Locals vs “foreigners”: criteria for the formation of local identities in Late Byzantium. An approach to Modern Graecitas through Late Byzantine writers by Eleonora Kountoura-Galaki and Nike Koutrakou Late Byzantine writers reporting on movements of people throughout the Byzantine space and beyond during an age of decline for Byzantium, frequently referred to the provenance of their dramatis personae. Presenting us with elements relating to the identity of their heroes, the writers often stressed the group, community, alliance or alignment to which their heroes belonged, or were perceived to belong. What is of interest is how precisely they chose to do that, what dimension or criterion they specifically chose to convey to their readership. This is why we focus in this paper not on what Late Byzantines writers considered themselves to be, but on the basis of what elements they arrived at that result. The most concrete relevant criteria and corresponding technical terms used in order to define individuals and groups are given by Constantine Acropolites. The writer gives us a very representative example of how writers of the period perceived differentiation and distinguishing features in people. He focuses on four elements that set groups of people “completely apart” and constitute group identities. These elements, arranged rather hierarchically, are: language, origins/race, laws and habits1. Acropolites might have been influenced by the relevant platonic ideas that were being studied widely at his time2. Nevertheless, he offers a list of differentiation criteria which we will follow as a kind of “Ariadne’s clue” in this study. The identity differentiation elements and relevant terms as appearing in historical writing have been studied by contemporary scholars. In our paper we will recall some of these examples3, then we will discuss what these criteria were and how they appear adapted in hagiographical works of the period. 1. Acrοpolites, Barbaros, 405.6: οἱ γλώσσῃ οἱ γένει οἱ νόμοις οἱ ἔθεσιν ἐκ διαμέτρου τυγχάνοντες. Cf. Ahrweiler, L’idéologie, 51. These criteria have been confirmed as universal ones according to latest studies: Kinzler-Dupoux-Spelke, 12577-12580. 2. Constantinides, Education, 126. Cacouros, Philosophie, 16. 3. Especially from the 13th-14th centuries. For the late historians Sphrantzes, Critoboulos, Chalcocondyles, Ducas: Vryonis, Self-Consciousness, 7-11; Reinsch, Θεώρηση, 71-86; Kiousopoulou, Βασιλεύς, 204-234. For the Chronicle of Morea: Page, Identity, 209ff. 1 HISTORIOGRAPHY Language and origins In order to define their heroes’ identity many Late Byzantine historians mention ethnic origins and language. For example George Acropolites narrating Michael VIII Paleologus’s rise to power describes the Scythians (=Cumans) soldiers consenting to the event both by social and by ethnic segments: they “did not answer as Barbarians, that is in barbarian tongue, but as Greeks and intelligibly”4. In this occurrence Greek language and the wisdom it was perceived to convey, was paramount as an identity distinguishing feature. The word συνετῶς makes a sharp contrast between Greek and barbaric language, implying that Greek, from the linguistic point of view, provided a comprehensive and accurate way of expression. However, to argue that features, such as language and provenance, although among the most important, were the sole ones defining identities in Late Byzantium is to stretch the point, since labels such as Romans, Greeks, barbarians etc were used already in Antiquity5. Nevertheless, these old paradigms, in the Paleologan context, appear to have acquired a new malleability, showing changing identity concepts in groups of people and their self-identification. Our beacon in this paper is the “image” which in the language of our writers described how people of the time perceived their “identity”. Let us examine the criteria applied in order to determine a collective identity, a community, be it real or “imagined”6, (perceived as such either from within or from outside), as well as the criteria used for someone in order to be accepted in a community or to interact with it. Constantine Acropolites stresses one criterion among all others: language. He contrasts Greek language to St. Barbaros’s “barbarian” utterances7. This idea probably echoes a personal experience since the Byzantine capital, where Acropolites lived, was then home to a great number of foreigners8. He was not the only scholar of the time who underlined the importance of Greek language as an identity criterion; several authors, up to the 15th century9, continued the tendency of embracing and appreciating the Greek paideia10. 4. Acropolites, §76,158: Macrides, Akropolites, 344-345. 5. Kantorowicz, Patria, 473-477. Miles, Identities, 4. 