Download PDF | (The medieval Mediterranean 127) Samuel Pablo Müller - Latins in Roman (Byzantine) Histories_ Ambivalent Representations in the Long Twelfth Century-Brill (2021).
566 Pages
Acknowledgements
This book constitutes an augmented and improved version of my dissertation written at the University of Zurich. Many people contributed to the book in its present form in one way or another. I offer my deep appreciation to all of them. I am extremely grateful to my advisers, Claudia Zey and Michael Grünbart, for their guidance and constant support. I would also like to extend my profound gratitude to the Swiss National Fund, the University of Zurich, and the Doctoral Program “Medialität—Historische Perspektiven” for funding and supporting my research. To Brill, the board of the Medieval Mediterranean Series, Paul Magdalino, and Marcella Mulder, as well as my editors Marianne Noble and Timothy Wardell, I wish to express thanks beyond measure for believing in the book’s value as well as helping to prepare and improve it for publication.
I would also like to thank Nick Jones for his careful checking of the final book proofs. I am deeply indebted to numerous scholars in Vienna, including Johannes Koder, Yannis Stouraitis, Claudia Rapp, Alexander Riehle, Carolina Cupane, Ewald Kislinger, Christian Gastgeber, Andreas Rhoby, and Wolfram Hörandner. They generously shared their tremendous knowledge, resources, and insight with me, notably during a research trip to the Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies at the University of Vienna and the Division of Byzantine Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Institute for Medieval Research. I greatly benefitted from my fruitful exchange about the book’s topic with Anthony Kaldellis, whom I met in Thessaloniki at a summer school directed by Paolo Odorico. Especially helpful were also my dear father, who supported the book’s publication financially, and my beloved partner, who checked the bibliography and notes.
Note on Transliteration and Translations
As this study is about Byzantine historiography it tries to follow the perspective of this historiography as closely as possible, therefore it largely subscribes to the opinion of Dimitris Krallis on “Anglicization and Latinization” and the corresponding guidelines. In that spirit, the book often quotes Greek names for Latin groups and individuals. Greek forms of proper names of Byzantine persons and places are used, ἦτα (η) being transcribed as e, as in Manasses, Dalassene or Digenes unless the text is in italics, in which case ē is used.
As noted by Krallis as well, however, it is difficult and probably not even desirable to remain fully consistent. Thus, some exceptions are allowed for, particularly for place names and ancient authors, e.g., Constantinople instead of Konstantinoupolis.1 Transcription is used for a few Greek terms that have some currency in academic usage, but any word is given in the original Greek form when it is first mentioned. When rendering Byzantine sources quoted in this study into English, I have made ample use of the modern translations indicated in the bibliography, making frequent corrections, adaptations, and changes, however, based on my own understanding of the Greek editions. Translations contained in secondary sources are indicated separately. The translations which were used most frequently for the historiographical works are Reinsch’s for the Alexiad, Trapp’s for Zonaras and Brand’s for Kinnamos. For Choniates, the careful Italian translation by Pontani was the main reference alongside Grabler’s German version based on the Bekker edition. In the case of Eustathios’s account of the conquest of Thessalonike, it was Hunger’s excellent translation, but I also consulted those by Rotolo (accompanying the edition by Kyriakidis), Melville Jones, and Odorico. In addition, I am also indebted to Andrew Stone’s translation of a selection of Eustathios’s orations.
Introduction
The period from the late eleventh to the early thirteenth century—the so-called long twelfth century—encompassed a decisive phase in Byzantine history. It was marked by Byzantium’s or, to use a source-based term, Romania’s1 reaction to Western expansion in the form of the crusades, the rise of the Normans, and Italian maritime trade. The empire’s key political and economic zone shifted to the Balkans and thus closer to Central and Western Europe than ever before. Christianity has been deeply affected by the conquest of 1204, right up to the present day. The conquest of the Byzantine capital had important repercussions on the cultural, political, and economic development of the Eastern Mediterranean and thus on Europe and the Near East.
