1. Such works range from the most general and popularising of books such as Arnott, P., The Byzantines and Their World (New York 1973)Google Scholar to more scholarly products aimed at both specialists and a lay readership, works which examine the nature of Byzantine culture and civilisation from a more critical position, and which are in most respects hardly comparable with the popularising works referred to. Three recent examples worth mentioning here are: Beck, H.-G., Das byzantinische Jahrtausend (München 1978)Google Scholar; Mango, C., Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (London 1980)Google Scholar; and Každan, A., Constable, G., People and Power in Byzantium: an Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies (Washington D.C. 1982)Google Scholar. For a more general but still quite useful synthesis, see also Litavrin, G.G., Kak žili Vizantiicii (Moscow 1974)Google Scholar. The most extensive attempt to catalogue everyday culture and practice in the Byzantine world, still a useful starting-point from the point of view of material practice, is, of course, Ph. Koukoulès, I-VI (Athens 1948–56). While marked by an often uncritical mode of analysis and use of sources, it remains a valued guide. For the most recent comment on this theme, see Mango, C., ‘Daily Life in Byzantium’, JÖB 31/1 (1981) 337–353 Google Scholar (Akten des XVI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongresses 1/1), see 337–8; and idem, ‘Addendum to the Report on Everyday Life’, JÖB 32/1 (1982) 252–7 (Akten des XVI. Int. Byz.-Kongresses 2/1).

2. For some useful approaches to the study of the construction of social realities, roles, institutions, see Berger, P., Luckmann, Th., The Social Construction of Reality (Harmondsworth 1971)Google Scholar; and in particular, Goff, T.W., Marx and Mead: Contribution to a Sociology of Knowledge (London 1980) esp. 55ffGoogle Scholar; and Heritage, J., Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology (Cambridge 1984)Google Scholar; also Douglas, J., ed., Understanding Everyday Life (London 1971)Google Scholar; Harré, R., Secord, P.F., The Explanation of Social Behaviour (Oxford 1972)Google Scholar; and see my comments in ‘Ideology and Social Change in the Seventh Century. Military Discontent as a Barometer’, Klio 68 (1986) 139–190 and literature. Modern work in this field is enormous and ramified, involving the whole spectrum of sociology and social psychology. The discussions and literature given in the works cited above will give some idea of the complexity of the field, the diversity of approaches, and the nature of the problems, both theoretical and methodological, which have still to be tackled. For a recent survey, see Gergen, K.J., ‘Social Constructionist Inquiry’, in The Social Construction of the Person, eds. Gergen, K.J., Davis, K.E. (New York 1985) 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Geertz, C., The Interpretation of Cultures (London 1975) 5ff.Google Scholar

4. By this expression is meant the totality of interrelated social practices which permit and promote the continuation of daily life and the complex structures of the social formation.

