The Semantic Constellation of Byzantine asteiotēs

4.1 Psellos’ Apology for his Secretary: Urbane and Non-Urbane Lifestyles Compared ( and Relativized )

In a well-known oration ^[18], Psellos refutes the accusations of madness and demonic possession levelled against his secretary ( grammatikos ), whose unconventional behavior had attracted the criticism of some ‘urbane’ ( politikoi ) men ^[19]. By comparing the demeanor of his grammatikos with that of his refined accusers, Psellos provides a synthetic description of the ‘urbane lifestyle’ ( politikos bios or politikon ēthos ) – and its opposite. Thus, we find many indications as to the bodily deportment, hairstyle and manner of clothing that best suit the politikos: not only does this paragon of urbanity take particular care in draping his mantle in an elegant way and knows how to best wear his belt, but he puts great effort into combing his hair in the most fashionable style. He is also keen on taking frequent baths and sprinkles himself with generous amounts of perfume. In addition to sporting a glamorous appearance, the politikos is a pleasant speaker, capable of measuring his words: he knows how to entertain his interlocutor with his charming and witty speech, deftly adapting to audience and occasion. Further details as to the discursive skills of the urbane type may be inferred from Psellos’ own writing style: after all, even as he defends his secretary, Psellos seems unable to hide his affinity with the politikoi whose accusations he is seeking to refute ^[20].

But just as he hints at his appreciation for the urban( e ) lifestyle, Psellos sets out to criticize its proponents. If the politikoi blame the disregard for outward appearances displayed by the oblivious grammatikos, Psellos reminds them that a comparable attitude was adopted by some great philosophers of the past, such as the cynic Diogenes and Socrates ^[21]. Thus, not only are the politikoi compared to Socrates’ callous accusers ^[22], but they are criticized for their excessive focus on external looks, which betrays their attachment to luxury as well as their frivolous superficiality. Their obsession for frequent bathing is now humorously likened to the lustral rituals that the ancients performed to purify murderers ^[23]. Taking this sophistic strategy to the extreme, Psellos goes as far as to give the politikoi some features that were generally associated with the non-urbane lifestyle: for instance, their disapproval of the grammatikos’ ready laughter becomes proof of their gloomy and stiff personality – a trait that was traditionally seen as the hallmark of the anti-urbane type ^[24].

Despite its playful tones, Psellos’ ambivalent description of the politikoi cannot be dismissed as a simple rhetorical game. Certainly, arguing for and against the same topic was for Psellos a way to display his rhetorical virtuosity, which, in turn, was a crucial component of his urbane self. At the same time, however, his remarks on the moral ambiguity of the politikon ēthos summarize a set of widespread misgivings about this paradigm of discursive and behavioral sophistication – starting from its very association with sophistry and inauthenticity. This is probably why, while hinting at his affinity with the politikoi, Psellos eventually chooses a middle way between the philosophical eccentricity of his secretary and the frivolous fickleness of the latter’s accusers ^[25]. As we will see in what follows, even the most enthusiastic proponents of asteiotēs often strove to come to terms with its inherent ambivalence.

4.2 Finding a Balance Between Contemplative Life and politikos bios

The lack of concern for external appearances displayed by Psellos’ grammatikos is not only reminiscent of Diogenes and Socrates, but also calls to mind monastic and ascetic paradigms of behavior. After all, in Byzantine Greek, the term philosophos could denote both the philosopher and the monk ^[26]. And it is certainly not a coincidence that, along with ‘philosophy’, monastic life is the other main paradigm that Psellos attempts somehow to integrate into his ( shifting ) politikon ēthos. Considering that he had been forced to take up the monastic habit after a fall from grace ^[27], this issue was particularly meaningful for him. When it comes to his controversial relationship with monasticism, Psellos often employs a comparable strategy to the one we observed in the oration for his secretary, presenting himself as the instantiation of a perfect blend between ‘civic’ and contemplative life, no matter whether the latter is represented by philosophy or the monastic ideal.

A telling example is a long letter he addresses to the future patriarch Xiphilinos, a former fellow literatus who had equally been tonsured and who now reproached Psellos his decision to leave the monastery and return to his previous, mundane life ^[28]. Seen from Xiphilinos’ eyes, ( Hellenic ) ‘philosophy’ now becomes an integral part of the urban( e ) occupations of Psellos, who had renounced the isolation of the monastic mountain to descend once again into the city. The astikos Psellos, however, does not share Xiphilinos’ Manichean thinking:

Ἐπεί τοι σὺ μὲν γηλόφῳ τε καὶ γηπέδῳ τὴν ἀρετὴν διορίζεις καὶ τὴν κακίαν, ἐγὼ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλ’ ἀφίημι ἐκ κοινοῦ ὁρμητηρίου τῆς προαιρέσεως, καὶ καθ’ ἑτέρου πελάγους, ὄρη δὲ καὶ πόλεις οὔτ’ ἀπάγουσι τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἕξεων, οὔτε ταύτας ἐπάγουσιν, ὅρα δή. Ἐγὼ μὲν ὁ ἀστικός, τῆς ἀρετῆς σοι τῶν πρωτείων παραχωρήσας, καὶ τὸν λόγον προστέθεικα [ … ] Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ὀρειφοίτης, οὐχ οὕτως· ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς κατεπήρθης ἡμῶν, καὶ ἣν ὤφειλες ἐπαινεῖν μετριοφροσύνην, ταύτην ἡμῖν προσωνείδισας ^[29].

