Favorite Reads of 2025

Although we are rather late to the game, we wanted to briefly write about our favorite books of 2025. Although we did not read as much fiction as we would've liked, we did rekindle our love of of mysteries. We also read some intriguing histories about different parts of the world. Hopefully in 2026 we will catch up on science fiction novels and other genres.

1. The Decagon House by Yukito Ayatsuji. As part of our renewed interest in whodunits and mystery novels, The Decagon House was the perfect combination of an ingenious (and macabre!) whodunit involving a mystery club at a Japanese university. The book reads like an homage to all the classic British and American detective fiction of yesteryears while still being fresh.

2. The Tokyo Zodiac Murders by Soji Shimada was another favorite read of 2025. This mystery contains a great combination of occult themes involving astrology and alchemy while our sleuth, an astrologist, solves a crime committed several years ago. We were less fond of the other work of Soji Shimada translated recently, but this one is a classic.

3. Basil II and the Governance of Empire by Catherine Holmes was one of our favorite historical studies of 2025. Since we are always interested in that apogee that precedes the inevitable decline or fall, Basil II's reign in Byzantium was of great importance for the medieval Roman Empire. However, our sources for this seminal reign are disappointingly few compared to other periods in the annals of the Byzantium. Holmes does a great job analyzing Basil II's reign nonetheless.

4. Anacaona’s Gift: Cotton and the woven arts of the 11th to 17th century Caribbean by Joanna Ostapkowicz was another great read of the year. We have been interested in this topic for a few years now, ever since reading a study by Sued-Badillo on indigenous women in the Antilles that referenced a study by a Puerto Rican graduate student on textiles. Unfortunately, it looks like that earlier study was never published or completed, so Ostapkowicz's work is filling a large gap in the study of Taino material culture. 

5. Angkor and the Khmer Civilization by Michael Coe. The most recent edition of this lovely book is richly illustrated and provides an excellent overview to the history of Angkorian Cambodia. This part of Southeast Asia has quickly become one of the most interesting to us.

6. Les racines du sous-développement en Haïti by Benoit Joachim is one of those classic texts in the study of Haiti we skimmed in the past, but only read in toto in 2025. It raises a number of interesting questions whilst seeking to elucidate the roots of Haiti's underdevelopment. Sadly, some of the questions raised by the author have not been pursued or explored further. But the growth in the interest of the imposed debt and Haiti's ongoing current crises have made Joachim's study very relevant.

Ethnography After Antiquity

In our quest to read all of the books of Anthony Kaldellis, we tackled Ethnography After Antiquity: Foreign Lands and Peoples in Byzantine Literature. A detailed analysis of how ethnography disappeared or changed after Late Antiquity and then experienced a return of sorts in the 14th and 15th centuries, Kaldellis raises a number of questions and critiques of problematic notions like the "Byzantine Commonwealth" or attempts by some scholars to accuse Byzantine authors of not facing geopolitical reality due to their classicizing language or ethnonyms. For our purposes, it helps to understand why Byzantine sources are silent about Christian Nubia and Ethiopia, since not only was there a vast distance between them but a decline of ethnographic digressions in Byzantine literate precluded more explicit ethnographic accounts. Even fellow Christians among Slavic peoples or Christians in former Roman territory in the Near East were not usually written about ethnographically after Late Antiquity, making it unlikely that we will find anything like digressions by Procopius on Nubia or Aksum in authors like Psellos or Skylitzes. Instead, what happened was changes in the nature of historical writing and references to the barbarian/non-Christian Other for imperial panegyric writings, imperial biographies, or, in the cases of military manuals, occasional references to others like the "Persians." The Other was often used by Byzantine authors to help define what Roman identity meant, which was primarily Roman rather than a religious one. This meant that Christian solidarity with Latins, Slavs who converted to Christian, or even the Bulgarians after their conversion was always outweighed by political concerns by the Byzantines. The loss of much of the empire's territory due to the Arab conquests led to another problem, since now Byzantine author truly wrote an ethnographic account of Islam until the 15th century. Coming to terms with Islam and the subsequent loss of territory raised a number of critical issues and although Byzantine intellectuals certainly knew much more about the Arabs and Muslim territories, coming to analyze it objectively remained difficult. By the last century and a half of its existence, ethnographic writings return and Byzantine authors have reconsidered the status of the Western "barbarians" due to their rising political, economic and intellectual status. This fascinating period, where some authors revive a Herodotean and even Hellenic identity, is the most fascinating one. 

