摘要

The Byzantines, influenced by the traditions of ethnographic literature, readily condemned their enemies’ real or imaginary food practices as signs of barbarism. The ethnographic literature rarely mentions the practices of foreigners without adding a negative value judgement. The differences in food habits between nomadic peoples and the Byzantines were described in almost exactly the same manner as in the sources, from Antiquity up to the Middle Ages, which renders these descriptions useless for reconstructing the diet of nomadic peoples. This article explores how the “taste for blood” of the Pechenegs, the Coumans and the Turks are described in Byzantine sources. Some neighbours of the Byzantines, such as the Bulgarians, eventually converted to the Christian faith, and when their land was incorporated into the Byzantine Empire, these converts were forced to abandon certain foods that were repellent to the Byzantine Greeks, such as horse meat and raw meat. Nomadic peoples were not alone in being denounced as bloodthirsty barbarians, so were the Latins, because they did not bleed animals before eating them. In the context of military attacks against the Byzantine Empire, the leap between consumed blood and the figure of a bloodthirsty and monstrous Latin was easily made. The food taboo on animal blood thus contributed to the creation of a specific Byzantine identity as opposed to the barbarians and the Latins, who were condemned for eating unbled animals.

? ? ? ? ? 拜占庭人受民族志文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)的影響，很容易將敵人真實(shí)或想象中的飲食習(xí)俗視為野蠻的標(biāo)志。民族志文獻(xiàn)在提到外族人的飲食習(xí)慣時(shí)，很少不加上負(fù)面的價(jià)值判斷。從古代到中世紀(jì)，游牧民族與拜占庭人飲食習(xí)慣差異的描述方式與資料來(lái)源幾乎完全相似，這使得這些描述對(duì)于重建游牧民族的飲食毫無(wú)用處。本文探討了拜占庭文獻(xiàn)中如何描述佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）、庫(kù)曼人（Cumans）和突厥人（Turks）的“血腥味”。拜占庭人的一些鄰居，如保加利亞人（Bulgarians），最終皈依了基督教，當(dāng)他們的土地并入拜占庭帝國(guó)時(shí)，這些皈依者被迫放棄某些拜占庭希臘人排斥的食物，如馬肉和生肉。游牧民族并不是唯一被指責(zé)為嗜血野蠻人的民族，拉丁人也是如此，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)谔幚砣忸?lèi)之前不會(huì)放血。在對(duì)拜占庭帝國(guó)發(fā)動(dòng)軍事進(jìn)攻的背景下，拜占庭人很容易將食用動(dòng)物的血液與嗜血成性的拉丁人形象聯(lián)系起來(lái)。因此，對(duì)動(dòng)物血的食物禁忌促成了一種特定的拜占庭身份，與因食用未放血的肉類(lèi)而受到譴責(zé)的野蠻人和拉丁人形成鮮明對(duì)比，后者因吃未放血的肉而受到譴責(zé)。

簡(jiǎn)介

Food practices are one of the identity markers used to distinguish different human groups. There is a tendency in the sources to record different practices, especially when they were proscribed. Byzantine society established certain dietary rules that differed from those of their Roman predecessors: some foods were forbidden and there were rules about the kinds of food that could be consumed at different times of the year according to the religious calendar. But certain types of behaviour from Antiquity survived into the Middle Ages, for example the perception that one’s own manners were appropriate and those of others barbaric. The Byzantines were influenced by the traditions of ethnographic literature and readily condemned their enemies’ real or imagined food practices as signs of barbarism. Their ethnographic literature rarely mentions foreigners’ practices without adding a negative value judgement. What others ate would have been a distinguishing criterion between Byzantine society and its neighbours. Thus, what a civilised Roman ate would have distinguished that person (those whom we call Byzantines called themselves Romans, Byzantine being a modern historiographic term) from a barbarian who ate “revolting” food. This food criterion was applied to dangerous enemies of the empire such as the Pechenegs or the Turks, but also to minor and foreign religious groups such as the Latins. The sources that describe their relationship to food or their food practices do so to condemn or at least to establish a clear distinction between the Latins and the Byzantines, who considered themselves to be the true Romans. This hostility can be explained by the economic and political context, i.e., an increasingly antagonistic relationship between the Latin and Byzantine worlds. Criticisms of food practices reinforced the conviction that the Latin was a bad Christian, thus adding another damning argument to all the others against the Latins, who had been denounced since the time of Photius. Food and religion were intrinsically linked, as discrepancies in the preparation of food and what was unacceptable for consumption were stigmatised and became an additional element in theological controversies with the Latins, which primarily concerned religious practices. The Latins were a target mainly because their presence and their trade benefits irritated the Byzantines.

? ? ? ? ? 飲食習(xí)俗是用來(lái)區(qū)分不同群體的身份標(biāo)志之一。資料中傾向于記錄不同的習(xí)俗，尤其是當(dāng)這些習(xí)俗被禁止時(shí)。拜占庭社會(huì)制定了某些不同于其前身羅馬社會(huì)的飲食規(guī)則：一些食物被禁止食用，并且根據(jù)宗教歷法規(guī)定了一年中不同時(shí)間可以食用的食物種類(lèi)。但古代的某些行為方式一直延續(xù)到了中世紀(jì)，例如認(rèn)為自己的舉止是得體的而別人的舉止是野蠻的。拜占庭人受到民族志文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)的影響，動(dòng)輒譴責(zé)敵人真實(shí)或想象中的飲食習(xí)慣，并將其視為野蠻的標(biāo)志。他們的民族志文獻(xiàn)在提到外族人的飲食習(xí)俗時(shí)，很少不加上負(fù)面的價(jià)值判斷?！皠e人吃什么”是拜占庭社會(huì)與其鄰國(guó)的一個(gè)區(qū)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。因此，一個(gè)文明的羅馬人（我們稱(chēng)之為“拜占庭人”的人自稱(chēng)為羅馬人，拜占庭人是一個(gè)現(xiàn)代史學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)）與一個(gè)吃“令人作嘔”食物的野蠻人是有區(qū)別的。這種食物標(biāo)準(zhǔn)適用于帝國(guó)的任何危險(xiǎn)敵人，如佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）或突厥人（Turks），也適用于小宗教團(tuán)體或外國(guó)宗教團(tuán)體，如拉丁人等。描述他們與食物的關(guān)系或飲食習(xí)俗的資料來(lái)源都是為了譴責(zé)或至少是為了明確拉丁人與拜占庭人之間的區(qū)別，拜占庭人認(rèn)為自己才是真正的羅馬人。這種敵意可以借助經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治背景來(lái)解釋?zhuān)蠢∈澜绾桶菡纪ナ澜缰g日益對(duì)立的關(guān)系。對(duì)飲食習(xí)俗的批評(píng)強(qiáng)化了拉丁人是壞基督徒的信念，從而在其他所有反對(duì)拉丁人的論據(jù)之外又增添了一個(gè)譴責(zé)性論據(jù)，而拉丁人自佛提烏（Photius）時(shí)代起就一直受到譴責(zé)。食物與宗教之間有著內(nèi)在聯(lián)系，因?yàn)槭澄镏谱髦械牟町惡筒豢山邮艿氖秤梅椒〞?huì)受到污名化，并成為與拉丁人神學(xué)爭(zhēng)論的額外因素，而神學(xué)爭(zhēng)論主要涉及宗教習(xí)俗。拉丁人之所以成為攻擊目標(biāo)，主要是因?yàn)樗麄兊拇嬖诩捌滟Q(mào)易利益激怒了拜占庭人。??

