1

Locals vs “foreigners”: cri teria for the formation of local identi t ies in

Late Byzantium.

An approach to Modern Graecitas through Late Byzantine wri ters 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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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 elements for defining a group’s identity, turning it to

a national one. The same author discussing the friendship between John

Cantakuzenus and the Turkish emir of Aydin Umur, notes the emir’s using his native

21. See Gounarides, Γένος, 9-10; Reinsh, Θεώρηση, 73; Kaldellis, Hellenism, 355-364. 22. Metochites, Semeioseis, 6.3.4; 6.4.1-6. 23. Hunger, Metochites, 19. See also Bazzani, Humanist, 32-52. 24. The links among Latins of Constantinople were due to their common customs, habits and laws: Pachymeres, II.32: I,219.29-221.3. See Balard, L’organisation, 261-276. Dursteller, Venetians, 61. 25. Cantakuzenus, Ι, 341.14-16. Arnakes, Ὀθωμανοί, 178-179. 26. Cantakuzenus, I, 504-505: τὴν παρὰ τοῖς βαρβάροις διατριβὴν εἰδὼς οὐκ ἐσομένην πρὸς ἡδονὴν τοῖς ἤθεσι καὶ νόμοις Ἑλληνικοῖς ἐντεθραμμένῃ καὶ βασιλικοῖς. See, Bosch, Andronikos III, 81 and note 1. 27. Gregoras, I/1, 31-32.

5

tongue and different (barbarian) laws, customs and habits28. Gregoras follows the

same criteria as Acropolites, Metochites and Cantacuzenus. However he further

proceeds to nuance the notion of identity by making the (surprisingly modern)

comment that “common views”29, prevail in the formation of group identities. Subsequently Gregoras gives precedence to a criterion that defines one’s “cultural

identity” and which was also one changing at will.

Along with origins, habits and customs Cantakuzenus also used the concept

of πατρὶς as part of a national identity. Describing the preparations for the battle of

Pelekanos (May 1329) Cantakuzenus stated that Andronic III in an inspired speech

asked his men to fight for their ancestors, their country and freedom30. That the

emperor really pronounced such a speech, or not, is beside the point. What is of interest is that the defense of one’s own country (πατρὶς) is stated as part and parcel

of one’s national identity. Cantakuzenus writing at a time of crisis, when the pressure

to appeal to a commonality as an identifying element against a foe increases, had

every reason to underline the Byzantine notion of national identity.

For Metochites and Cantacuzenus homeland was above all the place defined

by the same language and customs, while for Gregoras, it was primarily the place connected with the ancestral race and origins and secondary with one’s habits and

customs. Thus, Gregoras describes Constantinople as a “bastard homeland”31, in

relation to the Latins.

Hence, the most typical criteria used by our writers as identity pointers for

individuals and groups were those pertaining to language, origins/race32,

customs/habits and laws, endorsing the concept of homeland. They are the same

ones we use as our “guiding string” according to Constantine Acropolites’s definition. The link between language as a primary identity criterion and one’s origins as well as

the homeland concept were associated to a further dimension: language provided the

inception point to adopt a common (or perceived as such) past, i.e. the link with a

place, a provenance where it was spoken among a group. To deny this past as in the

example of the “bastard homeland” was to deny acceptance to that group.

28. Gregoras, II, 649: oὕτως οὐ βάρβαρον ὁ βάρβαρος εἶχε τὸν τρόπον, ἀλλ’ ἥμερον καὶ παιδείας Ἑλληνικῆς τὸ παράπαν ἐχόμενον … ἄμικτον εἶχε πάντη τὸν βίον αὐτῷ καὶ ἀγνῶτα καὶ ἀλλόφυλον. See Lemerle, Aydin, 108-115; Nicol, Cantacuzene, 35-36. 29. Gregoras, IΙ/1, 650: τὴν γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς ὁμόνοιαν τε καὶ συγγένειαν οὐχὶ τὸ γένος, ἀλλ’ ἡ τῆς γνώμης δείκνυσι ταυτότης. 30. Cantakouzenus, I, 345.18-22. Cf. Ševčenko, Decline, 167-186. 31. Gregoras I/1, 86: χαίρειν εἰπόντες τὴν νόθον πατρίδα. See Koder, Identitäten, 314. 32. See Maltezou, Tαυτότητα, 108-112; Page, Identity, 41ff.

6

In parallel with labels such as Greek, barbarian, Latin, Scythian etc, technical

terms which denote someone’s common race or ancestry as ὁμογενής, ὁμόφυλος, are recurrent in Late Byzantine Historiography. These words also often contrast with

their antonyms, used in order to identify someone as opposed to someone else: terms that identify “the Other” as to his origins, such as ἀλλογενής, ἀλλόφυλος, ἀλλότριος, or as to his language such as ἀλλόγλωσσος. This often meant that the

identity group was defined with reference to what it was not. Metochites, for instance

used the word ἀλλότριοι33 for ancient Assyrians. Moreover according to Late Byzantine historians sharing one of the identity

criteria, even a primary one, was not enough to determine a common group identity,

especially when other factors (eg. religious allegiance, customs) entered the game. For instance the concept of sharing the same language alone was not sufficient:

Pachymeres’s words in the mouth of the unionist patriarch John Beccos referring to

his successor Gregory of Cyprus are significant. Gregory was born and raised

according to Italian customs in Latin-held Cyprus; consequently he “intruded” in “our

(=Byzantine) customs”, that is in our society34. This was a direct attack against

Gregory denying him that essential connection ensured through language and origins with a common, Byzantine, past.