The Byzantine Republic

Anthony Kaldellis's The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome is a provocative yet perhaps inaccessible text. To properly understand what the author was doing with this one requires a certain degree of familiarity and comprehension of the historiography on Byzantium's political order and origins. Alas, as novices to the field, some of the references here and critiques of ideas or old narratives championed by past generations of historians and scholars sometimes flew over our heads. Nonetheless, we were already indoctrinated by some of these old, inaccurate characterizations of Byzantium's republican monarchy, sometimes seeing it in comparisons made with medieval Ethiopia. And the legacy of the old stereotypes and "established" facts about Byzantium as a case of "oriental despotism" or theocracy were ingrained in our high school and university history courses. 

Rescuing the history of Byzantium from these aforementioned problematic, outdated, or outright biased perspectives is a must. Some of them were built on the flimsiest foundation by older generations of scholars who had been in taught to view Byzantium as less of a continuation of the Roman tradition but as something of an aberration or deviation. Instead, Kaldellis proposes that we accept the Roman self-identification of the Byzantines, including the way they conceived of and organized the state on a republican model. By republic, or res publica and politeia, Kaldellis means the emperor always had to rule with the consent of the governed in such a manner that promoted the common good of society. While the emperor had replaced the Republic in Antiquity, this ideal of a "republic" based on rulers who must abide by this ideal or risk losing the throne, remained relevant for Byzantium for most of its history (though Kaldellis focuses on events before 1204). Thus, instead of despotic emperors who ruled through divine will, the actual reality was one in which the "people" regularly played a role in legitimizing or toppling various emperors. 

The various civil wars, however, never sought to transform the polity, merely to pass imperial authority into new hands. Society, representing various classes, played a role in this process through popular acclamations, riots, supporting rebels, voicing opposition to specific emperors or officials, songs and chants, or actively promoting others to the throne. Indeed, the most stark example of this can be seen in the sorry fate of Michael V, who triggered the populace of the City's fury after turning on Zoe. However, numerous similar episodes can be found throughout the history of Byzantium from the 5th century to 12th, indicating a long-lasting tradition of popular consent as a requirement for the throne. Yes, the emperors did develop an imperial ideology reflected in court literature and claims of God's favor, but any emperor who did not cultivate his popularity with his subjects, pursue the common good, and win their consent, was not likely to last very long. This model has the benefit of elucidating the frequent coups and revolts throughout Byzantium's history while also demonstrating how the Empire was indeed Roman in its foundation. The several "states of exception" in Byzantine history now make a little more sense, since we can see how the politeia could engage in illegal or extralegal measures to establish or confirm an emperor they saw as promoting the interests of the people.

But I wonder if someone who specializes in, say, the history of China, would reach somewhat similar conclusions about a civilization with very distinct political traditions. The emperor had to rule on behalf of his subjects and win their consent or face rebellion, coups, riots, or assassination. And the theocratic elements of imperial courts were not necessarily reflective of the political reality. After all, so many kingdoms, empires or rulers sought to legitimize or sanction their rule with religion and ritual yet faced resistance, revolts, coups, or dynastic changes. Nevertheless, a distinctively Roman trait is discernable in the pattern of Byzantium, suggesting that it was indeed a republican monarchy. The lens of continuity helps us better contextualize the history of the Byzantines, who are more appropriately viewed through the Roman political tradition rather than misleading Christian theocracy or "oriental despotisms" of the past. 

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium

Reading Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium took quite some time. Unlike Norwich's series, this vast work is a single volume. Unlike Norwich's work, however, it was written by a specialist whose work work benefits from the more recent scholarship on the history of Byzantium, Europe and the Mediterranean. Kaldellis's style is also very accessible and at times, rather hilarious. The sense of humor, sarcasm, and occasional references to contemporary events or phrases definitely made it easier to finish the massive tome. Nonetheless, the last few hundred pages were painful reading. The sad decline of Byzantium from the pillaging of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade to the final fall of the capital in 1453 was one almost continual tale of territorial loss, destructive civil wars, dangerous alliances with Latins or Turks, and final reduction to impotence. 

