concerning a discussion with Francesco II Gattilusio on Lesbos, during which Gattilusio supposedly divulged what he believed John's intentions to be.[32]

John VII's hopes of claiming the throne continued to be supported by Bayezid I, who saw him as a more promising candidate than the staunchly anti-Ottoman Manuel II. By supporting John VII, Bayezid hoped to turn the Byzantine Empire into a obedient vassal state, as it had nearly been under John V's rule.[20] Though Bayezid was a significant ally, his overt support for John was used by Manuel II in his efforts to delegitimise John's claims. In some of Manuel II's early texts, he went as far as to claim that John's ultimate plan was to surrender Constantinople to the Ottomans.[31]

Despite Manuel's propaganda campaign, John still enjoyed considerable support, both within the empire and among its allies. In addition to Bayezid, John continued to be supported by the Republic of Genoa, with which he had commercial connections. In addition, John was also backed by a wide network of rich Byzantine aristocrats. His wide support and wealth gave him a constant pool of resources that he could use in the feud with his uncle.[31]

In addition to his backing by certain aristocrats and his international allies, there was also a faction within Constantinople, mainly composed of commoners, who wished to restore John VII as senior emperor, as late as 1399. This faction opposed Manuel II's rule, believing that he did not care about the empire's survival, and that he ruled as a tyrant. As John VII had been constitutionally invested with the right to succeed to the throne in 1381, they saw him as the legitimate heir, not Manuel, who was viewed as a usurper more interested in his own power than anything else.[21] This perception of Manuel was used by John VII in his own propaganda.[33]

Portrait of Sultan Bayezid I by Cristofano dell'Altissimo (1552–1562)

Tensions between John VII and Manuel escalated as Bayezid began to threaten to conquer Constantinople.[31] In 1394, Bayezid laid siege to the city.[33] Encouraged by the French knight Boucicaut, who had been placed as the leader of Constantinople's defense and who had good relations with both John VII and Manuel, the two emperors reached an agreement meant to end their dynastic feud in 1399. According to the Byzantine monk Symeon of Thessalonica, John VII's attitude towards Manuel had only changed because Bayezid had attacked his lands around Selymbria in 1397.[31][34] The agreement was that Manuel adopted John VII, and that John VII in turn adopted Manuel's sons and daughters, uniting the two branches of the family. Manuel also formally acknowledged John VII as the first co-emperor, outranking Manuel's own son, John VIII Palaiologos, who then became the second co-emperor.[35]

The agreement allowed Manuel to leave the city in a three-year long mission to travel around Europe in an attempt to secure military aid, while John was entrusted to remain in Constantinople as regent, governing the city in Manuel's absence.[31] Though in effect having become Emperor-regent,[36] John's responsibility was mainly the defense of Constantinople, not other matters normally handled by the emperor.[24][36] Due to a lack of sources, John VII's regency in Constantinople is not well documented, and the extent of his power and how he exercised it is not entirely clear. It does not appear that the 1399 agreement was honoured by Manuel, as he sent his family (now ostensibly John's family) to his brother Theodore Palaiologos in the Morea. The only textual records that survive of John's activities in Constantinople are treaties with the Venetians and Genose, and documentation of his decision to depose Patriarch Matthew I.[37] Matthew I had many enemies in Constantinople, for reasons not entirely clear, and the anti-Matthew faction managed to persuade John VII to depose him.[38] He would later be restored by Manuel once he returned to Constantinople.[39] In the Byzantine Empire, ultimate authority to appoint patriarchs rested with the emperor alone.[40]

While besieging the city, Bayezid attempted to appeal to John VII's supporters by posing as a defender of John VII's legitimacy and offering peace on the condition that John was restored to the throne, terms that had been refused by Manuel before he left, a decision which prolonged the siege.[33] Once Manuel had left the city, Bayezid tried to negotiate directly with John VII. Perhaps overlooking that he had supported Manuel's deposition of John VII in 1390, his own attack on John VII's lands in Selymbria in 1397, and the reconciliation between the two emperors, Bayezid seemed to still believe that he could rely on John VII to do his bidding.[34] Shortly after Manuel's departure from Constantinople, he sent the following message to John VII from Adrianople:[34]

