This book appears at a very opportune moment when there is a lively debate about the right approach to Byzantine studies and about the national and cultural agendas that have driven perceptions in the past. There are even objections to the very name ‘Byzantine’, as an irrelevant neologism that should be replaced with ‘Roman’. As the author of numerous authoritative publications on Byzantine history, Alexios Savvides is well qualified to offer this timely and informative guide to how we got to where we are today. He supplies helpful surveys of the careers of prominent pioneering Byzantinists such as Hieronymos Wolf and Charles du Cange, with abundant bibliographical references for further reading. Details are also given about Greek Byzantinists of the twentieth century whose work is still useful but about whom it is often quite hard to find any information (118-20).

Given that it is such a valuable resource, more could have been done to make the book easier to use. Of necessity, it includes a large number of names with some pages containing little more than a list of great Byzantinists of the past (43-4, 116-22). Yet there is no name index to enable readers to locate quickly the figures who interest them, only a separate list at the back, repeating all the individuals discussed in the book in broad chronological order, giving only their dates and no page references (253-6). Similarly, the text itself would have been more accessible if the author had observed the rule that, unlike Greek, English works better with short sentences. The format is somewhat unexpected as well. Of the 264 pages, only 63 are dedicated to tracing the development of Byzantine studies. That is doubtless because, as the author tells us, the book is an expanded version of a journal article (46). The rest of the pages contain a foreword, introductory remarks, a list of abbreviated references and French and Greek translations of the publisher's blurb on the back. The largest section is occupied by the bibliographical appendix referred to in the title, which runs to 117 pages. At first sight, it is not immediately apparent what this appendix is for. It does not present a list of publications specifically relevant to the beginnings of Byzantine Studies: those come separately at the beginning of the book. Rather it is an attempt to list the most influential books and articles in the field of Byzantine studies, subject to a long list of exclusions (139-44).

It is in this appendix, rather than in the main text, that Savvides’ main concern comes to the fore. He feels that previous bibliographies have been inadequate for one particular reason. ‘Gone are the days’, he laments in the introduction, ‘when a noteworthy number of scholars in the western world could read and utilize bibliography in modern Greek’. He even singles out one scholar by name for his ‘indifference’ to material written in Modern Greek in the reading list for his recent book (137-8). While one could hardly disagree that due weight should be given to the work of Greek Byzantinists who choose to write in their own language, Savvides is being a little unfair here. Given the sheer number of books on the field, authors have to make a selection in order to keep within their publisher's word limit and it is hardly surprising that they restrict themselves to work that is accessible and available to their readers. The author whom he criticises chose a range of books appropriate to a general introduction for readers of English. After all, Savvides’ bibliography is likewise his personal selection (223-8) and even he himself is guilty of some disrespect to the Greek language. Rather than giving Greek book and article titles in the original language and letters, he transliterates some into Latin characters and translates others into English. Perhaps this is because the bibliography is work in progress. We are assured that a sequel will provide a further, enhanced one (131).

It is not just the neglect of Greek scholarship that grieves Savvides but also an apparent hostility to it. He castigates another, named historian for labelling historiographical approaches to Byzantium in Orthodox countries as ‘problematic’ (45). Again, Savvides has a point here. The word was not well chosen as it could be interpreted as suggesting that work produced in western Europe or north America is somehow superior to that of Greek, Russian or Serbian historians. On the other hand, it is not to be expected that historians who are not of Orthodox heritage will necessarily share the priorities of those who are. Some of the views that Savvides expresses in this book are a case in point. We are told, for example, that ‘Catholic historiography of the western world, living under constant fear of a pending condemnation by the all-powerful Holy Inquisition … faced the interest towards an investigation into the Orthodox Byzantine world with bigotry and open hostility, characterising the latter as a “dark” creation of a protracted decline’ (61). That is at best a sweeping generalization, and at worst a travesty, of the development of Byzantine Studies in western Europe. It also contradicts the praise that Savvides later accords to Catholic scholars such as Du Cange and neglects the fact that many pioneering Byzantinists, such as Hieronymus Wolf, were Protestants. On the other hand, the comment seems to reflect Savvides’ apparent view that Modern Greece, as the ‘natural heir’ of Byzantium (53), is somehow bound to produce the most authoritative Byzantine scholarship.

At the end of the day, Savvides has produced a helpful survey that fills a gap in the current literature. One would only ask that, while championing his own perfectly legitimate views and cultural origins, he should understand that other scholars might have different priorities, appropriate to their own background and readership.