Despite the significance of the conquest, there has been no recent comprehensive study of relations between Byzantium and the West in general or an investigation of Byzantine attitudes toward the West and Westerners in the period of the long twelfth century. This book is intended to contribute to closing the gap in the scholarship by investigating the image of Latins in Byzantine historiography of the Komnenian period. This can be defined roughly as the period when the Komnenian dynasty (1081–1185), and a side-branch of the Komnenoi, the Angeloi (1185– 1204), occupied the Byzantine imperial throne.2 The period was shaped by the transformative decade following the battle of Manzikert (1071), which should be regarded as an integral part of the long twelfth century.3 Overall, this book will be relevant for Byzantinists and medievalists alike, providing a fresh and more comprehensive examination of the image of Latins in Byzantine historiography of a crucial period, not only for Byzantium but for Europe and the Near East as a whole. This monograph’s chief interest is historical.
It does not deny in any way the crucial importance of stylistic, linguistic, rhetorical, and literary aspects of the interpretation of Greek historiographical works, which were always intended as literature. These aspects are considered throughout, as they constitute an important historical dimension in themselves. The focus, however, lies on the social, political, and cultural context in which Byzantine historiography was composed. This context may include the biographical circumstances of an individual author, his or her audience, relations of various kinds with the Western world, structures and living conditions of the society in which the histories were produced, and Byzantine identities and attitudes. The scope of this book is therefore ambitious. In addition to a close reading of the complex and extensive primary source material, it is also based on a vast amount of secondary literature. However, the book touches on so many aspects that it cannot possibly claim to cite and have engaged with all relevant secondary sources. Nevertheless, a comprehensive investigation was called for and the conclusions would have been considerably less meaningful if only some of the historiographical works and/or some Western groups and individuals had been considered.
Accordingly, the book does not claim to deal with every detail and aspect of the topic thoroughly but aims to contribute to and stimulate new approaches to and discussions about the representation of Latins in Byzantine literature, and, where needed, more detailed investigations of particular aspects. The key objective is therefore to provide answers to and contribute to the scholarly debate about the following set of questions: – How are Westerners or Latins4 of the period between ca. 1081 and 1204 described and characterized in the Greek historiographical works of the Komnenian period in the roles they played with regards to the Byzantines and more generally? – What differences and similarities concerning these descriptions and characterizations can be observed between the individual historiographical works as well as the versions of Niketas Choniates’s ἱστορία / χρονικὴ διήγησις? – What motivations are behind these descriptions and characterizations? How can they be explained? In other words: what Byzantine historiographers of the Komnenian period wrote about Latins and why. Key characteristics of the image of the West and Westerners are identified, sometimes in strong disagreement, notably, with older and, occasionally, with more recent scholarship.
Numerous hypotheses about the image and perception of Latins, often uncritically accepted, need a more thorough revision. Many scholars continue to neglect how strongly this image is subject to “internal” Byzantine matters, which are the primary concern of the histories. It has much to do with Byzantine introspective tendencies and the upholding of a representation and attitude of cultural as well as political superiority. Moreover, Byzantine literati described Latins in a consciously literary manner, which means that defamatory topoi associated with peoples (ἔθνη) and with barbarians always need to be viewed in the context of these literary traditions and not uncritically accepted as a reflection of unequivocal negative Byzantine feelings. Rhetoric, hyperbole, the historical background of the events and people portrayed, as well as the context of a historiographical work as a whole, must be taken into account.5 When doing so, it becomes apparent how distorting it is to simply sum up the image of Latins as “negative.” The prose of Choniates, Eustathios, or Anna Kommene is anything but simple, rather it is ambivalent, complex, and subtle, and so is their portrayal of Latins.
Defamatory or eulogistic comments that appear as generalizing thus always need to be placed in context. Obvious as it may be, such an approach has often been neglected in the scholarship, especially in the case of “negative” portrayals of Latins. Westerners had a special status based on cultural proximity for Byzantium, which not infrequently tends to be underestimated in the scholarship and becomes more apparent when contextualizing the frequent negative topoi found in the Greek sources. In spite of the loss of the knowledge of Greek in the West and of Latin in the Byzantine world, both Byzantines and Latins were aware of their common Christianity, as well of the Greco-Latin heritage they shared, having their origins in the ancient Roman Empire.
