Byzantine Matters (Hardback) - Common

by Averil Cameron

Excellent Book

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Religion, Ancient History, Art, Greece

Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Dame Averil Millicent Cameron, Professor of Late Antique and Byzantine History at the University of Oxford.

Reviews

[Славея Котова · Rating 3 out of 5]

Хубаво заглавие и хубава тема. Има ли значение Византия и как то е отразено в модерната (или не чак толкова) историография? Авторката, изтъкнат византинист, счита че Византия остава неразбрана и до днес поради многото натрупани предразсъдъци и няколкото основни проблема стоящи пред византинистите:
- Предубежденията в Западна Европа (и Америка), където както авторката също споменава, Едуард Гибън е оставил своят дълбок отпечатък със своята идея за изостаналостта на Византия.
- Проблемът за дефинирането на Византия като национална (в най - условния смисъл на тази дума) държава, т.е каква е разликата между ромеи и елини и на кого в крайна сметка принадлежи тази империя (включва коментар към книгата на Антъни Калделис за гръцката идентичност и елинизмът във Византия).
- Къде започва Византия? Интересни коментари прави върху това как някои изследователи на Античността се обиждат, ако ги наричат византинисти, тъй като навлизат в периода след късната античност.
- В последната глава Камерън коментира невъзможността на историците да разберат догматиката на Православието и да представят "православната култура" в пълната й цялост. Честно казано, без да съм чела по темата обаче, се съмнявам, че гърците и руснаците не разбират Православието и нямат мнение по въпроса за неговото влияние и развитие в периода на византийската империя. (От друга страна обаче тя се съмнява в дистанцираността и непристрастността на историците изповядващи православната вяра.)

На няколко пъти Камерън изразява съжаление или просто споменава, че след създаването на националните държави на Балканите, именно Гърция, Сърбия и България, създават школи по византинистика, които днес или не съществуват (както в България) или не са на достатъчно високо ниво. Мен лично това винаги ще ме дразни и ядосва, понеже след Васил Гюзелев и Тъпкова-Заимова (които са на преклонна възраст), не се сещам за български византинисти на европейско ниво, а мисля, че като българи и членове на византийската общност би трябвало да имаме авторитет и да осъзнаваме предимствата си на такива пред западните държави.

Ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο με πολύ σημαντικό θέμα. Η συγγραφέας, που είναι πολύ διάσημη βυζαντολόγος, προσπαθεί να εξηγήσει τις κυρίες προκαταλήψεις των ιστορικών, ειδικά αυτών που γράφουν στη Δύση.
Ποιά είναι η κυρία αιτία των προβληματών;

- Πρώτον, η κληρονομιά του Έντουαρντ Γκίμπον που επηρεάσε τους ιστορικούς με την ιδέα του για την οπισθοδρομικότητα του Βυζάντιο. Η δική μου γνωμή είναι οτι αυτό είναι μεγάλη ντροπή για την επιστήμη των βυζαντολόγων και σκέφτομαι οτι αρκετά χρόνια πέρασαν για να μην μας εμπηρεάζει ο Γκιμπον με την ειρώνια του...
- Δέυτερον, το πρόβλημα της χρονολόγησης. Με ‘αλλα λόγια, πότε άρχισε το Βυζάντιο, ποιοί είναι οι ρωμαίοι και τι σχέσει έχουν αυτοί με τους έλληνες (όχι σημερινές άλλα του Μεσαιωνα); Η Κάμερον σχολιάζει επίσης το βιβλίο του Αντώνη Καλδέλλη ¨Hellenism in Byzantium”, το οποίο με τη σειρά του καταπιάνεται με ένα επίσης αρκετά ενδιαφέρον ζήτημα.
- Τρίτον, πως να κατανοήσουν το Βυζάντιο οι ιστορικοί που δεν είναι Ορθόδοξοι και πως να αναλύσουν το ορθόδοξο χριστιανικό δογμα, το οποίο αποτελεί βασικό πυλώνα της αυτοκρατορίας; Απο την μια πλευρά, η Καμερον θεωρεί οτι οι βυζαντολογοί που είναι απο τις ορθόδοξες χώρες (Ελλάδα, Βουλγαρία, Σέρβια, Ρωσσία κτλ) είναι πολύ προκατειλημμένοι, απο την άλλη ομως η συγγραφέας ισχυρίζεται πως οι ιστορικοί της Δύσης δεν καταφέρουν να εμβαθύνουν αποτελσματικά στα ορθόδοξα θεολογικά ζητήματα.
Τελικά, η θέση της συγγραφέως είναι ότι η βυζαντινή κληρονομιά ανήκει σε όλους μας, χωρίς όμως να δείχνει ιδιαίτερο ενθουσιασμό.