HAGIOGRAPHY: nuanced identity criteria

At this point let us turn to Byzantine Hagiography, which is a goldmine of

information. Hagiographers mostly used the same terms and the same concepts as

well as the same primary identity criteria as their contemporary historians. We have

examined these four criteria (language, customs, race, laws) as defined by Constantine Acropolites. However we encounter in Byzantine Hagiography specific

connotations and nuances that occurred according to each writer’s priority criterion

and his political and/or religious views and purposes35.

Language and habits. The monastic milieu and the religious/political affiliation

criterion

33. Metochites, Semeioseis, 7.2.4. 34. Pachymeres, VII,34: III,101.26-28. See Papadakis, Crisis, 38 and n. 12, 74. Cf. Gounarides, Βέκκος, 29-40. 35. As Vryonis, Self-Consciousness, 5-14 pointed out, terms such as Ἕλλην, Ῥωμαῖος etc. might be used

with a different meaning not only by the same writer in different text, but even inside the same text.

7

The first criterion used by Acropolites was the linguistic one as we have

already developed36. A second one, but with a specific connotation, was the

“habit/customs”, often found in combination with the linguistic one. In fact, the

hagiographers often mention the word ἔθος with the ordinary in the monastic or church environment meaning, that is representing habits and customs of

monastic/church life37. In parallel, hagiographers also used ἔθος as an identity

criterion for their dramatis personae. Philotheos Kokkinos identifies one of the

recipients of Gregory Palamas’s posthumous miracles as a foreign monk by using

both language and habits38, while Lascaris considers ἔθος an essential differentiation

pointer39.

Τerms such as ὁμογενὴς were often used in Hagiography with a nuance pertaining to people with the same habits and ideas, sharing a kind of cultural

identity, and with an element of overt or covert appreciation, while ἀλλόφυλος implied

the opposite40. Philotheos qualifies monks as ἄξιοι τῆς πατρίδος, for having

preserved and passed on to their contemporaries the old nobility of the “golden

Nation”41. Thus, the hagiographer seems to use political and social terms in order to

define monastic qualities. The nuance is worth underlining: for the hagiographers, the monks had developed a new homeland concept in their monastic community.

To further define the Late Byzantine identity criteria, we should add a sub-

criterion, which we have already alluded to in its usual form as part of the habits/laws:

it is the criterion of religion or religious affiliation/dogma, according to which Γραικοὶ42 or Romans, i.e. Orthodox Greeks defined and differentiated themselves from the

followers of the Latin dogma43. It functioned almost as a primary identity criterion in

times of controversies and served in Latin-held regions44 (eg. Crete, Cyprus) as a catalyst for preserving the Byzantine “political orthodoxy”, that is a kind of allegiance

towards the Byzantine past.

Equally, the word Γραικός/ί, in conjunction with religious controversy was

used with the particular nuance of pointing out an identifying difference of allegiance.

36. See above, note 1. 37. Gregory, Euthymios, 407.14. Kalothetos, Athanasios, 500.1547. 38. Philotheos, Palamas, 576-577. 39. Lascaris, Tryphon, 353B: ἔθος τούτοις δίδωσι τὸ ἀλλοῖον. 40. Philotheos, Sabas, 167.18-20. 41. Ibid, 167.29-30. 42. Pachymeres, VII.9: ΙΙΙ,39.10-14. 43. Maltezou, Tαυτότητα, 108-110. Kaldellis, Hellenism, 355-360. 44. Cantakouzenus, I,371.19.

8

It contrasted an Orthodox person with the followers of the Latin Church and the

followers of the Union of Churches. This is quite visible in the Late Byzantine

hagiographical texts, such as the 13th century text on the martyrs of Cyprus, where

they are identified through their opposition to Latin Church45. Obviously, this criterion was inordinately stressed in times and places where the dogmatic differences were

of prime importance.

In fact religious dogma was in such cases of debates and conflicts, the most

elemental boundary in creating group identities. The obvious contrast between

Orthodoxy and Latin dogma was a determining identity criterion for Byzantine writers

of the period. Late Byzantine historians often spoke of the Latin religious beliefs46,

while Hagiographers spoke of the Latin dogma and by extension of the Unionist policies and their followers as something ἔκφυλον καὶ ἀλλότριον47 that was “totally

alien and beyond the bounders” of the Roman=Greek race. Or they defined it as

εὐσεβείας ἀλλότριον48. The religious affiliation element was further stressed in every

kind of “profession of faith” as, for instance, in patriarch Athanasius’s letter49.

When religious allegiance played a role in self (or other)-identification, political

allegiance followed. So, in pointing out allegiances and loyalties as a further sub-criterion defining identities, especially local ones, Late Byzantine writers often

describe their hero’s loyalty towards whatever Authority existed in that region. That

kind of local affiliation could take the form of political orthodoxy towards local

ἄρχοντες. It could also be connected to the existing laws and customs, as well as to

someone’s race and ancestry. Subsequently the Life of St. Romylos, referring to the

saint’s dealings with the inhabitants of the Avlona underlined that before his arriving,

the “locals lived in dogmatic error” while the local chieftains were noted for their injustice50.

