This monograph seeks to move away from the familiar debates that dominate work on the sixth century: the Christianisation of the Roman world and the transformation from the classical world to its three successors, Byzantium, the Carolingian west and the Islamic world. Instead, K. asks a new and secular question about how the inhabitants of new Rome (Constantinople) felt about their identity as Romans, now old Rome and the western empire were in the hands of a ‘barbarian’ power with whom, from 535, they were even at war. In exploring this question, K. introduces other issues, especially an assessment of Justinian's administrative reforms, which he considers in the central chapters of the book. He contrasts Justinian's version of history as set out in the prefaces to the Novels, with the critical responses of Prokopios, Ioannes Lydos and Jordanes. His choice of these authors leads to a somewhat negative view of Justinian's reforms, but allows K. to identify a coherent intellectual movement of Romanness in Constantinople amongst this circle of military and imperial bureaucrats. His focus on Zosimos, Hesychios of Miletos and Christodoros also fulfils his aim to rehabilitate and foreground these misunderstood or neglected writers and argue against the view that sixth-century authors were of a lower literary merit than their predecessors.

In the first chapter, ‘New Romans in the Age of Anastasius’, K. highlights the importance of Anastasius’ Romanness, which was one of the criteria demanded in the acclamations of the assembled crowds at his accession. Although K. refers to Zeno's unpopularity as an Isaurian, K. suggests that the question of Romanness was in the minds of the Constantinopolitans following the fall of Rome. However, it is likely that it was more a desire to avoid the accession of Zeno's brother, Longinus, who was expected to succeed (Evagrius III.29), which drove the Constantinopolitans’ calls for a ‘Roman’ emperor. K. explores the conception of Romanness at this time through Zosimos and Hesychios of Miletos. Although Zosimos is an outlier in terms of his ardent and open paganism and Hesychios’ history survives only in fragments, both authors fulfil K.'s mission to study the views of bureaucrats in the imperial administration.

Another author who is clearly linked with Anastasius is the court poet Christodoros of Koptos. In Chapter 2, ‘Mythistory and Cultural Identity in New Rome’, K. examines the poem Ekphrasis on the Statues of the Zeuxippos Baths for what it can tell us about the poet's view on Romanness and identity. Through a very close analysis of the text K. demonstrates how Christodoros seeks to devalue the notion of Italian-Roman identity whilst promoting Greco-Roman identity. He does this by focusing on the destruction of Troy rather than the foundation of Rome and by highlighting the Greek tradition. K. also highlights the negative depiction of Caesar in comparison to the positive portrayal of Pompey with whom Anastasius had chosen to identify (cf. Priscian, Panegyric 15–18). Christodoros seeks to break the tie between Julius Caesar and Aeneas (and thereby with Venus) while promoting Anastasius’ relationship with Republican Rome through Pompey.

The third, fourth and fifth chapters move to an analysis of Justinian's reign through the prefaces of his Novels and the responses of Prokopios, Jordanes and Lydos. Here the tone shifts from the neutral discussion about Romanness during the reign of Anastasius to a more critical view of Justinian's expression of Romanness. The third chapter, ‘Administrative Reform and Republican History’, starts this process with an examination of Novels 13 and 24 on the office of praetor and an analysis of how the three writers ‘fact-checked’ Justinian's view of Romanness. K. argues that Justinian (or the real author of the laws, Tribonian) correctly realised that there would be a keen interest in Roman history, especially the Republic. However, Justinian's view fitted the early years of hope but not the mood of the 550s when Prokopios, Jordanes and Lydos were writing and the Italian war had dragged on for twenty years.

The fourth and longest chapter, ‘The Abolition of the Consulship’, explores how Justinian deals with the most difficult issue when manipulating Roman history to support his imperial policies: how to downgrade the position of consul when the consulship was symbolic of the Republic, still considered the golden age of Rome. Not only was Justinian familiar with the pattern of rule in the west when powerful generals in Rome and Ravenna were awarded with the consulship and ruled in all but name, but closer to home was the example of the highly popular Belisarios, who held the consulship and enjoyed great military success. K. examines a number of relevant Novels and concludes that, as there were a number of possible reasons for Justinian's decision to end the consulship, each writer supplied his own explanation: Prokopios argued that Justinian was motivated by personal greed and a fear of Belisarios’ popularity. Jordanes set up a contrast between virtuous holders of the consulship and ineffectual and immoral emperors. Lydos also portrayed Justinian as a weak ruler who allowed his ministers to perpetrate injustices.

In the fifth chapter, ‘The Fall of Rome in the Age of Justinian’, K. examines how Justinian presented the reintegration of old Rome into the Roman empire and how Prokopios represented the issue in the correspondence between Belisarios and Totila: the Gothic leader struggled to distinguish between the inhabitants of Rome and the eastern Roman army who sought to ‘liberate’ them from Gothic rule. K. also considers the general agreement amongst authors (Marcellinus Comes, Prokopios and Jordanes) that the western empire had fallen, but notes their differing reaction to the important date of 476.

There is a final switch of direction in the sixth chapter, ‘Apostolic History and the Church of (New) Rome’. This chapter covers events from the divisive Council of Chalcedon in 451 and follows the rhetoric of the eastern emperors and Roman popes as the former promoted the importance of the See of Constantinople and the latter sought to protect the position of the Roman papacy. At the start of his career, Justinian had been eager to heal the Acacian schism that divided Constantinople and Rome, but as his priorities changed and his desire for unification of his empire and papal compliance grew, his role in church matters became more pronounced (reflected in the subheading From Supplicant to Master: Justinian and the Church of Rome, p. 212). K. suggests that, once the Roman west was no longer held by the Romans after 476, it was difficult for the popes to maintain their ecclesiastical importance to the Roman east. K. argues, therefore, that the politics of memory were equally important to the popes in this endeavour as they were to the Constantinopolitan writers discussed in the first five chapters.

There is a lot to unpack in this complex monograph, which combines very detailed textual analysis with sweeping arguments for change in how we approach the sixth century. As it stands, K. makes a convincing argument, but we should bear in mind that, in the hope to establish a ‘non-theological intellectual history of sixth-century Constantinople’ (p. 6), he restricts his study to quite a limited pool of authors. It would be interesting, within this context, to consider other authors (such as Malalas, another bureaucrat) and to explore the links between Lydos, Cassiodorus and Priscian. K.'s consideration of the critical responses to Justinian's version of Romanness perhaps gives a different emphasis to the monograph since its core becomes a mostly negative appraisal of the emperor's justification for his reform legislation. However, the importance of the Roman republic in Constantinopolitans’ view of their history and the extent to which the sixth-century authors accepted the notion of 476 as a significant date for the ‘fall’ of the western Roman empire are unifying themes.