Since you distinguish virtue from sin with mountains and plains ( but I am not like this; instead, having set sail from the common port of choice [ ek koinou ormētēriou tēs proaireseōs ], I advance towards another sea ) and mountains and cities do not lead away from opposite dispositions nor do they induce them, consider this: I, the city dweller ( astikos ), granted you first place when it comes to virtue and I also handed over ( to you ) the field of logos [ … ]. But you, the mountaineer, did not do the same: you immediately disparaged me, and you reproached me that very humility that you ought to have praised.

In other passages of the letter, Psellos further strengthens his point, arguing that his experience demonstrates that it is indeed possible to reconcile mountain and city, contemplative and ‘civic’ pursuits, Christian faith and the study of pagan philosophy, monastic habit and mundane intellectual endeavors. It is not necessary to live in the isolation of the mountain to embrace the values it represents. Even the famous Mount Sinai ascended by Moses is nothing but an allegorical symbol of spiritual elevation, which can ultimately be achieved anywhere, as Psellos himself has already shown in his theological and philosophical writings.

Τὸ δὲ Σίναιον ( ἵνα σοι καὶ περὶ τούτου φιλοσοφήσω ) οὐχ ὡς αἰσθητὸν ὄρος ἀνάγει Μωσέα καὶ κατάγει θεόν, ἀλλ’ ὡς συμβολικὸν τῆς κατὰ ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης ἐπάρσεως· [ … ] Ταῦτα παρὰ τῶν Χαλδαίων ἐγὼ εἰληφώς, τοῖς ἡμετέροις λογίοις ὑπέταξα. Καί μοι τοιαῦτα βιβλία συντέτακται πάμπολλα [ … ]. Καὶ οὐκ ἀπέγνωσταί μοι μὴ ὄψεσθαι τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ κοιλάδι ταύτῃ τοῦ ἐν τῇ πόλει κλαυθμῶνος· τὸ γὰρ ὄρος περὶ οὗ λέγειν ἐπαυσάμην, ἁπανταχῇ τῶν τῆς γῆς μερῶν ὑπερίδρυται ^[30].

As for Mount Sinai ( let me philosophize about this, too ), it is not a sensorially perceptible mountain that Moses ascends and God descends upon – rather, it is a symbol of the soul’s ascent out of the constraints of matter [ … ]. Having taken these ideas from the writings of the Chaldaeans, I subjected them to our beliefs. And indeed, I have written many books on such subjects [ … ]. And I have not given up hope of seeing God even in the valley of sorrow that is this city. Surely the mountain I have just spoken of looks down from above on every place on earth.

The mention of Moses in a text concerned with the symbolic value of mountains and cities is quite significant, especially if we keep in mind that this most famous of prophets was also the biblical asteios par excellence – a motif to which Psellos returns on other occasions ^[31]. Among other things, Psellos seems to be particularly interested in the sophia acquired and displayed by Moses, who is sometimes presented as a veritable author ( not just as the one who transcribed God’s commandments, but as the writer of his own syngrammata ) ^[32]. This learned prophet may have represented an appealing model of co-existence between moral, intellectual, and ‘civic’ asteiotēs – an ideal that we will encounter again in Theodore Metochites and whose potential connection with earlier sources, such as Philo and Cyril of Alexandria, deserves further investigation ^[33].

Psellos’ reference to his other works in the letter to Xiphilinos also calls to mind a set of passages of his philosophical and theological writings which are devoted to identifying the virtues and life paths that are most conducive to the imitation and contemplation of the divine. When dealing with this topic, Psellos lists different kinds of virtues ( aretai ), among which he includes ‘political’, ‘cathartic’, ‘theoretical’, and ‘theurgic’ ones. While presenting the latter as the most appropriate to achieve divine illumination, Psellos is careful to emphasize that, just as the other, ‘higher’ virtues, political aretai can also lead to the imitation and contemplation of God ^[34]. It is exactly when it comes to the merits of these ( seemingly inferior ) virtues that we encounter the greatest number of self-referential remarks, which hint at Psellos’ affinity for the ‘political path’ ^[35].

Not only are passages such as these seldom put in conversation with Psellos’ discussions of the politikon ēthos, but it is sometimes assumed that a neat distinction can be traced between the ‘traditional’ meaning of politikos and the different acceptation that the term acquires when it comes to Psellos’ self-depiction as an urbane man ^[36]. However, the affinities between his theoretical discussions of the political virtues, on the one hand, and his self-representation as an astikos in the letter to Xiphilinos and similar apologetic texts, on the other, suggest that such clear-cut classifications would hardly have made sense to him ^[37]. Only by exploring these interconnections will we be able to appreciate the nuances making up Psellos’ conception of the politikon ēthos, including its theoretical, philosophical, and even theological underpinnings. These, in turn, may help to clarify the reasons behind his preference for the semantic sphere of politikos over asty-terms.

4.3 Asteiotēs Between Nature and Art: Innate Predisposition or Contrived Mask?

The texts discussed so far touch on another central theme in Psellos’ conception of the politikos bios. I am referring to the respective roles played by volition and innate predisposition in determining one’s affinity for – and adherence to – the ‘urban( e ) paradigm’. While in the letter to Xiphilinos Psellos appears to emphasize the importance of individual choice ( proairesis ), in the apology for his secretary he describes the latter’s ‘inurbane’ behavior as a combination of inborn propensity and will ^[38]. In yet other circumstances, Psellos seems to consider one’s penchant for the politikon ēthos as the ( irresistible ) result of natural inclinations ^[39].