Common ground can also be found in the virtues described as ideal in Byzantine and Western literary works, notably the military prowess that Western knighthood and nobility shared to a remarkable degree with the Komnenian military aristocracy, with which Byzantine literati often associated. The histories mostly imply these factors or merely refer to them without engaging in a discussion, but many of the interactions with the Latin world that they describe would have been much harder or unthinkable with other non-Byzantines, such as Muslims, most notably the frequent marriage alliances in the Komnenian period or the (potential) acceptance of the βασιλεύς as overlord. While aspects that Latins and Byzantines had in common could often be causes of division, they also held promise. Until 1204, the image presented of Latins does not suggest steadily increasing tension but rather appears to be characterized by fickleness and ambivalence.
Such patterns of literary representation, which are summarized more comprehensively in the conclusion of this book, can be used as shorthand for referring to multiple recurrences of the same phenomenon. Additionally, the index can be used as a guide to selective reading about features or characteristics of the image of Latins. In what follows, after a brief presentation of the methodology and state of research, an overview will be given of Byzantine literature of the long twelfth century, preceded by a discussion of (markers of) identities and attitudes of Byzantine literati, which formed the basis of their portrayal of Latins (Part 1). The subsequent investigation of the historiographical sources (Parts 2 and 3) will be structured according to characteristics of the image of Latins and their various relations with the Byzantines as represented in the historiographical material. The presentation, for the most part, resembles a historical commentary and roughly summarizes and follows the chronological narratives of relations with identifiable Western individuals and groups in order to show how their image is developed and how certain features of the representation of Latins transcend individual authors, subject matters, and contexts and appear both repeatedly and consistently in most or all of the case studies.
The roles which this book attributes to Latins are of course not necessarily described as such by the sources and can also be based on heuristic categories. This approach highlights not only the rich variety of Byzantine-Latin relations on many different levels but also the need for a close reading of the source material and the importance of interpreting it in context. In some cases, most notably Chapters 6 and 10 and the first half of Chapter 9, the investigation follows the narratives less closely and is more oriented toward characteristics of the representation of an individual or group. This is because, among other reasons, in these cases the structure of a commentary would be too extensive for the present purposes. Greek historiography subordinates the discussion of Latins and the West to a focus on Byzantine imperial history. Two main groups of Latins can thus be identified: firstly, those who resided within the empire’s borders or served the Byzantines in various capacities (Part 2), and secondly, all those who appear within the discussion of Byzantium’s external relations (Part 3).
These collectives and individuals are variously portrayed as enemies, rivals, attackers, or invaders, Romania’s conquerors, or (potential) allies and friends. The word “external” entails a modern perspective but reflects that Byzantine historiography, while not abandoning an ecumenical or “universalist” outlook, differentiates between an ideological stance and a pragmatic awareness that there were definable limits to the fiscal and military reach of the imperial government. Certain rulers and peoples were outside of this reach, i.e., external. Interestingly, the image of external relations and relations within the empire is not fundamentally different, which is consistent with a generic and introspective tendency of Byzantine historiography and literature more generally;6 the portrayal of the Western presence in the empire, however, points more strongly to the integration of and cultural proximity with Latins.
. 1 Methodological and Theoretical Approach This book has been written in full awareness that it cannot possibly exhaust the potential of the extremely complex and rich source material, whose interpretation could benefit from many different approaches as well.7 Moreover, excessively theoretical approaches can be a hindrance and make the argument less clear and more ambiguous to the extent that it becomes very difficult or impossible to discern what an author means to say.8 As a result, a limited selection of approaches which seemed particularly pertinent to the topic and feasible within the constraints of a single book was chosen.
Three crucial, interconnected approaches and perspectives shall be discussed in general terms in what follows: – Identity: how people see and portray themselves; how others see and portray them and respond to them – Alterity: the concept of otherness – Attitudes: these not particularly conscious patterns of thought and mindsets may include emotional and behavioral patterns Obviously, these approaches and perspectives are infinitely complex. It is only practicable within the framework of this book to briefly introduce some general concepts and approaches and their applicability to its topic, before turning to the identities of Ῥωμαῖοι specifically—with a focus on the social strata of the historiographers—as well as their representations of and possible attitudes toward “others.