The Byzantines needed “the other”, particularly the barbarian, to define themselves as the norm. Certainly not everyone internalised or applied the rules imposed by canon law and civil law regarding fasting periods and consumable foods, but by using the other as a foil, whether the Pecheneg or the Latin, it was possible to create within Byzantine society a perception of its own specificity and to make it more difficult to transgress these rules. The food norms, internalised by the people, served to create a specific religious and cultural identity. The ethnographic literature concerning food practices served therefore as an important regulatory function in Byzantine society as well as creating religious boundaries with foreigners or other groups residing in Byzantine territory.

? ? ? ? ? 拜占庭人需要“他者”，尤其是野蠻人，來(lái)將自己定義為規(guī)范。當(dāng)然，并不是每個(gè)人都能內(nèi)化或應(yīng)用教會(huì)法和民法關(guān)于禁食期和可食用食物的規(guī)定，但通過(guò)使用“他者”（無(wú)論是佩切涅格人還是拉丁人）作為襯托，可以在拜占庭社會(huì)中形成對(duì)自身特殊性的認(rèn)識(shí)，并使違反這些規(guī)定變得更加困難。人們內(nèi)化的飲食規(guī)范有助于形成特定的宗教與文化認(rèn)同。因此，有關(guān)飲食習(xí)俗的民族志文獻(xiàn)在拜占庭社會(huì)中起到了重要的規(guī)范作用，并與居住在拜占庭領(lǐng)土上的外國(guó)人或其他群體建立了宗教界限。

We will begin by studying the Pechenegs and the Cumans, the new barbarians in the eyes of the Byzantines.

? ? ? ? ? 我們將從研究佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）和庫(kù)曼人（Cumans）開(kāi)始，他們是拜占庭人眼中的新野蠻人。

早期突厥人：佩切涅格人、庫(kù)曼人和保加利亞人

The nomadic barbarian, the Scythian, has represented one of the archetypes of barbarism since the time of Herodotus (Hartog 1988). He was known for being bloodthirsty and having behaviour akin to that of wild beasts. In ancient greek, Skythizein means to drink immoderately, like a Scythian, probably because they drank undiluted wine, a practice thought barbaric by the Greeks. Since Antiquity, the barbarian has been considered to be the antithesis of the civilised Greek. Hellenic culture was therefore defined in relation to the barbarian, the two representing opposite poles. Like the concept of the heretic, the concept of the barbarian permitted the Byzantines to more clearly define themselves. Just as new heresies became assimilated with older ones, the new barbarians who had recently settled on the borders of the imperial lands or on these lands were conceptually identifiable with the barbarians of old. This is why Pechenegs, Coumans and Turks were named after people who had lived in proto-Byzantine times or even earlier times in Greek history. Thus, the name Scythian could be used as a derogatory term for several nomadic peoples.

? ? ? ? ? 自希羅多德（Herodotus）時(shí)代起，游牧野蠻人斯基泰人（Scythian）就代表了野蠻主義的原型之一（Hartog，1988 年）。斯基泰人（Scythian）以嗜血和行為類(lèi)似野獸而聞名。在古希臘語(yǔ)中，“Skythizein”的意思是像斯基泰人一樣酗酒，這可能是因?yàn)樗麄兒任唇?jīng)稀釋的葡萄酒，而希臘人認(rèn)為這種做法是野蠻的。自古以來(lái)，野蠻人就被認(rèn)為是文明希臘人的對(duì)立面。因此，希臘文化是相對(duì)于野蠻人而言的，兩者代表著對(duì)立的兩極。與異端的概念一樣，野蠻人的概念使拜占庭人能夠更清晰地定義自己。正如新異端與舊異端同化一樣，后來(lái)定居在帝國(guó)領(lǐng)土邊界（或這些土地）上的新野蠻人在概念上也可與舊野蠻人相提并論。這就是為什么佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）、庫(kù)曼人（Coumans）和突厥人（Turks）會(huì)以生活在早期拜占庭時(shí)期，甚至更早時(shí)期的希臘時(shí)代的民族的名字命名。因此，“斯基泰人”（Scythian）這一名稱(chēng)可用作多個(gè)游牧民族的貶義詞。??

The Barbarian is a well-defined generic category but the ethnographic discourse provided parallels and distinctions among the barbarians with each new historical encounter (Hall 1989). Between the fifth-century Huns and the eleventh-century Turks, several populations that we call “proto-Turkish” came into violent contact with the Byzantine world: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs and Cumans. The literary descriptions of their “barbarism” reiterate the same expressions, using the ancient ethnographic sources to characterize them, which implies that they are virtually useless in any attempt to discover the actual food practices of these populations. The assimilation of the various groups that attacked the empire at different points in its history makes it very difficult to study their characteristics. They are all based on the Huns, still known in French historiography of the 19th and 20th centuries as archetypal bloodthirsty barbarians.

? ? ? ? ? ?野蠻人是一個(gè)定義明確的通用類(lèi)別，但民族志話(huà)語(yǔ)在每次新的歷史遭遇中提供了野蠻人之間的相似之處和區(qū)別（Hall，1989 年）。從五世紀(jì)的匈奴人到十一世紀(jì)的突厥人，我們稱(chēng)之為“早期突厥人”的幾個(gè)民族與拜占庭世界發(fā)生了激烈的接觸：阿瓦爾人（Avars）、保加利亞人（Bulgars）、可薩人（Khazars，又譯哈扎爾人）、佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）和庫(kù)曼人（Cumans）。對(duì)他們的“野蠻行為”的文學(xué)描述重申了同樣的表達(dá)方式，使用古代人種學(xué)資料來(lái)描述他們的特征，這意味著在試圖發(fā)現(xiàn)這些人群的實(shí)際飲食習(xí)俗時(shí)，這些資料幾乎毫無(wú)用處。在帝國(guó)歷史上，不同時(shí)期進(jìn)攻帝國(guó)的各種族群之間的同化，使得研究他們的特征變得異常困難。他們都以匈奴人為原型，在 19 世紀(jì)和 20 世紀(jì)的法國(guó)史學(xué)界，匈奴人仍被視為嗜血野蠻人的典型。

Their bloodthirstiness was reflected in their diet. Ammianus describes the Huns as people who ate raw meat, which was warmed by placing it between the horseman’s thighs and the horse’s back (Ammanius Marcellinus, Res Gestae). They never dismounted to eat or drink. These crude beings did not cultivate the land but fed on wild plants, like the animals that accompanied them. At a time when the Byzantine world was particularly under threat from nomadic peoples coming from the steppes of Central Asia, Byzantine authors referred again to the stereotyped descriptions of nomads, who did not appreciate the sophistication of cooking and ate only raw meat and wild plants (Malamut 1995; Stephenson 2000).?

? ? ? ? ? 他們的嗜血性體現(xiàn)在飲食上。據(jù)阿米阿努斯·馬爾切利努斯描述，匈奴人吃生肉，將生肉放在騎士的大腿和馬背之間加熱（Ammanius Marcellinus，《Res Gestae》）。他們從不下馬吃喝。這些粗人并不耕種土地，而是以野生植物為食，就像陪伴他們的動(dòng)物一樣。當(dāng)拜占庭世界尤其受到來(lái)自中亞草原游牧民族的威脅時(shí)，拜占庭作家再次提到對(duì)游牧民族的刻板描述，他們不懂烹飪，只吃生肉和野菜(Malamut 1995； Stephenson 2000)。

Some of these peoples, like the Pechenegs, attacked the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century and long wars were fought throughout that century. Michael Psellos refers to the barbarism of these Pechenegs, presenting them as a bloodthirsty people who ate horse meat and consumed the flesh and the blood of the animal together (Michael Psellus, Chronographia, 7, 68, p. 126):

? ? ?Do they wish to drink? If they find water springs or rivers, they jump in them without a second thought and start to lap the water. If they do not find any, they all dismount and bleed their horses, open veins with iron, and quench their thirst; and then, having carved up the fattest horse and set fire to wood they found lying about, they heat slightly the skinned members of the horse and eat it all bloody.