While Byzantium undoubtedly made contributions to the world for its preservation of ancient texts, art and architecture, one of the true wonders of this state that lasted over 1000 years is its longevity. At multiple other times in its long history of over 1000 years, the Eastern Roman Empire suffered various setbacks, loss of territory, existential threats, and frequent rebellions, coups, and, to our modern eyes, pointless debates over Church doctrine. Yet, despite this, the empire endured and at various times, remained a major power in the Mediterranean. Indeed, even under the Komnenos, the Empire experienced a comeback of sorts that may have sown the seeds for its future destruction. Still, we sometimes wonder if the Empire was bound to experience a huge transformation or existential threat by the end of the "Middle Ages" due to the rise of peer polities and the growth of western Europe's power. 

But the Roman Empire's existence for so long shows us how a state with Roman institutions (which changed, sure, but still bearing a great degree of continuity with the ancient state) existed to the cusp of a new world. That remarkable endurance and strength of institutions does not appear to have ever seriously wavered until the changes in imperial rule ushered by the Komnenos and the later Palaiologos who ruled through their families, engaged in frequent conflicts over the throne within their extended family networks, and relied on paying their relations and officials with pronoia on land that was increasingly scarce as the "Byzantines" continued to lose territory. As so eloquently elucidated in Kaldellis's work, those without elite family connections to the ruling dynasty had fewer avenues to advance and the state lost land and the resources to support reconquest of former territories. The final 2 centuries of Byzantium are especially tragic, despite the cultural and literary accomplishments by some. 

Despite its length, anyone interested in Byzantium should read this. Kaldellis's perspective is intriguing, fresh, and deviates from past preoccupations or problematic frameworks. For instance, the greatness of Justinian is presented here in a more mixed manner, as the author points frequently to the problems of overextension and Justinian's brutality. The Crusades are presented unquestionably as colonial ventures, with the Latins doing to the Romans what they would go on to perfect in the Americas a few centuries later. The issue of iconoclasm is portrayed as something often exaggerated or overblown, at least based on the sources that have survived. And throughout it all, there's a deep sense of continuity for the 1000+ years of Byzantium's existence. The foundations of a state based on law, government responsibility its subjects, Christianity (not that the Church was always unified) and the role of the people (at least in Constantinople) in determining legitimacy were powerful factors that favored this type of longevity.

Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood

Just read Anthony Kaldellis's Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood. It's about the rise and fall of the renewed Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty expansionist phase and the rapid near collapse in the late 11th century. He really pushes back against the idea that Constantine Monomachos was an incompetent ruler. He also reemphasizes the weakness of the "feudalization" theory for understanding how the Empire declined. We also lack evidence of any extensive "fiscalization" of thematic lands that would have made the empire more dependent on professional soldiers instead of thematic ones, although the professional soldiers would have been more mobile and effective than the thematic soldiery. He also argues that the First Crusade, until the Latins took Antioch, was largely following the imperial agenda of Alexios Komnenos who supplied them and gave them direction after forcing/encouraging them to promise to return old Byzantine territories to  the Empire. 

While we are not entirely sure about that part of the book, the main argument he's making is that what caused the rapid decline of the empire (which had expanded in the east through the reconquest of parts of southeastern Anatolia, Antioch, northern Mesopotamia, Crete, Armenia, parts of the Caucasus, and Bulgaria and parts of the Balkans in the 900s and early 1000s), was the return to multipolarity at a bad time (war on three fronts with Seljuk Turks, Pechenegs, and Normans). The Empire had been so centralized by Basil II during his long reign and then returned to business as usual as the Macedonian dynasty entered several problematic successions as Basil II never had children and his brother only had 2 daughters. One daughter married different men and arrangements were made to preserve the line but Byzantium returned to business as usual (i.e., lack of established principle of succession and return to competition whenever the imperial center was or looked weak) led to succession conflicts and contested imperial rule.