Identity and Alterity Intertwined The concepts of identity and alterity are of special significance to the present topic. Identity can be defined as how groups and individuals perceive and portray themselves, and how “others” see and portray them and respond to them. Alterity, its counterpart, centers on perceptions and portrayals of “others” or “otherness,” anything or anyone identified as “different,” “foreign,” “strange,” “outside,” or something similar.9 The concepts are strongly interconnected, and many observations about identity and alterity are relevant for attitudes, mindsets, and thought patterns as well.
The end of the Cold War appears to have led to an even more pronounced interest in personal and collective identity in the humanities, including Western medieval and Byzantine studies.10 It has often, and correctly, been observed that the identification and perception of otherness is intimately and directly linked to what individuals and groups (intersubjectively) perceive or identify as something of their own, their norms. Thus alterity and identity are inseparable and in constant interplay.11 Concerning the boundaries or boundary markers between “us” and “them,” the consensus in the scholarship appears to be that these boundary markers, which could also be referred to as markers of difference or of proximity, are never “objective,” but exist as mental constructs of groups and individuals.12 When such imaginary boundaries, which are, however, perpetually in flux,13 or the social space occupied by a group and constituting its identity, are trespassed, the group or society tends to react defensively.14
Accordingly, it is always relevant to ask how the Byzantines’ representation of “others” is linked to their representation and views of themselves. This representation is complex and multifaceted, all the more so because an individual can never be said to possess a single identity but multiple, coexisting, occasionally conflicting or hybrid identities.15 Identity and alterity are not neatly definable, therefore, but fluid. The mechanisms of dealing with these polarities are situational and contextual.16 They can be approached by means of certain markers, such as dress,17 hairstyle, education, language, pronunciation,18 vocabulary, religion, customs, and so on.19 Moreover, studying identity and alterity is always dependent to an extent on the viewpoint of the beholder. Ascribed identities and perceptions of “others” do not necessarily, and probably never fully, correspond to the standpoint of the individuals and collectives under consideration.20
Identity, alterity (and mental boundaries between the two), as well as mindsets, can therefore be expressed in media or forms of communication such as symbols, written sources, ceremonies, games, or rituals. Occasionally, such media can help create a bridge and speak to the differing identities and mindsets of the actors involved, even if their interpretations may differ; a case in point related to the object of the present study being the oaths that the leaders of the First Crusade swore to the Byzantine emperor.21 For the medieval period, communication is observable only in an indirect way, i.e., as represented in sources.22 A major problem with this is that written sources are in most cases produced or controlled by limited upper social strata.23 This means that the perspective of the masses, who had no or little access to writing, is underrepresented. It is likely, however, that there was minimal acceptance of the ideas, attitudes, and ideologies expressed in the source material among lower strata of society, even if ideas and ideologies were understood differently, and it is possible to assume a minimal correlation of attitudes between the standpoints of lower and higher strata of society.24 Another difficulty is that the outlook of certain literati on certain issues may be particular to them and not reflective of their social peers or superiors.25
As already noted with respect to identities, one can approach alterity by identifying labels that indicate it. Such terms do not constitute “objective” categories, and the assigning of labels is a changeable, inconstant, and often incoherent process taking place in a society that is constantly in flux.26 In full cognizance of these limitations, Dion C. Smythe27 presents a flexible matrix model of five modes of interaction between groups on the one hand and five modalities of difference or similarity between groups on the other. This model could, of course, be extended almost indefinitely, but can be applied tentatively to what the histories convey about Latins. The modes of interaction are annihilation, segregation, (social) stratification, pluralism, and assimilation, whereas the modalities of difference (or proximity) are defined as ethnicity (or nationality), (sexual) orientation, gender, religion, and social class (or τάξις). Some of these modes are less applicable to the image of Latins in Byzantine literature and others may be more reflective of different medieval polities, collectives, and sources, notably segregation, pluralism, and ethnicity. Some, in turn, come much closer to the Byzantine literary representations of identity and alterity in the context of the West and Westerners, especially stratification, assimilation, and taxis, reflecting ideas and attitudes of aristocracy and cultural-political superiority.28