6. Miles, Identities, 5. 7. Acrοpolites, Barbaros, 412.18-20. 8. Oikonomidès, Hommes, 35-41 9. Gemistos, 247. See Kiousopoulou, Βασιλεύς, 218. 10. Magdalino, Manuel, 393ff. 2 The function of language in distinguishing people and in designating their origins is paramount in Pachymeres’s History. He used specifically the words ὁμοεθνεῖς and ὁμόγλωσσοι11 to define groups that belong to the same nation and speak the same language. That meant also that language as a differentiation pivot criterion could result either in communication or in miscommunication, especially when linked to other differentiation criteria, such as religion and dogma12. This is what happened between Greeks and Italians in dogmatic discussions, according to Pachymeres13. He significantly uses the word Γραικὸς to characterize Orthodox Romans, i.e. Byzantines, as opposed to Italians, those of Latin dogma14. Similarly, George Acropolites had stressed that “we are of another γένος15 than the Latins”, thus putting to the forefront the linkage between religious customs and language/race16. Language, an essential identity element, subsumes a difference which, beginning as a linguistic one, will end as an ideological one. The same distinction Γραικοὶ/Λατίνοι was used already in the beginning of the 13th century by the metropolitan of Naupaktos John Apokaukos, who identified himself as Ἕλλην and Γραικὸς17 in contrast to the Latins, compared to wild beasts. Thus, the argumentation on a Byzantine as a “Hellene”/Γραικὸς occurs mostly as a reaction to “Latin” perspectives (λατινισμός18). Language was also the primary differentiation criterion for Theodore Metochites. Given the uninterrupted continuity of the Greek language, Metochites19 underlines the direct provenance of Byzantines from “Hellenes”: καὶ τοῦ γένους ἐσμὲν καὶ τῆς γλώττης αὐτοῖς κοινωνοὶ καὶ διάδοχοι20. Hence, the combination of two 11. Pachymeres, X.8: IV,321.5-6, ΧΙΙ.32:IV,603.30. See Vryonis, Identity, 34. 12. Benveniste-Gaganakis, Heterodoxies, 8. 13. Pachymeres, V.12: II,481.12-5. 14. Maltezou, Tαυτότητα, 112-114; Kaldellis, Hellenism, 340-344, 355-360. 15. Acropolites, §17.30: Macrides, Akropolites, 155, 156. See Gounarides, “Grecs”, 250-251. Page, Identity, 99. 16. Beccos, Peace, 431.5-7, underlines the role of native tongues in expressing dogmatic differences. See Maltezou, Diversitas, 93-102. 17. Apokaukos, Letters, 69, 127.24-25 τὰ θηρία ... τὸν Ἕλληνά με καὶ τὸν Γραικὸν τοῖς αὐτῶν ὀδοῦσι κατεμασήσαντα. See Magdalino, Hellenism, 12; Kaldellis, Hellenism, 344-345. Cf. Jeffreys(s), “Beast”, 101-116. 18. Meletios, 617. 19. For Metochites (Semeioseis, 19.5.2 -published between 1321 and 1328: commentary, XIV) the contemporary flourishing of rhetoric attested the continuity of the Greek language. See Bydén, Antithesis, 273-387. 20. Metochites, Irony, 40.1-2. See Vryonis, Self-Consciousness, 13. 3 criteria, language and origins, (including race21 and ancestry ‒γένος‒) was for him the basic feature delineating a national identity. Habits and Laws To further define identity, especially as part of a group identity, Metochites used as basic element another one of those enumerated by Acropolites: the ἔθος/habit22. Thus, the “ante letteram” humanist thinker23 uses this criterion, in order to define the most common collectivity to which one might belong, that is the concept of one’s ancestral homeland (πατρίς). To exemplify his views Metochites used the most classic paradigm from the Odyssey(1.58ff) and defined the homeland concept as the habit of living in an accustomed place (home). Further examples of ἔθος/“habit” related to identities and “homeland” are encountered in the Histories of Pachymeres24 and of John Cantakuzenus. The latter says that Protokynegos Kontofre was useful against the Turks, because he had lived with them and had learned their customs and habits25. “War habits” were consequently defined as a differentiating element of the Turkish identity. Cantakuzenus commented on Andronic III’s unwillingness to marry his daughter Maria (Eirene?) with the Bulgarian prince Ivan, because she was unaccustomed to the “barbarian” habits, customs and laws26. Thus, Cantakuzenus appears to confirm the last two of the four identity criteria, stated by Constantine Acropolites. Moreover, his use of the words “Greek habits” and not “Roman”, as per imperial ideology, in order to allude to the princess’s customs, implies an obvious difference in culture. Similarly Gregoras depicting the “Scythians” (Bulgarians) describes their rough manners and their crude style of living and remarks that, they, despite the complete absence of high living and lack of intellectual culture, occasionally used the Greek language27. Therefore Gregoras also indirectly confirms customs and habits, including cultural ones, as prime