If I have indeed put the Basileus Manuel out of the city, not for your sake have I done this, but for mine. And if, then, you wish to be our friend, withdraw from thence and I will give you a province, whatever one you may wish. But if you do not, with God and his great Prophet as my witness, I will spare no one, but all will I utterly destroy.[34]

John VII refused to surrender the city and replied defiantly to Bayezid's messenger, recorded as having said the following:[34]

Withdraw, report to your lord: we are in poverty and there is no great power whereunto we may flee, except to God who aids the powerless and Who overpowers the powerful. So if you wish anything, do it![41]

1422 map of Constantinople by cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonti, the oldest surviving map of the city

The situation grew more grim as time went on and Manuel's absence dragged on. Though Venice had promised to send military aid to lift the siege, the promised forces never arrived. Despite his forces being exhausted and the Timurids appearing in the eastern parts of his empire, Bayezid refused to abandon the siege. Throughout the six-year-long siege, the citizens of Constantinople suffered. Many of them chose to escape from the walls to personally surrender to the Ottoman forces.[42]

Despite having refused to surrender the city, John VII maintained some connections to Bayezid.[37] Early in January 1401, John VII was away from Constantinople, attempting to sign an agreement with Bayezid. Whatever he did, it appears to have worked momentarily as the siege was lifted for a brief period in the summer.[43] In 1402, John VII is recorded as present on an Ottoman military expedition in the Peloponnese.[37] On 1 June 1402, as the siege was escalating, John VII sent a letter to Henry IV of England, writing of the urgent danger threatening Constantinople. About a month after this letter was sent, Bayezid finally left the city, having to deal with the Timurids. Bayezid's defeat and capture at the Battle of Ankara on 20 July 1402, and the subsequent period of Ottoman civil war it sparked, ended the siege of Constantinople and saved the city.[44]

The Ottoman defeat at Ankara was used by John to negotiate a treaty with one of Bayezid I's sons, Süleyman Çelebi, in which the city of Thessalonica, as well as substantial territories in Thrace and Macedonia, were returned to the Byzantine Empire.[24] John baptised and christianised two of Bayezid's sons in 1403: İsa Çelebi and Yusuf Çelebi. İsa may have been adopted by John, and Yusuf is recorded to have continued to live in Constantinople, attested there as late as 1413.[45]

Upon Manuel's return to Constantinople in June 1403, John returned power to him.[24] Though some contemporary comments seem to suggest that everyone expected John VII to refuse to surrender power, John VII appears to have been content with letting go of his responsibilities after governing the Byzantine capital for three and a half years.[46] Once Manuel returned, he reversed several of John VII's decisions, for instance disavowing a treaty John VII had arranged with the Ottomans, in which he had granted them religious and financial privileges.[47]

15th-century portraits of John VII, Manuel II and John VIII (from a 15th-century codex in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris)

After Manuel's return in 1403, relations between him and John VII were tense once more. Since he knew that John VII could no longer rely on the support of the Ottomans, Manuel attempted to completely exclude him from the imperial hierarchy, stripping him of the title basileus and depriving him of his promised lands in Selymbria and Thessalonica. The reasons for excluding John was attributed by Manuel to rumours that John had initiated negotiations in 1402 with Bayezid concerning the surrender of Constantinople.[37] The contemporary Castilian traveller Ruy González de Clavijo wrote that John and Bayezid had agreed that should Bayezid defeat the Timurids, John would surrender the city.[48] It is doubtful that such an agreement was ever made, especially since John proved himself to be loyal for the duration of his tenure as regent and concluded a highly favourable treaty with the Ottoman prince Süleyman Çelebi.[49] According to German historian Peter Wirth, it is possible that the reason for resentment again brewing up between John and Manuel after Manuel's return could be that Manuel felt that he had been ignored and left out of these important negotiations.[49]

John was sent to the island of Lemnos, apparently in disgrace, but fled to his father-in-law Francesco on nearby Lesbos. Soon thereafter, in September 1403, John and Francesco launched a naval expedition against Thessalonica, though it appears to have had little to no result.[50] The expedition was not some attempt to seize the city from Manuel's control, but rather to liberate it from the Ottomans, as an Ottoman garrison was still present.[51] John VII and Francesco returned to Lesbos, where Boucicaut was also residing at the time. Together with Boucicaut, they then travelled to Constantinople at the head of an army, planning to take the city from Manuel by force.[37]

