EKATERINI MITSIOU (ATHEN – WIEN)*

The Byzantines and the „others“. Between transculturality and

discrimination

Modern scholarship was always enormously interested in the relations of Byzantium to other states and
peoples. In the last years, though, the focus moved to the attitudes and the perception of the “other”1 in re-
lation to the Byzantine identity.2 In this process it became clear that the “others” were not only the for-
eigners, but also elements of the Byzantine society such as social and religious “marginal groups”.3
Furthermore, concepts of confrontation, acculturation or “cultural hydraulics”4 have given their place
to questions of the complexity of inter-or transcultural exchanges. For the Middle Ages, M. Borgolte and
B. Schneidmüller have recently described this very accurately: “Today we understand these cultures (that
is the cultures of the Middle Ages) not as immutable entities but we understand much more clearly the
oscillating processes of infiltration, exchange, adaptation, copy, influence, rejection, symbiosis as well as

—————
*
Original title of the paper: „Die Byzantiner und die „Anderen“. Zwischen Transkulturalität und Diskriminierung“. This paper is a
scientific result of the Post-doc project “Female Monasticism in the Late Byzantine Period (1204–1453)” [(SH6-2535) MON-
FEM] which is implemented within the framework of the Action “Supporting Postdoctoral Researchers” of the Operational Pro-
gram “Education and Lifelong Learning" (Action’s Beneficiary: General Secretariat for Research and Technology), and is co-
financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Greek State
Abbreviations :
EHB= The Economic History of Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, hrsg. von A. E. Laiou, I-III, Wash-
ington D. C. 2002.
The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium=The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed.
by A. LAIOU–R. PARVIZ MOTTAHEDEH. Washington D.C. 2001
Urbs Capta=Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences. La IVe croisade et ses conséquences, ed. by A. LAIOU (Ré-
alités Byzantines 10). Paris 2005.
1
D. C. SMYTHE, Byzantine Perceptions of the Outsider in the Eleventh and Twelfth centuries: a method (Dissertation), University of
St Andrews 1992; D. SMYTHE, Strangers to themselves: 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). Aldershot
2000.
2
On byzantine identity s. J. KODER, Anmerkungen zu γραικόω. Βyzantina 21 (2000) 119–202; J. KODER, Griechische Identitäten im
Mittelalter. Aspekte einer Entwicklung, in: Byzantium. State and society. Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, ed. by A. ABRAMEA–
A. LAIOU–E. CHRYSOS. Athens 2003, 297–319; A. KALDELLIS, Hellenism in Byzantium: the Transformations of Greek identity
and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge 2009; W. HÖRANDNER, Hē eikona tu allou. Latinoi, Frangoi kai barbaroi
apo tēn skopia tēs aulikēs poiēsēs tōn Komnēnōn. Dodone—Philologia 23 (1994) 115–131; H. HUNGER, Graeculus perfidus.
Ιταλός ιταμός. Il senso dell’ alterità nei rapporti breco-romani ed italo-bizantini. Rome 1987; E. KISLINGER, Von Drachen und
anderem wilden Getier. Fremdenfeindlichkeit in Byzanz ?, in: Laetae segetes iterum, ed. by I. RADOVÁ. Brno 2008, 389–404; E.
KOUNTOURA-GALAKI – N. KOUTRAKOU, Locals vs “foreigners”: criteria for the formation of local identities in Late Byzantium.
An approach to Modern Graecitas through Late Byzantine writers, in: Identities in the Greek World (from 1204 to the present
day), 4th European Congress of Modern Greek Studies, Granada, 9–12 September 2010, Proceedings), ed. by Κ. Α. DIMADIS, vol
5. Athens 2011, 107–125.
3
Oi perithōriakoi sto Byzantio. Praktika hemeridas, 9 Maiou 1992, ed. by C. A. MALTEZU. Athens 1993.
4
The concept of “cultural hydraulics” was used by P. BROWN, Eastern and Western Christendom in Late Antiquity: a parting of the
ways, in: The orthodox churches and the West, ed. D. BAKER (Studies in Church History 13). Edinburgh 1976, 1–24, esp. 5: “The
east tends to be treated as a distinct and enclosed reservoir of superior culture, from which the occasional stream is released, to
pour down hill-by some obscure law of cultural hydraulics-to water the lower reaches of the West.”; K. N. CIGGAAR, Western
Travellers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 962–1204: Cultural and Political Relations (The Medieval Mediterrean
10). Leiden – New York – Cologne 1996, 8.
2

osmosis as historical basic patterns. Without denying differences, we distinguish no longer in paratactic
tidying manner between medieval Romans, Germans or Slavs, not between the unmediated world of the
Jews, Christians, Muslims, or pagans. We distinguish no longer between civilized and barbarian in the
sens of previous acculturation modells“.5
This opinion offers useful ideas for interaction models between Byzantines and “strangers”, as well
as about their depiction in the Byzantine sources. For my approach, a particularly useful concept is that of
transculturality, which was coined by Fernando Ortiz in his book “Cuban Counterpoint. Tobacco and
Sugar” (1940) and foremost by Wolfgang Welsch,6 and found especially in recent years wide spread.
Welsch spoke about the “external networking” of cultures, which replaces older homogenizing separatist
concepts of cultures, as those formed by Hegel. „Transculturality“ means for him the blurring or lifting of
barriers when different cultures meet. On a macro- and micro-level the dichotomies self – foreign or in-
ternal – external do not exist anymore, since all cultures and individuals are transcultural formations.
Such a cross-cultural mindset is represented by the famous mystic of the thirteenth century Mawlana Jalal
ad-Din Muhammad Rumi-e in a poem: „What is to be done, O Moslems? For I do not recognize myself/ I
am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem.../ My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Trace-
less.” 7
From the perspective of the theory applied here, there are transcultural personalities, “individuals
who find ways to transcend their native cultures, in order to explore, examine and infiltrate a new, seem-
ingly alien culture”. They undergo a process of learning new cultural behaviours. 8 If we look for such
cross-cultural individuals in a Byzantine context, then we could mention Manuel Maurozomes, who after
1205 fled to his son-in-law, the Sultan of Iconium Kay-Khusraw I. Niketas Choniates argued that “he was
connected with us (=the Byzantines) by birth, however by his attitude he was foreigner. Furthermore he
was and showed himself to be an unrestrained enemy of his own fatherland”.9
The concept of transculturality will enable us in the following to present some aspects of the rela-
tions between the Byzantines and the “others”–in this case the Westerners– in the Late Byzantine period
(1204–1453).10 It is a period marked by greater openness, but also attempts of clear delineations and sig-

