Byzantine Literature Comparison

Heraclius has informed me the medieval forum is quiet so  thought I would spice things up if possible. Two secondary sources evaluating the Fourth Crusade I found particularly interestign to read. These books were 1204: The Ungodly Crusade by Robert Bartlett (also author of a number of works focusing on the growth of Western Christendom during the medieval period, and the other being Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips.

Bartlett's work started off nicely enough. Gave a general background of Byzantine-Latin relations and then continued on with the story. However, as my reading progressed I noticed a slant beginning to form. Bartlett is a patron of Latin civilization and as such I began to see a partiality towards the Latins start to develop. For instance, look at the scope of his evaluation. He evaluates the Crusade right up until the death of Emperor Henry I at Constantinople. He basically includes the parts of the history which most glorify the Latins and give best account of their martial prowess before breaking off and only giving a few paragraphs to describe the Byzantine expansion and rather feeble Latin resistance. Never missing an opportunity to cite Byzantine mendacity or vice, his ending paragraph almost asks us to excuse the whole expedition with "no matter how sad it may seem, nothing lasts for ever". The whole way through he builds up to this dismissive attitude towards one of the most horrific rapes in history.

Phillips began his history hot on the heels of Bartlett. Indeed I am tempted to believe that Phillip's work, coming out little more than a year after Bartlett's, seeks to correct some of the slants and Latin-centric tendencies of Bartlett. I found Phillip's work to be much more balanced, informative, and inclusive of a wider range of primary sources. In far sharper detail he describes what happened and gives much more attention to theories of what caused the Crusade.

These two works are some of the best available on 1204, but I just noticed the slant in Bartlett's work and Phillip's work almost being a correction of that. Anyone else read either of these works? They make for an interesting comparison.

Although I have heard of and seen these books before, I have not actually read through them.  I can't really comment on them as far as content goes.  Now that Constantine XI has given a favorable review of the Phillips book, I might give in and read it and maybe buy it if I like it.  I saw the Philips book on sale at a conference this past summer but decided not to buy it before reading reviews.

From a cursory examination of the Bartlett book, I would say that the history was probably a bit popularized.  Is he a specialist in the period?

I have read and reviewed The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, by Donald E. Queller and Thomas Madden.  Queller was the premier historian in the study of the Fourth Crusade; Madden was his student and has taken his place (Madden's specific interest is in Doge Enrico Dandolo).  It is an excellent book in which the authors do not side with the Franks or the Venetians.  They manage to write with sympathy about the destruction of Byzantium as well.  I highly recommend this book.

Have any of you read the following books?

Cyril Mango, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (1980)

A. P. Kazhdan and Giles Constable, People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies (1982)

I to review these in a Byzantine historiography course I am taking. They were written by two of the most prominent Byzantinists that have ever been in the field.  Although they aren't narrowly focused monographs, they are still quite interesting and refreshing in their approach.  Instead of going straight through Byzantine history in a chronological survey of political events, the authors take a more topical approach.  The Kazhdan book is especially interesting; he creates a framework based on the homo byzantinus (the average Byzantine person) and looks at the development of Byzantine culture through the primary literature, especially hagiographical evidence.

If you are interested in the economy of Byzantium, there is a relatively new set of studies that you might check out if your university library has them (or use interlibrary loan).

Angeliki Laiou, ed. The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh to the Fifteenth Century. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Publications, 2002. 3 volumes.

Some of the older economic histories of Byzantium are quite boring because they get bogged down in interminable discussions on the metal content of the coinage and supply/demand.  This set covers those things in a refreshing way, while covering other fascinating topics such as mining, agricultural tools, government control of trading, commerce law, and sea routes.  I highly recommend it!

Great!  I am glad to hear that you are enjoying the book.  Let me know what you think of it when you finish it.  We had a good discussion session in my graduate class comparing the Mango book with the Kazhdan.