Πιστεύω ότι το βιβλίο αποτελεί μια αξιόλογη προσπαθεία απαρίθμησης και σε έναν βαθμό ανάλυσης συγκεκριμένων προβλήματων, τα οποία σχετίζονται με την Βυζαντινη αυτοκρατορια.

[xhxhx · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good bibliographic essay wrapped in a mediocre polemic.

Cameron is unhappy about a few things. She's unhappy that late antiquity gets more attention than the Byzantine world. She's unhappy that Byzantium is still seen as a decadent oriental despotate. She's unhappy that Hellenists and the Orthodox faithful have misread and misused the period. And she's unhappy that religious texts get less attention than secular ones. I agree with Ms Cameron, but her tone is uneven, and the style unpleasant. She is neither vicious nor judicious, so the text reads like a long-winded complaint against others in the field.

Nevertheless, the long and useful notes and bibliography appended to Ms Cameron's short essay more than make up for the inadequacies of the polemic. She has given me much to read. I appreciate that.

[Maarten · Rating 4 out of 5]

Byzantine Matters exhorts an approach to the Byzantine Empire that is wholly unlike the older, conventional Byzantium: it is dynamic instead of static, has periods of revival instead of steady decline, and is internally diverse instead of being homogeneous. The book is clearly filled with passion for the subject and makes a strong case, even if it sometimes devolves into dry academics.

I am an ancient historian, not a Byzantinist, so it's hard for me to have a proper opinion on the book's contents, but Byzantine Matters seems to propose a richer, more complete study of the Byzantine Empire, which is something I can only support.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a short but challenging work. Cameron, a distinguished Byzantinist, addresses various questions about Byzantium and places them in the context of current Byzantine studies. The questions include:

1. When did Byzantium begin - with the designation of Constantinople as a capital of the Roman Empire or in the 7th century after the Arab conquests had reduced the eastern half of the Roman Empire to a more purely Greek population?

2. What role does Hellenism, or being Greek, play in the development of Byzantium?

3. Just how static - or stagnate - was Byzantine culture? That is, did Byzantium create or merely preserve and convey?

4. What role does the orthodox church play in Byzantine development?

This is not a book for the casual reader. Some knowledge of Byzantium and the historians, both primary and secondary who have studied it, is required. But I believe it represents an important exercise by an eminent Byzantinists. The academic process, by it's very nature, encourages specialization and often narrows the discussion. It's important to step back and remember that history is also about asking, and re-asking, the bigger questions.

[Ραδάμανθυς Φωτόπουλος · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ένα άρθρο της Averil Cameron που για κάποιο λόγο έγινε βιβλίο. Απευθύνεται σίγουρα σε μελετητές του Βυζαντινού πολιτισμού και όχι σε πλατύ κοινό.
Ενώ θέλει να τονίσει κάποια κακώς κείμενα στην προσέγγιση του Βυζαντίου και να κάνει ένα κάλεσμα στους μελετητές του να επιστρατεύσουν νέες μεθόδους, φαίνεται να χάνει συχνά τον στόχο και τον ειρμό, λόγω των μακροπερίοδων παραγράφων και του στοχαστικού ύφους.
Αξίζει σίγουρα ως συλλογή βιβλιογραφίας για το στάδιο στο οποίο βρίσκεται σήμερα σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο η έρευνα.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book only for historians. There is no narrative, only a series of essays tackling academic questions about the study of Byzantine history, and over half of it is footnotes. If you want to start learning about the Byzantine / later Roman Empire, start with Lars Brownworth or JJ Norwich.

[Lou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cameron has written a collection of essays that try to explain the current perceptions of Byzantium and it's historiography. With success, Cameron has written the essays for the general reader and those with a more academic perspective. She traces the historiography from its earliest negative influence of Edward Gibbon to today historians trying to reverse the negativity and tries to place the Byzantine empire into the world history system.