Though they ultimately chose not to attack the city, John VII's drastic actions called for a new political agreement between the dynasts. The resulting 1403 agreement between John VII and Manuel was similar to the one they had made in 1399. As Manuel's adoptive son, John VII remained the first co-emperor and Manuel's actual son, John VIII, continued being the second co-emperor. John VII's rights to Thessalonica were also affirmed.[37] Clavijo, present in Constantinople at the time, writes that both Manuel and John VII were designated as full emperors and that John VII was to reign alone after Manuel's death, after which he was to be succeeded by Manuel's son John VIII, who in turn would be succeeded by John VII's newly born son, Andronikos V Palaiologos.[52] Contemporary reactions to the resolution appear to have been bitter. Clavijo wrote that he did not believe that the agreement would be respected by either emperor.[53]

Half-stavraton coin of John VII. The coin features a bust of the emperor (right) and Christ Pantocrator (left).

The transfer of Thessalonica from Ottoman control to the Byzantines was overseen by Manuel's confidant, Demetrios Laskaris Leontares, who per the agreement between the two emperors handed it over to John VII.[54] According to preserved documents signed by John VII, he probably first arrived in Thessalonica in late 1403. Though John was accompanied on the initial journey by some of Manuel's staunchest supporters, such as Leontares and Demetrios Chrysoloras, who were ordered to keep an eye on his activities, John VII immediately assumed autonomy from Constantinople.[55] Despite their agreement and John VII's de facto autonomy, Manuel's texts state that John was "given" Thessalonica by Manuel, a phrasing which suggests that Manuel still considered himself to be John VII's superior.[54] Though no known surviving copies exist, a detailed oath was drawn up between Manuel and John, which decided upon a well-defined border between the empires of Constantinople and Thessalonica. Some territories located nearer to Thessalonica than to Constantinople, such as Mount Athos, were kept as sworn to Constantinople.[54]

John was invested as Despot of Thessalonica and was allowed to keep the full imperial title.[56] While ruling Thessalonica, John VII is attested as having used the title Βασιλεύς ἀπάσης Θετταλίας,[57] variously translated as "Emperor of Thessaly",[24] "Emperor of All Thessaly",[58] "Emperor of all the Thessaly"[57] or "Emperor of all of Thessaly".[59] Though he had assumed this new title, John VII never stopped asserting his right to be the legitimate Byzantine emperor, continuing to use the titles autokrator and basileus, identical to the titulature of Manuel. In foreign correspondence, he was addressed in the same way as his uncle. Preserved treaties with the Italian republics refer to John VII as imperador di Griesi ("Emperor of the Greeks") and lo gran imperator Caloiani imperador di Griesi ("The great emperor Kalojoannes,[lower-alpha 4] Emperor of the Greeks").[53] John's entry into Thessalonica was commemorated in a Byzantine ivory pyxis (a cylindrical box with a lid).[24] This pyxis, today held at Dumbarton Oaks, depicts both the imperial family of John VII (including his wife Irene and his son Andronikos V) and the imperial family of Manuel II (including his wife Helena Dragaš and his son, John VIII).[61]

At Thessalonica, John VII created his own treasury and issued his own coins with his own portrait rather than that of Manuel. He created his own imperial court and chancery, where documents were signed with his name rather than the name of Manuel. Throughout John's reign in Thessalonica, which lasted until his death in 1408, the Byzantine Empire thus experienced a period of dual rule,[62] essentially divided into two.[63] John's activities as emperor in Thessalonica consisted mainly of organising the city's defense and regulating local church property.[62] He appears to have been content with his position; there are no further records of conflict between John VII and Manuel after the events of 1403.[64]

John VII's arrival in Thessalonica meant more to the Thessalonians than simply the arrival of an emperor. Through his 1403 treaty, John VII had liberated the city from the Ottomans and once more made it into the second city of the Byzantine Empire.[54] Though Manuel had also been involved in some of the negotiations, the majority of the credit for ensuring Thessalonica's return to imperial control has to be given to John VII.[62] As such, his arrival in the city was not just the arrival of a new governor, but of the city's liberator.[62] Throughout his reign in Thessalonica, the Thessalonians continued to view John VII as an able ruler. According to Symeon of Thessalonica, John VII "fortified [the city] on all sides with triremes and outer walls" and "adorned [it] with good regulations and institutions".[62]