A further nuance: local provenance/local homeland and the “xeniteia” concept

In the section dealing with Historiography we referred to the concept of

homeland in conjunction with language and race (Metochites), with an allusion to

local provenance (“pseudo-homeland” by Gregoras). Let us view it through the

45. Diegesis, 38. See also Philotheos, Sabas, 206.3-5.See Kyrris, Identity, 178-182. 46. For instance: Pachymeres, V.19: ΙΙ,499.17. V.23: ΙΙ,511.15-513.25 47. Philotheos, Palamas, 500.20. Meletios, 617.14-15. 48. Neilos, Anthimos, 71.19-20. 49. It is preserved in Theoktistos, Athanasios, 29.19, 39.29-31. 50. Romylos, 143.19-24. Κountoura-Koutrakou, Πρόσληψη, 61.

9

hagiographical lens as well. We should stress, however, that although hagiographical

texts often use metaphorically “local provenance terms”, (with the meaning that

everyone is πάροικος and παρεπίδημος in this life in comparison to eternal life), we

will limit ourselves to those mentions that present a literal meaning. This concept of homeland often to be introduced by the word οἰκεία (γῆ) which

conveys the idea of something that is known, friendly and accepted as one’s “own

country”, as opposed to ἀλλοτρία (the other’s/different/foreign, sometimes even

enemy land), was strongly linked to a person’s identification. Also the concept of

πατρὶς could be used either into the form of a narrow concept meaning one’s locality

of provenance, village, town51, city, or as a broader one, a country in the sense of a

“state”, of a region under a specific governance/rule, suggesting rather the notion of fatherland, something unusual in Late Byzantine Hagiography. Therefore,

Constantinople felt as ἀλλοτρία, as a different place, to Nicolas Kabasilas, although

he resided there to study with his uncle, patriarch Neilos, and his friends and

colleagues. Writing to his father in his native Thessalonica around 1320, Kabasilas is

explicit on this point: he was persuaded “to leave his own city and chose a different

one”52. Furthermore, Philotheos Kokkinos speaking of St. Sabas’s desire to embrace

a monk’s “anahoresis”, stresses another connotation concerning the concept of the

(local) “patris”: he links the concept of the local “own country” to parents as well as to

those of the same age group and of the same circle, whom the saint avoided, in

order to leave his native Thessalonica53. This concept of people belonging to the

same in-group, the same “circle”, sharing the same ideas and habits is even more

evident in the writings of scholarly authors sharing the same love for classical Greek letters, as depicted in Kabasilas’s letters54.

In all the above cases however, the homeland concept is the narrow one,

restricting the πατρὶς idea to a particular locality or even community. This was the

overall tendency in Late Byzantine Hagiography and it is supported by the vocabulary

which identified a person or a group as pertaining to a particular place. Terms such

as αὐτόχθων55, or its synonym αὐθιγενής56, ἐγχώριος57, ὁ περιχώρου58, παροικῶν59,

51. Philotheos, Germanos, 137. Philotheos, Palamas, 583-584. 52. Kabasilas, Letters, 1, 29. Cf. On “patris” mainly for Thessalonica, see Constantakopoulou,

Θεσσαλονίκη, 226-227. 53. Philotheos, Sabas, 185-186. 54. Kabasilas, Letters, 4, 32. See Bianconi, Tessalonica, 58, n. 42. 55. Acrοpolites, Thomais, 245E. Philotheos, Palamas, 581.18-19

10

ἐπίδημος60, παρεπίδημος61, ἔπηλυς62 which link someone to a particular local region,

either as his place of origin or his place of residence, bear out a kind of “restricted

homeland” concept. Possibly Hagiographers concerned themselves more with local

and personal matters than with the overall picture of the affairs of the empire and this is reflected in this limited view of the “homeland”. It might also be that, due to the

changing political situation of the time, the concept of a larger, common “Byzantine”

homeland receded, taking second place to the local homeland in the mentality of its

people.

Reflecting reactions to this kind of local πατρὶς as perceived through

ἔθος/customs and love for them, was another term we encounter in Late Byzantine

Hagiography: that of “xeniteia”63, often linked with the usual locus classicus on exile and on dying in foreign lands. Kalothetos defined what “xeniteia” meant: he praises

Andrew of Crete’s virtuous while in Jerusalem and he extols his “xeniteia” and

“filoxenia”, pertaining both to Christian tradition64. However “xeniteia” was further

explained by the writer65, through his own vision of what he considered necessary in

order not to be an exile: be known, be among friends, have the same cultural

understanding which would protect from incomprehension that is, become part of a group and assume a collective identity. In fact the text thus points towards a “cultural”

identity as part of the homeland concept.

We should note, however, that the concept of ξένος encompassed every type

of leaving a particular locality or community perceived as one’s own. It often became

a synonym to what tribulations one had to go through in a foreign place in order to be

accepted. Gregory Sinaites having fled the island of Mytilene resided in

56. Acrοpolites, Evdokimos, 217.37. 57. Metochites, John, 687A. Mouzalon, Nicetas, 131.104. Very common the expression “ἐγχωρίως καλούμενον” e.g. Kallistos, Sinaïta, 3.16. Cf. Kountoura-Koutrakou, Πρόσληψη, 45-67. 58. Staurakios, Miracles, 360.10. Philotheos, Palamas, 578.1-2. 59. Philotheos, Palamas, 445.1. 60. Metochites, John, 687Α: μὴ τῶν ἐγχωρίων, ἀλλὰ πόρρωθεν ἐπίδημος. Metochites, Michael, 676E. 61. Acrοpolites, Evdokimos, 210.19 Kallistos, Sinaïta, 34.11-12. Theoktistos, Athanasios, 32. The term is also used under the meaning of the Christian sayings: John Basileus, 23. 62. Acrοpolites, Evdokimos, 217. Raoulaina, 207. Mouzalon, Nicetas, 133. 63. Although “xeniteia” was often used metaphorically in Hagiography, meaning the life on earth as away from Heaven (McGuckin, Xeniteia, 23-38), it could be ‒ and was ‒ used also in its literal meaning of

being in a foreign country ἀλλοτρία γῆ. 64. The passage normally pertains to Christian tradition, but it reflects Andrews’ charity known through his much earlier vita, Nicetas, Andrew, 174. 65. Kalothetos, Andrew, 438.