[Reza Amiri Praramadhan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Byzantine Empire, formerly Eastern Roman Empire, was one of once great civilization but now only known by hardcore history buff. This empire, ruled from Constantinople, the City of World's Desire, at the apex of its power, once gripped territories from Armenia to Iberian Peninsula. However, it was in state of constant decline, with sporadic, but ultimately futile resurgence, until its final fall to the hands of Ottoman Turks in 1453.

In this short book, the author tries to bring forward the issue historians faced when it comes to Byzantine matters. Like the word byzantine which means excessively complicated and needing bureaucratic administrative detail, historians seemed to be confused by the Byzantines. Is the Byzantines part of western civilization or eastern civilization? When did Byzantine Empire started to be properly called that way? How the Byzantines view arts? Is there pure art, or art only served as religious conveyance, such as Holy Icons? Was the Byzantines saw themselves as Romans or Greeks first? What position Byzantine Christian Orthodoxy served within the empire, and what was its relation with both Catholic Church and other Eastern Churches? The list goes on.

In the end, I lament the low awareness of people, especially western people, of once great power serving as bulwark against foreign powers such as the Muslim Arabs and Barbarians, having been caricatured as conniving cowards who profited while (Catholic) Christian Crusaders tried to reclaim the Holy Land. While I understand this book is targeted at people with advanced knowledge of Byzantine Empire and Historiography, I found this book quite interesting for layman such as me.

[Giorgos Sardelis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Υπό τον τίτλο “Byzantine Matters” στο προτότυπο του, το βιβλίο της Έιβεριλ Κάμερον δεν είναι μια συνηθισμένη ιστορία του Βυζαντίου ή άλλη μια σύνοψη αυτής. Πρόκειται για μια σειρά ιστοριογραφικών προβληματικών όσον αφορά στη προσέγγιση και ερμηνεία της Βυζαντινής εμπειρίας από γνωστούς βυζαντινολόγους.
Η μετάφραση είναι εξαιρετική, όπως και η ποιότητα της έκδοσης. Πρόκειται για ένα πραγματικά απολαυστικό βιβλίο. Ωστόσο, ο υποψήφιος αναγνώστης θα πρέπει να καταλάβει ότι μιλάμε για ένα «ειδικό» έργο και όχι ακραιφνώς ιστορικό. Με άλλα λόγια, ναι μεν προορίζεται για τον μέσο αναγνώστη, ο οποίος όμως έχει ήδη κάποια επαφή με τη βυζαντινή ιστορία και έχει εκτεθεί επαρκώς στις πολυδιάστατες ή και αμφιλεγόμενες πτυχές του, όπως για παράδειγμα το πότε ξεκινάει η ιστορία του, εάν ήταν όντως θεοκρατικό, τη σχέση του με τον ελληνισμό, ποια ήταν η κοινωνική του διαστρωμάτωση (φεουδαρχικό ή όχι), ή κατα πόσο ήταν αυτοκρατορία ή «κοινοπολιτεία».

[Vashti Braha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bought this compact book as a souvenir in Paris and started reading it on the flight home. It's about the field of study of the Byzantine Empire, so it's fascinating what the issues are. Byzantium has a weird image problem. The author reviews the distortions one by one, from an amazing vantage point. It's like a guide to the literature of the field, to researchers' different approaches in various countries, and where the field seems to be going.

I've been interested in the Byzantine Empire ever since about 5th grade when I wrote a research paper on it. We were required to make a cover for the report. I remember trying to convey the gold and mosaics of inlaid gems with colored pencils.

I've always wanted more information about this unique time and place than has ever been available. This book helped me to understand why.

[Hannah Allen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great- I liked the format of this and the way it integrated new scholarship and differing voices. Definately narrow in its scope, but its a scope of what I'm interested in so I didn't mind lol- very heavy on hagiography and religious development, nothing on social, military, economy. Also, a female historian is always great (as long as its not BETH iykyk). I am probably going to re-read this as I get further into studying LAIBS- this talks a lot about the development and redefinition of the actual study of Byzantium, which is something I definitely want to be aware of more intimately once I know more about the actual history lol

[Kevin · Rating 2 out of 5]

2/5.

Reading the foreword, the sense of persecution of Byzantinists bleeds through. Cameron is detailed in her reasons as to the ignored status of Byzantine history. In particular, her criticism of Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" made me see his famous work in a new light – I had mostly ignored the Byzantine sections during my first reading of it. My own choice there, as much as anything, shows the neglected status of Byzantinium in contemporary historical studies. However, this book ultimately provided me with little new information on Byzantine historiography.