—————
5
M. BORGOLTE – B. SCHNEIDMÜLLER, Vorwort in: M. BORGOLTE – B. SCHNEIDMÜLLER – A. SEITZ (eds.), Hybride Kulturen im
mittelalterlichen Europa (Europa im Mittelalter 16). Berlin 2010, 7–8, here 7.
6
W. WELSCH, Transkulturalität-Lebensformen nach der Auflösung der Kulturen. Information Philosophie 20/2 (1992) 5–20; cf. an
extended version of this article in: Dialog der Kulturen. Die multikulturelle Gesellschaft und die Medien, ed. by K. LUGER – R.
RENGER – F. CASMIR – M. MARTISCHNIG. Vienna 1994; W. WELSCH, Transkulturalität – Die veränderte Verfassung heutiger
Kulturen. Ein Diskurs mit Johann Gottfried Herder. VIA REGIA – Blätter für internationale kulturelle Kommunikation 20 (1994)
(s. the text on the internetpage: http://www.viaregia.org/bibliothek/pdf/heft20/welsch_transkulti.pdf); W. WELSCH, Vernunft. Die
zeitgenössische Vernunftkritik und das Konzept der transversalen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main 1996; W. WELSCH,
Transkulturalität. Zur veränderten Verfassung heutiger Kulturen, in: Hybridkultur: Medien, Netze, Künsten, ed. by I. SCHNEIDER
– Chr. W. THOMSON. Cologne 1997, 67–90; W. WELSCH, Transculturality: The Puzzling Form of Cultures Today, in: Spaces of
Culture. City-Nation-World, ed. by M. FEATHERSTONE – S. LASH. London – Thousand Oakes – New Delhi 1999, 194-213; W.
WELSCH, Auf dem Weg zu transkulturellen Gesellschaften. Paragrana 10/ 2 (2001) 254–284; W. WELSCH, Netzdesign der
Kulturen. Zeitschrift für Kulturaustausch 1 (2002) (s. also: http://www.ifa.de/index.php?id=welsch); A. HEPP – M. LÖFFELHOLZ,
Grundlagentexte zur transkulturellen Kommunikation. Vienna 2002. On the concept of transculturality by Welsch s. B.
KALSCHEUER, Transkulturalität. Einleitung, in: Differenzen anders denken. Bausteine zu einer Kulturtheorie der Transdifferenz,
ed. by L. ALLOLIO-NÄCKE – B. KALSCHEUER – A. MANZESCHKE. Frankfurt – New York 2005, 289–292.
7
Selected poems from the Dīvāni Shamsi Tabrīz, ed. and transl. by R. A. NICHOLSON. Cambridge 1898; reprint, Richmond 1994,
125–126, here 125; A. SCHIMMEL, The Triumphal Sun. A Study of the Works of Jalāloddin Rumi (Persian studies series 8).
London 1978 (= reprint Albany, NY 1993) 389 .
8
W. BERG – A. N. ÉIGEARTAIGH, Exploring Transculturalism. A Biographical Approach. Wiesbaden 2010, 10–12; D. TREICHEL,
Transkulturelle Kompetenz, in: D. TREICHEL – Cl.-H. MAYER, Lehrbuch Kultur: Lehr- und Lernmaterialien zur Vermittlung
kultureller Kompetenzen. Münster – New York – Munich – Berlin 2011, 278–284, here 280.
9
Nicetae Choniatae Orationes et Epistulae, ed. by J.-L. VAN DIETEN (CFHB 3). Berlin 1972, no. 14, 136–137.
10
B. ARBEL – B. HAMILTON – D. JACOBY (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204. London 1989; M.
BALARD – E. MALAMUT – J.-M. SPIESER (eds), Byzance et le monde extérieur. Contacts, relations, échanges (Byzantina Sor-
bonensia 21). Paris 2005; J. HERRIN–G. SAINT-GUILLAIN (eds.), Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after
1204. Farnham, Burlington 2011
 3

nificant social, economic and political changes. Within the study of the interaction between Westerners
and Byzantines in the Late Middle Ages we concentrate on the similarities and on the transcultural per-
sonalities rather than on the separative elements. Nevertheless, the differences in the form of discrimina-
tion should not be left out since they demonstrate cultural barriers (imaginary or real).