11

Constantinopole as “xenos”. He was in fact a “xenos”66, meaning not the one who

comes from elsewhere, but the one who, driven by need, leaves his own homeland:

his travels, leaving behind war devastated regions in search of “hesyhia”, took him all

around the Balkans and as far as allegiance is concerned, he asked for Christian protection indiscriminately from Romans and/or Bulgarians. His Life is an eloquent

testimony to the malleability of identity criteria in the uncertainty of times67, and bears

witness as to Hagiography’s role in presenting us with the views of the commoners

concerning the formation of identities.

Similarly, several texts point out that their hero was not afraid of dying in

foreign lands, thus implying that dying abroad was usually regarded as a real

calamity. Constantine Acropolites formulates twice the opinion that people strong in God do not fear death in a foreign land, which “is something that everybody wishes to

avoid”68. Such an attitude reveals an emotional rather than a logical bond with a

particular locality felt as a πατρίς. A bond made by habit, friends, comprehension, a

kind of “cultural identity”, highlighted by the existence of commonalities, such as

language, customs and laws.

Local identity and integration. Homeland as a changing concept

A bond with a particular locality felt as one’s homeland being perceived as an

identity element posit the existence of another identity feature: that of integration and

acceptance into a group, as expressed by Neilos Stavras. At a time when, due to

incessant war operations, people were almost constantly on the move, St.

Athanasius experienced a system of “xeniteia”. People could easily thus be or

become μέτοικοι, ξένοι, in a particular locality and could be, or not be accepted by the group already there. That is why, Neilos Stavras specifically stressed in presenting

his hero, the feature of his being perceived as a “local” εἰ <ἡ>μεδαπὸς τυγχάνει ἢ

μέτοικος69, exactly because Stagoi (=Meteora) was not his hero’s “homeland”.

Athanasius was in linked to the place (Stagoi), solely as the founder of the koinobion. What is latent in this remark is a tendency of limited acceptance of foreigners,

with the exception of those being linked to a particular work to the profit of the

existing community (such as in this case the foundation of a monastery). Interestingly enough this requirement could be waived and other acceptance sub-criteria take its

66. Kallistos, Sinaïta, 34. Meletios, 615. Cf. Mullett, The “Other”, 21. 67. Laiou, Saints, 92-93; Delikari, Γρηγόριος, 149. 68. Acrοpolites, Damascenos, 824D-825A. Acrοpolites, Evdokimos, 210.17. 69. Stauras, Athanasios, 38.

12

place in integrating someone coming from outside into a group. External appearance,

especially a handsome one, was one of them, as Stauras says: his hero, in his youth,

travelled to Crete, and was εὐαπόδεκτος=easily accepted, there, first because of his

eloquence, and second because of his being a handsome young man70. After all, human reactions to beauty were always the same and a handsome face paved the

way into acceptance.

The question of integration and acceptance into a particular group or locality

is by itself linked with the four primary differentiation criteria we have analysed and

begs an answer as to their relative importance as well as to their efficiency in building

a group identity.

For instance in times of controversy the religious allegiance criterion was among the most important ones for the formation of group identities or for one’s

acceptance into a group. Only one criterion however, be it an important one, was not

enough. For instance, to identify someone as ὁμόφυλος, being of the same

race/nation did not ipso facto mean that the “same origin” criterion functioned as an

unconditional acceptance criterion for his assuming a group identity. On the contrary,

if other criteria, especially those of religion/dogma, habits/laws/loyalty were not met, the critical comments became the norm and the acceptance was withdrawn

altogether. The reference by patriarch Neilos to the zealot revolt in Thessalonica

(mid-14th century) that did not permit to Palamas to effectively take up his

Archbishop’s seat in the city for three years after his election (till 1350) as στάσις τῶν ὁμοφύλων71 and to them as those of the same race who enriched themselves from

the homeland’s suffering72 constitutes a relevant example. Philotheos Kokkinos73

also alludes to the same events condemning the discord thus created and the fact that people of the same race found themselves opposing each other in an internal

strife.

A most important concept in this respect was that of ἡμεδαπός (compatriot, of

one of us) which was often linked to a particular locality. However it had also much to

do with sharing the same ideas, knowledge and concepts, of sharing a common

“cultural identity”. Probably, the most obvious such example is that of Damascenos.

Although he resided in Arab lands74, he was perceived by Constantine Acropolites as

70. Ibid, 40: διὰ εἴδους καὶ λόγου εὐαπόδεκτος. 71. Neilos, Palamas, 672A. 72. Ibid, 672D. 73. Philotheos, Sabas, 166. 74. Acrοpolites, Damascenos, 840A. Philotheos, Palamas, 534.