Kaldellis is a funny academic. In the Introduction, he claims to harbor no affection for the Byzantine imperial project, but he repeatedly laments the treacherous Normans and others who seized and attacked Byzantium. We are a little disappointed he largely omitted the Norman-Byzantine wars of the 1080s to skip ahead to the First Crusade, but I guess his account really pushes back against Michael Psellos's Chronographia and Skylitzes to some extent. The Byzantine state was devaluing currency in the 1000s and appears to have become excessive with the giving of titles and gifts at each new succession to buy loyalty (which became necessary with emperors who had less legitimacy felt insecure), which sort ofsupports what Psellos wrote in the 11th century about how the emperors after Basil II began wasting a lot of funds of the imperial treasury. But since we lack enough hard data or facts about the nature of the economy, Kaldellis instead doesn't see any defunding of the military until after Constantine Monomachos, who is presented as one of the last decent emperors before Manzikert.

The situation in the 1070s-1080s was a disaster (one of the Normans hired by the Byzantines also made things worse by plundering and demanding protection money and then rebelling against the Byzantines while the Seljuks were raiding and seizing more lands). But when the Komnenos take back large sections of Asia Minor, was there a large enough Christian population resettling in those areas? I assume the Armenians in Cilicia and whatnot remained to a large extent and the area that later became Trebizond south of the Black Sea held out against the Ottomans until the 1400s but in terms of demographics, it does appear that so much of Asia Minor was permanently lost. Perhaps, with better luck, the Byzantines may have been able to hold Asia Minor if they did not have to address threats and attacks from other fronts. 

Kekaumenos's Consilia et Narrationes

Kekaumenos's Consilia et Narrationes is sadly missing some sections, but it remains a fascinating source. Examples of admonitory literature that shed light on social relations and politics in 11th century Byzantium are another opportunity to understand this period besides chronicles, histories, coinage, or imperial administrative records. Indeed, Kekaumenos, whose musings, anecdotes, and advice reflect the literary tastes and social views of a lettered but non-intellectual Byzantine man, also corroborate some of Michael Psellos's observations on the emperors of the 11th century. Furthermore, Kekaumenos's constant references to the prevalence of buying offices, accepting bribes, the unreliability and danger of friends and supporters, and military strategy point to the troubles of the Empire in the period leading to Manizkert. If judges, commanders of themes, and frontier governors were truly as corrupt as Kekaumeno's work addressed to his children suggest, then the Empire was indeed heading for trouble in the final years of the Macedonian dynasty. One cannot help but think that the failure of Basil II to sire a male heir made this negative outcome more likely, although the problems with Byzantine expansion on the frontiers may have been unstable if conditions in the Balkans and Armenia are reliable indicators. Perhaps there was too rapid of an expansion under Basil II that subsequent emperors were unable to effectively administer. Then, with the threats of the Pechenegs, Vlachs, Normans, and later the Turks, the Empire began to lose some of the gains achieved under the Macedonian line. Of course, unlike Michael Psellos, who was closer to the heart of imperial government in Constantinople, Kekaumenos was mainly writing about events in the provinces and frontiers and did not locate the problems of the Empire with the emperors. While it is true that subjects will follow the patterns of the emperor or ruler's behavior, Kekaumenos supported a political theory espousing the emperor as a God on earth who must be supported and  defended by those who accept the hierarchy. Naturally, this was not always true due to the frequency of revolts, palace intrigues and coups, but Kekaumenos could not go there in a work like this. 

Chronicle of Theophanes

Harry Turtledove's partial translation of The Chronicle of Theophanes covers the important years 602-813. A pivotal two centuries which saw the rise of Islam and the loss of Byzantine or Roman rule in various important provinces like Egypt and parts of the Middle East, Theophanes's chronicle is one of our major sources. Beginning with the fall of Emperor Maurice and Byzantine wars with Sassanian Persia, the sources utilized for this chronicle partly elucidate why Byzantium struggled with the expansion of Islam. Meanwhile, in addition to wars in the Middle East and Mediterranean, Byzantium faced a threat in the Balkans from the Avars and later the Bulgars. This war on two fronts exposed the Empire to several threats that most of the emperors either lacked the ability or resources to address fully. The problem of iconoclasm in the 8th century added more problems since it created divisions in the Empire among the Christian population and the factions which supported iconoclasm or opposed it. Some emperors, if Theophanes is indeed reliable for the reigns of Leo and Constantine Copronymus, appear to have even taken advantage of iconoclasm to seize wealth and goods from monasteries and laypeople. 