Psellos’ shifting stance is epitomized by the images he employs when discussing this issue. These often entail a tantalizing combination of references to natural phenomena and human technē. For one, the gracefulness required of the politikos anēr to succeed in his worldly enterprises is often represented by vegetal imagery: comparisons to roses and blooming flowers contribute to underline the enticing behavior of the urbane man, while also alluding to the uncontrived charm of his refined ethos. The emphasis on the spontaneous ‘naturality’ of a paradigm of sophistication that revolves around the very notion of city is in itself quite surprising. Even more tantalizing is the coexistence of this motif with an image that is instead the very epitome of human technique and skill, that is, that of the statue ^[40]. What does the co-occurrence of these somewhat contradictory metaphors tell us about Psellos’ conception of asteiotēs? Is the politikon ēthos a product of acquired ( technical ) skills or is it an innate trait that one possesses independently of effort and study? This is far from an irrelevant question, as it involves the role played by education in the development of an urbane character – an issue that resurfaces also in later sources ^[41].

But there is more. Even when used on its own, the symbol of the statue may evoke ambiguous associations. For instance, in the apology for Psellos’ grammatikos, the statue hints at the contrived attitude of the politikoi andres, who, as we have seen, are not painted in an entirely positive light ^[42]. By insisting on the ‘natural’ spontaneity of his urbane ethos Psellos may not only be emphasizing its inborn ( and hence exclusive ) character but may also be trying to dispel accusations of hypocrisy and falsehood ^[43]. As I will show in what follows, this same preoccupation also haunts many of his successors, including the twelfth-century ‘teacher and rhetorical superstar’ Eustathios of Thessaloniki ^[44].

5.1 Young Urbanity: Telemachus’ Simple Jokes and the Insidious asteiotēs of a ‘Rustic’ Boy

In the first book of the ‘Odyssey’, the goddess Athena, disguised as Mentes, enters Odysseus’ home, where she meets Telemachus. Wanting to know more about the ( supposed ) newcomer, Odysseus’ young son asks him about his trip to Ithaca ^[46]. The only thing that Telemachus knows for sure is that the stranger must have boarded a ship: after all, he says, Mentes could hardly have reached Ithaca on foot! According to Eustathios, Telemachus’ comment is both uncontrived and asteios. There are however a few precisions to be made concerning the circumstances warranting the use of this kind of discursive asteiotēs.

Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἀφελὴς ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἀστεῖος ὁ τοῦ Τηλεμάχου λόγος ἐν τῷ οὐ γάρ τί σε πεζὸν ὀΐομαι ἐνθάδε ἱκέσθαι, ἤγουν ἐν τῇ καθ’ἡμᾶς νήσῳ. σπουδαῖον δὲ ὁ λόγος ἔχει οὐδὲν, ὁποῖα τὰ τοῦ σχεδιασμοῦ καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς νέοις καὶ μήπω πεπαιδευμένοις λέγειν ^[47].

Regarding the line “for I doubt you came here” ( that is, to our island ) “on foot” ( Od. 1, 173 ), one should know that in this case Telemachus’ speech is uncontrived and witty ( asteios ). There is nothing serious ( spoudaios ) in his words, as is often the case when one speaks off the cuff, especially when the speaker is a young man who has not yet been trained in the art of discourse.

Without denying the humorous nature of Telemachus’ remark, Eustathios notes that there is nothing spoudaios ( ‘serious’ ) about it ^[48]. This lack of solemnity is linked both to the improvised nature of the speech and to the youthfulness of the speaker: in other words, such a simple and lighthearted joke is only fitting as an impromptu repartee and is mostly suited to young people, who are not yet expected to have achieved a satisfactory level of education. The implication is that old( er ) and learned men should refrain from this potentially amusing but ultimately unsophisticated form of asteiotēs ^[49]. While the focus is on Telemachus’ age, the implicit reference to Ithaca’s isolation may have served as a reminder of the young man’s ‘provincial’ origins, a detail that Eustathios expands upon elsewhere in his ‘Parekbolai’ ^[50].

The contrast between youthfulness and agroikia, on the one hand, and experienced learnedness, on the other, resurfaces in an anecdote recounted in Eustathios’ oration 10, which the then archbishop of Thessaloniki addresses to his quarrelsome flock. In addition to confirming the relevance of the ‘Parekbolai’s ‘theoretical’ treatment of asteiotēs for the appreciation of Eustathios’ other works, this text also brings to the fore the slipperiness of the parameters that inform his etiquette of urbanity.

The episode in question takes place in the outskirts of Constantinople ^[51]. Two literati from the City, one of whom was Eustathios’ own teacher, decide to amuse themselves by poking fun at the locals, whose agroikia is the ideal target for their ‘philosophical urbanity’ ( philosophos asteiotēs ) ^[52]. Most of their victims do not react to their joking remarks; only a few try to reply in kind, but their rustic retorts do nothing but further increase the amusement of the refined pair. Things change, however, when a young man hailing from the same rural area decides to take part in the game: instead of being amused by his repartee, the two Constantinopolitans take offense at his words and are determined to punish him.

