Mouseion: Journal of the Classical Association of Canada

This is an excellent collection of 17 papers focusing on the two major imperial cities of Rome and Constantinople between the late fourth and early sixth centuries ad. It is the result of two conferences held in the UK at Lampeter and Edinburgh in 2006 and 2007, supplemented by an additional invited chapter. It is divided into five sections, of 3–4 chapters of 20–30 pages, each with footnotes, followed by an epilogue. There is a consolidated bibliography, an index and a conspectus of primary source citations.

Although intended for an audience of professional academics, there is much here that could be of use for undergraduate students. Matters of methodology play a significant part, most clearly the concern to avoid teleology and to treat each period in its own right, a theme that is especially prominent in the introduction and the papers by Humphries and McLynn. There is a good mixture of archaeology and textual sources, as well as discussion of both literary and historical readings of texts.

An excellent introduction by the editors sets the stage for the volume, arguing forcefully for an imperially intended full equality between the two cities from the foundation of Constantinople in 330. This is part of a first section of three papers with two more essays comparing Rome and Constantinople in various ways. This then sets the scene for subsequent sections. Part 2 covers urban space, with an especially good analysis of the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae by John Matthews. Part 3 and Part 4 cover various aspects of imperial power, first practically (Humphries and Van Nuffeln) and then in a literary sense (Rees, Vanderspoel, Kelly, Gillett). There are some tensions between the two approaches, a reminder that though modern scholars tend to create differing views of the past based on our interests, for contemporaries it was all the same world. The strongest section of the book is the fifth, entitled “Christian Capitals?” This is diverse, with a good analysis of the Itinerarium Burdigalense by Salway arguing that it should be seen as the product of a secular journey to Constantinople with the journey to Jerusalem as an opportunistic addition, not the main purpose of the journey. This is followed by a paper by Curran on the Cento of Proba that sits rather awkwardly in the volume. The second two contributions in this section then take a very different path, focusing on events rather than texts. The lack of easy integration of the contributions again reflects the challenges (and excitement) that the late Empire presents to academics; a single theme such as Christianity, even when confined by time and space, will not when placed in the hands of several scholars produce a section that follows a simple path. Thus Blaudeau’s excellent paper examines the papacy’s relationships with the emperor and the bishop of Constantinople, showing how this developed in the late fifth and early sixth century. Unlike McLynn’s superb paper on the [End Page 372] first Council of Constantinople in 381 which shows the importance for historians of treating events within the contemporary context, this seemed to be much more about empire and papacy, rather than Rome and Constantinople, perhaps in itself illustrative of the changes that had taken place in the Empire between the late fourth and the late fifth centuries. Finally, Kaldellis’ epilogue to the volume aggressively lays out his feelings on Roman identity This felt more like a conference paper than the other contributions, though making the important point that the Roman Empire after the fifth century was not just the city of Constantinople, but was still an Empire and needs to be considered in the same way that we see later nation states.

Overall, this is an excellent collection. It is well-edited and produced, attractively priced, even in hardback, and would make a strong contribution to reading lists for undergraduate classes on late antiquity. Congratulations to the contributors, the editors...