Change in Byzantine History

8/13/2019 Change in Byzantine History

1/4

Medieval Academy of America

Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries by A. P. Kazhdan; AnnWharton EpsteinReview by: Walter Emil Kaegi, Jr.Speculum, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 432-434Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2855257.

Accessed: 24/11/2012 11:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Medieval Academy of Americais collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.67 on Sat,24 Nov 2012 11:07:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacadhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2855257?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2855257?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad


2/4

432 Reviewsforthe ater,more problematical bjects seem to be based on a linearnotionof stylisticdevelopment.They oftenfailto take nto account the question offineness nd, wherethey are so concerned, are sometimes n conflictwith the readingsof other expertobservers.Thus, while the Demetrios n the Louvre (no. 130) was recently ssigned tothe thirteenth enturyby D. Gaborit-Chopin,Kalavrezou puts it in the fourteenth,remarking n poor workmanship where the French scholarsaw an interestingx-periment n volume. Low-qualitywork n any medium s notoriously ifficultodate.Yet the popping eyes and fussy rown of a Head of Constantine? n Berlin no. 74)wouldbe extraordinaryn a workof the Twelfth o ThirteenthCentury, nd I see noreason whyno. 167, a horseshoe-shapedpendant at Sinai, here treated s fourteenth-fifteenthentury,hould be consideredas Byzantine t all in any meaningful enseofthe term.Questions ofchronology ranscendmerely n object'srelativeplace in a catalogue.They go to theveryroot of our understanding f change in medievalGreek feelingand thought.Thus the striking ragment f a Crucifixion Kalavrezoudoes not recordthis abel among its nscriptions)n Stockholm no. 74) is remarkablefor thesidewaysslump of Christ'shead, the pathetically rooping arms,and the et ofblood fromhisside. These are typicallyate-Comnenian features, ccurringtogetheron no knownByzantine vory.The steatitewas found at Kallunge (Gotland),where a major cam-paignofwall paintingwasundertakenbya Russian artist hortly efore 1200. It showsthat conographicaldevelopment n thesoft tonedid notstopwhen vory eased to bea widelyused material. ndeed one could argue that hegreatdaysofsteatitewere stillto come when this plaque was carved. Kalavrezou's book provides the essentialbasisfortheir tudy, serviceprecisely ecause, for the aterperiod,much workremainstobe done on individualpieces.

ANTHONY CUTLERPennsylvania tateUniversity

A. P. KAZHDAN and ANN WHARTONEPSTEIN, Change inByzantine Culture n theEleventhand Twelfthenturies.The Transformation f theClassical Heritage, 7.) Berkeley,Los Angeles, and London: University f CaliforniaPress, 1985. Pp. xxii, 287; 53black-and-whitellustrations. 35.THE AUTHORS ave written n important, olid, and well-reasoned nterpretationfByzantine ocio-cultural istory. hey havecarefully eflected n theprimary ources,literary s well as nonliterary,nd much of themodernscholarlyiterature. he resultis a well-written,mbitioussynthesis hat s valuable for both advanced scholars andnovices.The modern iterature nSlavic anguages,whichhas oftenbeen neglectedbyothers,here receivesappropriateattention nd integrationnto the broader exposi-tion. Visual dimensions and materials lso receive nformed valuation see chap. 6,Man in Literature nd Art, pp. 197-230), althoughtheywillnotbe the focus of thisreview,because they ie outside the competence of thisreviewer.Although this s a

synthesis,t s nota mere summary fwhat s known,but an insightfulnterpretationin whichthe authorstakepositionson a number of controversialssues.The initial hapter, Background:FromLate Antiquity otheMiddleAges (pp. 1-23), restates ome of Kazhdan's earlieropinionson thecontroversialssue of thefateof citiesearly n theMiddle ByzantinePeriod. More problematical s mentionof the