Other relevant topics in connection with alterity and identity are stereotypes and topoi. They can be defined here as consisting of trait characteristics of groups of people, traits that tend to have evaluative connotations and are characterized by being undifferentiated. In the case of Byzantine literature, topoi characteristically often do not necessarily or strongly reflect attitudes toward Latins, but rather follow literary and rhetorical traditions, refer to a particular context or situation, are meant to underline social differentiation, and mark pillars of identity. Thus they need to be weighed against everything else a literary work or a literatus conveys.29
1.2 The Complex Relationship between (Literary) Representations and Attitudes A general, important issue for historians to deal with is that human thinking is conditioned by the cultural and social context in which one lives, which applies both to the context of an investigation of the past and to the particular topic being investigated.30 Scholars have frequently said that “mentality” and terms related to it do not allow for a narrow and precise definition, nor are there any clear-cut methodologies that can be assigned to a history of mentalities.31
The term has been deeply marked, however, by French historiography and the so-called Annales School in particular.32 Obviously, the approaches of today’s historians who explore mentalities differ in part from those pursued by scholars in the past regarded as representative of the Annales School. Mentalities could be described in terms of the definition presented by Hans-Werner Goetz.33 They constitute attitudes, subconscious patterns of thought or habitual ways of perception or thinking, i.e., mindsets. Accordingly, an important indicator of attitudes is what is taken for granted in sources. Traditionally, mindsets are studied with a focus on various groups or collectivities rather than on individuals. They are a necessary consequence of the complexity of the environment human beings deal with. Thus attitudes and thought patterns facilitate concrete and effective actions in daily life and hence are an indispensable aspect of human thought and behavior.34 They are to be distinguished from more conscious beliefs, opinions and ideologies, which are often of a more individual nature but nevertheless depend upon pre-existing perceptions of one’s environment.
A focus on attitudes and related concepts aspires to the investigation of human ways of thinking as an important historical dimension, and not just as a tool to get to “facts.”35 Attitudes are also difficult to study because evidence is related to them in a complex way. For instance, what one writes does not have to be representative of what or how one thinks. The attitudes of medieval or Byzantine authors and societies outside a literary sphere could be very different from what their representation might suggest. Nevertheless, any man-made historical evidence is shaped by perspectives conditioned by attitudes created in a social and cultural environment; thinking about attitudes is crucial and must not be dismissed as speculation.
As is the case with identities and alterity, attitudes can only be approached indirectly and are subject to the limitations of medieval source material with regard to the fact that attitudes of lower social strata are less directly and prominently represented, even if a minimal level of conformity can be assumed with respect to attitudes of upper social strata.36 What is essential is due caution about the hypothetical nature of any assumptions about attitudes. Taking this into account, an investigation of attitudes can be a useful interpretative tool which allows for additional perspectives on the source material and thus enriches modern approaches to the past. Just as one may well have multiple identities and belong to various, sometimes conflicting, groups at the same time, one may hold contradictory or conflicting attitudes.
There are many layers and filters between historical phenomena and their reflection in primary sources, and they are shaped in turn by modern perceptions, attitudes, evaluations, wishes, and assessments.37 This complexity is a warning against the oversimplification and distortion of labeling relationships between individuals and collectives as “anti-,” or “pro-.” Modern perceptions often give rise to the imposition of anachronistic ideas on the source material, notably concepts such as the nation state and xenophobia, which seem more of a hindrance than a help in approaching twelfth-century Romania.38 Language and style will be crucial in examining source material, notably terminology. The language used can be indicative of attitudes. Of special importance are so-called key content items. Gill Page employs this term in relation to identity, but it is equally valid for attitudes.39 In the present context, such key content items can be the epithets used for Westerners, virtues and vices ascribed to them, as well as the vocabulary Byzantine literary works use to refer to fellow Byzantines or to the limited social stratum of people who had the necessary skills to comprehensively appreciate them (such as “Hellenes” or “Romans” or “those who possess higher education”).