? ? ? ? ? 其中一些民族，如佩切涅格人（Pechenegs），在 11 世紀(jì)襲擊了拜占庭帝國(guó)，整個(gè)世紀(jì)都在進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)期戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。邁克爾·普塞洛斯 (Michael Psellus)提到了這些佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）的野蠻行徑，稱(chēng)他們是嗜血成性的民族，他們會(huì)混合馬肉和馬血一起吃掉(Michael Psellus, Chronographia , 7, 68, p. 126?)：

? ? ? ? ? 他們想喝水嗎？如果他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了水泉或河流，就會(huì)毫不猶豫地跳進(jìn)去，開(kāi)始大口喝水。如果找不到，他們就下馬給馬放血，用刀切開(kāi)血管解渴；然后，屠宰最肥碩的馬，點(diǎn)燃隨處可見(jiàn)的木柴，稍微加熱被剝皮部分的馬肉，就著血淋淋地吃掉。

Joannes Kinnamos described them as ignorant of agriculture, and feeding only on milk and meat (Joannes Kinnamos, Epitome, I, 4, p. 9), while Gregory Antiochus emphasizes their taste for red meat, which they preferred to fish (Gregory Antiochus, Letters I, p. 279; Stephenson 2000; Messis 2018). The Pechenegs were finally defeated in 1091 at the Battle of Lebounion, with the help of the Coumans, another nomadic people also referred to as Scythians. Niketas Choniates described them with a comment similar to that of Michael Psellus on the Pechenegs: “The same horse serves the Scythian as a means of transport in violent battle, and a means of subsistence once he opens its veins.”

? ? ? ? ? 喬安妮斯·金納莫斯 (Joannes Kinnamos)描述他們對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)一無(wú)所知，只以奶和肉為食（Joannes Kinnamos，Epitome，I，4，p.9），而格雷戈里·安條克 (Gregory Antiochus)則強(qiáng)調(diào)他們更喜歡吃紅肉，而不是魚(yú)（Gregory Antiochus，Letters I，p.279；Stephenson 2000；Messis 2018）。1091 年，在庫(kù)曼人（另一個(gè)游牧民族，也被稱(chēng)為斯基泰人）的幫助下，佩切涅格人最終拉維尼歐戰(zhàn)役(Battle of Lebounion)中被拜占庭人擊敗。尼基塔斯·科尼亞特斯（Niketas Choniates）對(duì)他們的描述與邁克爾·普塞魯斯（Michael Psellus）對(duì)佩切涅格人的評(píng)論相似：“在激烈的戰(zhàn)斗中，同一匹馬既是斯基泰人的運(yùn)輸工具，也是其切開(kāi)血管后的生存手段”。

This similarity of the comments referring to these different peoples is hardly surprising since they all fell under the category of nomadic barbarians. Blood consumption, the abuse of the very animals with whom they lived in symbiosis, the lack of control in eating or sex were stereotypical characteristics of the barbaric nomad.

? ? ? ? ? 對(duì)這些不同民族的評(píng)論的相似性不足為奇，因?yàn)樗麄兌紝儆谟文烈靶U人的范疇。茹毛飲血、虐待與他們共生的動(dòng)物、對(duì)飲食和性生活缺乏控制。在拜占庭人看來(lái)，這些都是野蠻游牧民族的典型特征。

In opposition to this literary tradition borrowed from Antiquity, which rejects the barbarian outside the Greek world, is the Christian tradition that sought to convert and bring the barbarian into the fold of the Byzantine oikoumene. This was the case for the Bulgarians, whom Theodore Daphnopates thought should no longer be called Scythians or barbarians, but Christians (Jenkins 1966). The Bulgarians, once converted to Christianity and incorporated into the empire, could be assimilated into Byzantine Greek culture without completely losing their origins. It was therefore possible to discard one’s “barbarism”, by renouncing any separation from the Orthodox Christian world. These converts could keep their particular food traditions, such as traditional cheeses, but they had to abandon certain practices that were repellent to the Byzantine Greeks, such as hippophagy or consumption of raw meat. Even though hippophagy was not an absolute taboo, it was frowned upon in both East and West (Safran 2014, p. 194). In 732, Pope Gregory III, a pope of Greek origin, told Boniface, the apostle of the Germans who were consumers of horsemeat, that it was appropriate to tell new converts that eating horses was a serious sin. Gregory III intended to ensure that the newly converted population would renounce this meat (and “pagan” sacrifices). Eating horsemeat was habitual in the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic worlds. When H?kon (ca 920-961), who was raised in England as a Christian, became king of Norway he was asked to perform a horse sacrifice and eat the flesh. As a Christian, he refused to do so, but for the sake of compromise he agreed to drink the cooking broth, which would probably have been repellent to a Byzantine (Simoons 1994, pp. 187?188). Eating horses was not officially condemned by civil or canon law in the Byzantine world, but it was avoided and horse meat remained a food to be eaten only in case of famine.

? ? ? ? ? 與這種借鑒自古代的文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)相反的是基督教傳統(tǒng)，它拒絕接受希臘世界之外的野蠻人，而是力圖使野蠻人皈依并融入拜占庭文化圈。西奧多·達(dá)夫諾帕特斯（Theodore Daphnopates）認(rèn)為保加利亞人不應(yīng)再被稱(chēng)為斯基泰人或野蠻人，而應(yīng)被稱(chēng)為基督徒（Jenkins，1966 年）。保加利亞人一旦皈依基督教并融入帝國(guó)，就可以被拜占庭希臘文化同化，而不會(huì)完全失去自己的血統(tǒng)。因此，通過(guò)放棄與東正教世界的任何分離，可以?huà)仐壸约旱摹耙靶U行為”。這些皈依者可以保留其特殊的飲食傳統(tǒng)，如本民族的傳統(tǒng)奶酪，但他們必須放棄拜占庭希臘人排斥的某些習(xí)俗，如食用馬肉或生肉。盡管食用馬肉不是絕對(duì)的禁忌，但在東西方都受到譴責(zé)（Safran，2014 年，第 194 頁(yè)）。732 年，希臘裔教皇額我略三世告訴食用馬肉的日耳曼人的使徒博尼法斯，應(yīng)該告訴新皈依者食用馬肉是一種嚴(yán)重的罪過(guò)。教皇額我略三世的目的是確保新皈依者放棄這種肉食習(xí)慣（以及“異教”祭祀）。在凱爾特、日耳曼和斯拉夫世界，食用馬肉已成為一種習(xí)慣。在英格蘭長(zhǎng)大的基督徒哈康（H?kon，約 920-961 年）成為挪威國(guó)王時(shí)，有人要求他用馬獻(xiàn)祭并吃馬肉。作為一名基督徒，哈康拒絕了這一要求，但為了妥協(xié)，他同意喝下煮過(guò)的馬肉湯，而拜占庭人可能會(huì)對(duì)此感到厭惡（Simoons，1994 年，第 187-188 頁(yè)）。在拜占庭世界，民法或教會(huì)法并沒(méi)有正式譴責(zé)食用馬肉，但人們還是避免食用馬肉，只有在饑荒的情況下才會(huì)食用馬肉。

These differences in food habits between nomadic peoples and the Byzantines were commented upon in almost exactly the same manner in the written sources, from Antiquity up to the Middle Ages. The barbarians were feared, and Byzantine authors constantly referred to their taste for blood, revealed on the battlefield, and to their alleged drinking of horse blood. Bloodthirsty barbarians were condemned for their ferocity and their food habits. How could they hurt the horses that they rode? The Byzantine dislike for raw meat had a Biblical origin. The Byzantines bled animals before eating them, following the Jewish practice. Blood was seen as the life of the animal, which belonged to God and should not be consumed. Nomadic barbarians were not the only people to be denounced as blood-drinking barbarians, so were the Latins, because they did not bleed animals before eating them. They were considered to be bad Christians who had not renounced “barbarism”, because they did not respect biblical food prohibitions.