5. For some discussions of traditional empiricist approaches and their limitations, see Stedman-Jones, G., ‘History: the Poverty of Empiricism’, in Blackburn, R., ed., Ideology in Social Science: Readings in Critical Social Theory (London 1972) 96–115 Google Scholar; McLennan, G., Marxism and the Methodologies of History (London 1981) esp. 95ffGoogle Scholar. For a recent survey, see Haldon, J.F., ‘“Jargon” vs. “the Facts”? Byzantine History-Writing and Contemporary Debates’, BMGS 9 (1984–5) 95–132 Google Scholar. The most recent attempt to elaborate what constituted Byzantine values and the ‘typical’ Byzantine — homo Byzantinus — while presenting a series of stimulating suggestions for different approaches to Byzantine social reality, nevertheless tends to fall back upon such implicit and intuitive values in order to situate its object of study. See Každan and Constable, People and Power (cited n.l above). A better general starting-point has been outlined by Winkelmann, F., ‘Überlegungen zu Problemen des frühbyzantinischen Menschenbildes’, Klio 65 (1983) 441–458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who sets out clearly the problems facing the historian in coming to grips with Byzantine representations of Humankind in society and in relation to the realm of the spiritual and the divine; and in particular the difficulties facing the researcher in establishing an adequate framework for the assessment and contextualisation of Byzantine literary sources which deal with this subject from a Byzantine perspecive deliberately and self-consciously. Note the opening discussion, which provides a good survey of much recent work in this field; and the final remarks, 457–8; Winkelmann’s approach is, of course, very different from that of Každan and Constable, although the essential problematic is the same: the ‘anthropology’, in its classical theological/philosophical application (as opposed to its current social-scientific application) of early medieval Christian cultures, whether viewed from within or without. See the useful opening remarks of F.R. Gahbauer, Das anthropologische Modell. Ein Beitrag zur Christologie der frühen Kirche bis Chalkedon (Das östliche Christentum, neue Folge, Bd. 35. Würzburg 1984). Finally, and from a different standpoint again, see the synthesis, with accompanying literature, of Matschke, K.P., ‘Sozialschichten und Geisteshaltungen’, JÖB 31/1 (1981) 189–212 Google Scholar (Akten des XVI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongresses 1/1), where the current state of the debate, particularly with regard to some of the terminology and the methodological approaches, is sketched out.

6. See Sperber, Dan, Rethinking Symbolism (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 11. Cambridge 1975) xiii Google Scholar and passim; and idem, ‘Paradoxes of Seniority among the Dorze’, in: H.G. Marcus, ed., Proceedings of the First United States Conference on Ethiopian Studies (East Lansing 1973). A useful reminder of the care that must be taken in applying ‘knowledge’ of contemporary cultures to their pasts is represented by, among others, Goody, J., The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and E. Patlagean, ‘L’enfant et son avenir dans la famille byzantine (IV^e-XII^e siècles)’, Annales de démographie historique (1973) 85–93 (repr. in: eadem, Structure sociale, famille, chrétienté à Byzance, IV^e-XI^e siècle (London, Variorum 1981) no.X); and eadem, ‘Christianisation et parentés rituelles: le domaine de Byzance’, Annates E.S.C. (1978) 625–636 (repr. in: Structure sociale, famille, chrétienté, no. XII), where relationships among kin, assumptions about marriage, and the role of both Christian belief and the Church are presented in terms which cannot be ‘read off from a common-sense understanding of, for example, modern Orthodoxy or Greek village life (neither of which is anyway entirely transparent and subject to such interpretation).

7. Most anthropological studies will devote some space to discussions of the ways in which the cultures they examine deal with these oppositions. See, for example, the classic study of Campbell, J.K., Honour, Family and Patronage (Oxford 1964).Google Scholar

8. The problems connected with this first aspect have been summarised by Winkelmann, art. cit. (note 5 above). The point has been illustrated nicely, although in a different context, in the useful article of Magdalino, Paul, ‘Byzantine Snobbery’, in The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries. Papers of the 16th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Edinburgh 1982 (BAR International Series 221, Oxford 1984) 58–78.Google Scholar

9. See, for example, Labov, W., Waletzky, J., ‘Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experience’, in Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed. Holm, J. (Seattle 1967) 12–44 Google Scholar; Labov, W., ‘The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax’, in idem, Language in the Inner City (Philadelphia 1972)Google Scholar; and Garfinkel, H., Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1967) 1–103, 262–283 Google Scholar; and see Heritage, op. cit. (note 2 above); Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction of Reality (cited note 2 above) 113ff; Sperber, Rethinking Symbolism (cited note 6 above) 85ff. Note that ‘narrative’ as a technical term with specific literary implications — as employed in current debates on the structure of story and emplotment in both literature and historiography — is not meant here. See for the latter the comments of M. Alexiou, ‘Literary Subversion and the Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: a Stylistic Analysis of the Timarion (ch. 6–10)’, BMGS 8 (1982–3) 29–45, at 32ff; and the essays of White, Hayden, Derrida, and Ricoeur, , in On Narrative, ed. Mitchell, W.J.T. (Chicago/London 1981)Google Scholar

10. Some approaches to the concepts ‘ideology’, ‘symbolism’ and ‘symbolic universe’ are set out in Haldon, Ideology and Social Change (cited note 2 above) — see notes 15,16,24.