DISCRIMINATION
Most people perceive their “own” culture much more clearly when they are at their limits, that means
when they come into contact with other cultures and learn about other behaviours. The identity of each
community is generally related to its living space. Shall those perceived as “outsiders” try to infiltrate into
this space, then the community’s members may feel threatened.
In the case of Byzantines and Latins, the animosity escalated after the Schism of the two Churches
(1054).11 In the West, Byzantium was characterised by some as “Grecia mendax”, while a group of peo-
ple existed who utterly rejected Byzantium.12 Nevertheless, it is actually in the twelfth century that the an-
ti-latin sentiments become stronger due to the presence of Western merchants in the Eastern Mediterrane-
an and foremost due to the the military and the ideological confrontations on the background of the Cru-
sades. A good example for this are the so-called “Lists of the errors of the Latins”. They illuminate the ef-
forts of the Byzantines to define not only their religious but also their cultural borders.13
Religious and economic tension was followed by a military confrontation. The capture of Constanti-
nople by the crusaders (1204) set a milestone in the history of cultural encounters between East and
West.14 In this case the “others” intruded into a cultural space by force. They created a number of separate
political and cultural entities such as the Latin empire of Constantinople15 and the Frankish state in Pelo-
ponnese. The memories of this Byzantine trauma were still vivid during the Union negotiations in the
fourteenth century. Pope Benedikt XII (1332–1342) demanded that a Church Union had to be concluded
in advance of any military support for Byzantium. Barlaam the Calabrian, the ambassador of Emperor
Andronikos III Palaiologos in 1339 to Avignon, replied that:
“It is not so much difference in dogma that alienates the hearts of the Greeks from you, as the hatred
that has entered their souls against the Latins, because of the many great evils that at different times the
Greeks have suffered at the hands of Latins and are still suffering every day. Until this hatred has been
removed from them, there cannot be union. In truth, until you have done them some very great benefit,
neither will that hatred be dispelled nor will anyone dare to breathe a word to them about union. . . .
Know this too, that it was not the people of Greece that sent me to seek your help and union, but the Em-
—————
11
To schism s. S. RUNCIMAN, The Eastern Schism. Oxford 1955; F. DVORNIK, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend
of the Apostle Andrew. Cambridge, Mass. 1958; F. DVORNIK, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York 1966 (repr. 1979);
P. LEMERLE, L’ Orthodoxie byzantine et l’ oecuménisme médiéval: Les origines du ‘schisme’ des Eglises. BullBudé (1965) 228–
246; J. MEYENDORFF, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York 1974, 91–114; J. MEYENDORFF,
Schism. ODB 9, 1850–1851.
12
A. E. LAIOU, Byzantium and the West, in: Byzantium. A World civilization, ed. A.E. LAIOU e.a. Washingtom D.C. 1992, 61–79;
K. N. CIGGAAR, Western Travellers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 962–1204: Cultural and Political Relations
(The Medieval Mediterrean 10). Leiden – New York – Cologne 1996, 14–15.
13
T. KOLBABA, The Orthodoxy of the Latins in the Twelfth century, in: Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers From the Thirty-sixth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23–25 March 2002, ed. by A. LOUTH – A. CASIDAY (Society for the
Promotion of Byzantine Studies 12). Aldershot 2006; T. KOLBABA, Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious ‘Errors’: Themes
and Changes from 850 to 1350, in: The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium 117–143; L. ISNENGHI, Konstantinos Stilbes
und die Fehler der Lateiner. Gedanken zum Bild des westeuropäischen Christen in Byzanz, in: Junge Römer – Neue Griechen.
Eine byzantinische Melange aus Wien, ed. by M. POPOVIĆ – J. PREISER-KAPELLER. Vienna 2008, 73–87.
14
M. ANGOLD, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context. Harlow 2003; R.-J. LILIE, Byzanz und die Kreuzzüge. Stuttgart 2004; The
Meeting of the two Worlds. Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, ed. by V. GOSS – C.
BORNSTEIN. Kalamazoo 1986.
15
J. LONGNON, L’ empire latin de Constantinople. Paris 1949; F. VAN TRICHT, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of
Constantinople (1204–1228), translated by P. LONGBOTTOM (The Medieval Mediterranean. People, Economies and Cultures,
400–1500 vol. 90). Leiden – Boston 2011.
4