Why the different treatment? The answer may lie in Eustathios’ portrayal of this ‘rustic’ boy, who not only was not entirely agennēs ( literally ‘low-born’ ), but had already been initiated into paideia ^[53]. This places him in a sort of liminal position: belonging neither to the group of the agroikoi nor to that of the refined literati, the young man is an insidious maverick. Not being entirely uncultured, his retorts have the potential to offend his learned interlocutors, who had remained unfazed by the boorish reactions of the other locals. At the same time, however, his rustic status, along with his young age, places him in a position of inferiority with respect to the two Constantinopolitan men, whom he should not have challenged as peers ^[54].

In the epilogue of the story, however, the boy’s unconventional position appears to work in his favor, as he manages to avoid punishment by putting up a masterful ( and ‘urbane’ ) performance. Pretending to regret his former lack of respect, he begs the two men for forgiveness. As soon as he has managed to mollify them, however, he pulls another prank, whose spectacular and unexpected effect is enhanced both by his remarkable acting skills and by his athletic prowess.

Ἐντεῦθεν ὁ παῖς ἑαυτὸν δεσμεῖ τῷ πρὸ τοῦ στήθους πλέγματι τῶν χειρῶν. Καὶ πρῶτα μὲν παρίσταται κατηφής, ἐθέλων καὶ ἔνδακρυς εἶναι· εἶτα καὶ τῷ ἐδάφει πιστεύει τὴν κεφαλὴν ἱκετευτικῶς, οὐ φόβου ὑποκινοῦντος εἰς πάθος, ἀλλὰ τῆς κατὰ ψυχὴν ἀστειότητος. Λαλεῖ δὴ καὶ οἰκτρὰ ὡς ἐῴκει ( τάδ’ ἦσαν σκηνή ), συνεκλαλεῖ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐμὸς διδάσκαλος, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ἐνδιακειμένως· καὶ πείθουσιν ἄμφω τὸν σοφὸν εἰς ἀγαθὰ νοοῦντα, ὁ μὲν ἱερὸς ἀνὴρ ἐν ἁπλότητι, ὁ δὲ νέος ἐνδομύχῳ στυφούσῃ γλυκύτητι. [ … ] Ἐπὶ τούτοις γέλως μὲν ἦν οὐδαμόθεν, ἀλλὰ πάντες ἐτεθήπεσαν, εἰ οὕτω παῖς ἐκεῖνος ἄνδρα τοιοῦτον κατεσοφίσατο· καὶ ἤλπιζον κολαστικὴν παίδευσιν. Ὡς δὲ ὁ ἥρως ἐκεῖνος διεχέθη ἐπὶ τῇ νεωτερικῇ δεξιότητι [ … ] ^[55].

At this point, the boy started to wring his hands before his chest, as if he were binding himself. And, at first, he stood aside with downcast eyes, straining to appear on the verge of tears. Then, he bent his head to the ground, like a suppliant. This behavior was not prompted by fear, but by his witty disposition ( kata psychēn asteiotētos ). And he also said pitiful things, as appropriate ( these were part of his performance ), while my teacher equally joined in ( but speaking with sincerity ). Thus, they both persuaded the wise man to revert to benevolent thoughts – the venerable sage with his sincerity, and the young man with the astringent sweetness of his inner disposition [ … ].

[ Eustathios goes on to describe the ‘athletic’ feat of the boy, who suddenly jumps into a handstand and twists his legs around the old man’s neck ].

No one laughed at this scene: everyone was astounded that that child had managed to outwit such a man and they expected him to give the boy a lesson. But that heroic man was amused by the youthful dexterity [ … ].

Quite surprisingly, the main victim of this second prank, who had previously taken great offence at the boy’s verbal insolence, is now so amused by the latter’s daring feat that he refuses to chastise him. More interestingly still, not only does Eustathios seem to share the indulgent attitude of the old Constantinopolitan man, but he qualifies the boy’s prank as a manifestation of his ‘inner’ asteiotēs.

In Eustathios’ eyes, youth, ( a partial ) lack of education, and even a certain rusticity, are not necessarily an obstacle to the acquisition and display of asteiotēs, even though the degree of ‘urbanity’ that can be achieved in such circumstances is somewhat limited – but not necessarily unpleasant. Despite his rustic and provincial origins, the young protagonist of Eustathios’ anecdote shows potential. The real problem is his liminal status, which makes it difficult to identify his position on the spectrum of urbanity – and thus complicates the assessment of the appropriateness of his actions. It is also worth noting that the young boy’s second prank is characterized by a marked talent for theatrical display – a recurrent motif in Psellos’ discussions of his own politikon ēthos. Eustathios is equally concerned with the ‘acting skills’ sometimes associated with – or even required of – the asteios, so much so that he devotes many pages of his works to discussing the ethical acceptability of hypokrisis ^[56]. The passage we have just analyzed is quite telling of his hesitation on the matter: on the one hand, he connects hypokrisis and theatricality with a rather unsophisticated form of asteiotēs; on the other, however, he cannot hide his amusement at – and fascination with – the boy’s skill in both enchanting and tricking his ( supposedly wiser ) interlocutors.

5.2 Jokes on Almonds and Urbane Monks

If uneducated and rustic young men are not inherently incapable of expressing a certain degree of asteiotēs, does the same apply to monks, whose very lifestyle should be incompatible with urbanity – and especially with its most mundane manifestations? A partial answer can be found in another lively vignette painted by Eustathios in his ‘De emendanda vita monachica’: this time, the protagonist is an ignorant abbot, who, instead of teaching useful lessons on the properties of almonds, shows an inappropriate propensity for ( dull ) gestural jokes.