2 State of Research 2.1 Relations between Romania and the West Scholarly interest in the relations between Romania and the Western world is as old as the beginnings of modern Byzantine Studies.40 Among the older studies, some are still relevant for modern scholarship.41 In more recent years, an increasing attention to the relationship in question has resulted in numerous important books and articles of reference on many of its aspects.42 This is at least in part connected to the post-Cold War zeitgeist and the attention accorded to “transcultural” or “intercultural”43 issues, identities and perceptions of “others” in the context of globalization. The terms “intercultural” and “transcultural” can be hazardous in a number of ways. The approach represented by Michael Borgolte and others is entirely justified as an attempt to overcome constraints of artificial cultural separations still maintained in the humanities, in spite of common features and parallel developments.44
Still, the said terms can be useful on an analytical, abstract level—indeed Borgolte makes use of them himself. They will be rarely employed here because they are not considered useful for the purpose of this study. Terms such as “foreign” or “stranger” ought to be employed with caution for similar reasons. Furthermore, while corresponding terms existed in Romania, they were of course employed and understood differently. Indeed, modern concepts of “foreign” and “stranger” and similar expressions inevitably exert a strong influence when applied to medieval societies and are often more distorting than helpful. Accordingly, the present study gives preference to other terms, e.g., “non-Byzantine.”45 However, it still seems acceptable to speak of “Romania” or “Byzantium” and the “West” on a level of abstraction, albeit in full awareness that they were nothing like separate, homogeneous entities. Byzantine-Western relations, as well as the Byzantine representation of Latins, are clearly ambivalent and characterized by many important parallels and differences, the more so as both had a common religious and cultural Greco-Roman background. It is therefore not useful to evaluate the relationship in question in terms of being either “intercultural” or “intracultural,” forit seems evident that it was both.46
The discussion of this question, applied to various case studies, has strongly influenced not only Byzantine studies47 but medieval history, and history and the humanities in general.48 It has been recognized that the long twelfth century was a crucial period that saw the most extensive presence of Westerners in the empire and Romania’s most intense contacts with the West since late antiquity.49 These contacts are certainly an important explanatory factor for the representation of Westerners in historiography, even if, as has been mentioned, the crucial internal Byzantine context constitutes an even more important background.50 However, a recent, comprehensive monograph about Byzantine-Western relations during the twelfth century does not exist.
Peter Schreiner has identified such a study as a desideratum.51 It is not considered necessary to summarize Byzantine-Western relations in the long twelfth century here—the reader is referred instead to the many recent introductions to this topic.52 There is, however, a crucial observation to be made at this point: it cannot be stressed enough how important it is not to postulate a linear or teleological development of the relations in question. Up to the present day, a picture of steadily mounting tension between Byzantines and Latins has been influential in the scholarship.53 Before 1204, and to a more limited degree after,54 the Byzantine relationship with the West seems to have been of an ambivalent and complex nature and fluctuated more or less constantly between conflict, confrontation, and war and appeasement, cooperation, exchange, alliance, as well as ties of kinship and friendship. In this, it was at least in part not fundamentally different from fluctuating social and political relations within the empire and among “Byzantines”—with demarcations employed on an abstract level.55 It seems inappropriate, therefore, to study relations with Westerners under the inflexible, easily distorting assumption of steadily mounting tension.
