I usually say that fans of "The Lord of the Rings" and "Game of Thrones" will get hooked on Byzantine history. If this history is presented in a clever and relatively simplified way—almost cinematic—to capture the newcomer reader, then there is no turning back. Here we have such a case, without meaning that it is a "light" read.

With the original title “The Lost World of Byzantium” (Yale University Press, 2016), Jonathan Harris’s book gives us, in an ingenious way, a concise, almost comprehensive, look at the approximately eleven centuries of Byzantium. The main question it poses and tries to decode is how and why Byzantium endured for so many years, against all logic. How did it rise from its ashes when everything seemed to be over? Why and how did it develop its political, ideological, and social structure, based on complex balances of power both internally and externally, on adaptation and flexibility, and not—typically—on military violent enforcement? What role did—if any—Orthodox Christianity and classical ancient Greek literature play in this flexibility and adaptability? Was Orthodox Christianity a religion in the modern sense, or are we talking about a comprehensive (political, social, economic, philosophical) ideological perception beyond the metaphysical that permeated Byzantine society vertically and horizontally? What supported, but mainly what limited the powers of the imperial institution and aristocratic groups, to the point of resembling the ostracism culture of ancient Athens? What favored the ("meritocratic") rise and fall of people, regardless of family or social background? Why did the people constitute a significant power pole in socio-political events, to the extent that even the emperor needed their approval? What was the position of women? Ultimately, over time, how did Byzantium deviate from its complexity, change its structures, become one-dimensional—predictable—and disappear?

Does the book at hand answer all these? If a first criticism should be made, it is that it gives an extremely "pro-Byzantine"—almost apologetic—version of some historical events, perhaps not unjustly since until a few years ago the criticism was excessively unfair and anachronistic. A second criticism is that it touches only briefly on some aspects or does not avoid, in some places, stereotypes that have been updated or completely rejected and would help in better understanding certain points of the times. For example, the destruction of ancient temples occurred within the context of the traditional, war-ritualistic, looting processes of that era; ancient cults had been abandoned by a large portion of the population when Christianity was institutionalized as part of the "national" identity and state ideology of the Byzantines; the preservation—probably also censorship—of ancient Greek literature was an organized, systematic, time-consuming, and costly work of the state and church (separately); the causes of Hypatia’s murder were more political and less religious or misogynistic; the sexual and political scandals, murders, conspiracies, etc. They were not more than what happened in other parts of the medieval world; however, there was the framework, culture, and means for them to be recorded and highlighted more and "freely," mainly for political-ideological opposition between the conflicting sides. Finally, the habit of the Byzantines to characterize and record political friends and opponents or groups of people with designations based on (what we would today call racist) stereotypes makes the ethno-racial map of Byzantium appear more complex than it really was, even though the Byzantine state itself had a specific (complex) official definition for its citizens, to the point that it remarkably resembles modern nation-states.

However, we must admit that many of the things that provoke us today in Byzantine history (racial, socio-class, religious, etc.) did not concern the Byzantines, but are our own and only concerns. And this is how the author treats them. From his pages, mainly those issues that concerned the Byzantines themselves come through. The contrasts and syntheses of the transition from old cults to Christianity, the para-state ideological-Christian dogmas (heresies), important personalities, the Persians, Islam, the Slavs, the Turks and other peoples, trade, politics, but also social reality. The "balances of terror" between the imperial institution, the aristocratic factions of Constantinople, the bureaucrats, the regional (thematic) aristocrats-commanders, the ecclesiastical clergy, the people of the capital and the people of the provinces are highlighted. All these are depicted with a perspective distanced from the ideological, political and Western European prejudices of previous eras, which sent one of the most important experiences of human history to oblivion. The translation and the quality of the Greek edition are excellent, maintaining the author's narrative rhythm and flow.