Ἔτι ἐκεῖνος καὶ ἀμυγδάλου ἑκατέρου σεμνότητα μὴ μαθὼν ἐκθέσθαι φιλεῖν αὐτὸ λέγει τῆς ἀστειότητος· ὁ γὰρ δεξιός, φησί, τὰ εἰς εὐτραπελίαν ἄνθρωπος γεύσας τινὰ ἑνὸς ἢ δύο τῶν γλυκέων ἀμυγδάλων καὶ ἐπαγαγόμενος τῷ ἡδύσματι, εἶτα πικρὸν ἐπιδοὺς εἰς ἔμβρωμα ἐκίνησε τοῖς θεωμένοις γέλωτα τῷ πικράσματι ^[57].

Furthermore, not having learned to distinguish the value of the two kinds of almonds, he explains that he loves them for the funny prank ( asteiotētos ) to which they can lead. A man who is adept at jokes, he says, can let someone else taste one or two sweet almonds, and having lured his victim with their sweetness, he can then give them a bitter almond to eat, which will make those present laugh because of the bitterness of the fruit.

Compared to the passages analyzed so far, Eustathios’ opinion of the inadequate abbot and his equally inadequate attempt at asteiotēs is far less indulgent. What are the reasons for his rather severe criticism? One may surmise that, in keeping with the so-called antigelastic tradition spearheaded by John Chrysostom and other Christian writers, he considered laughter and amusement to be particularly incompatible with the monastic habit ^[58]. If we read other passages of the same work, however, we will find that Eustathios’ position on this matter is far from uncompromising. In fact, as he develops his portrait of the ideal monk, he describes a pleasant man who abandons the austere and gloomy appearance normally associated with the monastic life in favor of an open and joyful demeanor – a set of traits that is quite reminiscent of the ‘urbane type’ ^[59]. This may explain why the dull prank recounted by the incompetent monk is so harshly criticized by the urbane Eustathios, who seems more concerned with the inappropriateness of the joke than with the propensity for humor displayed by the one describing it. But what would have been the truly ‘urbane’ counterpart to this display of incompetence and poor taste?

As it turns out, Eustathios himself was quite fond of almonds, which, apparently, could provide many starting points for refined displays of sophisticated humor ^[60]. In contrast to the ignorant and coarse abbot, Eustathios embodies the perfect blend of erudition and wit required of the urbane man. Not only does he devote an entire letter to a humorously detailed explanation of the philosophical meaning of almonds and their properties ^[61], but, in his Homeric ‘Parekbolai’, he also presents an example of a perfectly urbane wordplay on the same topic.

Ὅθεν ἀστείως καὶ ἀμύγδαλά τις ἔφη σιγαλόεντα τὰ μὴ ψοφητικὰ ἐν τῷ κλᾶσθαι ἀλλὰ πιεσμῷ δακτύλων ἐνδιδόντα εἰς θραῦσιν ^[62].

It is because of this that someone ( Hermippus ap. Athen. 1. 27 f = PCG 5, fr. 63 Kassel-Austin ) wittily ( asteiōs ) defined ‘sigaloenta’ the almonds that make no noise when one breaks them but are easily smashed by the pressure of one’s fingers.

The sophistication of this witty joke comes from the combination of a Homeric reference with a nod to the etymological theories surrounding the adjective sigaloeis ( note in particular the allusion to the connection between sigaloeis and sigē, ‘silence’ ) ^[63]. The humorous effect is further enhanced by the contrast between the epic-heroic language and the rather mundane topic ^[64]. By insisting on the asteiotēs of this wordplay, and by reporting it in other passages of his Homeric commentaries ^[65], Eustathios highlights its usefulness for his refined readers. We do not know whether he would have recommended the same joke to the ( inappropriately ) jesting abbot of the ‘De emendanda vita monachica’. What is certain is that, as he sets out to outline a reform of the monastic order, Eustathios subtly projects his urbane paradigm of refinement onto ‘his’ ideal monks, who become subject to those very rules of which he himself is the ultimate arbiter ^[66].

5.3 Another Urban( e ) Blend: John Tzetzes’ ‘Inverted Snobbery’ and the Ascetic politēs

If Eustathios’ discussions of ‘urbanity’ are reminiscent of the witty and sophisticated side of the politikon ēthos described by Psellos, things change when it comes to John Tzetzes. The latter was not only an older contemporary and ( likely ) rival of Eustathios, but he was also a rather harsh critic of Psellos himself ^[67]. His reservations towards his glamorous predecessor may have partly inspired his own multifaceted self-presentation, which combines some typical components of the urbane ideal with values that may seem incompatible with it. A brief comparison between Tzetzes’ self-presentation and Psellos’ apology of his eccentric grammatikos will clarify my point.

On several occasions, Tzetzes poses as an alter ego of Palamedes ^[68]. Among the main similarities between himself and the hero, Tzetzes mentions their lack of concern for the state of their hair. The significance of this seemingly marginal detail is clarified in the so-called ‘Carmina Iliaca’, where Palamedes’ disheveled locks become a symbol of his disapproval of superficial frivolities ^[69]. Tzetzes thus takes pride in the same behavior that had disturbed the urbane opponents of Psellos’ grammatikos: as noted above, the latter’s unkempt hair had been one of the main targets of their criticism. We may also recall that when Psellos contrasted the lifestyle of these sophisticated accusers with that of his secretary, he noted their habit of taking frequent baths and using abundant perfumes – suggesting that his secretary did the opposite. In this case as well, Tzetzes seems to follow in the footsteps of the unconventional grammatikos, marking his distance from these additional manifestations of urbane superficiality: not only does he frequently hint at his dislike of baths ^[70], but he goes as far as to declare that his body naturally emanates a pleasant aroma – so much so that, despite his protests, some people are convinced that he makes regular use of perfumes ^[71].

