Deux philosophes italiens face à la xénophobie byzantine : répétition ou évolution d’un schéma ?

Deux intellectuels originaires de l’Italie du Sud se sont fait une réputation comme enseignants de philosophie dans la Byzance médiévale : Jean Italos (« l’Italien ») au xie siècle et Barlaam le Calabrais au xive. Malgré les deux siècles qui les séparent, on constate une similarité surprenante dans la manière dont la société constantinopolitaine les a accueillis en tant qu’étrangers. Aimés par leurs étudiants, leurs pairs les ont néanmoins critiqués et condamnés pour leur maîtrise imparfaite du grec érudit, leur duplicité politique et idéologique, l’erreur de leur doctrine religieuse, et leur engouement pour la logique aristotélicienne. Nous soutenons dans cet article que malgré le changement, avec l’expansion de l’Occident à l’époque des croisades, de la situation culturelle de l’Italie relative au monde grec, les érudits byzantins continuaient à tenir le même langage d’altérité pour stigmatiser et exclure les concurrents immigrés qu’ils percevaient comme intrus.Two intellectuals from Southern Italy made a reputation as teachers of philosophy in medieval Byzantium: John Italos (“the Italian”) in the 11th century and Barlaam of Calabria in the 14th century. Despite the two centuries that separated them, they experienced uncannily similar receptions as intruders in Constantinople. Although popular with their students, they were criticised and condemned by their peers for their imperfect use of literary Greek, their role as double agents, the error of their religious doctrine, and their excessive devotion to Aristotelian logic. This article argues that although the cultural relationship between Italy and the Greek world changed considerably with the aggressive rise of the West in the period of the Crusades, Byzantine intellectuals continued to use the same rhetoric of “otherness” in order to stigmatise and exclude immigrant competitors whom they regarded as intruders.Nella Bisanzio medievale, due intellettuali originari d’Italia si sono guadagnati una fama di insegnanti di filosofia: Giovanni Italo («l’italiano») nell’XI secolo, e Baarlaam il Calabrese nel XIV. Nonostante due secoli li separino, possiamo osservare una somiglianza sorprendente nel modo in cui la società di Costantinopoli li ha accolti come stranieri. Benché amati dagli studenti, i loro pari li criticarono e condannarono per l’imperfetta padronanza del greco erudito e per la doppiezza politica ed ideologica, l’errore della dottrina religiosa e l’infatuazione per la logica aristotelica. In questo articolo affermiamo che nonostante il cambiamento, in seguito all’espansione dell’Occidente all’epoca delle Crociate, della situazione culturale dell’Italia relativa al mondo greco, gli eruditi bizantini continuavano ad usare lo stesso linguaggio di alterità per stigmatizzare ed escludere i concorrenti immigrati, che consideravano come intrusi

Byzantine Historical Writing, 900–1400

This chapter talks about how the dates 900 and 1400 are not entirely arbitrary divisions in the history of Byzantine historical writing. Approximately thirty-one pieces of Greek historical writing produced in the Byzantine world (excluding Latin occupied areas) survive from the period 900–1400. It also includes a work whose author, Niketas Choniates, published more than one version, as well as works that might not be considered strictly historical because they record limited episodes in a speech or letter format, and in a rhetorical context of apology, request, panegyric, or denunciation. Other works in this border zone, however, have not been included despite the rich historical information they contain: such are the tenth-century hagiographies of the patriarchs Ignatios and Euthymios, and the self-canonizing autobiography of Nikephoros Blemmydes.</p