Of course, one must use Theophanes carefully as a source. His repeated references to iconoclastic emperors as impious, evil, and a threat to the world illustrate how the chronicler's own biases may have led him to exaggerate. Nonetheless, given the intense internal divisions within the Empire and the ongoing threat from the Bulgars and Arabs, it is sometimes surprising that it survived. It probably helped that the caliphates appeared to lack the ability to conquer Anatolia and their sieges of Constantinople were thwarted. One's impression from reading Theophanes is that frequent border raids and violations of treaties or agreements were common, but neither side was truly able to achieve a substantial victory against the other. In addition, population movements and relocations must have helped sustain Byzantine rule in areas of conflict, such as the movement of Armenian and Syrian Christians into regions near the Bulgars and the movement of Slavs into Anatolia. Alliances with Western powers like the Franks and even the Khazars could also be of use for protecting Byzantine interests in Europe and the east. 

What stood out to us, however, is the possible reference to someone from East Africa or India who married the wife of a spatharios named Helias. Punished by Emperor Justinian Rhinotmetus, this woman was wed to an "Indian"  cook who, due to the occasional conflation of India and Ethiopia in Greek writings, may have been someone from Africa. Moreover, people from Africa, particularly Nubia and Ethiopia, would have been known to Late Antique Byzantium. Indeed, there were even pagans still living in Harran well into Islamic times, demonstrating the religious diversity of the Middle East long after the establishment of the early caliphates. But what, if any, were the possible links between Byzantium and Nubia or Ethiopia during this centuries? 

Kassia's Music

Although we don't usually listen to this type of music, our ongoing obsession with Byzantium has brought it to our attention and we find it enchanting and irresistibly beautiful.

Chronographia of Michael Psellos

Reading a certain science fiction novel partly inspired by the Byzantine Empire has motivated us to read more chronicles and histories by authors from that ancient civilization. This time, Michael Psellos, the pompous philosopher and intellectual, provided our reading material. Focusing on the reigns of 14 emperors of Byzantium during the 11th century, our arrogant intellectual provides interesting insights into the nature of Byzantine imperial politics during the pivotal century that witnessed the decline of the empire after its apogee under Basil II. According to Psellos, the successors to Basil II were, although not invariably, corrupting forces who squandered the riches of the imperial treasury through gifts, promotions and luxuries that were not put in good use to protect the Empire's borders and power. Though he occasionally found positive things to say about some emperors, such as Constantine IX, Michael (Zoe's boytoy), Isaac Comnenos, and even Michael VII, especially those who courted his favor or admired his philosophical and rhetorical accomplishment, the overall trend he portrays is one of decay. 

The failure of Basil II to sire a male heir and the problematic marriages and reign of Zoe and Theodora opened the door to more problems as the end of the Macedonian dynasty drew near. Instead of securing the eastern frontier from the Turks or protecting the west, emperors wasted time and resources on conflicts with their own generals, putting down rebellions, or promoting people to high positions who did not earn it on merit. Likewise, extravagant spending on churches, monasteries, lavish living, and the waste of the imperial treasury made the Empire weaker. The one emperor who seemed determine to eradicate the causes of the decadence of the Empire, Isaac Comnenos, was, according to Psellos, too eager and tried to cure or cauterize the Empire too quickly, sparking opposition and frustrating his aims. 

While one may certainly take issue with the way Psellos portrayed 11th century emperors and the role of his own bias as someone actively involved in the events he described, his history does suggest that the Macedonian dynasty's troubles with succession after Constantine VIII's daughters and corrupt habits did play a major role in weakening the Empire. Nonetheless, things were not quite as bad as they would later become after the loss of much of Anatolia. In fact, Byzantine power still made it a major power, particularly in relations with the Fatimids of Egypt and various Muslim and Christian powers. The Byzantines were able to defeat a Russian invasion in the Black Sea, too. Byzantine ships were also active in the Atlantic during the reign of Romanos III, if Psellos is reliable. Furthermore, the Empire was able to defeat a Bulgar rebellion while Empress Zoe was able to import spices from India and Egypt. Thus, despite the aforementioned problems faced by Byzantium, the Empire was still in a relatively strong position. Indeed, even Manzikert was not the doomsday it could have been, since the captured emperor was released by the Seljuq sultan. One just wishes the military, which arose to dominance under Isaac, had been able to consolidate the attempted reforms and fiscal changes ushered by Isaac to bolster the frontier defenses.