Shortly after arriving in Thessalonica, John VII had raised his son, Andronikos V, to co-emperor. John VII viewed Andonikos V as not just his own legitimate successor, but the future legitimate successor to the Byzantine Empire. This can be gathered from the aforementioned pyxis depicting Andronikos V more prominently than Manuel's heir, John VIII, as well as monodies composed after Andronikos V's death.[64] One such monody states that Andronikos's parents had "regarded him gladly as their successor".[65] Andronikos V, who was named after his grandfather Andronikos IV,[65] was per the 1403 agreement the legitimate heir to the empire, set to be the heir to Manuel's son John VIII.[53][65] Any plans for Andronikos V's future fell through when he died in 1407 at the age of seven.[64][65] Some time after Andronikos V's death, John became a monk, assuming the monastic name Joseph.[24] John VII died in Thessalonica[47] a year after Andronikos V, on 22 September 1408,[66] at the relatively young age of 38. With the deaths of Andronikos V and John VII, the rival imperial lineage that had been established by Andronikos IV died out.[64][lower-alpha 5]

• Barker, John W. (2003). "Late Byzantine Thessalonike: A Second City's Challenges and Responses". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 57: 5–33. doi:10.2307/1291874. JSTOR 1291874.
• Dennis, George T. (2003). "The Late Byzantine Metropolitans of Thessalonike". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 57: 255–264. doi:10.2307/1291884. JSTOR 1291884.
• Geanakoplos, Deno J. (1965). "Church and State in the Byzantine Empire: A Reconsideration of the Problem of Caesaropapism". Church History. 34 (4): 381–403. doi:10.2307/3163118. JSTOR 3163118. S2CID 155077124.
• Gregory, Timothy E. (2010). A History of Byzantium (2nd ed.). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405184717.
• Grierson, Philip (1999). Catalogue of Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection: Volume Five: Michael VIII to Constantine XI 1258–1453. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. ISBN 0-88402-261-7.
• Haldon, John (2005). The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0230243644.
• Kapsalis, Athanasius G. (1994). Matthew I, Patriarch of Constantinople (1397 - 1410), his life, his patriarchal acts, his written works (PDF) (Thesis). Durham University.
• Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504652-8.
• Leonte, Florin (2012). Rhetoric in Purple: the Renewal of Imperial Ideology in the Texts of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (PDF) (PhD thesis). Central European University.
• Mladenov, Momchil (2003). "The Emperor John VII Palaiologos and the Bulgarian Lands in 1390". Journal Epohi (in Bulgarian). 11 (1): 189–196.
• Mladjov, Ian S. R. (2015). "Monarchs' Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State". Studia Ceranea. 5: 267–310. doi:10.18778/2084-140X.05.09. ISSN 2084-140X.
• Necipoğlu, Nevra (2009). Byzantium Between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521877381.
• Nicol, Donald M. (1992). The Immortal Emperor: The Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0511583698.
• Oikonomides, Nicolas (1977). "John VII Palaeologus and the Ivory Pyxis at Dumbarton Oaks". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 31: 329–337. doi:10.2307/1291411. JSTOR 1291411.
• Savvides, Alexios G. C. (2001). "On the Origins and Connotation of the Term "Tekfur" in Byzantine–Turkish Relations". Byzantion. 71 (2): 451–461. JSTOR 44172730.
• Trapp, Erich; Beyer, Hans-Veit; Walther, Rainer; Sturm-Schnabl, Katja; Kislinger, Ewald; Leontiadis, Ioannis; Kaplaneres, Sokrates (1976–1996). Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit (in German). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ISBN 3-7001-3003-1.
• Wirth, Peter (1965). "Zum Geschichtsbild Kaiser Johannes' VII. Palaiologos". Byzantion (in German). 35 (2): 592–600. JSTOR 44170158.
• Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. (1977). "John VII (Alias Andronicus) Palaeologus". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 31: 339–342. doi:10.2307/1291412. JSTOR 1291412.

• "Manuel II Palaeologus". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 17 November 2020.
• "John VII Palaeologus". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 17 November 2020.