peror alone and secretly. Until help is sent to these parts, he cannot let his people see that he wants union
with you”.16
Very soon after the capture of Constantinople in 1204, the Byzantines spoke on defensive terms for
their opponents. They perceived themselves as victims, as targets of an attack against their value system
and lives.17 Additionally to victimization the picture of the encirclement by the enemies was used. Theo-
dore II (1254–1258) praised his father, the emperor John III Vatatzes, on the following grounds:
„You have indeed with zeal and heartfelt courage wiped away the Latin injustice, the Persian oppression,
the Scythian wilderness, the Bulgarian rawness and uprising, the Serbian defection, the Tartar pride, the
partly Roman aversion and in a nutshell any damage which has insulted the country of Ausones [= By-
zantium]. With the sword and with a heavier hand you cut off their heads, with which the tribes of Ala-
mans, Italians, Venetians, Genoese and Longibards, Lampards, Pisans and all Latin nations together as a
single (nation) have suppressed us.“18
Theodore II enlisted first the enemies of Byzantium, ascribing to them certain negative characteris-
tics. The Muslims (=Persians) are agressiv and arrogant, the Slavic people rebellious, wild and raw. He
selected for each enemy stereotypes which the Byzantines had formed on the background of their older or
more recent military and political relations. Interesting is the division of the „unfair“ Latins in various
„nations“. Theodore II Laskaris offers here a very impressive example of the barriers between different
cultures on the base of stereotypes.19
Injustice, aggression, arrogance and avarice were typical accusations against the Latins especially
since the time of the crusades.20 Anna Komnena described them as ambitious, greedy, hot headed and un-
trustworthy.21 Niketas Choniates22 and Eustathios of Thessaloniki23 concentrated on their character (ro-
bust, swarthy, fierce, quick to anger), their appearance (they have short hair but no beard24) and on lan-
guage aspects (they do not understand Greek).
Prejudice and discrimination are not, however, one-sided. Westerners were just as active and polem-
ical. To a large extent their stereotypes derived from ancient prejudices which considered the Byzantines,
—————
16
Acta Benedicti XII, 1334–1342, ed. A. L. TAŬTU (Fontes Series 3, vol. 8). Vatican City 1958, doc. 43, 85–97, here 90; J. GILL,
Byzantium and the Papacy. New Brunswick, N.J. 1979, 197–198; T. KOLBABA, Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious “Er-
rors”. Themes and Changes from 850 to 1350, in: The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium 117–143, here 117.
17
Ch. MESSIS, Lectures sexuées de l’altérité. Les Latins et identité romaine menacée pendant les derniers siècles de Byzance. JÖB 61
(2011) 151–170, here 152; D. ANGELOV, Byzantine Ideological Reactions to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople, in: Urbs Cap-
ta 292–310; D. ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204–1330. Cambridge 2007; E. MITSIOU, The
Empire of Nicaea (1204–1261): a transcultural society?, in: Proceedings of the International Conference “Union in Separation–
Trading Diasporas in the Eastern Mediterranean (1200–1700), Heidelberg, 17–19 February 2011“ (in print).
18
Τheodoros II. Laskaris, Encomion to Vatatzes §2 (27.79–90 ed. A. TARTAGLIA, Theodoros II. Ducas Lascaris, Opuscula Rhetorica
[Bibliotheca Teubneriana]. Munich – Leipzig 2000); B. BYDÉN, “Strangle Them with Theses Meshes of Syllogisms!”, in: Inter-
action and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture. Papers Read at a Colloquium Held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul,
1–5 December, 1999, ed. by J. O. ROSENQVIST (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions 13). Stockholm 2004, 133–
157, here 135 (with further bibliography).
19
On stereotypes s. S. CONDOR, Social stereotypes and social identity, in: Social identity theory. Constructive and Critical Advances,
ed. by D. ABRAMS – M.A. HOGG. New York 1990, 230–249; Th. PAPADOPULU, Syllogikē tautotēta kai autognōsia sto Byzantio.
Symbolē ston prosdiorismo tēs autoantilepsēs tōn Byzantinōn mesa apo tēn logia grammateia tus (11os–arches 13ou ai.) (forth-
coming), 46.
20
P. LOCK, The Franks in the Aegean, 1204–1500. London – New York 1995, 308.
21
S. the index terms “βάρβαρος“, “Λατίνοι“, “Ἰταλοί“, “Κελτός-Κελτοί“, “Νορμάνος/Νορμάνοι“, “Φράγγος/Φράγγοι“ in the edition
of Alexias, D. R. REINSCH – A. KAMBYLIS, Annae Comnenae Alexias (CFHB 40/1–2). Berlin–New York 2001, here vol. II; s.
also D. REINSCH, Ausländer und Byzantiner im Werk der Anna Komnene. Rechtshistorisches Journal 8 (1989) 257–274.
22
Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J.-L. VAN DIETEN (CFHB 11). Berlin – New York 1975, 122 (Enrico Dandolo: a man maimed in
sight and along in years), 199: the Latins are “boastful, undaunted in spirit, lacking all humility, and trained to be ever blood-
thirsty”; H. J. MAGOULIAS (trans.), O city of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniatēs. Detroit 1984, xviii and xxv.
23
Eustazio di Tessalonica, La Espugnazion di Tessalonica, testo critico, introduzione annotazioni di St. KYRIAKIDIS, proemio di B.
LAVAGNINI, versione italiana di V. ROTOLO (Testi e monumenti 5). Palermo 1961), 60.8–11; English translation: Eustathios of
Thessaloniki, The Capture of Thessaloniki. A translation with introduction and commentary by J. R. MELVILLE JONES (Byzantina
Australiensia 8). Canberra 1988, 61.
24
MESSIS, Lectures sexuées 164–170.
 5

the “Greek”, as perfidious, untrustworthy, not warlike enough and treacherous, but also “effeminate”.25
The degree of negativeness connected with Byzantium is demonstrated even in modern Western parlanc-
es, where the word “Byzantine” is connected with treachery and perfidy. Even modern technological jar-
gon is not excluded, since with regard to multiprocessor systems one speaks of a “Byzantine fault” to de-
fine different and incorrect results, which one component delivers to others. This use of the adjective
“Byzantine” is attributed to the alleged treasonous behaviour of Byzantine generals, who had submitted
misleading information to the other generals of their army.26
In the focus of the mutual prejudices stood above all, as mentioned, religion and language. The Byz-
antines considered the Latin language as not of the same quality as Greek, as it could not adequately rep-
resent the subtle ideas of philosophy and theology. But it is certain that since the seventh century the
skills of the Byzantines in Latin had subsided and were limited only to individuals, who acted as inter-
preters.27 Furthermore, before the thirteenth century the group of Byzantines who were willing to accept
Western features was rather small. Western influence was at that time rather rare and superficial accord-
ing to A. Kazhdan.28 But at the end of the thirteenth and particularly in the fourteenth century the interest
of Byzantine scholars for Latin rose again. With the help of teachers they learned Latin and translated
texts into Greek. On the other hand, many of these scholars converted from conviction to Catholicism.29
Language barriers were lifted also in the areas of Latin states but the carriers here were different. In
the Frankish states many of the Westerners learned Greek since their childhood and were bilingual.30
Transmittors were women who took an important part in this language acquisition either as mothers or as
wet-nurses.31

TOWARDS TRANSCULTURALITY?
The aforementioned cultural boundaries are also very clear in a quotation in the historical work of Niketas
Choniates. He argued that “between us and them the greatest gulf of disagreement has been fixed and we
are separated in purpose and diametrically opposed, even though we are closely associated and frequently
share the same dwelling”.32 Choniates draws a line between “them” and “us” but he admits that they in-
teract and both may live really close to one another. With “them” he refers especially to those Westerners,
who lived permanently in Constantinople and other major cities and were active in trade.33
From their part, the Byzantines had not a monolithic notion of the Western nations and they distin-
guished between them. They differentiated between the “Frankish” warriors and the Italian “traders”.34
For the warlike Franks we find positive attributes in the historiography. Rhetorical works were adressed