John Skylitzes

John Skylitzes was a Byzantine Greek historian. A member of the aristocracy, Skylitzes had the titles of kouropalates and droungarios tes viglas under Alexios Komnenos. Writing his Synopsis Historiarum as a continuation of Theophano’s Chronicle during the reign of Alexios Komnenos, Skylitzes includes Basil II’s campaign in Bulgaria and ends in the year 1057. Indeed, Skylitzes’ account of Basil’s victory at the 1014 Battle of Kleidion reworks the battle, claiming Basil blinded 15,000 Bulgarian, which had even been questioned by contemporary historians of the time. The aforementioned work was later recopied in 12th  century Sicily and accompanied by illustrations of various episodes from Byzantium’s history, thereafter called the Madrid Skylitzes. A sequel, called Skylitzes Continuatus, perhaps written by John Skylitzes, includes the years 1057-79 and is a revision of the Historia of Michael Attaleiates. Skylitzes’ intention was to write an objective history that would include more details left out by other historians, such as Psellos. In addition, Skylitzes also had training as a jurist and completed three surviving legal writings and known for drafting one treatise on marriage. Skylitzes was also known as John the Thrakesian and served as a Komnenian official in Alexios’ administration.

Bibliography

Holmes, Catherine. Basil II and the Governance of the Empire (976-1025). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Alexander Kazhdan, Anthony Cutler, "Skylitzes, John" in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Ed. Alexander P. Kazhdan. © 1991, 2005 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Stephanson, Peter. "The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer." Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 24 (2000): 102-132.

Byzantium: The Decline and Fall

The final volume of Norwich's history of Byzantium is a depressing read. After the brief brilliance of the Komnenian Restoration, the disastrous Fourth Crusade and continual imperial disintegration make for repeated disappointment as Anatolia and the Balkans were lost to Western Latins, Balkan powers, and the Turks. However, as Norwich demonstrates, the consequences of Manzikert did not have to lead to the Fourth Crusade. As usual, internal dissension, civil wars, squabbling over the throne, and conflicts with other Christian powers made it increasingly likely that a Turkish victory over Constantinople was inevitable. Along the long road to the 1453 fall,  the reader of this final volume is treated to the various blunders and brilliant tactics made during the Crusades, papal schisms, and shifting realities of the European and Mediterranean Middle Ages. We root for Byzantium, despite see the constant mistakes, errors, and misplaced pleas for help from the West. But, perhaps, the world had long passed the need and room for this Roman Empire. 

Byzantium: The Apogee

We finally finished the second volume of Norwich's Byzantium. As the title indicates, it covers the apogee of the Byzantine Empire, with occasional crises, coups, bad emperors, and the end of the conflict over icons. We see the Empire becoming more and more influential and important in the Balkans and parts of Syria and the East. But by the end of the volume, the Byzantine Empire is losing much of Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks while losing Apulia and Balkan states. If only Basil II had sired a male heir, or if only Romanus (or those who overthrew him after Manzikert) maintained the truce with the Seljuk sultan. If only Byzantium found a way to combine the best of the military aristocracy and civil administration to ensure stability, continuity, and protection or even expansion of imperial territory. Alas, the Empire continued to struggle with problems of succession and civil versus military elite while squandering the best accomplishments of the Macedonian dynasty. True, Norwich acknowledges intellectual, religious, cultural, and artistic achievements of this era between Empress Irene and Alexius Komnenos. But even at its apogee, it is not hard to see why any outstanding emperors were often undone by their successors, rivals, and perhaps over-reliance on foreign mercenaries and states to suppress revolts or coups. The perennial internal conflicts and weaknesses of Byzantium make it easy to understand why some of its most seminal conflicts or crises did not have to be so. Perhaps the Empire could have even lived on as a stronger power in Syria, Anatolia, Armenia, and the Balkans, with an emphasis on retaining Asia Minor and the Balkans.