11. See Haldon, Ideology and Social Change, where 1 have attempted to show how this framework can help in understanding a particular historical conjuncture: in this case, the developments of the second half of the seventh century.

12. See Kekaumenos (Cecaumeni Strategicon et incerti scriptoris De Officiis Regiis libellus, edd. B, Wassiliewsky, V. Jernstedt (St. Petersburg 1896/Amsterdem 1965) 38^9sq., 42^1sq.,10sq., 51^8–15, 62^9–11 etc. It is perhaps worth pointing out here that to speak of ‘Byzantines’ is necessarily to generalise on a grand scale. Of course, there existed substantial differences over time and between different areas of the empire in respect of many of the ‘taken-for-granteds’ of daily life. The term ‘Byzantines’ is used advisedly and with these reservations in mind, but serves the purpose of the present discussion. For useful comments, see P. Magdaline, ‘The Literary Perception of Everyday Life in Byzantium: Some General Considerations and the Case of John Apokaukos’, BS (forthcoming). I am most grateful to the author for permitting me to read this valuable discussion in advance of publication.

13. See Miracula S. Artemii (in A. Papadoppulos-Kerameus, Varia Graeca Sacra (St. Petersburg 1909) 1–75) 18^8–15, 14^21sq., 9^6–14; and, for blasphemy, Poèmes pro-dromiques en grec vulgaire, edd. D.-C. Hesseling, H. Pernot (Amsterdam 1910/Wiesbaden 1968) iv, 145–148. According to Akropolites, the writer of the Timarion was guilty of precisely the same order of impiety and lack of respect for the established values of a Christian society (quite apart from his lack of metropolitan sophistication!): cf. M. Treu, in BZ 1 (1892) 361–5; and the Eng. translation by Baldwin, B., Timarion (Detroit 1984) 24–26 Google Scholar. Akropolites may well have missed (or refused to see) the point of the Timarion, but his reaction to this threat to his values is not surprising. For an analysis of the Timarion, see Alexiou, art.cit. (note 9 above).

14. Sigalas, A., EEBS 1 (1924) 295–339, see 312–3.Google Scholar

15. Although there were occasions when criticism could be levelled at such persons, as P. Magdalino, ‘The Byzantine Holy Man in the Twelfth Century’, in The Byzantine Saint. Papers of the 14th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham 1980 (= Studies suppl. to Sobornost 5 [1981]) 51–66, has demonstrated.

16. Poèms prodromiques (cited n.13 above) iii, 33–5

17. Iganatius Diaconus, Epistolai (ed. Gedeon, M., in i, 1 (Constantinople 1903) 1–64 Google Scholar (under the title Ep. vii, viii. For these letters see most recently Mango, C., ‘Observations on the Correspondence of Ignatius, Metropolitan of Nicaea (First Half of the Ninth Century)’, in Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Unter- suchungen: Texte und Untersuchungen 125 (Berlin 1981) 403–410 Google Scholar. For Nikolaos’ remarks, see Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters, edd. R.J.H. Jenkins, L.G. Westerink (CFHB vi = D.O. Texts ii, Washington D.C. 1973) nos. 150,164; and cf. nos. 73, 88 and 91 with those of Jenatios.

18. Kekaumenos, 47^6sq., 51^3–7, 52²⁵, 53^32sq., 62^7–8.

19. E.g. ibid., 51^8–15 and 42³⁰-43^12; cf. 62^9–11.

20. ibid., 2^5sq., 5²⁹-6³.