—————
25
MESSIS, Lectures sexuées 156–157; M. CARRIER, L’image des Byzantins et les systèmes de représentation selon les chroniqueurs
occidentaux des croisades (Dissertation). Paris 2006, 77–78.
26
To byzantine fault s. M. PEASE – R. SHOSTAK – L. LAMPORT, Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults. Journal of the
ACM 27 (2) (April 1980) 228–234; L. LAMPORT – R. SHOSTAK – M. PEASE, The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Trans. Pro-
gramming Languages and Systems 4, Nr. 3 (1982) 382–401.
27
N. OIKONOMIDES, Diplomacy. ODB 1, 634–635 and A. KAZHDAN, Interpreter. ODB 2, 1004; CIGGAAR, Western travellers 34–35.
28
A. P. KAZHDAN – A. WHARTON EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Berkeley etc. 1985,
80–83; CIGGAAR, Western travellers 13.
29
C. DELACROIX-BESNIER, Les Dominicains et la chrétienté grecque aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Collection de l’ École Française de
Rome 237). Rome 1997, 185–200, esp. 186–197; C. DELACROIX-BESNIER, Conversions constantinopolitaines au XIVe siècle. Mé-
langes de l’Ecole française de Rome 105/2 (1993) 715–761; T. KOLBABA, Conversion from Greek Orthodoxy to Roman Catholi-
cism in the fourteenth Century. BMGS 19 (1995) 120–134.
30
s. LOCK, Franks 299 on bilingualism in the Frankish states.
31
LOCK, Franks 298–299.
32
Niketas Choniates, Historia (301 VAN DIETEN); MAGOULIAS, Annals of Niketas Choniatēs 97–98 and 140–141.
33
R.-J. LILIE, Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den Italienischen Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in
der Epoche der Komnenen und der Angeloi. Amsterdam 1984.
34
A. KAZHDAN, Latins and Franks in Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century, in: The Crusades
from the Perspective of Byzantium 83–100; LOCK, Franks 267.
6

to Western rulers, among others, Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen in the 13th Century, the Cypriot
King Hugo IV of Lusignan in the 14th century and Emperor Sigismund in the 15th c.35
While Latin bravery and military capabilities were judged positively up to the 12th century,36 from the 13th
c. onwards also other Western achievements became known to the Byzantine world such as the advances
in scholarship and sciences. Negotiations on a Union of Churches also offered an opportunity to identify
the advantages and strengths of their opponents and their own disadvantages. Theodore II noticed that in
the West the philosophy, which belonged to the Greeks, had made progress and he was worried of a pos-
sible translatio studii: “I cannot exclude in any case that philosophy will leave us, because even though
she belongs to the Greeks, she is disregarded by them today. She (the philosophy) will be loyal to the bar-
barians and bring them fame“.37
In the middle of the 14th century the scholar and statesman Demetrios Kydones learned Latin proba-
bly with the help of Philipp of Pera38 and studied Thomas Aquinas and other theologians.39 He rejected
typical byzantine stereotypes, which could not be sustained anymore, since the Latins were now capable
of the highest intellectual achievements. His compatriots were for too long content to stick to the tradi-
tional old notion that mankind was divided into two groups: Greeks and barbarians, while the Latins were
described as uncapable of decent action, capable only of trade and war.40
It is clear that prejudice and lack of language skills had contributed to a general rejection of the Lat-
ins as barbarians. The presence of Dominicans and other orders in Byzantium, the growing interest in Lat-
in since Maximos Planudes41 and his translations of Augustine42 and Boethius43, as well as the increasing
—————
35
E. MITSIOU, Vier byzantinische rhetorische Texte auf westliche Herrscher, in: Emperor Sigismund and the Orthodox World, ed. by
E. MITSIOU – M. POPOVIĆ – J. PREISER-KAPELLER – A. SIMON (Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 410;
Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 24). Vienna 2010, 27–39; S. EFTHYMIADIS, Nicetas Choniates: the Writer, in: Niketas
Choniates. A Historian and a Writer, ed. A. SIMPSON – S. EFTHYMIADIS. Genève 2009, 35–58.
36
A. LAIOU, L’ interprétation byzantine de l’ expansion occidentale (XIe–XIIe siècles), in: Le partage du monde. Echanges et coloni-
sation dans la Méditerranée médiévale, ed. M. BALARD – A. DUCELLIER, Paris 1998, 163–179.
37
Theodoros II. Laskaris, epist. 5 (8.13–16 ed. N. FESTA, Theodori Ducae Lascaris epistulae CCXVII. Florence 1898); CIGGAAR,
Western travellers 94–95; cf. the frustration of Manuel Holobolos regarding the complexity of the Latin syllogisms, BYDÉN,
Strangle Them 133–157, esp. 146. Humbert of Romans argued in the 13th century that the decline of learning and science was
one of the causes of the continuation of the schism, B. ROBERG, Die Union zwischen der griechischen und der lateinischen
Kirche auf dem II. Konzil von Lyon (1274). Bonn 1964, 85–95 and BYDÉN, Strangle Them 136.
38
DELACROIX-BESNIER, Les Dominicains 189–190.
39
R.-J. LOENERTZ, Démétrius Cydonès Correspondance (StT 186) I-II. Città del Vaticano 1956–1960; J.R. RYDER, The Career and
Writings of Demetrius Kydones: a Study of Fourteenth-Century Byzantine Politics, Religion and Society (The medieval Mediter-
ranean 85). Leiden [u.a.] 2010; F. TINNEFELD, Das Niveau der abendländischen Wissenschaft aus der Sicht der gebildeten
Byzantiner im 13. und 14. Jh. Byzantinische Forschungen 6 (1979) 241–280; F. TINNEFELD, Die Briefe des Demetrios Kydones
(Mainzer Veroffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik). Wiesbaden 2010; F. KIENKA, Demetrius Cydones (c.1324–c.1397): Intellectural
and Diplomatic Relations between Byzantium and the West in the fourteenth century. New York 1984.
40
Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota: ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della
letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV, ed. G. MERCATI (StT 56). Città del Vaticano 1973, 365.77–84.
41
I. TAXIDIS, Symbolē stēn meletē tou corpus tōn epistolōn tou (Byzantina Keimena kai Meletes 58). Thessaloniki 2012, 18–19; C.N.
CONSTANTINIDES, Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (1204–ca.1310) (Texts and
Studies of the History of Cyprus 11). Nicosia 1982, 42–45, esp. 42; D. BIANCONI, Le traduzioni in greco di testi Latini, Lo spazio
letterario del Medioevo, 3. Le culture Circostanti, I. La cultura Bizantina, a cura di Guglielmo Cavallo. Rome 2004, 519–568; W.
O. SCHMITT, Lateinische Literatur in Byzanz. Die Übersetzungen des Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung. JÖBG 17
(1968) 127–147.
42
Maximos ho Planudēs, Augustinu Peri Triados biblia pentekaideka haper ek tēs Latinōn dialektu eis tēn Ellada metēnenge, ed. by
M. PAPATHOMOPULOS – I. TSABARE – G. RIGOTTI (Bibliothēke A. Manusē 3), vol. Ι: Βooks I-VII, vol. ΙΙ: Books 8-15. Athens
1995; S. VALORIANI, Massimo Planude traduttore di S. Agostino, in: Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini (Pa-
lermo 3–10 April 1951) (=SBN 7), I. Rome 1953, 234; CONSTANTINIDES, Higher Education 66–89; E.V. MALTESE, Massimo
Planude interprete del De Trinitate di Agostino, in: Padri graeci e latini a confronto (secoli XIII–XV) (Millennio Medievale 51–
Atti do Convegni 15). Florence 2004, 207–219; S. K. TZAMOS, Metaphrastikes technikes stis metaphraseis tu Maximu Planudē
apo ta latinika sta hellenika. Εpetēris Philosophikēs Scholēs Panepistēmiu Thessalonikēs/Philologia 10 (2002–2003) 373–408;
BIANCONI, Traduzioni 557–558 and SCHNEIDER, Une correspondance érudite: les lettres de Maxime Planude. Eruditio Antiqua 1
(2009) 63–85, here 68; B. KALOGEROPULU-METALLENU, Maximu Planudē Prosopographia (me basē tis epistoles tu). Parnassos
24 (1982) 558–599.
 7