Byzantium: The Early Centuries

Norwich's rich narrative history of the Byzantine Empire is known for its questionable accuracy. It is definitely outdated, too, in its rather politically incorrect and denigrating remarks on some of the so-called barbarian peoples, particularly the Huns, Turkic peoples, and nomadic Central Asians. He may, at times, be too willing to support Gibbon's contentions. Yet, in spite of its flaws, Norwich wrote an endlessly entertaining history of the pivotal first 5 centuries of the Empire, showing how the Empire derived many of its institutions and practices from the Roman foundation but developed into something new, distinct, and historically significant. While some of the ground covered in the text, especially the reign of Justinian, which has occupied the attention of this blog, was quite familiar to us, it was very enlightening to learn more about the specific reigns of the various predecessors and successors to Justinian. It is easier to see and why Arab Muslims were able to so quickly takeover large chunks of the Empire in light of the numerous internal conflicts and religious divisions. It is hard not to cheer for Byzantium, as Norwich does, as the reader finds oneself overly invested in the future of the Empire. The tragedy of Heraclius, for instance, or the frustrated ambitions of Justinian or Justinian II make for great history.

Leucippe and Clitophon

Leucippe and Clitophon seems to be unique among the extant ancient Greek "novels" for its use of a first-person narrator, who tells his tale to the initial narrator in the beginning of the text. In other respects, it is quite similar to the other Greek romances in that two young people fall in love at first sight but must endure a number of trials before consummating their relationship in proper marriage. The virtue of virginity for maidens and the intervention of the deities (especially Eros, Aphrodite, Artemis and Poseidon) or deus ex machina are, as in Heliodorus's novel, prolific. The author, Achilles Tatius of Alexandria, is believed to have composed the romance in the early 1st century of our era, thus predating Helidorus but drawing on similar precedents from earlier texts and Greek literature and mythology. In addition, Achilles Tatius is a master of vivid prose describing works of art, as well as the wondrous Nile of his Egyptian homeland. 

Though the kissing cousins are of Tyre and Byzantium, it is in Egypt where their most exotic and exciting escapades occur. Menelaus, the Egyptian native and proponent of pederasty (like Clinias, a cousin of Clitophon who loses his lover, Charicles), becomes a guide of sorts, a familiar Other who assists Clitophon, Leucippe, Clinias, and Satyrus for their survival in exotic Egypt. Achilles Tatius has them fend off dark-skinned bandits in the Nile Delta (not as black as Indians, but akin to "half-caste Ethiopians"), witness battles between the Egyptian army and said bandits, experience the lighthouse at Pharos near Alexandria, and hear descriptions of elephants while gazing upon the fauna of the Nile, particularly the crocodile and hippopotamus. In cosmopolitan Alexandria, Clitophon, believing Leucippe dead for the umpteenth time, agrees to marry Melite, a wealthy presumed widow of Ephesus, shifting the story's center away from Egypt for the final denouement and reunion of the the two lovers. 

But let us return to the Egyptian exoticism and African references in the tale. The Nile itself becomes a character, as its waters and the soil of the delta converge and separate, creating the marshes, streams, and lakes of the Delta region. In Tatius's novel, the legendary phoenix, which lives upriver in "Ethiopia," land associated with the Sun, comes to Egypt to die and thus reaffirms the cycle of life from the Nile's origins in the land of the Sun to Egypt. Egypt is a land of wonders (fauna, Alexandria), of horrors (a fake human sacrifice to appease the bandits is organized by Menelaus and Satyrus) and, I would argue, where the debased nature of Thersander of Ephesus is compared to the bestial bandits and conniving characters lusting for Leucippe (Chaereas, Charmides). The Egyptian setting occupies a central middle part of the narrative, after the elopement of Leucippe and Clitophon from Tyre and the subsequent shipwreck, thus, the exotic world(s) of the Nile presents the otherworldly ordeals of the two lovers must persevere against to achieve their union.