How can the West accept the existence of an "alternative" to European history, a history which it has taken for granted, and with which it thinks itself so intimately acquainted? Furthermore, how can we explain certain radical differences between Eastern and Western Europe, with their respective capitals at New Rome (Constantinople) and Old, given that both appear to be rooted in the very same cultural milieu (the world of Antiquity) that the West has for so long - and so exclusively - called "Mother"? If there is an alternative history of Europe, is there an alternative way of interpreting Europe and her broader philosophical, political, social and cultural heritage? In other words, can the study of "Byzantium" constitute a pleasantly subversive activity on the threshold of the twenty-first century? ... From: David Turner, Byzantium, the alternative history of Europe
Folly's lineage, education and companions