If the disheveled Palamedes is Tzetzes’ favorite alter ego, there are other figures from the Greek and Roman past with whom he identifies. Interestingly, these same characters also recur in Psellos’ works – here, however, they often represent the very opposite of the urbane paradigm. We have already encountered Socrates, who, along with the cynic Diogenes, embodied the eccentricity of Psellos’ grammatikos. For Tzetzes, Socrates becomes instead a positive model of ascetic indifference for material goods as well as a paragon of disinterested wisdom ^[72]. In this role, the Athenian philosopher joins another character that Tzetzes explicitly presents as an alter ego, that is, the stern and uncompromising Cato the Elder ^[73]. The latter also appears in one of Psellos’ many discussions of the politikon ēthos: unsurprisingly, in this instance the Censor serves to illustrate a combination of severity and slight remoteness that is not entirely compatible with Psellos’ urbane ideal ^[74].

By emphasizing his lack of interest in frivolities and outward appearances, Tzetzes seems to mark his distance from the urbane paradigm that was gaining ground in the intellectual milieux and courtly circles of the capital from the eleventh century onward. When he stresses his affinity with Cato, Palamedes, and Socrates, he appropriates ascetic and heroic virtues that were at odds with the refined sophistication displayed by most of his contemporaries, thus subtly adopting the ‘inverted snobbery’ exhibited by many detractors of urbane refinement ^[75]. At the same time, however, Tzetzes the commissioned and courtly writer does not – and cannot – fully embrace the latter’s non-urbane models of behavior: by simultaneously advertising his Hellenic and Constantinopolitan heritage ^[76], he ends up concocting his own personal blend of urban( e ) distinction, combining sophisticated learnedness and rhetorical display with traditionally sanctioned models of moral integrity and intellectual excellence.

7.1 The Urbane Ethos of the Ancient Greeks and Ethnographic Determinism

One of Metochites’ most systematic discussions of the genesis of asteiotēs occurs in a short treatise devoted to the ancient Greeks. The goal of this essay, which is included in the ‘Sēmeiōseis gnōmikai’ ^[81], is to understand how and why, despite the relative insignificance of their deeds, the Hellenes of old managed to secure eternal glory. Metochites’ main argument is aptly summarized by the title of the treatise: ‘Περὶ Ἑλλήνων, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ὄγκῳ πράξεων ἢ τύχης περιφανεῖς ἦσαν τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀλλ’ ἀστειότητι φύσεως, καὶ ἤθους καὶ γνώμης εὐγενείᾳ’ ( ‘On the Greeks and the fact that, at first, they did not derive their fame from the greatness of their deeds or from their good fortune, but from the urbanity of their nature and ethos, combined with the nobility of their intellect’ ). According to Metochites, it was this ideal blend of ethical urbanity and intellectual nobility that enabled the Greeks to compose unforgettable historical and literary works, which, in turn, is the main reason for their undying fame ^[82]. But is it possible to take another step back and determine whether such an extraordinary combination of virtues was somehow favored by external, observable factors? As it turns out, Metochites believes that the answer lies in the geographical and climatic features of the land inhabited by the Greeks. This area was characterized by a perfect balance of opposites, which literally shaped the nature and character of its inhabitants.

Τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων μοι δοκοῦσι πράγματα εὐγενείᾳ μὲν ἤθους καὶ φύσεως ἀστειότητι τὸ ἐξ᾽ἀρχῆς ἄρισθ᾽, ὡς εἰπεῖν, οὐσιοῦσθαι, καὶ τούτοις δὴ κάλλιστ᾽ἀκούειν ἐπὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς, καὶ λαμπροὶ λαμπρῶς τῇ φήμῃ πάντῃ χωρεῖν, μεγάλοις δ᾽ἔργοις καὶ δυναστείας τινὸς κράτει μὴ πολλῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν πολὺ διενεγκεῖν [ … ]. Καὶ τοῦ μέν γε τῆς εὐγενείας φημὶ καὶ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν δεξιότητος αἴτιον ἂν ἴσως εἴη, πρός γε ἄλλοις δῆτα, καὶ ὅτι τὰ μέσα τῆς οἰκουμένης ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ πρὸς ἕω καὶ πρὸς δυσμὰς, καὶ πρὸς βορρᾶν καὶ πρὸς νότον, ἣν οἰκοῦσιν Ἕλληνες, ἔχει γῆ, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔξω πάντως λόγου εἴη βελτίονος τυγχάνειν κράσεως, καὶ οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ καιρίου πρὸς τὸ εὖ εἶναι τοὺς αὐτὴν οἰκοῦντας, τὰς ὑπερβολὰς πάντοθεν ἐκφυγόντας [ … ] ^[83].

