|
Christos Malatras
Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey;
chrkak@hotmail.com
The Earthly Order: Social Stratification in Late Byzantium
The paper intends to analyse the basic principles that governed the social relations and through
which Byzantine society was constructed and perceived by the Byzantine themselves. It will, moreover,
attempt to identify the basic traits of the Late Byzantine social structure. Special emphasis will be
placed on gestures and on verbal or corporeal performance as indicators of social status.
Deference was expected by the social superiors and failure to exhibit it on behalf of the social
inferiors was remarked and often had repercussions. This deference was exhibited verbally through
flattery, while corporeally were being used a number of gestures, such as proskynesis or bowing.
The degree of social gap was denoted with analogous gestures. A simple man, for example, would
need to perform proskynesis in order to show his deference to a higher aristocrat, whereas a lesser
aristocrat would only need to bow to the latter. On the other side of the social ladder, the upper
strata of society were expected to share part of their (financial/political) surplus with the lesser
strata under the concept of philanthropy.
As has been already remarked in the past, Byzantine society lacked clearly defined social
groups, especially regarding the upper stratum, as someone would normally expect. But this lack
did not prevent Byzantine society from becoming a highly hierarchical one. Hierarchy governed not
only the domain of court ceremony, but regulated interpersonal relations as well.
On the other side, this hierarchy was individualistic, meaning that it did not rank groups of
relatively equals, but rather unequal individuals. This created in fact an obstacle to the development
of groups of people sharing a relatively equal social position. Another factor contributing to the
under-development of group consciousness was the fragmentation of the upper and middle classes
into factions. Byzantine society was a typical society where patron-client relations proliferated
and the establishment and maintenance of a social network was necessary not only for the higher
aristocrats, the politicians, but also for other social groups such as the literati or the churchmen.
Already, in the mid-thirteenth century Theodoros II Laskaris in his writings saw Byzantine society
divided into two, the masters and their friends, the latter understood as in fact the servants, but
in a relationship governed by the Aristotelian principle of friendship. An aristocratic oikos was
usually surrounded by a fairly large network of relatives, (political or social) friends, house servants,
employees and other dependents Thus, there was little room left to social equals to achieve collective
action based on common interests.
During the late Byzantine period, there was an increasing effort to define the borders of the
socially upper stratum under certain principles. Poverty, for example, was evolved into a concept
for reproach, regardless of the validity of the claim. The exhibition of wealth, on the other side,
and of enrichment was usually a matter of praise; and although older social standards might have
considered certain ways of enrichment (such as the trade of taxes) as pejorative, the reality showed
604
that these did not constitute signs of social position, since people of higher rank continuously
conducted them throughout this period. Family lineage and birth, an important factor since the
eleventh century, remained at force and were in fact strengthened. At the same time there was
an effort to view the social inferiors as imprudent and uneducated, members of the “mob”. Like
in the previous centuries social position and social ascent was also realised through state service
and imperial favour. Both were usually translated to additional wealth, privileged marriages and
social esteem. In fact, state service and imperial favour remained in this period perhaps the most
important factor in determining the social position.
There was a fair degree of openness of the society which allowed social ascent. This social
ascent, however, was never that sudden neither too high. It might for example mean that a family
of lesser aristocracy managed to ascent into the higher aristocracy, or the upper middle class into
the lesser aristocracy. This openness produced a certain degree of renewal to the higher aristocracy,
the elite of the empire. Eventually, though, it meant little for the social profile and attitude of that
person, since he would generally imitate the way of life of his new position in the social system.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