13

“one of us”, who took care of our affairs. The hagiographer continued using the

Damascenos’s example in order to proceed to a general statement on the idea of

πατρίς, one’s own homeland, as opposed to a foreign one and the accompanying

emotions75. Evoking emotions, he presents Damascenos not as a Church father, but rather as an individual. Acropolites thus seems to address to a society that knows

about movements of people and of residing in different locations.

The ἡμεδαπὸς concept presented a kind of malleability: a μέτοικος could also

become ἡμεδαπὸς and someone residing in a foreign land could be perceived as

ἡμεδαπός. This reflected the malleability of the homeland concept which could also

be a changing one. Philotheos Kokkinos underscored this point with respect to

Thessalonica, which could become an adopted πατρὶς to those who had chosen to live there. The operative word here is one’s choice. It implied one’s will to live

somewhere and to consider that place one’s own. Philotheos underlines that the city

received and integrated those who resided there76, thus reflecting a multicultural and

multiracial society of money, traders and intellectuals. This open society is alluded to

Palamas’s posthumous miracles that benefited everyone, be he αὐτόχθων, τῆς περιχώρου, or ἔπηλυς77.

The malleability of the homeland concept is further confirmed by a text written

by Gregory Palamas, who defined his hero Petros, as “one of us and a local man”,

although he did not know his origins78. Instead the writer opted to consider Mount

Athos as Petros’s πατρὶς which he had chosen as residence79. Palamas continued

with a reference to classical Athens and those who resided there and with the

statement that one’s homeland is, arguably, where one lives a good life80.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion we should stress that identities at the time were expressed through the

means of several criteria. We have focused on four elements, which are to be found

in all the writers of the time: language, race/origins, habits, laws. However there are

nuances. Among these criteria, language, constitutes the primary one for many

75. Acrοpolites, Damascenos, 840Β. 76. Philotheos, Anysia, 64.6-10: ξένους τε καὶ αὐτόχθονας ἐν ἴσῳ δεξιουμένη…, ὡς πολίτας μὲν αὐτῆς καὶ εἰς τὸ ἑξῆς ἐθέλειν καλεῖσθαι. 77. Philotheos, Palamas, 578.2. See Constantakopoulou, Θεσσαλονίκη, 173-182. Bianconi, Tessalonica, 60ff. 78. Palamas, Petros, 996A, 997D. 79. Ibid, 1000A. 80. Ibid, 1000B.

14

writers, and is often linked to race. The two last criteria often appeared together or

were closely linked more specifically as “customs and laws”. Also in conjunction with

language and race the writers formally defined the homeland concept.

However each writer stresses the one he might consider the essential one, according to his priorities, ideological views and the necessities of his time. If, for

instance, for the formation of identities Pachymeres stresses language, Metochites

language and habits, Gregoras “common views”, Kokkinos, reflecting the need to

adjust to changing circumstances, underlines the change of habits and the

integration to the receiving group.

The same criteria were present in the works of Byzantine hagiographers, but with

further nuances. Several of them presented a religious, metaphorical approach, while others reflected the commoners’ views on the formation of identities, incidentally

revealing a widespread feeling of uncertainty about the future in times of scarce

political stability. The “homeland” concept for example, especially as local homeland,

presented a malleability that echoes the political instability and the ideological

permeability of times of crises. Thus the Hagiographical works of the time, although

generally following, in their characterizations, the rhetorical identifying antithesis between “us” and “them”81 reveal the formation of group identities, especially local

ones, reflecting at their initial stage tendencies which will be developed in the future

and will, much later, lead to the formation of broader, national identities.

81. Magdalino, Hellenism, 4-5.

15

Bibliography

Acrοpolites, Barbaros: ed. A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας, vol. I, St. Peterburg 1891, repr. Bruxelles 1963.

Acrοpolites, Evdokimos: ed. M. Loparev, Žitije svjatavo Evdokima pravednavo, Ižvestija Russkago Archelogičeskago Instituta v Konstantinopolě 13 (1908), 199-218.

Acrοpolites, Damascenos: Patrologia Graeca 140, 812-885.

Acrοpolites,Thomais: Acta Sanctorum, Novembris IV 1925, 242-246.

Acropolites: ed. A. Heisenberg - P. Wirth, Georgii Acropolitae opera, vol. I, Leipzig

1903, repr. Stuttgart 1978.

Ahrweiler, L’idéologie: Hélène Ahrweiler, L’idéologie politique de l’empire byzantin, Paris 1975.

Apokaukos, Letters: ed. N. A. Bees, Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des

Johannes Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos (in Aetolien), Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 21 (1971-1974), 55-160.

Arnakes, Ὀθωμανοί: G. Georiades Arnakes, Oἱ πρῶτοι Ὀθωμανοί. Συμβολὴ εἰς τὸ πρόβλημα τῆς πτώσεως τοῦ ἑλληνισμοῦ τῆς Μικρᾶς Ἀσίας (1282-1337) [Texte und

Forschungen zur Byzantinisch-Neugriechischen Philologie, 41], Athens 1947. Balard, L’organisation: M. Balard, L’organisation des colonies étrangères à

Constantinople (XIIe-XVe siècles), in: Vassiliki Kravari, J. Lefort, Cécile Morrisson

(eds), Hommes et richesses à Byzance, Vol.2: VIIIe-XVe siècle, Paris 1991, 261-276.

Bazzani, Humanist: Marina Bazzani, Theodore Metochites, A Byzantine Humanist,

Byzantion 76 (2006), 32-52.