? ? ? ? ? 游牧民族與拜占庭人在飲食習(xí)慣上的這些差異，在從古代到中世紀(jì)的文字資料中幾乎以完全相同的方式進(jìn)行了評(píng)論。野蠻人令人生畏，拜占庭作家經(jīng)常提到他們?cè)趹?zhàn)場(chǎng)上顯露出來(lái)的嗜血本性，以及他們飲用馬血的說(shuō)法。嗜血的野蠻人因其兇殘和飲食習(xí)慣而受到譴責(zé)。“他們?cè)趺磿?huì)傷害自己騎的馬呢？”拜占庭人對(duì)生肉的厭惡源于《圣經(jīng)》。拜占庭人效仿猶太人的做法，在食用動(dòng)物肉類(lèi)之前先放血。血液被視為動(dòng)物的生命，屬于上帝，不應(yīng)被食用。游牧的野蠻人并不是唯一被斥責(zé)為茹毛飲血的野蠻人，拉丁人也是如此，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)谑秤脛?dòng)物肉類(lèi)之前并不放血。他們被認(rèn)為是沒(méi)有放棄“野蠻”的壞基督徒，因?yàn)樗麄儾蛔袷亍妒ソ?jīng)》中的食物禁令。

拉丁人

Was this accusation justified? On the consumption of animal blood, Byzantine and Latin canon law hardly diverged until the 12th century. In the Latin penitentials are penances that were imposed on those who ate carrion or drank blood. For example, the Penitential of Theodore of Tarsus, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, mentions the prohibitions against drinking blood, eating strangled animals and making offerings to idols (Penitential of Theodorus, XI, 2, p. 207). Presumably Theodore of Tarsus was influenced by his Greek upbringing, but we find the same prohibitions in Carolingian penitentials. The Roman penitential of Halitgar bishop of Cambrai, in about 830, imposed a twelve-week fast on any person who ate blood or carrion, and on idolothytes (Roman penitential attributed to Halitgar, 44, p. 306). This penitential is thought to have come from Rome, where the Greek influence was very strong in the 7th and 8th centuries, and was incorporated into the Carolingian penitential tradition. The perception of impurity and barbarism in regard to Latin food practices may have been related to the Latins’ ignoring formerly common dietary requirements, but it was more likely to have been related to the anti-Latin polemic that developed at the time of the Crusades. While the issue of the consumption of animal blood does not seem to have worried the Romans, the Byzantines made it a factor of identity. The Latins although Christians were not devoid of barbarism in the eyes of the Byzantines; they ate meat which had not been bled and consumed coagulated blood in sausages called black pudding.

? ? ? ? ? 這種指責(zé)是否合理？關(guān)于飲用動(dòng)物血，拜占庭和拉丁教會(huì)法在 12 世紀(jì)之前幾乎沒(méi)有分歧。在拉丁語(yǔ)中，懺悔是對(duì)食用腐肉或飲血者的懲罰。例如，668 年成為坎特伯雷大主教的塔爾蘇斯的西奧多(Theodore of Tarsus)的懺悔錄中提到了禁止飲血、食用勒死的動(dòng)物肉和向圣像獻(xiàn)祭的規(guī)定（《Penitential of Theodorus》，XI, 2, 第 207 頁(yè)）。據(jù)推測(cè)，塔爾蘇斯的西奧多(Theodore of Tarsus)受到其在希臘長(zhǎng)大的影響，但我們?cè)诩勇辶滞醭膽曰阡浿幸舶l(fā)現(xiàn)了同樣的禁令。大約在 830 年，康布雷的哈利特加爾主教的羅馬懺悔錄對(duì)任何飲血或食用腐肉的人以及圣像崇拜者實(shí)施了為期十二周的禁食（《Roman penitential attributed to Halitgar》，44，第 306 頁(yè)）。這種懺悔被認(rèn)為來(lái)自羅馬，在七、八世紀(jì)希臘的影響非常強(qiáng)烈，并被納入了加洛林懺悔錄傳統(tǒng)中。拉丁人的飲食習(xí)俗被認(rèn)為是不潔和野蠻的，這可能與拉丁人無(wú)視以前的普通飲食要求有關(guān)，但更可能與十字軍東征時(shí)形成的反拉丁論戰(zhàn)有關(guān)。雖然他們似乎并不擔(dān)心食用動(dòng)物血液的問(wèn)題，但拜占庭人卻將其作為身份認(rèn)同的一個(gè)因素。拉丁人雖然是基督徒，但在拜占庭人眼中也不乏“野蠻”；他們吃未經(jīng)放血的肉，并將凝固的血制成香腸食用，這種香腸被稱(chēng)為黑布丁（black pudding，血腸）。

Balsamon (? 1199) was particularly virulent in his criticism of Latin food practices, which included consumption of blood and of unclean animals. To justify this Byzantine rejection, he recalls that consuming unbled meat was already proscribed in the book of Genesis (Genesis 9: 4). In his commentary, he noted that the prohibition of consuming blood was incorporated into Byzantine civil law by Leo VI (Caseau 2013). Above all, he took advantage of this review to criticize the Latins. He stressed the differences in biblical culture and the respect for canon law that opposed Byzantines to Latins: the latter ate bloody meat (from τ? πνικτ?, “the strangled ones”). According to Balsamon, the Byzantines, with the exception of the inhabitants of Adrianopolis, respected prohibitions from the New Testament, whereas the Latins gorged on blood, a way of accusing them as token barbarians, a typical feature of the barbarian being his taste for blood and his lack of self-control.

? ? ? ? ? 巴爾薩蒙（Balsamon，1199 年）對(duì)拉丁飲食習(xí)俗的批評(píng)尤為嚴(yán)厲，其中包括食用血液和不潔動(dòng)物。為了證明拜占庭的拒絕是合理的，他回憶說(shuō)，《創(chuàng)世紀(jì)》（創(chuàng)世紀(jì) 9：4）中已經(jīng)禁止食用未放血的肉。他在評(píng)注中指出，利奧六世將禁止食用血的規(guī)定納入了拜占庭民法（Caseau ，2013）。最重要的是，他利用這一評(píng)論批評(píng)拉丁人。他強(qiáng)調(diào)了圣經(jīng)文化和尊重教會(huì)法方面的差異，這些差異使拜占庭人與拉丁人截然不同：后者吃帶血的肉（源自 τ? πνικτ?，“被勒死的”）。根據(jù)巴爾薩蒙的說(shuō)法，拜占庭人（阿德里亞諾波利斯的居民除外）尊重《新約》中的禁令，而拉丁人卻大肆飲血，這是指責(zé)他們是象征性的野蠻人的一種方式，野蠻人的典型特征就是嗜血和缺乏自制力。

Byzantine authors based their condemnation of the Latins’ food habits on biblical, patristic or canonical writings. In the Panoplia against the Latins, wrongly attributed to Michael Cerularius, dating rather to the period that followed the union with Rome in 1274, is a chapter devoted to strangled animals, and thus unbled meat: Περ? πνικτο?. The author attributes the prohibition against consumption of blood, idolothytes and bloody meat to the “Saviour from the Gospel”. The Gospel being understood to mean the New Testament, the mention of the Saviour immediately eliminates any discussion about the prohibition. John Chrysostom’s testimony supports the arguments of the author, who also quotes canon 63 of the Apostles, which required the removal of clerics who had eaten carrion or meat in its blood (κρ?α? ?ν α?ματι) and excommunication of members of the laity for the same sins.

