As the recovery of the rich history of the expansive Byzantine Commonwealth pushes forward, we must renew our emphasis on the sturdy multi- and cross-cultural foundation upon which it was constructed. Christian Caucasia was a charter member of the Byzantine Commonwealth, but its social fabric and cultural orientation remained locked on the Iranian world for centuries to come. The fundamentally Iranic, or Persianate, nature of Christian Caucasian society is a reminder of the intense cross-cultural connections of Rome-Byzantium and Iran across late antiquity and into the medieval period.

Terms like “Classical Arabic,” “Classical Armenian,” “Classical Syriac,” and “Classical Persian,” though not entirely unproblematic, arouse minimal controversy and are widely used. These Near Eastern languages have their classical traditions of learning, all arising in the same region, all interacting with one another. Let us therefore envision a “Classical Near East” to foster modern scholarly exchange between specialists in pre-modern Near Eastern history and philology. This essay explores the prospects of a broader arena of ancient and medieval research for specialists in the premodern Near East that transcends the specializing delimitation of modern identities and religions

Abstract:The Byzantine Commonwealth has been used as a descriptive category, a tool ofanalysis, and a framework for understanding (and dividing) the medieval world since its creationin the 1970s by Dmitri Obolensky. This article examines the scholarship on the ideaof ByzantineCommonwealth, both positive and negative that have been put forth over the intervening fiftyyears.Following this examination, the article suggests alternatives to this still pervasive ideawhich might expressin new wayssome of the key realities of interaction in this medieval space.Those alternatives include utilizing kinship structures as well as world system theory to look atthe relationship between Byzantium and the medieval eastern European world.

This chapter sets the scene for a reorientation of thinking about the scope of Byzantium and Byzantine Studies for a new generation of scholarship. It charts the changes in the field since the seminal *East of Byzantium* volume of 1982 and argues for the inclusion of the broader Christian East under the umbrella of Byzantine Studies. To what degree is “East Rome” too limiting a concept for the vibrant fields of Eastern Christian Studies that find themselves often adjacent to Byzantium in modern scholarship? At the same time, real connections and disconnections must be explored across political and imperial lines, and the value of Global History is assessed as a tool for understanding the field holistically. The Byzantine Near East is a burgeoning field that brings many new questions and a host of literary, artistic, and material evidence to bear on what “Byzantium” meant in the early Middle Ages.

The second chapter traces the post-patristic career of theosis in the Byzantine world from its role in the promotion of Chalcedonian Christology in the sixth century through to the definition (at the Constantinopolitan Council of 1351) of theosis as participation in the uncreated energies. A postscript explains why the Byzantine tradition was taken up in modern times not by the Greeks but by the Russians.

This chapter argues that, whereas many poets in the Garland of Philip never use Doric, several do so to evoke either a Leonidean or Theocritean pastoral world, and sometimes because their subject has a Dorian connection – so Myrinus, Adaeus, Thallus, Erucius of Cyzicus, and Antiphilus of Byzantium. That Cyzicus was originally a colony of Corinth and Byzantium of Megara seems not to be relevant, since Doric appears only rarely in these cities’ inscribed poetry. Finally I examine the puzzling case of the five epigrams on Sacerdos of Nicaea preserved in the Palatine Anthology (15.4–8), of which three use Doric, two do not. I suggest that more than one poet may have been chosen to composed sepulchral epigrams for this grandiose obelisk-monument of around AD 130, and that the composer of the Doric poems might have been Philostratus’ ancestry-conscious sophist, Memmius Marcus of Byzantium

The Conclusions explore the consequences of our arguments for the study of late antiquity more generally and the patterns of Roman military organization. The Roman military was among the most important institutions in the ancient world, and revising its history has ramifications for such perennial questions as imperial decision-making and Roman identity. Moreover, our reconstruction creates new questions, in particular about the economy of the fifth-century east Roman empire and its ability to mobilize and sustain the armies described by the Notitia. This chapter concludes by situating our revised narrative within the longe durée of Roman military history from Augustus to Byzantium and identifying the major considerations, including many non-military considerations, that motivated the empire’s various military configurations.

The chapter begins with the emergence of the Serb kingdom of Raška in the early thirteenth century under the Nemanjić dynasty in the backdrop of a temporary collapse of Byzantium. At this time, Serbia was a de facto dual Orthodox-Catholic state, although the early thirteenth century saw the establishment of the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox church. Serbia’s territorial expansion over the next 150 years was facilitated by the crises in Byzantium and Bulgaria and by a bourgeoning economy due to exploitation of mines and trade with Dubrovnik and Venice. In the mid-fourteenth century, Serbia under Stefan Dušan sought to usurp Byzantium, but following Dušans death his short-lived Serb-Greek empire fragmented, as regional magnates fought for the supremacy in the region. This was before the Serbs suffered a fateful defeat against the Ottomans at the Field of Kosovo in 1389. A post-Kosovo Serb despotate, a key successor state to Stefan Dušans empire, prospered politically, economically and culturally for several decades. It was finally conquered in 1459, as the whole region came under the Ottoman control in the second half of the fifteenth century.

The epilogue explores the evidence for dissection and anatomical literature in Late Antiquity. It addresses the seeming hiatus in anatomical activity after Galen, introducing the topic via Vesalius’ retrospective thoughts, which blame Galen’s enervating authority. It starts with fourth-century evidence, pictorial and textual, observing that Galen, while a dominant voice, was not the lone authority; major figures considered include Vindicianus, Nemesius of Emesa, Oribasius, and Gregory of Nyssa. It then turns to the fifth to seventh centuries, addressing the medical curriculum in Alexandria and the evidence from Stephanus of Athens and Paul of Aegina. Finally, it contrasts the absence of evidence for anatomical activity in the Late Antique West after the seventh century with the modest but more vibrant interest in the East, addressing the question of whether human dissection reemerged as an option in Byzantium in this period; major figures considered include Meletius, Theophilus Protospatharius, Michael Choniates, and George Tornikios. The epilogue ends with Hunayn ibn Ishaq and his Syriac and Arabic translations, representing the beginning of the next chapter in anatomical history.

This introduction sets forth the approach to Byzantine commentaries on ancient Greek texts taken in this volume: it places the Komnenian and Palaiologan commentaries firmly within their intellectual and sociocultural contexts and examines the process of commenting on ancient texts as a deliberate and culturally significant choice made by the commentators. We define commentary both in a narrow and a broad sense. In the narrowest sense, commentaries are concerned with explaining an ancient text and the knowledge related to it, often in a didactic context. Defined more broadly, commentaries include treatises on ancient literature and paraphrases of ancient authorities, which likewise demonstrate how these texts were read and taught. In the broadest sense, commentaries can be any literary texts that creatively engage with ancient texts and thus shed light on Byzantine attitudes towards their ancient heritage. The very practice of composing commentaries on ancient texts was a creative and targeted enterprise of identity building. The introduction discusses different kinds of Byzantine commentaries on ancient poetry and prose within the context of the study and teaching of grammar, rhetoric, philosophy and science, and introduces some of the key figures of the Komnenian and Palaiologan periods.