Beccos, Peace: ed. J. Darrouzès ‒ V. Laurent, Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon (1273-1277) [Archives de l’orient chrètien, 16], Paris 1976, 425-457.

Benveniste-Gaganakis, Heterodoxies: Henriette Rika Benveniste ‒ C. Gaganakis,

Heterodoxies: Construction of identities and otherness in medieval and early Modern

Europe, Historein. A Review of the Past and other Stories 2 (2000), 7-12.

Bianconi, Tessalonica: D. Bianconi, Tessalonica nell’età dei Paleologi. Le pratiche intellettuali nel riflesso della cultura scritta [Dossiers byzantins 5], Paris 2005.

Bosch, Andronikos III: Ursula Victoria Bosch, Kaiser Andronikos III. Palaiologos: Versuch einer Darstellung der byzantinischen Geschichte in den Jahren 1321-1341, Amsterdam 1965.

Bydén, Antithesis: Börje Bydén, The Nature and Purpose of the Semeioseis

gnomikai: The Antithesis of Philosophy and Rhetorik, in: Metochites, Semeioseis, 245-288.

16

Cacouros, Philosophie: M. Cacouros, La philosophie et les sciences du Trivium et

du Quadrivium à Byzance de 1204 à 1453 entre tradition et innovation: les textes et

l’enseignement, le cas de l’école du Prodrome (Pétra), in: M. Cacouros - Marie-

Hélène Congourdeau (eds), Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453: les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission [Orientalia lovanensia analecta, 146],

Leuven ‒Paris‒ Dudley 2006, 1-51.

Cantakouzenos: Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris Historiarum libri IV [CSHB], L.

Schopen, vol. Ι-ΙΙΙ, Bonn 1828-1832.

Constantakopoulou, Θεσσαλονίκη: Angeliki Constantakopoulou, Βυζαντινή Θεσσαλονίκη. Χώρος και ιδεολογία, Ioannina 1996.

Constantinides, Education: N. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (1294-ca. 1310), Nicosia 1982.

Delikari, Γρηγόριος: Angeliki Delikari, Αγιος Γρηγόριος ο Σιναΐτης: η δράση και η συμβολή του στη διάδοση του ησυχασμού στα Βαλκάνια: η σλαβική μετάφραση του βίου του κατά το αρχαιότερο χειρόγραφο, Thessalonica 2004.

Diegesis: ed. C. N. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, vol. 2, Venice 1873 20-39.

Dursteller, Venetians: E. R. Dursteller, Venetians in Constantinople: nation, identity, and coexistence in the early modern Mediterranean, Baltimore, Maryland

2006.

Études Balkaniques: Byzance et l’hellénisme: L’identité grecque au Moyen-Âge. Actes du Congrès International tenu à Trieste du 1er au 3 Octobre 1997, Études Balkaniques. Cahiers Pierre Belon 6 (1999).

Gemistos: Γεωργίου Γεμιστοῦ εἰς Μανουὴλ Παλαιολόγον Περὶ τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ πραγμάτων, ed. S. Lampros, Παλαιολόγεια καὶ Πελοπονησιακά, vol. III, Athens 1926, 246-266.

Gigante, Instabilità: M. Gigante, Il ciclo dell poesie inedited di Teodoro Metochites

a se stresso o sull’ instabilità della vita, Byzantinische Forschungen 2 (1967) =

Polychordia. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburstag, 204-224. (= Idem, Scritti sulla civiltà letteraria bizantina, Napoli 1981, 217-244).

Gounarides, Βέκκος: P. Gounarides, Ιωάννης Βέκκος εχθρός Ρωμαίων, in:

Βαλκάνια και Ανατολική μεσόγειος 12ος-17ος αιώνες. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου στη Μνήμη Δ. Α. Ζακυθηνού, Αθήνα, 14-15 Ιανουαρίου 1994 [ΕΙΕ/IBE Το

Βυζάντιο σήμερα 2] Athens 1998, 29-40.

Gounarides, Γένος: P. Gounarides, Γένος Ρωμαίων: βυζαντινὲς καὶ νεοελληνικὲς ἑρμηνεῖες, Athens 1996.

17

Gounarides, “Grecs”: P. Gounarides, “Grecs”, “Hellenes” et “Romains” dans l’état

de Nicée, in: B. Kremmydas et al. (eds) Αφιέρωμα στον Νίκο Σβορώνο, vol. I, Rethymno 1986, 248-257.

Gregoras: Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia [CSHB], vol. I-II, cura L. Schopeni, Bonn 1829- vol. III, E. Bekker, Bonn 1855.

Gregory, Euthymios: ed. Β. Antoniades, Γεωργίου Κυπρίου Ἐγκώμιον εἰς τὸν

μέγαν Εὐθύμιον ἐπίσκοπον Μαδύτων, Δελτίον τῆς ἱστορικῆς καὶ ἐθνολογικῆς ἑταιρίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος 4 (1892), 387-422.

Hinterberger, Studien: M. Hinterberger, Studien zu Theodore Metochites, JÖB 51

(2001), 285-319.

Hunger, Metochites: H. Hunger, Theodore Metochites als Vorläufer des Humanismus in Byzanz, BZ 45 (1952), 4-19.

Jeffreys(s), “Beast”: Elisabeth Jeffreys and M. Jeffreys, “The Wild Beast from the

West”: Immediate Literary Reactions in Byzantium to the Second Crusade, in:

Angeliki E. Laiou and R. P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, Washington 2001, 101-116.