I believe that, at first, the deeds of the Greeks drew their excellent substance, so to speak, from the nobility of their character and the urbanity of their nature; this is also the reason why they attained great renown among all men and throughout the world, and were everywhere accompanied by the splendor of their splendid fame, although they did not surpass many other peoples by the greatness of their achievements or the powerful rule of some empire [ … ]. Surely the cause of this nobility and natural wisdom, among other things, may be the fact that the land inhabited by the Greeks is truly situated at the center of the inhabited world, [ perfectly positioned ] between east and west, north and south: it would be reasonably impossible to find a better climate and a land whose nature and position are more favorable to the well-being of its inhabitants, who are protected from all kinds of excesses [ … ].

While combining Aristotelian ethics with ancient theories of ethnographic determinism ^[84], this presentation of ‘urbanity’ as an inborn predisposition and a fundamental ethical principle may also stem from other sources. Inter alia, Metochites’ ideas are closely reminiscent of Philo of Alexandria’s conception of asteiotēs, which, in turn, may have been inspired by Stoic ethics ^[85]. Echoing the Stoic Chrysippus, Philo often employs the notion of urbanity as a near equivalent of virtue ^[86]. In turn, this overlap between asteiotēs and aretē may have contributed to inform Philo’s interest in ( and reception of ) the figure of Moses, the biblical asteios par excellence. These potential interconnections, which are yet to be explored, may also explain Metochites’ reluctance to associate asty-terms with morally ambivalent notions such as humor, theatrical display, and aesthetic charm.

Metochites’ theory of the genesis of asteiotēs touches on another familiar motif, that of the respective roles played by education and innate talent in the achievement of intellectual excellence and fame ^[87]. In the excerpt analyzed above, urbanity is presented as a kind of spontaneous trait, which in turn is conducive to the development of the ‘noble mind’ that allowed ancient Greek writers to rise above all others. The implication seems to be that paideia alone is not enough to explain the Greeks’ remarkable intellectual deeds, which would have been impossible had they not possessed the right predisposition for such remarkable endeavors ^[88]. Indeed, the very use of the term ‘nobility’ to describe the superiority of their gnōmē further evokes notions of inheritance and inborn qualities. It may be worth remarking, at this point, that the association between urbanity, virtue and nobility also occurs in Metochites’ famous encomium of Constantinople. Significantly, the city of cities displays the same geographical and climatic features that we have encountered in Metochites’ description of ancient Greece ^[89]. Considering Metochites’ emphasis on the causal interrelationship between one’s surroundings and the development of an ‘urbane’ nature and ethos, this conventional motif of city encomia acquires an additional layer of meaning in his description of Constantinople, establishing an implicit connection between the Hellenes of old and the inhabitants of the capital of the Empire, who share the same potential for ( intellectual ) greatness and undying glory ^[90].

But what are, if any, the implications of this sort of ethnographic determinism on Metochites’ conception of discursive urbanity? More specifically, does this theory have any impact on his perception of the literary canon to be followed by contemporary literati?

7.2 Josephus and Metochites: Urbanity Without Borders ( and Equals )

If we turn to the essays that Metochites devotes to the Greek literary tradition, we will find that one of the authors he most admires is also one of the most glaring exceptions to his deterministic conception of asteiotēs and intellectual ‘nobility’: this is the Jewish writer Josephus, whose style Metochites regards as a paradigm of urbane elegance. It is Metochites himself who remarks on the exceptional nature of Josephus’ situation: despite not being a Greek, this Jewish writer was endowed with such a natural talent that he soon managed to gain citizenship among the greatest Hellenic authors of all time. This is all the more evident when one compares the spontaneous elegance of his writing style with that of another Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria:

Ἔοικέ γε μὴν ὁ Ἰώσηπος, καὶ ἀφ’ ὧν συνεγράψατο δῆλον τοῦτ’ ἔστι καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ βίου αἱρέσεως, ἧττον προσταλαιπωρῆσαι τοῖς λόγοις ἢ κατὰ τὸν Φίλωνα, καὶ μὴ παραπλησίως ἑαυτὸν ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς ἐνταῦθα πόνοις, ἀλλὰ τῇ φύσει μᾶλλον ἐνευδοκιμεῖν ἢ τῇ περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα σχολῇ, καὶ οὐκ ἄπειρος μὲν εἶναι πάσης παιδείας κατά τε φιλοσοφίαν πᾶσαν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἄσκησιν, οὐ τοσοῦτον δ’ ἐνιδρώσας τῇ περὶ τούτων σπουδῇ, διὰ φύσεως ὅμως ἀστειότητα καὶ τάχος καὶ μνήμην κάλλιστ’ ἀνύσας τυχεῖν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῆς σοφίας θησαυρῶν καὶ κτήσεων, μάλιστα δὲ περὶ τὴν γλῶτταν οὐ κατὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς σχεῖν. Ἣν ἄρα δι’ εὐκολίαν ὡς εἴρηται φύσεως εὔθηκτον ἔχων, ὀλίγων ἐδεήθη τῶν πόνων ὥστε παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἀριστεῦσαι κομιδῇ μετ’ ὀλίγων ἐναρίθμιος, καὶ ἀπὸ ξένης ἥκων τοῖς γνησίοις ἐμπολιτεύσασθαι καὶ συντάξασθαι ^[91].