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

Reviews 433concept of Feudalization on pages 56-62. The authors understandon page 61 thatthere is a differencebetween seigneurie and feudalism, nd that feudalism, sdescribed nwesternhistorical tudies, xisted only n themostembryonic orm n theByzantine Empire in the period under study. It would have been betterto haveavoided the term feudalism entirelyn the book, fortheunnecessary ntroductionand discussionof it nvolves ssentially emanticproblemsthat re peculiarto Marxistconceptions f feudalism,nsteadof themore rigorousones forfeudalism hatwesternmedievalists ave developed. Chapter 4, The PursuitofKnowledge pp. 120-66), isa perceptivedescriptionof many dimensionsof intellectual ife.Chapter 5, Byzan-tium and Alien Cultures (pp. 167-96), is relatively riefbut useful. The authorsconvincingly rgue fora greater nterest y Byzantines f theperiodin human behav-ior and physicalreality,which theybelieve reflects undamental hanges.The authorsdo provideimportant bservations n theByzantine ristocracy. heystressthe creation of an aristocratic deal in thisperiod, the growing mportanceoflineage, and the broader aristocratization fculture p. 99). They correctlympha-size theabsence of a vigorous town ndependence and the negativeconsequences forByzantium.They pointout that lthoughtherewas more prosperityn theperiod thanmany cholarshave believed,a new urban economy, nstitutions,nd attitudes id notappear.These two centuriesoftenreceive separate scholarly reatments. tudying rends nthetwocenturies ogetherprovides new perspectives nd is veryworthwhile. epara-tionof trends n the twocenturieshad maskedsome developments nd commonality.The new political historyby Michael Angold, The Byzantine mpire1025-1204: APoliticalHistoryNew York, 1985), also attempts o synthesize evelopments n thesetwocenturies, ut with consciousconcentration n political opics.The twobooksdonot compete, but actuallycomplement each other. Neither book, however,nor anyother one fills he gaps in presenthistorical nderstanding fpolitical, conomic, ndecclesiasticalnstitutions.he authorsofChange, fcourse,do notclaimto cover thosesubjects, et alone to solve controversies bout them.This is a handsomelyprinted volume. The numerous plates are well chosen. Anappendix contains various translated exts,followedbya good index. The extensivefootnoteswillbe valuable forscholarsand graduate studentswho desire a solid in-troduction o the bibliography n the period. The writing s smoothand interesting.Some minorcorrections:p. xiv, Attaleiates'Historiawas published n 1853,not 1953;p. 158, Darrouzes,notDarrouzeo; p. 186,miroir,ot miroire.t wouldbe better ociteacritical edition of William of Tyre, such as that in the Recueil des historiensdescroisades,or now that of R. B. C. Huygens n theCorpus Christianorum,nd notthelong-obsolete ext n Migne, but in any case it s incorrect o attribute he texton page239 toPG; it is, instead,PL.The authorsattempt,withmuch success,toexplainthe similarities s well as differ-ences betweenByzantineand contemporarywesternEuropean socio-cultural ondi-tions and trends. They conclude (p. 233) that in contrastto westernEurope thenuclearfamilywas moreimportantnByzantium nd thatByzantine ociety emainedmore ndividualistic,r atomized. Their remarks n this mportant etdifficultopicdeserve muchmore analysis nd explanation,whichthe same authors could offer nthe future.The volume is an excellentpresentation f thepresent tateofhistoricalnterpreta-tionof hithertopoorlyunderstood Byzantine ocio-cultural rendsand conditions nthe eleventh and twelfthenturies;that ndeed is a major achievement.The authors



4/4

434 Reviewsdeserve congratulations orhaving writtenwhatshould be a long-lived nd indispens-able contributionwhichwill ignificantlydvance the study f theperiod and willbe ofinterest o westernmedievalists s to well as Byzantinists. he publisher hould con-sider a modestlypriced paperback edition forbroader distribution.

WALTER EMIL KAEGI, JR.University f Chicago

BARRY . KOGAN, verroesnd theMetaphysicsfCausation.Albany: StateUniversityfNew York Press, 1985. Pp. xi, 348. $39.50 (cloth); $14.95 (paper).THE PROBLEM ofcausalitymayremindus ofthe name of David Hume, but ong beforehis timethatproblemwas discussedbyan Islamic thinkerwho is sometimes alled amedievalHume. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111) in his Tahafut l-FalasifahTheIncoherencef thePhilosophers) ad denied any necessaryconnectionbetweenwhatisbelievedto be thecause and theeffect.He wanted todestroyhisreaders'confidencenwhat philosophers like al-Farabi and Avicenna had said about causalityand othertopics. n response toal-Ghazali,Averroes 1126-98) wrote heTahafutl-TahafutTheIncoherencefthe ncoherence),n which he discussed the twenty ropositions hatal-Ghazalihad presented. n two ofthesediscussions 3 and 17) he repliedtoal-Ghazali'scriticismfcausality.UsingtheArabic text ditedbyBouyges, the Latintranslation fCalo Calonymos edited by Zedler, and the English translationby Van den Bergh,BarryKogan focusesmainlyon thesetwodiscussions,buthe also studiesothertextsfromAverroes'Tahafut nd fromhiscommentaries n Aristotlewherethey re help-ful n clarifyinghemeaning.In thefive haptersthatmake up hisbookKogan gives n exposition nd analysis fAverroes'theory fcausal efficacy nd itsmetaphysical oundation.What he callstheliterary haracterof the Tahafutdebates makes his taskdifficult. he styleof theTahafut s oftendiffuse nd deliberately mbiguous.Averroeswas notwriting orhisfellowphilosophersbut for a mixed audience. For this reason he tried (as in hisremarks n miracles)bothtorevealand toconceal thetruth tthesametime,butwithrespect odifferent indsofreaders.Though thisposes a problem n thestudy ftheTahafut, ogan thinkst s not nsurmountable incesome ofthe secrets re revealedin thebooks ofdemonstration, hat s, in theworkson Aristotle.Afterhis commentson the style nd method of the Tahafut,Kogan discusses inchapter2) how each of the participants n the debate characterizes he relationsofcause and effect. n chapter 3 he focuses on theproblem ofnecessary onnections nnature,on Averroes'grounds forsupposing that auses are in fact fficacious,nd onthisontologicalsuppositionsofAverroes'and al-Ghazali'sviews. n chapter4 he dis-cussesthecelestial inks n thecausal chain,spheres, ycles, nd celestial ntelligences,in order to showwhatexplains theregularity nd continuity fobservedcausal pro-cesses. In chapter5 he considersdivinecausation and thedoctrine feternalcreation.As thebrief haptersummary uggests, he fulltreatment f Averroes'positiononcausation ncludesan explanationof hisviewson metaphysics,osmology, nd naturaltheology. shall take note of some of themost nteresting oints n the book.Usinghis favorite xample,al-Ghazalihad said thatthe fact hat piece ofcotton sburned atthe timeof tscontactwithfiredoes notprovethat he fire sthecause of theburning fthecotton.Observation ndicates hat heone occurs with heother; tdoes


Documents

Change in Byzantine History