John Basileus: ed. N. Festa, A propos d’une biographie de St. Jean le Miséricordieux, Vizantijskij Vremennik 13 (1907), 23-35.

Kabasilas, Letters: ed. P. Enepekides, Der Briefwechsel des Mystikers Nikolaos

Kabasilas, BZ 46 (1953), 18-46.

Kaldellis, Hellenism: A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: the transformations of Greek identity and the reception of the classical tradition, Cambridge UP 2007.

Kallistos,Sinaïta: ed. I.Pomjalovskij, Žitie iže vo svjatyh otca našego Grigorija

Sinaita po rukopisi Moskovkoj Sinodal noj biblioteki, Zapiski Istoriko-filologičeskago Fakulteta Imperatorskago S.Peterburskago Universiteta 35, Sankt Peterburg 1894, 1-

46.

Kalothetos, Andrew: ed. Τsames, Ἰωσὴφ Καλόθετος, 435-451. Kalothetos, Athanasios: ed. Τsames, Ἰωσὴφ Καλόθετος, 453-502. Kantorowicz, Patria: E. H. Kantorowicz, Pro Patria Mori in Medieval Political

Thought, American Historical Review 56/3 (1951), 472-492.

Kinzler-Dupoux-Spelke: K.D. Kinzler, E. Dupoux, E.S. Spelke, The native language of social cognition, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (2007), 12577-12580.

Kiousopoulou, Βασιλεύς: Tonia Kiousopoulou, Βασιλεύς ή Οικονόμος: πολιτική εξουσία και ιδεολογία πριν την Άλωση, Athens 2007.

18

Koder, Latinoi: J. Koder, Latinoi ‒ The Image of the other according to Greek

sources, in: Chryssa A. Maltezou ‒ P. Schreiner (eds), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII-XV secolo). Atti del Colloquio Internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz o.p., Venezia, 1-2 dicembre 2000, Venezia 2002, 25-39.

Koder, Identitäten: J. Koder Griechische Identitäten im Mittelalter Aspekte einer

Entwicklung, in: Anna Avramea- Angeliki E. Laiou- E. Chrysos (eds), Byzantium State and Society In Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, [IBR/NHRF], Athens 2003, 297-

319.

Kountoura-Koutrakou, Πρόσληψη: Eleonora Kountoura- Nike Koutrakou, Η

πρόσληψη του δυτικοελλαδικού χώρου στους λόγιους συγγραφείς της Παλαιολόγειας περιόδου με έμφαση στα υστεροβυζαντινά αγιολογικά κείμενα, in: Marina Vrelli-

Zachou, Chr. Staurakos (eds), Πρέβεζα Β΄. Πρακτικά του Δεύτερου Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για την Ιστορία και τον Πολιτισμό της Πρέβεζας, vol. I, Preveza 2010, 45-

67.

Kyrris, Identity: K. Kyrris, Greek Cypriot Identity, Byzantium and the Latins,

Ἐπετηρὶς τοῦ Κέντρου Ἐπιστημονικῶν Ἐρευνῶν 19 (1992), 169-185. Laiou, Saints: Angeliki E. Laiou Thomadakis, Saints and Society in the Late

Byzantine Empire, in: Angeliki E. Laiou Thomadakis (ed.), Charanis Studies. Essays in Honor of Peter Charanis, New Jersey 1980, 84-114.

Lascaris, Tryphon: Acta Sanctorum Novembris IV, 352-357. Lemerle, Aydin: P. Lemerle, L'émirat d'Aydin, Byzance et l'Occident: recherches

sur La geste d'Umur pacha, [Bibliothèque byzantine. Études, 2], Paris 1957.

McGuckin, Xeniteia: J. McGuckin, Aliens and Citizens of Elsewhere: Xeniteia in East Christian Monastic Litterature, in: Smythe, Strangers, 23-38. Meletios: ed. Sp. Lauriotis, Βίος καὶ πολιτεία καὶ μερικὴ θαυμάτων διήγησις του

ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μελετίου τοῦ Ὁμολογητοῦ, Gregory Palamas 5 (1921), 582-584,

609-624.

Macrides, Akropolites: Ruth Macrides, George Akropolites The History. Introduction, translation and commentary [Oxford Studies in Byzantium], Norfolk 2007.

Magdalino, Manuel: P. Magdalino, The empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge U.P. 1993.

Magdalino, Hellenism: P. Magdalino, Hellenism and Nationalism in Byzantium, in:

Idem, Tradition and Transformation in Medieval Byzantium [Variorum Reprints],

Aldershot 1991, XIV.

19

Maltezou, Diversitas: Cryssa A. Maltezou, Diversitas linguae, in: Ἡ ἐπικοινωνία στὸ Βυζάντιο, CBR/NHRF Athens 1993, 93-102.

Maltezou, Tαυτότητα: Chryssa A. Maltezou, Ἡ διαμόρφωση τῆς ἑλληνικῆς

ταυτότητας στὴ λατινοκρατούμενη Ἑλλάδα, in: Études Balkaniques, 105-119. Metochites, Irony: ed. A. Agapitos, Karin Hult, O. L. Smith, Theodoros Metochites

on Philosophic Irony and Greek History: Miscellanea 8 and 93. Introduction, translation and notes, Nicosia‒Göteborg 1996.

Metochites, John: Acta Sanctorum, Novembris IV, 679-687.

