<<

. 40
( 54 .)



>>

rarely; thus, alternative forms of self-identi¬cation were required. Partly,
this is simply a question of genre. In the case of Manuel Palaiologos, the
emperor was purportedly addressing an audience and thus he makes exten-
sive use of the ¬rst and second persons in his appeal to this audience.
Most uses of ˜we™ refer either speci¬cally to the emperor and his audience
qua speaker and listeners, or to their status as the living in contrast to
the mourned, but Palaiologos also often refers to himself in the plural
third person, not as orator but as actor in the story, as well as using ˜we™
to refer to the imperial family or members of it. Many occurrences refer
to the Byzantine Roman state in much the way we have seen the termi-
nology of Roman-ness employed elsewhere: thus ˜we™ possess land (e.g.
Funeral Oration ±., ±.±), have enemies (±µ.), prosper or decline
(±°±.±, ±··.±“±), make war or peace (±±.“·, ±.±) and so on. Interest-
ingly, there is also a macro-˜we™ employed in application to the Christian
world. This is used in Palaiologos™ account of the conference at Serres in
±“ to refer to all the Christian leaders whom Bayezid had gathered
to be at his mercy (±“±±). Thus, unlike the more restricted, political,
Rhomaios, ˜we™ can be used across the Roman and Christian groupings.
In Palaiologos, as in his predecessors, these groupings were not cotermi-
nous: ˜we™ could denote the Rhomaioi, or the Christianoi. Nevertheless
not all Christians were equally ˜we™; when speci¬cally dealt with as a dis-
crete group the Hospitallers could be praised as fellow Christians (Funeral
Oration ±·±.µ, ±µ.µ“), but they were also always a ˜they™ rather than a
˜we™.
Moreover, like Choniates two centuries earlier, Palaiologos also had
recourse to ˜Christians™ as an alternative to ˜Romans™ to provide him with
a means effectively to deny Roman status to particular groups who might
be considered ethnically but not politically Roman. This was useful when
dealing with his recalcitrant subjects in the Peloponnese. Thus, he speaks of
pro-Turkish rebels in the Peloponnese as ˜the Christians who were in revolt™
(±.). Once again, all Romans were Christians, but not all Christians were
Romans, and these rebels, similarly, were not ˜we™. Palaiologos later says of
such turncoats, ˜I don™t know what one should call them “ Romans and
Christians because of their race and their faith or the opposite because of
their choice and their actions?™ (Funeral Oration ±±.“), and this neatly
conveys the interlinking but not identical application of the political and
religious identities.
µ
The long defeat
Palaiologos™ approach to these recalcitrant Romans of the Peloponnese
also reminds one of Kantakouzenos, who, it will be remembered, avoided
the use of Rhomaioi for those ethnic Romans who chose to be explic-
itly disloyal to the Byzantine Roman state. In another use of Christianoi,
Palaiologos speaks of the rebels who sided with the Turks against Theodore
Palaiologos in the early days of his despotate, saying that ˜the Christians
who desert to those ungodly men our enemies are clearly mad . . . it is the
most shameful thing of all, to betray their religion and to insult both their
honour and their whole race, against whom they have been persuaded
to act™ (Funeral Oration ±.“, “). Such bitter comments on his
ostensible subjects in the Peloponnese are very similar in tone to those of
Kantakouzenos, writing half a century earlier with comparable complaints.
Mazaris is also reminiscent of Kantakouzenos in this regard, commenting
with heavy sarcasm on the Peloponnesian Romans about:

the loyalty they have to the emperor and the other lawless acts they commit, and
the deals they do with one another and the perjuries and the murders . . . they are
all demented and bloodthirsty, greedy and vain, always looking for a ¬ght, always
false in their loyalties and full of treachery and guile. (Journey to Hades ·.±“±)

The overriding impression in Mazaris™ treatment of the people of the
Peloponnese is of multiple ethnicities, all in their way objectionable and all
perpetually quarrelling. At one point, he lists the different groups resident in
the Peloponnese: Lakedaimonians, Italians, Peloponnesians, Slavs, Illyrians
(i.e. Albanians), Egyptians (i.e. Romany), Jews and those who were of
mixed ethnicity (Journey ·.±“). The Rhomaioi are conspicuous by their
absence, but the residents of the Peloponnese certainly included ethnic
Romans “ where are these to be found in Mazaris™ list?
It is clear that the ethnic Romans would come under the headings of the
Lakeda©monev (Lakedaimones: Lakedaimonians) and the Peloponnesioi. Of
these the ¬rst, the Lakedaimones, must be the residents living in and around
ancient Sparta, those ethnic Romans from the rich agricultural land of the
Lakonian plain in the valley of the Evrotas, which stretches east and south
from Mistra. In other words, these were the local Romans with whom the
courtiers of Mistra would have had most to do.
Earlier, Mazaris had called the people of this region L†kwnev (Lakones:
Lakonians) and had explicitly linked this group with Peloponnesians by
the key fact that both spoke Greek poorly (see below, p. µ·). He had
introduced the Lakonians and the Peloponnesians in the context of his own
supposed fear that, living in the Peloponnese, he would become ˜barbarised™
µ Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
in his speech, and he had given two examples of what he feared might
happen. Firstly, he might start speaking Greek like a named Peloponnesios,
Synadeos Kormeas, who we gather had come to Constantinople at some
point and had been notorious for his awful provincial Greek (.±±“±).
Alternatively, he might start speaking Greek like the Lakonians: Mazaris
gives examples of the Greek of these Lakonians, and it is recognisably
spoken demotic (.±“±).
Returning to the list, then, it would seem that both the Peloponnesioi and
the Lakedaimones were ethnic Romans, uneducated by Constantinopolitan
or Mistran standards, in other words typical provincial Romans. It is true
that Mazaris elsewhere speaks of Peloponnesioi in what seems a loose and
general way: he says that he was advised to go ˜to the Peloponnesians™, i.e.
to the Peloponnese (.°); he says he will relate and describe the way of
life ˜of the Peloponnesians™ (e.g. .·, ±, , ) and (eventually) he goes
on to speak of the mixture of ethnic groups. In such usages, Peloponnesioi
could be understood very generally as ˜those who live in the Peloponnese™;
however, the appearance of the Peloponnesioi in the ethnic list shows that
they could also be understood as one group among many, and it is very likely
that, being not westerners, people from the Balkans, gypsies or Jews, they
were the ethnic Romans of the Peloponnese, people like the unfortunate
Kormeas. It is unclear why the Peloponnesioi are distinguished from the
Lakedaimones or Lakones; perhaps the latter simply had a strong regional
identity within the Peloponnese.
Manuel Palaiologos also employs Peloponnesioi on one occasion for the
ethnic Romans of the Peloponnese, or, at least, for the subjects of the
despotate of Mistra (Funeral Oration ±±±.±°). The reference is to the Pelo-
ponnesians looking forward to the coming of the despot, and this is thus
an example of the avoidance of Rhomaioi for subjects of the empire, even
when those subjects appear to have been loyal. Likewise, although Mazaris
presents the Lakedaimonians and the Peloponnesians as disloyal and rebel-
lious, it is manifestly clear that they should be considered as subjects of the
Byzantine Roman emperor.
Arguably, the avoidance of Rhomaioi for such Peloponnesian subjects,
which is apparent in both Palaiologos and Mazaris but goes back at least
as far as Kantakouzenos, demonstrates a growing prejudice among the
Byzantine Roman ruling class against these kinds of provincials. Perhaps
the Roman elite customarily no longer thought of such ethnic Romans as
Rhomaioi because of their supposed lack of education, lack of civilisation
and culture, their general lack of what made Byzantine Romans special “
in the eyes of this elite. This lack could be summed up and was in fact
µµ
The long defeat
made manifest by their poor (i.e. demotic) Greek. Although this can only
be supposition, it is a credible theory in the general context of Constanti-
nopolitan contempt for the provinces and the pattern of use in the elite
writers of the fourteenth and ¬fteenth centuries.

Turning to the terminology of Hellen, despite the strong trend of self-
identifying Hellenism which is known to have existed at the Mistran court,
there are in Palaiologos and Mazaris only minimal traces of this trend.
Manuel Palaiologos, like Gregoras, twice contrasts Hellenes and barbarians,
but in his case with absolutely no contemporary reference (Funeral Oration
±µ.µ“ and ±.±µ“±). He compares Theodore to great men of the past, and
naturally turns to the Homeric heroes, to Hercules and to some historical
¬gures. It is worth stressing that he does not at any point identify his
brother as a descendant of the ancient Greek heroes, and equally no link is
made between the ancient Persian enemy and the contemporary Ottoman,
beyond the customary use of Perses for Turks. Moreover, Palaiologos does
not unequivocally exalt the men of old: in fact, the comparison with the
great men of the ancient world turns out to be to Theodore™s advantage. For
Palaiologos, the contrast between the barbarian and the Hellene is ¬rmly
placed in the ancient past, and has no contemporary reference beyond that
of being an exemplum and a rhetorical device. This is closer to Gregoras
than to Kantakouzenos.
The Byzantine Romans knew that Mistra was just a couple of miles
from ancient Sparta and this clearly played a part in fostering Hellenising
self-identi¬cation under such men as Gemistos Plethon. In this regard, the
nearest Palaiologos comes to any identi¬cation between Theodore and the
exempla from the past is to remark of Agesilaus that ˜he had reigned here™, i.e.
in Sparta (Funeral Oration ±.±). Mazaris too repeatedly identi¬es Mistra
with Sparta (e.g. Journey .±±, .±·, ·.); however, like Palaiologos, he
uses the terminology of Hellenism with minimal self-identi¬cation. One
use is linguistic: some doctors are criticised for not knowing ˜Hellenic
letters™ (Journey ±°.µ), making this a pure re¬‚ection of Byzantine Roman
diglossia and familiar from Choniates and Pachymeres in particular. The
other use is almost certainly simply geographical, ˜Hellenic house™ (.)
denotes ˜a house in Hellas™, i.e. in southern Greece (cf. Funeral Oration
±.·). In both Palaiologos and Mazaris, such uses come across as erudite

 Woodhouse ±: ±°·“, “.
 At least one contemporary panegyrist chose rather to assert that the Palaiologoi were descended from
the Roman Flavii: Angelov °°·: ±°“.
µ Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
display rather than ethnic identi¬cation. Mazaris also makes a single use
of Graikos (.±), and it is in the mouth of a Latin; one reference is not
much, but this would tend to con¬rm that Graikos continued to be viewed
as a foreigners™ word for the Romans and not self-identifying.

Manuel Palaiologos, like Gregoras, Kantakouzenos and the fourteenth-
century author of the Greek Chronicle, presents barbarians as undifferen-
tiated hordes rather than as individuals. As with Kantakouzenos and the
Chronicle, there is in Palaiologos a strong correlation between being bar-
barian and being non-Christian: in the Funeral Oration no less than ¬fteen
of the eighteen occurrences of barbaros and its cognates apply to Ottoman
Turks. In fact, barbaros is Palaiologos™ commonest term for the Ottomans,
who are also called ˜the ungodly™, ˜Persians™, ˜Turks™, the ˜enemies of the
faith™ or ˜enemies of the cross™ and ˜Mohammed™s people™; these alterna-
tives con¬rm the religious aspect as the primary marker in Palaiologos™
conception of the ˜barbarian™ Ottomans.
But, again like Kantakouzenos, Palaiologos can also characterise Chris-
tians as barbarians, since he speaks of ˜the many barbarian peoples™ (Funeral
Oration ±µ.·) who were effectively liberated by Theodore™s escape from the
Ottomans in ±. The signi¬cation is not clear, but the context strongly
suggests that these peoples were located in southern Greece and that these
barbaroi stand in contrast to the Peloponnesian Romans, to the duchy of
Athens under Nerio Acciajuoli and to the Albanians settled in the Pelopon-
nese. In default of other options, it is therefore likely that these barbarians
should be identi¬ed with the Slavic tribes of the Peloponnese and, perhaps,
also with the Latins of the principality of Achaia.±° In the ¬nal analysis, this
reference to ˜the many barbarian peoples™ seems more comprehensive than
speci¬c “ a reference to ˜everyone™ rather than to any speci¬c groupings “
but at any rate Manuel is certainly referring here to non-Muslim Christian
peoples. Apart from this ambiguous reference, however, Palaiologos does
not associate barbarism with westerners, and this is in a logical progression
from the historians of the fourteenth century. Again, like Gregoras, Kan-
takouzenos and Akropolites, Palaiologos is relatively restrained in his use
of the stock abuse of others, but he does associate the barbaros with lack of
trustworthiness (°·.µ“) “ a familiar charge by the Byzantine Romans.
Mazaris also describes Slavs (·.±·) and Turks (.±) as barbarians and
thus he too retains a generalised understanding of barbaros in its ethnic


±° Chrysostomides ±µ: ±µ“, n. ·.
µ·
The long defeat
sense of the non-Roman; the continuing in¬‚uence of this established ideol-
ogy is shown in the ethnic application of barbaros to the Slavic northerners
(albeit these were long-settled in the Peloponnese) and to non-Christians.
However, these two occurrences are in fact atypical of Mazaris™ use of the
terminology of barbarism where, in fact, he presents a striking contrast
with Manuel Palaiologos and his predecessors.
Mazaris™ use of barbaros is overwhelmingly cultural (and especially lin-
guistic) in reference, and has only a minimal sense of denoting ethnic
groups; this is shown by the fact that Mazaris uses the terminology of
barbarism most of all in application to ethnic Romans. As noted above,
Mazaris castigates the Peloponnesians for their poor Greek, and adds: ˜I™m
afraid . . . that I myself might become barbarised just like the Lakonians
have become barbarised, those people who are now called Tzakonians. They
say “grab ™em” and “hand ™em over” and “hold ™em” . . . and other such bar-
barisms™.±± In the past, one sign of the barbarian non-Roman had been that
he spoke Greek poorly if at all, and this traditional ideology is at the root of
Mazaris™ patronising comments here. Certainly, the application of barbaros
to the ethnically Roman Peloponnesians re¬‚ects the typical long-standing
Constantinopolitan contempt for the provincials as at best semi-Roman,
and so there is some ethnic content here. Thus too, the description of the
local, ethnically Roman, barons of the Peloponnese as ˜barbarised™ (.±“
±), which comes in the context of the account of their revolt against
Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, re¬‚ects their behaviour and their cultural
level “ both seen as appalling. However, when Mazaris says that he him-
self might become barbarised, the ethnic content has been reduced to a
minimum. In effect, the well-established associations of the terminology of
barbarism with poor Greek have worked to produce a rhetorical model for
any description of Greek style; thus, Mazaris elsewhere praises an orator
(somewhat sarcastically) for his faultless, ˜unbarbarised™, Greek style (µ.).
Ironically, then, Mazaris™ desire to denigrate the Peloponnese and its
people has had the result that, of all people, ethnic Romans are most
thoroughly presented as barbarians in the Journey to Hades. This is an
extreme re¬‚ection of the Constantinopolitan disdain for provincials that
has been observed in all the elite historians. This educated chauvinism can
be traced back to before the Fourth Crusade, but the fact of the Frankish
conquest and occupation of provinces like the Peloponnese seems to have

±± ”doica . . . £ ¯na mŸ barbarw{¤ kaª aÉtov ãsper o¬ L†kwnev bebarb†rwntai, kaª n“n
k”klhntai Tz†kwnev, kaª ˜pi†son ta™ kaª ˜dÛson ta™ kaª ˜sf©xon ta™ . . . kaª Šll™ Štta b†rbara
l”gousi. Journey to Hades .±°“±.
µ Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans
intensi¬ed the prejudice. On the evidence of historians from Akropolites
to Kantakouzenos, and through to Palaiologos and Mazaris in the ¬fteenth
century, this intensi¬cation had arisen because the long-perceived cultural,
educational and linguistic de¬ciencies were now married to actual or alleged
disloyalty to the empire and the Byzantine Roman state. This combination
denied the provincials any part in the political Roman identity which was
dominant among the ruling class, and educated writers thus also avoided
calling such provincials Rhomaioi.

peloponnesian identities in the later greek chronicle
of the morea
For any kind of view from the much denigrated provincial ethnic Romans
of the Peloponnese in the ¬fteenth century, it is necessary to turn again to
the Greek Chronicle of the Morea. It is clear that this work continued to
be enjoyed in the Peloponnese in the ¬fteenth century, with four extant
versions dating from the late ¬fteenth and into the sixteenth century.
These versions show substantial changes and updating which can only
re¬‚ect changing circumstances in the Peloponnese such that, on analysis,
they permit of a viewpoint on the ¬fteenth century in comparison with
the fourteenth.
It is ¬rstly clear from the changes made to the later versions of the Greek
Chronicle of the Morea that, some century at least after the death of the
last of the Villehardouin princes, there was less loyalty to the principality
and less attachment towards Franks. Both P (Codex Parisinus gr.  of

<<

. 40
( 54 .)



>>