21. E.g. ibid., 39^9sq., 40^3–31, 44^19sq., 80^5–6.

22. Poèmes prodromiques, i, 1–11; ii, 6sq; iv, proem and esp. lss-ccc; 149sq., 160–164, 275sq. Also H.-G. Beck, ‘Konstantinopel. Zur Sozialgeschichte einer frühmit-telalterlichen Hauptstadt’, BZ 58 (1965) 11–45, see 36ff., 40 and n.80, 44 and n.88, 45; and idem, Senat und Volk von Konstantinopel, in Sitzungsberichte der Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Klasse (Miinchen 1966) 26–28.

23. On the nature of these poems and their historical context, see M. Alexiou, ‘The Poverty of Écriture and the Craft of Writing: towards a Reappraisal of the Prodromic Poems’, in this volume; and P. Magdalino, Byzantine Snobbery (cited note 8 above) 68.

24. H.-G. Beck, Die Byzantiner und ihr Jenseits, in Sitzungsberichte d. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Klasse (München 1979) Heft 6.

25. See Beck’s remarks, for example, in Das byzantinische Jahrtausend (cited note 1 above) 84–5. As we have seen, even in Constantinople it was represented through the medium of personal relationships, not as a relationship between groups or individuals and institutions.

26. A position exemplified in the debate in the late 640s and 650s over Monotheletism and the arguments of both the imperial party, and of Maximos and Martin and their followers. Compare the Typos issued in 648 (Mansi x, 1029–1032, see 1029D-E) with the position of Maximos expressed in the Gesta in primo eius exsilio (MPG 90, 136–172) esp. 164B-165A; and cf. Maximi confessoris, epistula, x (MPG 91, 449–453) esp. 452D etc.

27. See Needham, R., Belief, Language and Experience (Oxford 1972)Google Scholar

28. This argument has been elaborated by Sperber, Rethinking Symbolism (cited note 6 above) esp. 17ff., 85–113.

29. See Sperber, Rethinking Symbolism, 3f. No doubt the knowledge among Byzantines (still current in parts of the East Mediterranean area today) that a hare crossing one’s path will bring bad luck (see Koukoulès, 1.2 (cited note 1 above) 216); that Cilicians are particularly hot-tempered (see Miracula S. Artemii, 37^16--17); or even that Vlachs and Armenians are faithless and lazy (see ekaumenos, 74^4sq and Nicephori De Velitatione Bellica (in Leonis Diaconi Caloensis Historiae libri decern et liber De Velitatione Bellica Nicephori August!, ed. C.B. Hase (CSHB, Paris 1819/Bonn 1828) 179–258) 188^13–14, 188²²-189¹ and Cassia (excerpted in C.A. Trypanis, Medieval and Modern Greek Poetry (Oxford 1951)43) no. 35) is to be understood in the same context. See Koukoulès, op. cit., for a catalogue of other superstitions. On Cassia, see Rochow, I., Studien zu der Person, der Werken unddem Nachleben der Dichterin Kassia (Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten 38. Berlin 1967).Google Scholar

30. See Beck, Die Byzantiner und ihr Jenseits (cited note 20 above); and in particular, idem, ‘Der Glaube der Byzantiner’, in: Das byzantinische Jahrtausend, 257–289, for a much more detailed survey of ‘beliefs’ in the context of the everyday. Note also the contributions of Beck and Averil Cameron at the XVII Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies at Birmingham (1983), summarised in the Bulletin of British Byzantine Studies 10 (March 1984) 20,24, which emphasise similar points within the context of slightly different arguments.

31. It hardly needs to be said that the “common-sense” notion is not always the same as the legal definition or indeed the assumptions underlying the legal definition of the ‘anti-social’, as determined in both legal theory and practice. The law can be invoked usually only where the anti-social can be represented in terms of specifically legal definitions of wrong-doing (whether in secular or canon law). This area deserves a more detailed discussion than can be afforded it here. See for some general comments Simon, D., Rechtsfindung am byzantinischen Reichsgericht (Frankfurt am Main 1973).Google Scholar