But Josephus, it seems ( this appears both from his works and from his career ), did not work so hard with his texts as Philo, or devote himself to such labors to the same extent, but won fame through his natural talent rather than through application to the subject. He was familiar with all kinds of studies, with the whole of philosophy and rhetoric. But although he did not toil so much with these kinds of studies, he still, through his natural urbanity, speed and memory, achieved brilliant results and attained also the other treasures and possessions of wisdom, but rose above the multitude particularly in his language. Since, then, as I said, his language was well-sharpened due to natural facility, it did not take much effort for him to achieve a prominent position among the Hellenes, becoming one of a select few, and although he was a foreigner, he won citizenship and was counted among the true-born ( transl. by K. Hult, slightly modified ).

The term physis ( ‘nature’ ) occurs many times in this short extract: in one instance, it is explicitly associated with asteiotēs, which is once more presented as a sort of innate predisposition. In turn, the canon of the best Greek authors is compared to a politeia that accepts only a restricted number of ‘citizens’. While the criteria granting access to this community remain unspecified, we infer that unaffected talent and natural asteiotēs such as those displayed by Josephus are likely to increase one’s chances of success. Indeed, in spite of his foreign origins, Josephus is not only granted the status of ‘true born’, but goes as far as to become one of the most distinguished members of this exclusive group.

At a first glance, Josephus’ inclusion in the ranks of the ‘true’ Hellenes allows for a more flexible conception of Greek urbanity. However, Metochites’ insistence on the spontaneous nature of Josephus’ discursive skills complicates the picture. Contrary to the treatise on the causes of the Greeks’ undying glory, here there is no systematic exploration of the circumstances that favored the development of Josephus’ natural talent. This vagueness inevitably blurs the criteria regulating access to the ideal politeia of the best Hellenic writers, thus subtly increasing its exclusivity.

Read in this light, another passage from the same essay may help to explain the reasons for Metochites’ misgivings about Atticizing Greek. Whereas many of his predecessors, Eustathios in primis, regarded the imitation of Attic language as one of the hallmarks of discursive urbanity, Metochites occasionally sees Atticizing Greek as an objectionable manifestation of that artificiality often associated with the most glamorous ( and suspicious ) side of asteiotēs. In the text quoted below, Metochites is careful to emphasize that Josephus, for all his urbanity, was completely impervious to this dubious side of asteiotēs:

Καὶ ἡ λέξις αὐτῷ πολλὴν ἔχει τὴν γαλήνην· οὔτε γὰρ βροντῶδες ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ὁτιοῦν καὶ σφόδρ’ ἐπιβρέμον καὶ κατακτυποῦν τοὺς ἀκούοντας, ὡς ἂν ἔξω τῆς συνήθους καὶ ἁπλοϊκῆς τοῦ λέγειν ἀγωγῆς, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ Ἀττικῆς ἀστειότητος καὶ καλλιεπείας ξένης λόγος ὅλως αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ καθάπαξ ἐστὶν ἁπλοῦς, εὐγενὴς φύσει καὶ ἀποίητος, καὶ πάσης ὑποκρίσεως ἀφροντιστῶν, μόνῳ τῷ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπλάστῳ δρόμῳ χρώμενος ^[92].

His diction has much serenity. There is nothing loud in it whatsoever, nothing that thunders and roars against the listeners by deviating from the customary, simple course of language; nor is his style at all characterized by Attic urbanity ( Attikēs asteiotētos ) or beautiful, unusual phrases. It is completely simple, naturally noble and uncontrived, avoiding every dissimulation, proceeding only with a natural artlessness ( transl. by K. Hult, slightly modified ).

Certainly, Metochites may simply be attempting to distance Josephus from the aura of hypocrisy and pretense traditionally associated with the more superficial facet of ‘urbanity’. However, when taken in conjunction with his praise of Josephus’ naturally pleasing language and inner asteiotēs, this passage may reveal a deeper agenda. After all, not only were the rules of Atticizing Greek described in countless lexica and rhetorical manuals, but, more importantly, they could be easily taught – and learned ^[93]. It follows that, if Attic Greek were to be included among the hallmarks of the ideal Hellenic style, here embodied by Josephus, then this elusive paradigm of spontaneous elegance might be within reach of anyone willing to put in enough time, effort, and study. But, as attested by his insistence on the connection between ‘urbanity’ and physis, Metochites does not seem to believe that either effort or study is sufficient to achieve the uncontrived refinement that grants access to the politeia of the best Greek writers.

Such an emphasis on the spontaneous nature of authentic asteiotēs is reminiscent of Psellos, who also liked to present his politikon ēthos as an innate and somewhat intangible virtue. However, by blurring the path that leads to the development of inner urbanity, while at the same time redefining the role of toil and study, Metochites further reinforces the exclusivity of this model of ethical and discursive excellence. What is more, in Metochites’ works, this paradigm does not seem to allow for the more superficial ( and potentially reprehensible ) components of the urbane ideal championed by his predecessors. This is not to say that these glamourous facets of Psellos’ ( and even Eustathios’ ) self-fashioning had no room in Metochites’ authorial persona – rather, for some hitherto unexplored reasons, they are mostly denoted by other terms and concepts. Of course, a more in-depth investigation is needed to provide a satisfactory overview of Metochites’ complex treatment of asteiotēs, paideia and related ideas, including that of nobility or eugeneia, which we have encountered more than once in the few texts discussed here ^[94]. Nevertheless, it is significant that, when it comes to selecting an authorial alter ego, Metochites shows a particular preference for the ‘foreigner’ Josephus, the pepaideumenos who best embodies the elusive exceptionality of his conception of Hellenic urbanity ^[95].