? ? ? ? ? 拜占庭作家譴責(zé)拉丁人飲食習(xí)慣的依據(jù)是《圣經(jīng)》、教父或教規(guī)著作。在被錯(cuò)誤地認(rèn)為是邁克爾·塞拉里烏斯 (Michael Cerularius)所作的針對(duì)拉丁人的《Panoplia》中，有一章專(zhuān)門(mén)討論了被勒死的動(dòng)物，也就是未放血的肉：Περ? πνικτο?。作者將禁止食用血、圣像崇拜物和帶血肉歸功于“福音中的救世主”?！案Ｒ簟北焕斫鉃椤缎录s》，提到救世主后，立即消除了對(duì)禁令的任何討論。金口約翰（John Chrysostom）的證詞支持了他的論點(diǎn)，他還引用了《使徒行傳》第 63 條教規(guī)，該教規(guī)要求將食用腐肉或帶血肉（κρ?α? ?ν α?ματι）的教士除名，并將犯有同樣罪過(guò)的信徒逐出教會(huì)。

In the 12th and 13th centuries, the Latins were frequently blamed for violating food taboos concerning blood and some meats. The Byzantines saw an increasing presence of Latins on their territory and became aware of the differences in food culture; they showed their rejection of these intruders by an increasingly fierce critique of these differences. This Byzantine mistrust emerged during the First Crusade, when Alexis Komnenos recognised among the Crusaders Normans from southern Italy against whom he had been compelled to fight to counter their ambition of conquering the Byzantine Empire. Food references should be read in the context of tense relations between Byzantines and Norman Crusaders. Anna Komnene describes how her father greeted Bohemond of Taranto, who feared being poisoned and would not touch food prepared for him by the emperor. Alexis I had raw meat sent to him so that he could prepare it as he pleased. This gift was also an insult, an allusion to the barbarism of the Normans, who ate unbled meat. Anna Komnene was probably aware of the controversy surrounding the differences between the Byzantines and the Latins in the preparation of meat.

? ? ? ? ? 12 世紀(jì)和 13 世紀(jì)，拉丁人經(jīng)常被指責(zé)違反有關(guān)血液和某些肉類(lèi)的飲食禁忌。拜占庭人發(fā)現(xiàn)拉丁人在他們的領(lǐng)土上越來(lái)越多，并開(kāi)始意識(shí)到飲食文化的差異；他們對(duì)這些入侵者的排斥表現(xiàn)在對(duì)這些差異越來(lái)越激烈的批判上。第一次十字軍東征期間，阿萊克修斯一世·科穆寧（Alexis Komnenos）在十字軍中認(rèn)出了來(lái)自意大利南部的諾曼人，他不得不與這些人作戰(zhàn)，以對(duì)抗他們征服拜占庭帝國(guó)的野心。在拜占庭人和諾曼十字軍之間關(guān)系緊張的背景下，我們應(yīng)該理解其中提到的食物。安娜·科穆寧娜描述了她的父親如何迎接塔蘭托的博希蒙德，博希蒙德害怕中毒，不愿碰皇帝為他準(zhǔn)備的食物。阿萊克修斯一世讓人給他送去生肉，這樣他就可以隨意烹飪了。這份禮物也是一種侮辱，暗指諾曼人的野蠻行為，他們吃的是未經(jīng)放血的肉。安娜·科穆寧娜可能意識(shí)到圍繞拜占庭人與拉丁人在肉類(lèi)制作方面的差異所產(chǎn)生的爭(zhēng)議。 ?

The image of the boorish Norman hungry for raw meat worsened after the capture of Thessaloniki by the Normans in 1185. Eustathios of Thessaloniki complained about the gluttonous Normans who devoured pigs and oxen, and although a bishop he was glad to hear that they died from food excesses: “Death, also caused by the pork meat, with which they filled their bellies without measure; and they did the same with beef and good garlic.” In the tragic context of the fall of Constantinople in 1204, Niketas Choniates referred in anger to the Latin beef eaters. The Byzantines ate mutton, goat and pork but rarely beef, a significant difference between them and the Latins, who came from western and northern Europe.

? ? ? ? ? 1185 年諾曼人攻占塞薩洛尼基后，諾曼人嗜食生肉的粗野形象進(jìn)一步惡化。塞薩洛尼基的尤斯塔提奧斯（Eustathios）抱怨諾曼人貪吃，他們吞食豬和牛：“死亡，也是由豬肉造成的，他們用豬肉填飽肚子；他們對(duì)牛肉和優(yōu)質(zhì)大蒜也做了同樣的事情”。在 1204 年君士坦丁堡陷落的悲慘背景下，尼基塔斯·科尼亞特斯憤怒地提到了拉丁人食用牛肉的情況。拜占庭人食用羊肉、山羊肉和豬肉，但很少食用牛肉，這是他們與來(lái)自西歐和北歐的拉丁人之間的顯著區(qū)別之一。??

Although disputes between Greeks and Latins and a debated list of Latin errors date back to the time of Photius, catalogues of Latin errors that mention unclean meats or blood began to appear in the Byzantine world in the 11th century, at first in the wake of the schism of 1054, and then during the Crusades (Kolbaba 2000). This literary genre gained momentum starting in the late 11th century. Strangled (unbled) animals consumed by the Latins were mentioned in a letter from Michael Cerularius to Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, an encyclical which later served as a model for the writing of catalogues listing the errors of the Latins. 1204 marked a turning point in the relations between Greeks and Latins and writings on the errors of the Latins began to proliferate.

? ? ? ? ? 盡管希臘人和拉丁人之間的爭(zhēng)論以及有爭(zhēng)議的拉丁文錯(cuò)誤（飲食）清單可以追溯到佛提烏斯時(shí)代，但提及不潔肉類(lèi)或血液的拉丁文錯(cuò)誤目錄在11世紀(jì)開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)在拜占庭世界，起初是在 1054 年分裂之后，然后是在十字軍東征期間（Kolbaba，2000 年）。從 11 世紀(jì)晚期開(kāi)始，這種文學(xué)體裁逐漸興起。邁克爾·塞拉里烏斯（Michael Cerularius）寫(xiě)給安提阿主教彼得（Peter）的一封信中提到了拉丁人食用的被勒死（未放血）的動(dòng)物，這封通諭后來(lái)成為撰寫(xiě)拉丁人錯(cuò)誤（飲食）目錄的范本。1204 年是希臘人與拉丁人關(guān)系的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)，有關(guān)拉丁人錯(cuò)誤（飲食）的著作開(kāi)始大量出現(xiàn)。

In these writings, Latins are denounced as consumers of unclean foods. Disgust toward those Christians who committed sacrilegious acts came to be expressed through the rejection of their impurity, the result of eating unclean foods. The leap from the consumption of blood to the figure of a bloodthirsty and monstrous Latin was easily made. It was indeed in contrast to the Latins that a Greek purity was defined after 1204. From then onward, this characterization of the Latin became a constant. The last great Byzantine commentator of the canonical tradition, Matthew Blastares, whose alphabetical Syntagma appeared in 1335, reiterated this criticism of the Latins, eaters of bloody meat who completely disrespected the canons (Mathew Blastares, ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑ ΚΑΤΑ ΣΤΟΟΙΧΕΙΟΝ, p. 431).

? ? ? ? ? 在這些著作中，拉丁人被譴責(zé)為不潔食物的消費(fèi)者。對(duì)那些做出褻瀆行為的基督徒的厭惡通過(guò)拒絕他們的不潔（食用不潔食物的結(jié)果）來(lái)表達(dá)。從食用鮮血到嗜血、畸形的拉丁人形象的飛躍是輕而易舉的。事實(shí)上，1204 年之后，希臘人的純潔性正是在與拉丁人的對(duì)比中被定義出來(lái)的。從那時(shí)起，拉丁人的這一特征就一直存在。拜占庭最后一位偉大的正典傳統(tǒng)注釋家馬修·布拉斯塔雷斯（Matthew Blastares）在 1335 年出版的《Syntagma Alphabeticum》（“按字母順序排列”）中重申了對(duì)拉丁人的這種批評(píng)，這些食用帶血的肉的人完全不尊重正典（Mathew Blastares, ΣΥΤΤαιΜα ΚΤα ΣΤΟΟιΧΕIΟN, p. 431）?

The food taboo on animal blood thus contributed to the creation of a specific Byzantine identity as opposed to the barbarians and the Latins, condemned for eating unbled meat. Blood and raw meat were not the only food rejected by the Byzantines. Latins were accused of eating all sorts of animals deemed disgusting by the Byzantines. What should we conclude about food prohibitions in the Byzantine world?

? ? ? ? ? 因此，對(duì)動(dòng)物血的飲食禁忌促成了一種特定的拜占庭身份，與因食用未放血的肉類(lèi)而受到譴責(zé)的野蠻人和拉丁人形成鮮明對(duì)比。拜占庭人拒絕的食物不僅僅是血和生肉。拉丁人被指控食用拜占庭人認(rèn)為惡心的各種動(dòng)物肉類(lèi)。我們應(yīng)該如何看待拜占庭世界的食物禁令？

拜占庭的飲食禁忌

The Byzantines rejected most of the Jewish dietary restrictions and decided that it was permissible to eat pork and shellfish, among other animals declared unclean by Mosaic law. However, they did introduce dietary laws that focused on meat, since plants were irrelevant unless they had been offered to idols. The oldest prohibitions, dating back to the New Testament, concerned idolothytes and animal blood, upon which Greeks and Latins agreed at first, then diverged. Both Latin and Greek Christian communities allowed the consumption of pork, contrary to Jewish law. Jesus’ words (Mc. 7: 14?23; Booth 1987) on the purity of food were regularly cited to justify this rejection of Jewish food taboos, but the Byzantines did not consider all animals to be edible. Some animals were considered unclean. We find references to those animals whose consumption was forbidden, first in canon law, then in anti-Latin treatises that outline what the Byzantines could not imagine eating.

? ? ? ? ? 拜占庭人摒棄了猶太人的大部分飲食限制，并決定允許食用豬肉和貝類(lèi)，以及其他被摩西律法宣布為不潔凈的動(dòng)物肉類(lèi)。不過(guò)，他們確實(shí)引入了以肉類(lèi)為主的飲食法，因?yàn)橹参锍潜还┓罱o圣像，否則與飲食無(wú)關(guān)。最古老的禁令可追溯到《新約》，涉及圣像崇拜和動(dòng)物血，希臘人和拉丁人起初對(duì)此達(dá)成一致，后來(lái)又出現(xiàn)分歧。拉丁和希臘基督教團(tuán)體都允許食用豬肉，這與猶太律法相悖。人們經(jīng)常引用耶穌關(guān)于食物純潔性的言論（Mc.7：14-23；Booth 1987）來(lái)證明這種摒棄猶太人食物禁忌的行為是正當(dāng)?shù)模菡纪ト瞬⒉徽J(rèn)為所有動(dòng)物都是可食用的。有些動(dòng)物被認(rèn)為是不潔的。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，首先在教會(huì)法中，然后在反拉丁語(yǔ)的文獻(xiàn)中，都提到了禁止食用的動(dòng)物，這些文獻(xiàn)概述了拜占庭人無(wú)法想象的食物。??

Among these catalogues of dietary errors, some went much further in detailing their accusations by establishing a list of unclean animals that the Greeks did not eat but which they accused the Latins of eating. John Claudiopolis, probably in the late 11th century, mentions beavers, jackals and bears. The Opusculum contra Francos, perhaps from the same period, mentions the same animals, and “others even more disgusting”. The list is even longer in the Memoires of Constantine Stilbes against the Latins, written after the fall of Constantinople in 1204 (Constantine Stilbes, Memoire against the Latins, p. 79):

? ? ?They eat the meat of smothered animals, dead (accidentally from a disease) or killed by beasts, as well as blood and unclean animals: bears, jackals, turtles, porcupines, beavers, crows, ravens, seagulls, dolphins, rats and fouler and more disgusting animals.

? ? ? ? ? 在這些錯(cuò)誤飲食的目錄中，有些人更進(jìn)一步，他們列出了一份希臘人不吃但他們指責(zé)拉丁人吃的不潔動(dòng)物的名單。約翰·克勞迪奧波利斯 (John Claudiopolis)?可能在 11 世紀(jì)末提到了海貍、豺狼和熊。也許是同一時(shí)期的《Opusculum contra Francos》提到了同樣的動(dòng)物，以及“其他動(dòng)物甚至更令人厭惡”。康斯坦丁·斯蒂爾布 (Constantine Stilbes) 于 1204 年君士坦丁堡陷落后撰寫(xiě)的《反對(duì)拉丁人的回憶錄》中，提到的動(dòng)物就更多了：

? ? ? ? ? 他們食用因窒息而死的動(dòng)物肉類(lèi)、死掉的動(dòng)物（意外染?。┗虮灰矮F殺死的動(dòng)物肉類(lèi)，以及帶血的肉和不潔的動(dòng)物：熊、豺、烏龜、豪豬、海貍、烏鴉、渡鴉、海鷗、海豚、老鼠和更臟更惡心的動(dòng)物。??

This list could be enlarged, if one believes the testimony of Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, a contemporary of Michael Cerularius to whom he wrote explaining that his reproach to the Latins about eating unclean food must be toned down since some Byzantines do so themselves. He mentions in particular the Bithynians, the Thracians and the Lydians, who ate magpies, crows, doves and hedgehogs, animals that were not on the list of permitted meats (Peter of Antioch, Letter to Michael Cerularius, p. 194). A confirmation of this testimony can be surmised from a letter of the Greek Pope Zacharias to Boniface, the Apostle of the Germans (Zachary, Letter to Boniface, MGH Ep. III, p. 370, no. 87). This letter, which dates to 751, has intrigued many scholars because it contains a list of animals not to be eaten that includes mostly animals commonly eaten in the West, such as the hare. In this letter the Pope asked Boniface to ban the consumption of beavers, hares and wild horses, as well as some birds, such as jays, crows and storks. The alleged sexual behaviour of some of these animals and their indiscriminate consumption of other animals explain their rejection as food (Physiologos). The Byzantines feared that by eating them they would become like them (Physiologos, Introduction).

? ? ? ? ? 安提阿牧首彼得是邁克爾·塞拉里烏斯的同代人，他在給邁克爾·塞拉里烏斯的信中解釋說(shuō)，他對(duì)拉丁人吃不潔食物的指責(zé)必須有所收斂，因?yàn)橛行┌菡纪ト俗约阂渤圆粷嵤澄铩Ｋ貏e提到了比提尼亞人（Bithynians）、色雷斯人（Thracians）和呂底亞人（Lydians），他們吃喜鵲、烏鴉、鴿子和刺猬，這些動(dòng)物不在允許食用的肉類(lèi)名單上（安條克的彼得，給邁克爾·塞拉里烏斯的信，第 194 頁(yè)）。希臘教皇撒迦利亞（Zacharias）寫(xiě)給日耳曼使徒博尼法斯（Boniface）的一封信(Zachary, Letter to Boniface, MGH Ep. III, p. 370, no. 87)可以證實(shí)這一證詞。這封可以追溯到 751 年的信件引起了許多學(xué)者的興趣，因?yàn)樾胖辛谐隽艘环萁故秤玫膭?dòng)物清單，其中大部分是西方常見(jiàn)的動(dòng)物，如野兔。在這封信中，教皇要求博尼法斯禁止食用海貍、野兔和野馬，以及一些鳥(niǎo)類(lèi)，如松鴉、烏鴉和鸛。其中一些動(dòng)物的所謂性行為以及它們對(duì)其他動(dòng)物的不加選擇的消費(fèi)解釋了它們被拒絕作為食物的原因（Physiologos）。拜占庭人擔(dān)心吃了這些動(dòng)物會(huì)變得和它們一樣（Physiologos，Introduction）。

There were two other banned meats in Byzantine canon law: dog and vulture. Constantine Harmenopoulos quotes or rather summarizes Basil of Caesarea’s 86th canon concerning these two banned meats (Constantine Harmenopoulos, Epitome of the Holy Canons, p. 127):

? ? ?Just like we do with vegetables, we should do similarly with meats, distinguishing the harmful from the useful. And just like a reasonable man does not eat hemlock or henbane, he will neither touch vulture meat nor that of a dog, except if absolutely necessary.

? ? ? ? ? 拜占庭教會(huì)法中還有兩種禁止食用的肉類(lèi)：狗肉和禿鷲肉?？邓固苟　す分Z普洛斯 (Constantine Harmenopoulos)?引用了凱撒利亞的巴西爾關(guān)于這兩種禁肉的第 86 條教規(guī)(Constantine Harmenopoulos, Epitome of the Holy Canons, p. 127)，或者說(shuō)是對(duì)其進(jìn)行了總結(jié)：

? ? ? ? ? 就像我們對(duì)待蔬菜一樣，我們對(duì)待肉類(lèi)也應(yīng)如此，要區(qū)分有害和有益。就像一個(gè)理智的人不吃毒參或莨菪（天仙子）一樣，除非萬(wàn)不得已，他也不會(huì)碰禿鷲肉或狗肉。

The dog and the vulture are both scavengers, which probably explains the disgust that eating their flesh might have inspired (Simoons 1994, p. 233). They were thus considered to be harmful to human health and excluded from the list of consumable foods, but it also seems clear that Basil made an exception in the case of famine and did not consider penance to be necessary if prohibited foods were eaten by the starving, which may be regarded as a kind of doublespeak. Some foods are unclean and to be avoided, but if this is impossible, eating them has no spiritual consequence.

? ? ? ? ? ?狗和禿鷲都是食腐動(dòng)物，這可能解釋了為什么吃它們的肉會(huì)引起人們的反感（Simoons ，1994，p.233）。因此，人們認(rèn)為狗和禿鷲對(duì)人類(lèi)健康有害，并將其排除在可食用食物之外，但很明顯，巴茲爾在饑荒的情況下做了例外，并且認(rèn)為如果饑餓者吃了違禁食品，則沒(méi)有必要進(jìn)行懺悔，這可以說(shuō)是一種雙關(guān)語(yǔ)。有些食物是不潔凈的，應(yīng)該避免食用，但如果無(wú)法避免，食用這些食物也不會(huì)產(chǎn)生任何精神后果。

結(jié)語(yǔ)

We see through these examples that the Byzantine sources borrowed from an ethnographic literary tradition when it came to describing barbarians, as may be seen in the similar descriptions of different groups. There also existed a more innovative literary genre, which while using food as a means to belittle the other, invented long lists of foods that the Byzantines did not eat. These texts reflect indirectly Byzantine food culture by revealing what seems to have been repulsive and inedible to the Byzantines. Although they do not tell us what Pechenegs or Latins really ate, they do provide us with a better understanding of the food culture of the Byzantines in the Middle Ages (Caseau 2015).

? ? ? ? ? 從這些例子中我們可以看出，拜占庭文獻(xiàn)在描述野蠻人時(shí)借鑒了民族志文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)，這可以從對(duì)不同群體的類(lèi)似描述中看出。此外，還存在一種更具創(chuàng)新性的文學(xué)體裁，這種體裁將食物作為貶低他人的一種手段，編造了一長(zhǎng)串拜占庭人不吃的食物清單。這些文字間接反映了拜占庭的飲食文化，揭示了拜占庭人似乎厭惡和不能吃的食物。雖然它們并沒(méi)有告訴我們佩切涅格人或拉丁人真正吃什么，但它們確實(shí)讓我們更好地了解了中世紀(jì)拜占庭人的飲食文化（Caseau，2015 年）。

參考書(shū)目：

Ammanius Marcellinus,?Res Gestae:Fontaine?J.,?Frézouls?E.,?Berger?J.D. (ed.),?Ammien Marcellin. Histoire, t.?3, Paris, 1996.

Athenaeus:?Olson?S.D. (ed.),?Athenaeus: The learned banqueters, London, 2006?2012.

Canons of Adomnan:?Bieler?L. (ed.),?The Irish penitentials, Dublin, 1975, pp.?176?181.

Bonnassie?1989: Bonnassie?P., “Consommation d’aliments immondes et cannibalisme de survie dans l’Occident du haut Moyen??ge”,?Annales. économies, sociétés, civilisations?44/5, 1989, pp.?1035?1056.

Booth?1987:?Booth?R.P.,?Jesus and the laws of purity,?Tradition history and legal history in Mark?7, Journal for the study of the New Testament supplementary series?13, Sheffield, 1987.

Bozoky?2012:?Bozoky?E.,?Attila et les Huns.?Vérités et légendes, Paris, 2012.

Caseau?2013:?Caseau?B., “Le tabou du sang à Byzance. Observances alimentaires et identité”, in Ch.?Gastgeber, Ch.?Messis, D.I.?Mure?an, F.?Ronconi (ed.),?Pour l’amour de Byzance. Hommage à Paolo Odorico, Frankfurt am Main, 2013, pp.?53?62.

Caseau?2015:?Caseau?B.,?Nourritures terrestres, nourritures célestes. La culture alimentaire à Byzance, Monographies du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance?46, Paris, 2015.

Constantine Harmenopoulos,?Epitome of the holy canons:?Perentidis?St.?(ed.),?Constantin Harménopoulos.épitomè des saints canons, PhD, Paris-Sorbonne University, 1981 (unpublished).

Constantine Stilbes,Memoire against the Latins:?Darrouzès?J.,?“Le Mémoire de Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins”,?Revue des études byzantines?21, 1963, pp.?50?100.

Dagron?1993:?Dagron?G.,?“Le christianisme byzantin (viie-milieu?xie?siècle)”, in M.?Vénard?et?al. (ed.),?Histoire du christianisme, t.?IV, Paris, 1993, pp.?9?348.

Eustathios of Thessaloniki:?Odorico?P. (ed.),?Thessalonique. Chroniques d’une ville prise, Toulouse, 2005.

Gregory?III,?Letter to Boniface:?PL?89, col.?517.

Gregory Antiochus,?Letters:?Darrouzès?J., “Deux lettres de Grégoire Antiochos écrites de Bulgarie vers 1173”,?Byzantinoslavica?23, 1962, pp.?276?284.

Grumel?1960:?Grumel?V.,?“Compte-rendu de M.?Gordillo,?Theologia Orientalium cum Latinorum comparala. Commentatio historica”,?Revue des études byzantines?18, 1960, pp.?285?288.

Hall?1989:?Hall?E.,?Inventing the barbarian: Greek self-definition through tragedy, Oxford, 1989.

Hartog?1988:?Hartog?F.,?The mirror of Herodotus. The representation of the other in the writing of history, Berkeley, 1988.

Jenkins?1966:?Jenkins?R.J.H., “The peace with Bulgaria (927) celebrated by Theodore Daphnopates”, in P.?Wirth (ed.),?Polychronion: Festschrift für Franz D?lger zum 75 Geburtstag, Heidelberg, 1966, pp.?287?303.

Joannes Kinnamos,?Epitome:Meineke?A. (ed.),?Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Joanne et Alexio Commenis, Bonn, 1836; transl. Rosenblum?J. (ed.),?Jean Kinnamos. Chronique, Paris, 1972.

Jugie?1933:?Jugie?M.,?“Le schisme du?xie?siècle. Compte-rendu de A.?Michel,?Humbert und Kerullarios. Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI.?Jahrhunderts. T.?II?(XXIIIe?volume des?Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte?de la G?rresgesellschaft)”,?Byzantion?8, 1933, pp.?321?326.

Kaldellis?2013:?Kaldellis?A.,?Le discours ethnographique à Byzance.?Continuité et rupture, Paris, 2013.

Kolbaba?2000:?Kolbaba?T.,?The Byzantine lists: Errors of the Latins, Urbana-Chicago, 2000.

Laurent?1932: Laurent?V., “Notes critiques sur de récentes publications”,?échos d’Orient?165, t.?31, 1932, pp.?97?123.

Laurent &?Darrouzès?1976:?Laurent?V.,?Darrouzès?J.,?Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon (1273?1277), Paris, 1976.

Laurioux?1988:?Laurioux?B., “Le lièvre lubrique et la bête sanglante: réflexions sur quelques interdits alimentaires du haut Moyen??ge”, in?L’animal dans l’alimentation humaine,?Anthropozoologica, numéro spécial?2, 1988, pp.?127?132.

Laurioux?1997:?Laurioux?B.,?Le règne de Taillevent. Livres et pratiques culinaires à la fin du Moyen??ge, Paris, 1997.

Leteux?2012:?Leteux?S., “Is hippophagy a taboo in constant evolution?”,?Menu: Journal of food and hospitality research?1, 2012, pp.?47?54.

Levi-Strauss?1964:Levi-Strauss?C.,?Le cru et le cuit, Paris, 1964.

Malamut?1995:?Malamut?E.,?“L’image byzantine des Petchénègues”,?Byzantium?88, 1995, pp.?105?147.

Mathew Blastares:?Rhalli?A.G.,?Potli?M. (ed.),?Syntagma, t.?VI, Athens, 1859.

Messis?2018: Messis?Ch., “Du topos de la barbarie à l’émergence de la curiosité ethnographique: les Bulgares dans les textes byzantins (xie-xive?siècle)”, in I.?Biliarsky (ed.),?Laudator temporis acti studia in memoriam Ioannis A.Bo?ilov, vol.?I, Sofia, 2018, pp.?260?281.

Michael Cerularius,?Letter to Peter of Antioch:?PG?120, col.?781?796.

Michael Psellus,?Chronographia:?Renaud?é. (ed.),?Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976-1077), t.?2, Paris, 1928.

Niketas Choniates,History:?van?Dieten?J. (ed.),?Nicetae Choniatae Historia, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Series Berolinensis?11/1, Berlin, 1975; transl.?Magoulias?H.J.,?O city of Byzantium: Annals of Niketas Choniates, Detroit, 1984.

Opusculum contra Francos:?Hergenroether?J. (ed.),?Monumenta graeca ad Photium eiusque Historiam pertinentia, Ratisbone, 1869 (repr. 1969), pp.?62?71.

Panoplia against the Latins:?Michel?A. (ed.),?Humbert und Kerullarios,?Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI.?Jahrhunderts, t.?II, Paderborn, 1930, pp.?208?280.

Penitential of Theodorus:?McNeill?J.,?Gamer?H.,?Medieval handbooks of penance: A translation of the principal libri poenitentiales and selections from related documents, New?York, 1938 (repr. 1990), pp.?179?214.

Peter of Antioch,Letter to Michael Cerularius:?Will?C. (ed.),?Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita, Leipzig, 1861, pp.?189?204.

Physiologos:Zucker?A. (ed.),?Physiologos.?Le bestiaire des bestiaires, Grenoble, 2004.

Roman penitential attributed to Halitgar:?McNeill?J.,?Gamer?H.,?Medieval handbooks of penance: A translation of the principal libri poenitentiales and selections from related documents, New?York, 1938 (repr. 1990), pp.?295?313.

Rousseau?2005:?Rousseau?V.,?Le go?t du sang. Croyances et polémiques dans la chrétienté occidentale, Paris, 2005.

Safran?2014:?Safran?L.,?The medieval Salento. Art and identity in southern Italy, Philadelphia, 2014.

Simoons?1994:?Simoons?F.J.,?Eat not this flesh. Food avoidances from Prehistory to the present, Madison, 1994.

Smith?1978:?Smith?M.H.,?And taking bread… Cerularius and the azyme controversy of 1054, Paris, 1978.

Stephenson?2000:?Stephenson?P.,?“Byzantine conceptions of otherness after the annexation of Bulgaria (1018)”, in D.?Smythe?(ed.),?Strangers to themselves: The Byzantine outsider, Aldershot, 2000, pp.?245?257.

Theodore Balsamon,Commentary on the canons of the apostles:?PG?137, col.?36?217.

Theodore Balsamon,?Commentary on the council of Trullo:?PG?137, col.?501?873.

Tinnefeld?1989:?Tinnefeld?Fr., “Michael Kerullarios, patriarch von Konstantinopel (1043-1058): Kritische überlegungen zu einer Biographie”,?Jahrbuch der ?sterreichischen Byzantinistik?39, 1989, pp.?95?127.

Tuffin &?McEvoy?2005:?Tuffin?P.,McEvoy?M.,?“Steak à la hun: Food, drink, and dietary habits in Amminaus Marcellinus”, in W.?Mayer, S.?Trzcionka (ed.),?Feast, fast or famine: Food and drink in Byzantium, Brisbane, 2005, pp.?69?84.

Zachary,?Letter to Boniface:?Dummler?E. (ed.),?S.?Boniaci et Lulli epistolae, Berlin, 1892.

原文作者：Béatrice Caseau

? ? ? ? ? 索邦大學(xué)（巴黎索邦大學(xué)）拜占庭歷史教授，LABEX RESMED（地中海世界的宗教與社會(huì)）研究組主任。研究興趣主要集中在古代晚期和拜占庭的基督教。其著作涉及香氣的歷史，感官的文化歷史，特別是嗅覺(jué)、味覺(jué)和觸覺(jué)，基督教禮儀的歷史，以及關(guān)于圣餐儀式，宗教暴力和雕像的破壞，以及童年和家庭網(wǎng)絡(luò)的歷史。Beatrice Caseau最近的書(shū)是關(guān)于拜占庭飲食文化（2015）。她還以編輯或作者的身份，為論文集的書(shū)籍做出了貢獻(xiàn)。她編寫(xiě)了其中兩本，一本是關(guān)于古代和中世紀(jì)宗教文化中的感官，另一本是關(guān)于古代和中世紀(jì)的食物禁忌。

原文網(wǎng)址：https://books.openedition.org/momeditions/10194#tocfrom1n1

學(xué)者網(wǎng)址：https://sorbonne-fr.academia.edu/BeatriceCaseau