Metochites, Michael: Acta Sanctorum, Novembris IV, 678.

Metochites, Semeioseis: ed. Karin Hult, Theodore Metochites on ancient authors and philosophy: Semeioseis gnomikai 1-26 & 71. A critical edition with introduction, translation, notes, and indexes, with a contribution by Börje Byden [Acta Universitatis

Gothoburgensis], Göteborg 2002.

Miles, Identities: R. Miles, Introduction: constructing identities in late antiquity, in:

R. Miles (ed.), Constructing identities in late antiquity, London‒New York 1999.

Mouzalon, Nicetas: ed. F. Halkin, Hagiographica inedita decem [Corpus

Christianorum Series graeca, 21] Leuven 1989, 129-154. Mullett, The “Other”: Margaret Mullett, The “Other” in Byzantium, in: Smythe,

Strangers, 1-22. Neilos, Palamas: Patrologia Graeca 151, 655-678.

Neilos, Anthimos: ed. C. Ι. Dyobounioyis, Ὁ Ἀθηνῶν Ἄνθιμος καὶ πρόεδρος

Κρήτης, ὁ ὁμολογητής, Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 9 (1932), 56-79.

Nicetas, Andrew: ed Α. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας 5 (1888), 185-223.

Nicol, Cantacuzene: D. M. Nicol, The Reluctant Emperor. A biography of John Cantacuzene. Byzantine emperor and monk, c.1295-1383, Cambridge U.P. 1996

Oikonomidès, Hommes: Nicolas Oikonomidès, Hommes d’affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIIe-XVe siècles), Montréal-Paris 1979.

Pachymeres: ed. Α. Failler, Georges Pachymérès, Relations Historiques, vol. I-V

[CFHB 24/1-5], Paris 1984-2000.

Page, Identity: G. Page, Being Byzantine. Greek identity before the Ottomans 1200-1420, Cambridge UP 2008.

Palamas, Petros: Patrologia Graeca 150, 996A-1040C

Papadakis, Crisis: A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), New York 1986.

Philotheos, Anysia: ed.Τsames, Φιλόθεος Κόκκινος, 63-80.

20

Philotheos, Germanos: ed. Τsames, Φιλόθεος Κόκκινος, 97-158. Philotheos, Palamas: ed.Τsames, Φιλόθεος Κόκκινος, 427-591. Philotheos, Sabas: ed. Τsames, Φιλόθεος Κόκκινος, 161-325. Raoulaina: ed. Α. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς

Σταχυολογίας 4 (1894), 185-223, 397-399.

Reinsh, Θεώρηση: D. Reinsh, Η θεώρηση της πολιτικής και πολιτιστικής

φυσιογνωμίας των Ελλήνων στους ιστορικούς της Άλωσης, in: Études Balkaniques, 71-86.

Romylos: ed. F. Halkin, Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle: La vie grecque

inédite de St. Romylos Byzantion 31 (1961), 114-145.

Ševčenko, Decline: I. Ševčenko, The Decline of Byzantium seen through the Eyes of its Intellectuals, DOP 15 (1961), 167-186.

Ševčenko, Metochites: I. Ševčenko, Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the

Intellectual Trends of his time, in: P. A. Underwood (ed.), The Kariye Djami. Vol. 4: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and Its Intellectual Background, New York

1975, 19-55.

Smythe, Strangers: D. C. Smythe (ed.), The Byzantine Outsider. Papers from the Thirty-second Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, March 1998 [Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, 8], Aldershot

2000.

Staurakios, Miracles: ed. I. Iberites, Ἰωάννου Σταυρακίου Λόγος εἰς τὰ Θαύματα

τοῦ ἁγίου Δημητρίου, Μακεδονικὰ 1 (1940), 334-376.

Stauras, Athanasios: ed. D. Z. Sophianos, Ὁ συντάκτης τοῦ Βίου τοῦ ὁσίου

Ἀθανασίου τοῦ Μετεωρίτη, γνωστὸς γραφέας μετεωρικῶν χειρογράφων (τέλη ΙΔ΄- ἀρχὲς ΙΕ΄αἰ.), Τρικαλινὰ 16 (1996), 37-55.

Theoktistos, Athanasios: ed. A. Papdopoulos-Kerameus, Zapiski Istoriko-filologičeskago Fakulteta Imperatorskago S.Peterburgskago Universiteta 76 (1905),

1-51.

Τsames, Ἰωσὴφ Καλόθετος: D. G. Tsames, Ἰωσήφ Καλοθέτου Συγγράμματα [Θεσσαλονικεῖς Βυζαντινοί Συγγραφεῖς 1], Thessalonica 1980.

Τsames, Φιλόθεος Κόκκινος: D. G. Tsames, Φιλοθέου τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Κοκκίνου ἁγιολογικὰ ἔργα [Θεσσαλονικεῖς Ἅγιοι Θεσσαλονικεῖς Βυζαντινοὶ

Συγγραφεῖς 4], Thessalonica 1985.

Vryonis, Identity: Sp. Vryonis, Greek Identity in the Middle Ages, in: Études Balkaniques, 21-36.

21

Vryonis, Self-Consciousness: Sp. Vryonis, Byzantine Cultural Self-Consciousness

in the Fifteenth Century, in: Sl. Ćurčić - Doula Mouriki (eds), The Twilight of Byzantium: aspects of cultural and religious history in the late Byzantine empire, Princeton 1991, 5-14.