[Joshua Lister · Rating 3 out of 5]

Each chapter is an essay which addresses difficulties and raises questions about modern scholarly interpretations of Byzantium. Most of the questions are good but others take the voice of someone deep in an epistemological crisis. When she discusses Byzantium's Christian identity or Byzantium's Orthodoxy, she is confusing, but when she criticizes the "Caesar instead of Pope" lens for reading Eastern history, she is impeccable.

[Frank Grobbee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bukan sejarah naratif sama sekali, lebih ke studi historiografi "Byzantium". Sangat tidak setuju dalam beberapa hal dengan Averil Cameron, khususnya tentang identitas Romawi Byzantium. Tapi bagus untuk bisa memahami pandangan yang kontra dengan kitab-kitab Anthony Kaldellis yang saya imani.

[LiB · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this book up because I know almost nothing about Byzantium, despite a degree in medieval history and classics. Averil Cameron points out such “absence” is par for the course in the English speaking world. Byzantium fits awkwardly between our geographical categories of European and Asian, between our chronological categories of Classical and Medieval, between our categorisation of philosophy and governance as secular or religious. In short, it is very awkward to fit into existing history departments and often get lets out.

This is a polite, calm polemic against the continuing segregation and ossification of Byzantine studies in the English-speaking world, and an argument for applying the newer technical methods and theoretical approaches that have been livening up Late Antiquity Studies recently.

I’m not sure this was intended for the lay reader, although Cameron certainly provides enough contextual information and assistance that this lay reader never felt lost. As part of its wider appeal for wider engagement with Byzantium and modernisation of Byzantine studies, she lays out several ongoing unresolved issues that she thinks would benefit. This includes such fundamentals as when Byzantium was - Cameron arguing for Byzantine studies covering a much more extensive earlier period than other Byzantinists might like. I thought rather this short set of essays might be reasonably directed at students and academics in classics and medieval studies departments, who feel that Byzantium is something they should know more about.

Some of this seems unlikely to convince; Cameron, in her extremely polite fashion, argues that we can’t continue to leave the study of Byzantine religious texts to Orthodox religious scholars. These texts are central to Byzantine political and intellectual as well as religious life, and historical understanding demands we apply secular techniques of analysis. While I think most historians would agree, she undermines her case for anyone actually undertaking this work by implicitly agreeing by most secular assessments of these texts as tedious beyond measure to anyone not appreciating them as a religious duty.

It was quite soothing to read disputes that I’m completely disengaged from, as much as I can agree they are worthwhile. This was engaging and interesting, and if I was a history student might get may to take another look at the course offering s for Byzantine studies.

[Pradipa P. Rasidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short yet solid.

The writer, a respected scholar in Byzantine studies, guides the reader through the familiar narrative of "Byzantium" as a state of decline. With a rich footnotes, she dispels common misconceptions of Byzantium through a thorough explanation of the orthodox empire history and a careful examination of its historiography. In under 200 pages there are a lot to be gained in this excellent book - a cautious introduction to those unfamiliar and a precious evaluation to those already well-read in the subject.

Definitely something that will come in handy when reading about Byzantine Empire.

[Gordon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not for the faint of heart. This terse little book taught me thousands of things I didn't know about the Byzantine Civilization including to consider it as an extension of the Roman Empire, a pan-Hellenic civilization, and much less "orthodox" than I had presupposed. I still am an idiot about the entire place and its history, but, at least, now, I have some notions of places to start learning for the next twenty years, and I don't mean medieval Greek.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

As so often happens, I blundered into this without the proper background. Cameron brings up all of the historiographical debates surrounding the idea of "Byzantine" and "Byzantium"--Was it Greek? Roman? Was it Orthodox? When did it start? I was a bit lost--I just started an older book "The Making of Byzantium" and maybe that will clear things up for me. But I do like to blunder into things because then I have the perfect excuse to fill in the gaps....

[Mills College Library]

949.502 C1822 2014

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have a review forthcoming, so I won't say too much, but all my Byzantinist colleagues and most of my colleagues in late antiquity, medieval studies, and early Islam should read this and discuss it.

[Cypress Butane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good introduction re: WTF is going on with Byzantium in scholarly circles, from what I can tell.