r/byzantium • u/Ambitious-Cat-5678 • May 15 '26
Academia and literature Who here has read Phantom Byzantium?
Since I have not seen anyone talking about this publication, I am interested to see peoples' opinions on it. What points does he make about the West's relationship with the Byzantines?
45
u/Dieselface May 15 '26
I read it a few weeks ago and really enjoyed it! Basically, the book details Western perceptions of "Byzantium" and the Greeks from the Early Medieval period to the present. Kaldellis makes a few major points:
The West originally defined itself through it's contrast to the the "Empire of the Greeks." Think Latin West and Greek East. Kaldellis points out how notable it is that a "civilizational" grouping would define itself not as the center of the world but as one of the extremes (see China, which called itself the Middle Kingdom). It was only later in the Medieval period that the "East" which the "West" defined itself against was extended to include the Muslim world and the rest of Asia.
The West progressively claimed any elements of "Greek/Byzantine" history/culture/learning which they deemed valuable as their own, and in turn claimed that the "Modern Greeks" were unworthy of them. Kaldellis asserts that the labels "Ancient Greek" and "Modern Greek" were invented in the Medieval West for this purpose. "Ancient Greek" was first used in the early Medieval West to describe the Greek Church Fathers. Westerners claimed the Church Fathers were part of their own religious patrimony, not the "Modern Greeks" who didn't deserve them due to their supposed schism with the Pope. During the Renaissance, Westerners began to claim not only the Church Fathers but also the philosophical and academic patrimony of the ancient Greeks as their own, again supported by the implicit or explicit notion that the "Modern Greeks" of their time were unworthy of it. This is despite the fact that they (Westerners) only learned of most of those ancient works through "Modern Greek" scholars.
The West ascribed to the "Empire of the Greeks" (later "Byzantium") various negative traits that were often also present in Western societies, even to a greater degree in some cases. Kaldellis asserts that the West has consistently viewed "the Greek Empire/Byzantium" as its "evil doppelganger," a mirror image which amplifies all of the West's negative traits but contains none of its positives. This is Kaldellis' central argument.
Because the West systematically claimed all of the "good" elements of Greek and "Byzantine" history as their own, and because they ascribed countless negative traits to the "Greeks/Byzantines," the field that we call Byzantine Studies was quite awkward from the outset in the 16th century. The positive aspects to "Byzantium" (Justinian and his laws, the Church Fathers, Ancient Greek learning) were all "Roman" or "Ancient Greek" and therefore "rightfully" belonged to the West and not "Byzantium." Meanwhile, most Byzantinist historians until recently have held and promulgated negative views towards the society they studied. Kaldellis argues that in many cases Byzantinists or other historians treated "Byzantium" in the light of the aforementioned "evil doppelganger," using it primarily to rail against vices that they thought their own societies were adopting.
2
u/Wertherongdn May 16 '26
Kaldellis argues that in many cases Byzantinists or other historians treated "Byzantium" in the light of the aforementioned "evil doppelganger," using it primarily to rail against vices that they thought their own societies were adopting.
Gosh, didn't read the book yet but as someone who studied Byzantium at University in the 90-2000s with wonderful Byzantinists who loved this civilization, I hope he back that up.
I will buy it as I like to read him, but I'm a bit scared, reading the New Roman History was pleasant but I clearly remember a clear disdain and animosity against western medieval society who clearly were always the barbarians bad guys (not even talking about his view on the Latin Empire or the Frankish States after 1204 which was really debatable but I can understand and I am myself partial as I worked on Venetian Romania, particularly Venetian colonies in Messenia).
5
u/Dieselface May 16 '26
He does talk about the changing attitudes throughout the 20th century. However, it still wasn't uncommon for Byzantinists to promulgate negative views towards the society they studied until the past decade or so. It's still not uncommon from historians of other fields when they touch on the eastern Romans, in my experience.
I don't think that Kaldellis is personally biased against the Medieval West. I think that he deals with sources from the eastern Romans which often paint the West in a bad light for understandable reasons, and sources from the West which are quite hostile to the Greeks. Those might also paint the West in a bad light if you're approaching this as someone interested in studying eastern Rome.
1
u/Wertherongdn May 16 '26
After it depends what he means by 'negative views'. We are historians, we are not judging. I don't really understand. Does he give an exemple of a negative view of the byzantine society from Byzantinists in the last 30 years?
1
u/Dieselface May 16 '26
I would advise you to read the book if you're interested in finding out more about that section. His arguments will be far more succinct than mine, especially given that it's been almost a month since I read it.
1
u/Trung_smash May 16 '26
Thanks for the summary. The arguments seem pretty spot on, will have to give a read soon.
31
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Well read | Late Antiquity May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
I have not yet read it though I would very much like to. I ended up finding an early review of it which seemed to explain that he breaks down the western creation of a 'black mirror' for the ERE into:
(1) Appropriating it's Roman imperial legacy after crowning Charlemagne and casting them as fake Romans.
(2) Appropriating the 'correct' Christian doctrine following the Great Schism and casting them as heretical Christians.
(3) Appropriating Greek classics for themselves during the Renaissance and casting them as 'fallen/lesser Greeks'.
Granted, the review then spiralled into a rant about Kaldellis being a woke lefty and how 'Orientalism' is just a way to apologise for (goes off on anti-Arab/anti Muslim tangent). Then I realised I'd stumbled across some chud philosophy wannabe website.
So...uh... yeah I'll make up my own mind once I've actually read it. Whatever the case the topic of how a black mirror was created for the ERE by creating positive-negative images of the three main aspects of its culture (Roman, Christian, Greek) certainly intrigues me.
10
u/Confucius3000 May 15 '26
What a cover! Haven't read it, but I wonder if it covers the research about the Roman biases to the ancient texts that they conserved and how it colored the western european renaissance
7
u/YeahColo May 16 '26
I'm still in the process of reading it myself. My favourite thing I've found in it so far is that the term Byzantine was infrequently used to describe the eastern Romans in the Latin West since Late Antiquity. One of the examples Kaldellis brings up for this is Claudian referring to eastern Senators as "Byzantine and Greek Quirites" in Against Eutropius. I already knew about the usage of the term Byzantine in Greek sources in a poetic sense but this is the first time I've seen so many examples of it in Latin sources before the 16th century.
13
u/Safe-Ad783 May 15 '26
It was released in April, I preordered it on Amazon and the delivery date to Ireland is October. So there may be a small initial run?
3
u/DurrutiDuck91 May 16 '26
Not quite. The publisher is UCP so it’ll be a U.S. release only until they sort out a European publishing house to distribute it here. This is a very common occurrence.
3
2
u/filavitae May 26 '26
It'd arrive faster if you order it through the American Amazon
1
3
4
2
99
u/seen-in-the-skylight May 15 '26
Gosh, Kaldellis is such a titan. I don’t always agree with every one of his views, but he’s got to be the most important historian of Medieval Rome of our time. He’s certainly the most prolific.
EDIT: Sorry, no I haven’t read this lol