interaction between the two groups, particularly in the Genoese colony of Pera, initiated an intensification
of cultural exchange.44 This interest is also connected with the so-called Palaiologean Rennaissance and
literate circles in Constantinople. We have to acknowledge the importance of the Union of Lyons (1274)
for these cultural developments,45 since some more examples of transcultural personalities such as John
Bekkos, Konstantinos Meliteniotes and George Metochites are attested for this period. Their openmind-
ness to accept another dogma implicated a confrontation with their former cultural environment. Western
influences were therefore not only focused on science and language skills, but also reached the most con-
servative areas of Byzantine life such as faith.
The influential power of the Union can be explained due to the fact that openness often began with
the division: in order to obtain arguments in a dispute with an opponent, one had to learn more about him.
This was possible due to people from both sides, who were fluent in both Latin and Greek (those we have
called transcultural personalities). The Dominicans learned Greek as part of their missionary work in the
East and for the discussion of a Union; they translated in the thirteenth century Latin works into Greek.
One of them was Guillaume Bernard de Gaillac, founder of the Dominican convent in Pera and translator
of works of Thomas of Aquin in Greek.46 Latin knowledge brought many Byzantine scholars in the four-
teenth century to the decision to convert, including Demetrios Kydones, who translated among other the
“Summa Theologica”,47 Manuel Kalekas and Andreas Chrysoberges.48
However, there are examples of Latins, especially from the second half of the 14th century, who con-
verted to Orthodoxy. The so-called Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which covers the time
for the 1315 to 1402, records about thirty creeds of men and women including many Latins. Some of
them demonstrate knowledge of Greek, even if it is not profound.49