Rather, tension in one respect or another could increase time and again, but decrease again on many occasions, depending on changing circumstances. Accordingly, there appears to be a consensus in today’s scholarship that the conquest of 1204, whose causes have been discussed extensively, was not an inevitable event or a necessary result of what came before. It may have been facilitated by pre-existing differences and a certain animosity exacerbated by the many conflicts that had occurred in the long twelfth century. At any rate, such factors made it easier to justify the conquest in retrospect. However, other factors, such as contingency, seem to have been more influential.56 In conclusion, the historical evidence makes it appropriate to speak of a highly ambivalent, complex, and constantly fluctuating relationship. This is what the Greek sources of the period convey, and plausibly many of the Western ones as well.57
2.2 The Image of Latins Curiously, there is no comprehensive, book-length investigation of the outlook of Greek medieval literary works and other Byzantine sources on the West and Westerners.58 This seems particularly noteworthy because several scholars have devoted extensive publications to the image of Byzantines in Western sources of the period in question, most recently Marc Carrier and Savvas Neocleous.59
In recent years, an impressive number of studies have dealt with the representation of Westerners in general terms and in various contexts. Unfortunately, with the exception of Tia Kolbaba’s study of the lists of Latin religious errors,60 these are articles or collections of articles and in one case a short monograph.61 There has been an equally extensive number of contributions on specific groups of Latins, individuals, and sources, especially Normans, one of the most prominent groups of Westerners in Byzantine historiography.62 Even more comprehensive is the secondary literature on the portrayal of the “crusades” and “crusaders,” although Greek historiographers do not refer to their passage through the empire in those terms. In addition to the immense bibliography on Romania and the crusades, various articles have focused more specifically on the perception and image of crusades and crusaders, including the concept of “Holy War.”63 Numerous publications have focused on various other groups, themes, sources, and individuals,64 although many topics could still benefit from further investigation.65
And yet, despite all this, a comprehensive survey of the image of Latins has yet to be undertaken.66 A first group of studies contains assumptions and hypotheses, especially for the period of the twelfth century, that the present book argues against. While most of these publications do have common ground with its findings, they often tend to emphasize Byzantine “xenophobia” and the “negativity” specifically of the representation of and attitudes towards the West more generally or large groups of Westerners. The image of Latins is characterized as reflecting a gradual alienation during the twelfth century. Not least due to their limited scope, these publications tend to insufficiently relativize negative topoi and assertions by putting them in context. Moreover, the genericism of and introspective motivations behind the sources67 do not receive enough attention.68 There are also numerous articles that (appear to) revert to the said tendencies, assumptions and hypotheses only in isolated instances.69 Books that touch upon the topic reflect these tendencies as well.70 All this highlights the need for more extensive, nuanced, and detailed investigations.
A second group of publications, while not specifically devoted to the image of Latins, puts a very clear emphasis on its ambivalence and genericism, as well as the necessary relativization of negative topoi and the introspective motivations to which the image is subordinated. Most recently, Savvas Neocleous has shown how dubious this teleological narrative is for Latin representations of and attitudes toward Byzantines. Moreover, he has convincingly questioned the interpretation of negative themes in the literature in the context of Constantinopolitan riots in the late twelfth century and argued against the interpretation of these riots as expressions of “Latinophobia”.71 Anthony Kaldellis has pointed out very clearly how a crucial finding of the present monograph is in line with a broader aspect of Byzantine literature of the period in question: it follows generic and introspective tendencies with regard to ethnography or the image of other peoples. These peoples are less important for their own sake than for the function they fulfill for the introspective agenda of a literary work.72
Kaldellis’s book about Byzantine Hellenism, an important marker of literary identities in the 1100s, has demonstrated how it is a dubious proposition to postulate the development of a strongly “antiLatin” Hellenism for the twelfth century, which the histories and other literary works do not indicate, and rightly stresses the importance of being Roman as a marker of identity for the literati, on whom the present study focuses, but also other Byzantines. He also makes the valid observation that the markers of being Roman were not limited to being a Christian and an imperial subject but were more complex and comprehensive, notably in terms of cultural criteria. As the histories show, the assessment of Latins was similarly multifaceted, ambiguous, and complex.73
Accordingly, the present monograph aims to address the lack of more comprehensive and in-depth studies of the representation of Latins, which has contributed to questionable conclusions in the literature. It is the first booklength study to deal with the image of Latins in Byzantine histories of the Komnenian period in detailed case studies covering the portrayal of all major Western individuals and collectives. This examination demonstrates how the influential assumptions and hypotheses represented in the first group of studies fail to convince when applied to the historiographical evidence and how the second group can be made fruitful.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق