（文章翻译）狗肉、秃鹫肉、马肉和黑布丁（血肠）：拜占庭人眼中的不洁之物
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学传统的影响，很容易将敌人真实或想象中的饮食习俗视为野蛮的标志。民族志文献在提到外族人的饮食习惯时，很少不加上负面的价值判断。从古代到中世纪，游牧民族与拜占庭人饮食习惯差异的描述方式与资料来源几乎完全相似，这使得这些描述对于重建游牧民族的饮食毫无用处。本文探讨了拜占庭文献中如何描述佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）、库曼人（Cumans）和突厥人（Turks）的“血腥味”。拜占庭人的一些邻居，如保加利亚人（Bulgarians），最终皈依了基督教，当他们的土地并入拜占庭帝国时，这些皈依者被迫放弃某些拜占庭希腊人排斥的食物，如马肉和生肉。游牧民族并不是唯一被指责为嗜血野蛮人的民族，拉丁人也是如此，因为他们在处理肉类之前不会放血。在对拜占庭帝国发动军事进攻的背景下，拜占庭人很容易将食用动物的血液与嗜血成性的拉丁人形象联系起来。因此，对动物血的食物禁忌促成了一种特定的拜占庭身份，与因食用未放血的肉类而受到谴责的野蛮人和拉丁人形成鲜明对比，后者因吃未放血的肉而受到谴责。
简介
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.
饮食习俗是用来区分不同群体的身份标志之一。资料中倾向于记录不同的习俗，尤其是当这些习俗被禁止时。拜占庭社会制定了某些不同于其前身罗马社会的饮食规则：一些食物被禁止食用，并且根据宗教历法规定了一年中不同时间可以食用的食物种类。但古代的某些行为方式一直延续到了中世纪，例如认为自己的举止是得体的而别人的举止是野蛮的。拜占庭人受到民族志文学传统的影响，动辄谴责敌人真实或想象中的饮食习惯，并将其视为野蛮的标志。他们的民族志文献在提到外族人的饮食习俗时，很少不加上负面的价值判断。“别人吃什么”是拜占庭社会与其邻国的一个区分标准。因此，一个文明的罗马人（我们称之为“拜占庭人”的人自称为罗马人，拜占庭人是一个现代史学术语）与一个吃“令人作呕”食物的野蛮人是有区别的。这种食物标准适用于帝国的任何危险敌人，如佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）或突厥人（Turks），也适用于小宗教团体或外国宗教团体，如拉丁人等。描述他们与食物的关系或饮食习俗的资料来源都是为了谴责或至少是为了明确拉丁人与拜占庭人之间的区别，拜占庭人认为自己才是真正的罗马人。这种敌意可以借助经济和政治背景来解释，即拉丁世界和拜占庭世界之间日益对立的关系。对饮食习俗的批评强化了拉丁人是坏基督徒的信念，从而在其他所有反对拉丁人的论据之外又增添了一个谴责性论据，而拉丁人自佛提乌（Photius）时代起就一直受到谴责。食物与宗教之间有着内在联系，因为食物制作中的差异和不可接受的食用方法会受到污名化，并成为与拉丁人神学争论的额外因素，而神学争论主要涉及宗教习俗。拉丁人之所以成为攻击目标，主要是因为他们的存在及其贸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”，尤其是野蛮人，来将自己定义为规范。当然，并不是每个人都能内化或应用教会法和民法关于禁食期和可食用食物的规定，但通过使用“他者”（无论是佩切涅格人还是拉丁人）作为衬托，可以在拜占庭社会中形成对自身特殊性的认识，并使违反这些规定变得更加困难。人们内化的饮食规范有助于形成特定的宗教与文化认同。因此，有关饮食习俗的民族志文献在拜占庭社会中起到了重要的规范作用，并与居住在拜占庭领土上的外国人或其他群体建立了宗教界限。
We will begin by studying the Pechenegs and the Cumans, the new barbarians in the eyes of the Byzantines.
我们将从研究佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）和库曼人（Cumans）开始，他们是拜占庭人眼中的新野蛮人。
早期突厥人：佩切涅格人、库曼人和保加利亚人
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.
自希罗多德（Herodotus）时代起，游牧野蛮人斯基泰人（Scythian）就代表了野蛮主义的原型之一（Hartog，1988 年）。斯基泰人（Scythian）以嗜血和行为类似野兽而闻名。在古希腊语中，“Skythizein”的意思是像斯基泰人一样酗酒，这可能是因为他们喝未经稀释的葡萄酒，而希腊人认为这种做法是野蛮的。自古以来，野蛮人就被认为是文明希腊人的对立面。因此，希腊文化是相对于野蛮人而言的，两者代表着对立的两极。与异端的概念一样，野蛮人的概念使拜占庭人能够更清晰地定义自己。正如新异端与旧异端同化一样，后来定居在帝国领土边界（或这些土地）上的新野蛮人在概念上也可与旧野蛮人相提并论。这就是为什么佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）、库曼人（Coumans）和突厥人（Turks）会以生活在早期拜占庭时期，甚至更早时期的希腊时代的民族的名字命名。因此，“斯基泰人”（Scythian）这一名称可用作多个游牧民族的贬义词。
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.
野蛮人是一个定义明确的通用类别，但民族志话语在每次新的历史遭遇中提供了野蛮人之间的相似之处和区别（Hall，1989 年）。从五世纪的匈奴人到十一世纪的突厥人，我们称之为“早期突厥人”的几个民族与拜占庭世界发生了激烈的接触：阿瓦尔人（Avars）、保加利亚人（Bulgars）、可萨人（Khazars，又译哈扎尔人）、佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）和库曼人（Cumans）。对他们的“野蛮行为”的文学描述重申了同样的表达方式，使用古代人种学资料来描述他们的特征，这意味着在试图发现这些人群的实际饮食习俗时，这些资料几乎毫无用处。在帝国历史上，不同时期进攻帝国的各种族群之间的同化，使得研究他们的特征变得异常困难。他们都以匈奴人为原型，在 19 世纪和 20 世纪的法国史学界，匈奴人仍被视为嗜血野蛮人的典型。
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).
他们的嗜血性体现在饮食上。据阿米阿努斯·马尔切利努斯描述，匈奴人吃生肉，将生肉放在骑士的大腿和马背之间加热（Ammanius Marcellinus，《Res Gestae》）。他们从不下马吃喝。这些粗人并不耕种土地，而是以野生植物为食，就像陪伴他们的动物一样。当拜占庭世界尤其受到来自中亚草原游牧民族的威胁时，拜占庭作家再次提到对游牧民族的刻板描述，他们不懂烹饪，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 世纪袭击了拜占庭帝国，整个世纪都在进行长期战争。迈克尔·普塞洛斯 (Michael Psellus)提到了这些佩切涅格人（Pechenegs）的野蛮行径，称他们是嗜血成性的民族，他们会混合马肉和马血一起吃掉(Michael Psellus, Chronographia , 7, 68, p. 126 )：
他们想喝水吗？如果他们发现了水泉或河流，就会毫不犹豫地跳进去，开始大口喝水。如果找不到，他们就下马给马放血，用刀切开血管解渴；然后，屠宰最肥硕的马，点燃随处可见的木柴，稍微加热被剥皮部分的马肉，就着血淋淋地吃掉。
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.”
乔安妮斯·金纳莫斯 (Joannes Kinnamos)描述他们对农业一无所知，只以奶和肉为食（Joannes Kinnamos，Epitome，I，4，p.9），而格雷戈里·安条克 (Gregory Antiochus)则强调他们更喜欢吃红肉，而不是鱼（Gregory Antiochus，Letters I，p.279；Stephenson 2000；Messis 2018）。1091 年，在库曼人（另一个游牧民族，也被称为斯基泰人）的帮助下，佩切涅格人最终拉维尼欧战役(Battle of Lebounion)中被拜占庭人击败。尼基塔斯·科尼亚特斯（Niketas Choniates）对他们的描述与迈克尔·普塞鲁斯（Michael Psellus）对佩切涅格人的评论相似：“在激烈的战斗中，同一匹马既是斯基泰人的运输工具，也是其切开血管后的生存手段”。
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.
对这些不同民族的评论的相似性不足为奇，因为他们都属于游牧野蛮人的范畴。茹毛饮血、虐待与他们共生的动物、对饮食和性生活缺乏控制。在拜占庭人看来，这些都是野蛮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 Håkon (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.
与这种借鉴自古代的文学传统相反的是基督教传统，它拒绝接受希腊世界之外的野蛮人，而是力图使野蛮人皈依并融入拜占庭文化圈。西奥多·达夫诺帕特斯（Theodore Daphnopates）认为保加利亚人不应再被称为斯基泰人或野蛮人，而应被称为基督徒（Jenkins，1966 年）。保加利亚人一旦皈依基督教并融入帝国，就可以被拜占庭希腊文化同化，而不会完全失去自己的血统。因此，通过放弃与东正教世界的任何分离，可以抛弃自己的“野蛮行为”。这些皈依者可以保留其特殊的饮食传统，如本民族的传统奶酪，但他们必须放弃拜占庭希腊人排斥的某些习俗，如食用马肉或生肉。尽管食用马肉不是绝对的禁忌，但在东西方都受到谴责（Safran，2014 年，第 194 页）。732 年，希腊裔教皇额我略三世告诉食用马肉的日耳曼人的使徒博尼法斯，应该告诉新皈依者食用马肉是一种严重的罪过。教皇额我略三世的目的是确保新皈依者放弃这种肉食习惯（以及“异教”祭祀）。在凯尔特、日耳曼和斯拉夫世界，食用马肉已成为一种习惯。在英格兰长大的基督徒哈康（Håkon，约 920-961 年）成为挪威国王时，有人要求他用马献祭并吃马肉。作为一名基督徒，哈康拒绝了这一要求，但为了妥协，他同意喝下煮过的马肉汤，而拜占庭人可能会对此感到厌恶（Simoons，1994 年，第 187-188 页）。在拜占庭世界，民法或教会法并没有正式谴责食用马肉，但人们还是避免食用马肉，只有在饥荒的情况下才会食用马肉。
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.
游牧民族与拜占庭人在饮食习惯上的这些差异，在从古代到中世纪的文字资料中几乎以完全相同的方式进行了评论。野蛮人令人生畏，拜占庭作家经常提到他们在战场上显露出来的嗜血本性，以及他们饮用马血的说法。嗜血的野蛮人因其凶残和饮食习惯而受到谴责。“他们怎么会伤害自己骑的马呢？”拜占庭人对生肉的厌恶源于《圣经》。拜占庭人效仿犹太人的做法，在食用动物肉类之前先放血。血液被视为动物的生命，属于上帝，不应被食用。游牧的野蛮人并不是唯一被斥责为茹毛饮血的野蛮人，拉丁人也是如此，因为他们在食用动物肉类之前并不放血。他们被认为是没有放弃“野蛮”的坏基督徒，因为他们不遵守《圣经》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.
这种指责是否合理？关于饮用动物血，拜占庭和拉丁教会法在 12 世纪之前几乎没有分歧。在拉丁语中，忏悔是对食用腐肉或饮血者的惩罚。例如，668 年成为坎特伯雷大主教的塔尔苏斯的西奥多(Theodore of Tarsus)的忏悔录中提到了禁止饮血、食用勒死的动物肉和向圣像献祭的规定（《Penitential of Theodorus》，XI, 2, 第 207 页）。据推测，塔尔苏斯的西奥多(Theodore of Tarsus)受到其在希腊长大的影响，但我们在加洛林王朝的忏悔录中也发现了同样的禁令。大约在 830 年，康布雷的哈利特加尔主教的罗马忏悔录对任何饮血或食用腐肉的人以及圣像崇拜者实施了为期十二周的禁食（《Roman penitential attributed to Halitgar》，44，第 306 页）。这种忏悔被认为来自罗马，在七、八世纪希腊的影响非常强烈，并被纳入了加洛林忏悔录传统中。拉丁人的饮食习俗被认为是不洁和野蛮的，这可能与拉丁人无视以前的普通饮食要求有关，但更可能与十字军东征时形成的反拉丁论战有关。虽然他们似乎并不担心食用动物血液的问题，但拜占庭人却将其作为身份认同的一个因素。拉丁人虽然是基督徒，但在拜占庭人眼中也不乏“野蛮”；他们吃未经放血的肉，并将凝固的血制成香肠食用，这种香肠被称为黑布丁（black pudding，血肠）。
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 τὰ πνικτά, “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.
巴尔萨蒙（Balsamon，1199 年）对拉丁饮食习俗的批评尤为严厉，其中包括食用血液和不洁动物。为了证明拜占庭的拒绝是合理的，他回忆说，《创世纪》（创世纪 9：4）中已经禁止食用未放血的肉。他在评注中指出，利奥六世将禁止食用血的规定纳入了拜占庭民法（Caseau ，2013）。最重要的是，他利用这一评论批评拉丁人。他强调了圣经文化和尊重教会法方面的差异，这些差异使拜占庭人与拉丁人截然不同：后者吃带血的肉（源自 τὰ πνικτά，“被勒死的”）。根据巴尔萨蒙的说法，拜占庭人（阿德里亚诺波利斯的居民除外）尊重《新约》中的禁令，而拉丁人却大肆饮血，这是指责他们是象征性的野蛮人的一种方式，野蛮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: Περὶ πνικτοῦ. 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 (κρέας ἐν αἵματι) and excommunication of members of the laity for the same sins.
拜占庭作家谴责拉丁人饮食习惯的依据是《圣经》、教父或教规著作。在被错误地认为是迈克尔·塞拉里乌斯 (Michael Cerularius)所作的针对拉丁人的《Panoplia》中，有一章专门讨论了被勒死的动物，也就是未放血的肉：Περὶ πνικτοῦ。作者将禁止食用血、圣像崇拜物和带血肉归功于“福音中的救世主”。“福音”被理解为《新约》，提到救世主后，立即消除了对禁令的任何讨论。金口约翰（John Chrysostom）的证词支持了他的论点，他还引用了《使徒行传》第 63 条教规，该教规要求将食用腐肉或带血肉（κρέας ἐν αἵματι）的教士除名，并将犯有同样罪过的信徒逐出教会。
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 世纪和 13 世纪，拉丁人经常被指责违反有关血液和某些肉类的饮食禁忌。拜占庭人发现拉丁人在他们的领土上越来越多，并开始意识到饮食文化的差异；他们对这些入侵者的排斥表现在对这些差异越来越激烈的批判上。第一次十字军东征期间，阿莱克修斯一世·科穆宁（Alexis Komnenos）在十字军中认出了来自意大利南部的诺曼人，他不得不与这些人作战，以对抗他们征服拜占庭帝国的野心。在拜占庭人和诺曼十字军之间关系紧张的背景下，我们应该理解其中提到的食物。安娜·科穆宁娜描述了她的父亲如何迎接塔兰托的博希蒙德，博希蒙德害怕中毒，不愿碰皇帝为他准备的食物。阿莱克修斯一世让人给他送去生肉，这样他就可以随意烹饪了。这份礼物也是一种侮辱，暗指诺曼人的野蛮行为，他们吃的是未经放血的肉。安娜·科穆宁娜可能意识到围绕拜占庭人与拉丁人在肉类制作方面的差异所产生的争议。
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 年诺曼人攻占塞萨洛尼基后，诺曼人嗜食生肉的粗野形象进一步恶化。塞萨洛尼基的尤斯塔提奥斯（Eustathios）抱怨诺曼人贪吃，他们吞食猪和牛：“死亡，也是由猪肉造成的，他们用猪肉填饱肚子；他们对牛肉和优质大蒜也做了同样的事情”。在 1204 年君士坦丁堡陷落的悲惨背景下，尼基塔斯·科尼亚特斯愤怒地提到了拉丁人食用牛肉的情况。拜占庭人食用羊肉、山羊肉和猪肉，但很少食用牛肉，这是他们与来自西欧和北欧的拉丁人之间的显著区别之一。
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.
尽管希腊人和拉丁人之间的争论以及有争议的拉丁文错误（饮食）清单可以追溯到佛提乌斯时代，但提及不洁肉类或血液的拉丁文错误目录在11世纪开始出现在拜占庭世界，起初是在 1054 年分裂之后，然后是在十字军东征期间（Kolbaba，2000 年）。从 11 世纪晚期开始，这种文学体裁逐渐兴起。迈克尔·塞拉里乌斯（Michael Cerularius）写给安提阿主教彼得（Peter）的一封信中提到了拉丁人食用的被勒死（未放血）的动物，这封通谕后来成为撰写拉丁人错误（饮食）目录的范本。1204 年是希腊人与拉丁人关系的转折点，有关拉丁人错误（饮食）的著作开始大量出现。
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).
在这些著作中，拉丁人被谴责为不洁食物的消费者。对那些做出亵渎行为的基督徒的厌恶通过拒绝他们的不洁（食用不洁食物的结果）来表达。从食用鲜血到嗜血、畸形的拉丁人形象的飞跃是轻而易举的。事实上，1204 年之后，希腊人的纯洁性正是在与拉丁人的对比中被定义出来的。从那时起，拉丁人的这一特征就一直存在。拜占庭最后一位伟大的正典传统注释家马修·布拉斯塔雷斯（Matthew Blastares）在 1335 年出版的《Syntagma Alphabeticum》（“按字母顺序排列”）中重申了对拉丁人的这种批评，这些食用带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，对动物血的饮食禁忌促成了一种特定的拜占庭身份，与因食用未放血的肉类而受到谴责的野蛮人和拉丁人形成鲜明对比。拜占庭人拒绝的食物不仅仅是血和生肉。拉丁人被指控食用拜占庭人认为恶心的各种动物肉类。我们应该如何看待拜占庭世界的食物禁令？
拜占庭的饮食禁忌
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.
拜占庭人摒弃了犹太人的大部分饮食限制，并决定允许食用猪肉和贝类，以及其他被摩西律法宣布为不洁净的动物肉类。不过，他们确实引入了以肉类为主的饮食法，因为植物除非被供奉给圣像，否则与饮食无关。最古老的禁令可追溯到《新约》，涉及圣像崇拜和动物血，希腊人和拉丁人起初对此达成一致，后来又出现分歧。拉丁和希腊基督教团体都允许食用猪肉，这与犹太律法相悖。人们经常引用耶稣关于食物纯洁性的言论（Mc.7：14-23；Booth 1987）来证明这种摒弃犹太人食物禁忌的行为是正当的，但拜占庭人并不认为所有动物都是可食用的。有些动物被认为是不洁的。我们发现，首先在教会法中，然后在反拉丁语的文献中，都提到了禁止食用的动物，这些文献概述了拜占庭人无法想象的食物。
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.
在这些错误饮食的目录中，有些人更进一步，他们列出了一份希腊人不吃但他们指责拉丁人吃的不洁动物的名单。约翰·克劳迪奥波利斯 (John Claudiopolis) 可能在 11 世纪末提到了海狸、豺狼和熊。也许是同一时期的《Opusculum contra Francos》提到了同样的动物，以及“其他动物甚至更令人厌恶”。康斯坦丁·斯蒂尔布 (Constantine Stilbes) 于 1204 年君士坦丁堡陷落后撰写的《反对拉丁人的回忆录》中，提到的动物就更多了：
他们食用因窒息而死的动物肉类、死掉的动物（意外染病）或被野兽杀死的动物肉类，以及带血的肉和不洁的动物：熊、豺、乌龟、豪猪、海狸、乌鸦、渡鸦、海鸥、海豚、老鼠和更脏更恶心的动物。
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).
安提阿牧首彼得是迈克尔·塞拉里乌斯的同代人，他在给迈克尔·塞拉里乌斯的信中解释说，他对拉丁人吃不洁食物的指责必须有所收敛，因为有些拜占庭人自己也吃不洁食物。他特别提到了比提尼亚人（Bithynians）、色雷斯人（Thracians）和吕底亚人（Lydians），他们吃喜鹊、乌鸦、鸽子和刺猬，这些动物不在允许食用的肉类名单上（安条克的彼得，给迈克尔·塞拉里乌斯的信，第 194 页）。希腊教皇撒迦利亚（Zacharias）写给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)可以证实这一证词。这封可以追溯到 751 年的信件引起了许多学者的兴趣，因为信中列出了一份禁止食用的动物清单，其中大部分是西方常见的动物，如野兔。在这封信中，教皇要求博尼法斯禁止食用海狸、野兔和野马，以及一些鸟类，如松鸦、乌鸦和鹳。其中一些动物的所谓性行为以及它们对其他动物的不加选择的消费解释了它们被拒绝作为食物的原因（Physiologos）。拜占庭人担心吃了这些动物会变得和它们一样（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.
拜占庭教会法中还有两种禁止食用的肉类：狗肉和秃鹫肉。康斯坦丁·哈梅诺普洛斯 (Constantine Harmenopoulos) 引用了凯撒利亚的巴西尔关于这两种禁肉的第 86 条教规(Constantine Harmenopoulos, Epitome of the Holy Canons, p. 127)，或者说是对其进行了总结：
就像我们对待蔬菜一样，我们对待肉类也应如此，要区分有害和有益。就像一个理智的人不吃毒参或莨菪（天仙子）一样，除非万不得已，他也不会碰秃鹫肉或狗肉。
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.
狗和秃鹫都是食腐动物，这可能解释了为什么吃它们的肉会引起人们的反感（Simoons ，1994，p.233）。因此，人们认为狗和秃鹫对人类健康有害，并将其排除在可食用食物之外，但很明显，巴兹尔在饥荒的情况下做了例外，并且认为如果饥饿者吃了违禁食品，则没有必要进行忏悔，这可以说是一种双关语。有些食物是不洁净的，应该避免食用，但如果无法避免，食用这些食物也不会产生任何精神后果。
结语
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).
从这些例子中我们可以看出，拜占庭文献在描述野蛮人时借鉴了民族志文学传统，这可以从对不同群体的类似描述中看出。此外，还存在一种更具创新性的文学体裁，这种体裁将食物作为贬低他人的一种手段，编造了一长串拜占庭人不吃的食物清单。这些文字间接反映了拜占庭的饮食文化，揭示了拜占庭人似乎厌恶和不能吃的食物。虽然它们并没有告诉我们佩切涅格人或拉丁人真正吃什么，但它们确实让我们更好地了解了中世纪拜占庭人的饮食文化（Caseau，2015 年）。
参考书目：
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 Âge”, 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. Mureşan, 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 Dölger 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 Görresgesellschaft)”, 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 Âge”, 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 Âge, 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.Božilov, 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 goût 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 Österreichischen 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
索邦大学（巴黎索邦大学）拜占庭历史教授，LABEX RESMED（地中海世界的宗教与社会）研究组主任。研究兴趣主要集中在古代晚期和拜占庭的基督教。其著作涉及香气的历史，感官的文化历史，特别是嗅觉、味觉和触觉，基督教礼仪的历史，以及关于圣餐仪式，宗教暴力和雕像的破坏，以及童年和家庭网络的历史。Beatrice Caseau最近的书是关于拜占庭饮食文化（2015）。她还以编辑或作者的身份，为论文集的书籍做出了贡献。她编写了其中两本，一本是关于古代和中世纪宗教文化中的感官，另一本是关于古代和中世纪的食物禁忌。
原文网址：https://books.openedition.org/momeditions/10194#tocfrom1n1
学者网址：https://sorbonne-fr.academia.edu/BeatriceCaseau