—————
43
M. PAPATHOMOPULOS, Annitiu Malliu Seberinu Boēthu Biblos peri paramythias tēs philosophias, hēn metēnengen ek tēs Latinōn
phonēs eis tēn hellada dialekton Maximos monachos ho Planudēs (= Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De consolatione philoso-
phiae. Traduction grecque de Maxime Planude) (Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi 9). Athens – Paris – Brussels 1999; see also
the translation of Manuel Holobolos: De topicis differentiis kai hoi byzantines metaphraseis tōn Manuēl Holobōlu kai Prochoru
Kydōnē. Anhang: Eine Pachymeres-Weiterbearbeitung der Holobolos-Übersetzung= Boethius' De topicis differentiis und die
byzantinische Rezeption dieses Werkes (Corpus philosophorum medii aevi 5), ed. by D. Z. NIKETAS. Athens 1990.
44
M. HINTERBERGER – Ch. SCHABEL, Greek, Latins and the Intellectual History 1204–1500 (Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie
médiévales 11). Leuven 2011.
45
s. I. PÉREZ-MARTIN, Le conflit de l’Union des Églises (1274) et son reflet dans l’ enseignement supérieur de Constantinople. BSl
56/2 (1995) (=ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ.Studia byzantina acslavica VLADIMÍRO VAVŘÍNEK ad annum sexagesimum quintum dedicata)
411–422; C. N. CONSTANTINIDES, Byzantine Scholars and the Union of Lyons (1274), in: The Making of Byzantine History.
Studies dedicated to Donald M. Nicol, ed. by R. BEATON–Ch. ROUECHÉ. London 1993, 86–93; BYDÉN, Strangle Them 136–137
and 144–146.
46
M.-H. CONGOURDEAU, Note sur les Dominicains de Constantinople au début du 14e siècle. REB 45 (1987) 175–181; DELACROIX-
BESNIER, Les Dominicains 9–10 and 187. For the churches in Pera s. R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire
byzantin. Première partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique. Les églises et les monastères. Paris 1969,
582–601. For the western monastic presence s. M. KUMANUDE, Opseis tu Dytiku Monachismu stēn hellēnolatinikē Anatolē kata
to Mesaiōna, in: Monastēria, Oikonomia kai Politikē. Apo tus mesaiōnikus stus neōterus chronus, ed. I. KOLOBOS. Herakleion
2012, 69–115; N. TSOUGARAKIS, The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, 1204–1500 (Medieval Church Studies 18).
Turnhout 2012 (forthcoming).
47
Dēmētriu Kydōnē, Thōma Akyinatu Summa theologikē exellēnistheisa, ed. G. LEONTSINIS – Α. GLYKOFRYDOU-LEONTSINI – E.
MUTSOPULOS (=Demetrius Cydones, Thomas d'Aquin: somme theologique, traduite en grec) (Idryma Ereunēs kai Ekdoseōn Neo-
hellēnikēs Philosophias 650). Athens 1976.
48
DELACROIX-BESNIER, Conversions constantinopolitaines 715–761; DELACROIX-BESNIER, Les Dominicains 185–200, 265–271 and
277–285.
49
E. MITSIOU – J. PREISER-KAPELLER, Übertritte zur byzantinisch-orthodoxen Kirche in den Urkunden des Patriarchatsregisters von
Konstantinopel, in: Sylloge palaeographico-diplomatica, ed. Ch. GASTGEBER – O. KRESTEN (Veröffentlichungen zur
Byzanzforschung 19). Vienna 2010, 233–288; LOCK, Franks 290–292; D. NICOL, Mixed marriages in Byzantium in the
Thirteenth Century, in: Studies in Church History I., ed. C. DUGMORE – C. DUGGAN. London – Edinburgh 1964 (=Byzantium: its
Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World. Collected Studies. Variorum Reprints, London 1972, IV); S. ORI-
GONE, Marriage Connections between Byzantium and the West in the Age of the Palaiologoi, in: Intercultural Contact in the Me-
dieval Mediterranean, ed. B. ARBEL. London 1996, 226–241.
8

One of the main reasons of their conversions was the marriage with an Orthodox, for which it was a
necessary prequisite according to the Byzantine canon law. Actually, many children came from legitimate
or illegitimate relations between Latins (usually Venetians) and Byzantine women and were referred to as
“gasmouloi”.50 Given their engagement as marines and rowers in the imperial fleet, the Byzantines com-
mented on them mostly positive. According to George Pachymeres the gasmouloi had “the discretion and
caution spirit of the Greeks combined with the ardour and pride of the Franks”.51 They combined the
“positive characteristics” of both peoples.52 Diametrically different in some cases was the opinion of
Western commentators, for whom the bad Byzantine qualities dominated in the gasmouloi. This negative
attitude reminds us of the statements of Latin sources of that time against the “poulaines” or “pulani”,
Western Europeans, who lived in the East and accepted the oriental customs.53
A second motivation for such conversions was a material one, that is trade.54 As a Genoese merchant
named John in Philadelpheia (Alaşehir today in Turkey) converted, he received from the emperor tax
privileges. His countrymen, however, tried repeatedly to persuade him with financial offers to return to
his old faith.55
Trading activities provided usually space for peaceful contacts,56 although they did not belong to the
sphere of “high culture”.57 Niketas Choniates noticed that the Venetians who settled in Byzantium after
1082 as lodgers with Greek families and mariied Greek women, 58 “retained only their family names and
were looked upon as natives and genuine Romans”.59 As we have seen, the same author spoke in another
context elsewhere about the insurmountable gap between the nations. Similar to many other Byzantines
he had an ambivalent attitude towards the Latins. It is significant that whenever personal experiences are
present, then we read also positive remarks about the “others”.60
Cultural exchange and transmission of know-how was not limited to language and science such as in
the cases of scholastic thought in theology, but it took place also in the economic sphere. In the field of
—————
50
G. MAKRES, Dia Gasmulen. Thesaurismata 22 (1992) 44–96; T. SANSARIDOU-HENDRICKX, The Gasmules in the 13th and 14th
centuries: social outcasts or advocates of cultural integration? Acta Patristica et Byzantina 8 (1997) 121–129; MESSIS, Lectures
sexuées 159–160; LOCK, Franks 293–294 and 308.
51
Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, ed. A. FAILLER – V. LAURENT (CFΗΒ 24/ 1–5). Paris 1984–2000, here I, III 9, 253.13–
14.
52
LOCK, Franks 308.
53
Only Jean sire de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. Natalis DE WAILLY. Paris 1868, 154, §84 and Jacques de Vitry, Historia
Orientalis 73 and 75 (french translation M.-G. GROSSEL, Histoire orientale de Jacques de Vitry. Paris 2005, 203–204 and 208)
have short mentions on them, s. J. PRAWER, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. London 1972, 68, 529 and lately MESSIS, Lectures
sexuées 168–169; LOCK, Franks 294.
54
M. BALARD, Les Latins en Orient, XIe–XVe siècle. Paris 2006.
55
Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, ed. H. HUNGER – O. KRESTEN – E. KISLINGER – C. CUPANE (CFHB 19/2). Vienna
1995, no. 137 (June 1342) 290–295; J. DARROUZÈS, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, Bd. I: Les actes des
patriarches, Fasz. V: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376. Paris 1977, no. 2232.
56
A. LAIOU-THOMADAKIS, The Byzantine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System: Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries. DOP 34-35
(1980–1981) 177–222; J. KODER, Maritime Trade and the Food Supply for Constantinople in the Middle Ages, in: Travel in the
Byzantine World. Papers from the Thirty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham 2000, ed. by R.
MACRIDES (Society of the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 10). Aldershot 2002, 109–124; K.-P. MATSCHKE – F.
TINNEFELD, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz. Gruppen, Strukturen und Lebensformen. Cologne 2001; K.-P. MATSCHKE,
Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money: Thirteenth–Fifteenth Centuries, in: EHB II, 771–806; K.-P. MATSCHKE, The Late Byz-
antine Urban Economy, Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries, in: EHB II, 463–495; K.-P. MATSCHKE, Fortschritt und Reaktion in
Byzanz im 14. Jahrhundert: Konstantinopel in der Bürgerkriegsperiode von 1341 bis 1354 (Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten
42). Berlin 1971.
57
LOCK, Franks 273 takes this expression from Bryer’s remarks that “the contacts (before the 13 th c.) were local and individual in-
volving little of high culture. The emphasis has been placed on military, political and commercial relations, s. A. BRYER, Cultural
relations between east and west in the twelfth century, in: Relations Between East and West in the Middle Ages, ed. by D.
BAKER. Edinburgh 1973, 71–94.
58
LOCK, Franks 276.
59
Niketas Choniates (171 VAN DIETEN); MAGOULIAS, Annals of Niketas Choniatēs 97; G. PAGE, Being Byzantine. Greek Identity
before the Ottomans. Cambridge 2008, 82–83.
60
LOCK, Franks 268.
 9

trade both parties were very often competitors. Documents of the 14th century and the early 15th century
demonstrate, however, that the Byzantines operated in synthropiai and commenda or colleganza. 61 The
changes in economic attitudes brought also social changes with it. In the second half of the 14th century an
increasing engagement of the Byzantine aristocracy in trade is traceable. The aristocrats, who previously
owed their power and social status to their landen property and regarded trade and commerce rather con-
descending for them, took part more and more in commercial and financial activities.62 The importance of
economic interaction for cultural exchange can be seen in the formed networks. A visualization of the
trade network of the Venetian Giacomo Badoer (s. fig. 1), who was active in Constantinople in the period
1436–1440, illustrates clearly the connectivity and cooperation between Byzantine and Western as well as
Turkish merchants.63 This and all the other economic networks had without a doubt a greater social and
cultural impact than we may imagine, if we take into consideration that Badoer did not belong to the big-
gest traders of the period.

CONCLUSION
Since the 12th century, the cultural contacts of the Byzantines to the Latins were close and intense. The
greater presence of Western Europeans in the Byzantine cultural area strengthened the cultural differ-
ences, but it allowed at the same time individuals to adopt elements of a foreign culture through conver-
sion or marriages. These individuals experienced an identity change and carried different cultural ele-
ments from two groups with themselves, thus establishing a trans-cultural existence. This phenomenon
continued after the end of the Byzantine Empire in the multi-religious and multi-cultural empire of the
Ottomans (see, for example, the group of “Levantines”64) before the ideology of nationalism caused a
sharper demarcation between ethnic groups and denominations with more drastic effects, as we ever have
seen in the Middle Ages.

—————
61
N. OIKONOMIDÈS, Hommes d’affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIIe–XVe siècles) (Conférence Albert-le-Grand 1977).
Montréal–Paris 1979; E. MITSIOU, Byzanz im Spätmittelalter. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, in: Mediterraner Kolonialismus.
Expansion und Kulturaustausch im Mittelalter, ed. by P. FELDBAUER – G. LIEDL – J. MORRISSEY (Expansion. Interaktion.
Akkulturation. Historische Skizze zur Europäisierung Europas und der Welt 8). Essen 2005, 172–192; E. MITSIOU, Aspekte der
Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des späten Byzanz in den Akten des Patriarchatsregisters. Historicum 96 (2008) 32–42.
62
N. NECIPOGLU, The Aristocracy in Late Byzantine Thessalonike: a Case Study of the City’s Archontes (Late 14 th and Early 15th
centuries). DOP 57 (2003) 133–151, esp. 147–150.
63
S. the visualisation by J. PREISER-KAPELLER, A complex systems approach to the evolutionary dynamics of human history: the
case of the Late Medieval World Crisis, Presentation at the European Meetings on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR)
2012, Vienna, University Campus, April 10th 2012 (http://www.emcsr.net/symposium-b-evolution-throughout-the-sciences-and-
humanities/), also in:
http://www.academia.edu/1719294/A_complex_systems_approach_to_the_evolutionary_dynamics_of_human_history_the_case
_of_the_Late_Medieval_World_Crisis; Il libro dei conti di Giacomo Badoer (Constantinopoli 1436–1440), ed. by U. DORINI – T.
BERTELÉ. Venice 1956; G. RAVEGNANI, Il Commercio veneziano nell‘impero bizantino, in: Amalfi, Genova, Pisa e Venezia, ed.
by O. BANTI. Pisa 1998, 55–74; M. GEROLYMATU, Konstantinupolē-Thrakē-Bithynia. He oikonomikē martyria tu Giacomo Ba-
doer, in: Chrēma kai Agora stēn Epochē tōn Palaiologōn (ΕΙΕ/IBE). Athens 2003, 113–132.
64
O. J. SCHMITT, Levantiner: Lebenswelten und Identitäten einer ethnokonfessionellen Gruppe im osmanischen Reich im "langen 19.
Jahrhundert". Munich 2005.
10