This collection of nine papers (with an introduction) treats many questions about gender in Byzantium, ranging over time, geographical area, source-genre and methodological approach. In her introduction (pp. 1–10 at p. 7), Neil sets out the subject matter:

Sources are Latin and Greek; the genders are feminine, masculine and eunuchs, who may be the ‘third gender’ or indeed as ‘no gender at all’ (p. 2). There are recognised omissions: the nature of the sources means a focus on the upper ‘classes’; there is a lacuna in the treatment of imperial legislation on marriage. Neil states that the collection focuses ‘not on material realities of gendered lives in Byzantine society but on the ideational power of gender to shape those lives’ (p. 3). Sources written from a male point of view dominate (p. 4), and survivals favour religious perspectives, though the notion of the monk as a ‘spiritual eunuch’ gives an interesting twist (p. 5).

Some aspects repeat across the papers in unexpected ways. Haircuts, tonsures, moustaches and beards appear as signifiers of a range of different qualities from southern Italy to the heart of the empire. My own interest was piqued by the reference (p. 24 n. 80) to the ‘Greek fashion … the turban wrapped around his head’, echoing the emir in Digenes Akritas putting on Byzantine disguise, a turban.

Paul Brown's survey (pp. 10–27) of South Italian sources concludes that criticism of the Byzantines was not for ‘effeminacy’, but rather for their cunning and treachery. Garland's chapter on ‘Family life in Byzantine monasteries' (pp. 29–55) argues that taking the veil created a locus of women's power and affection where they controlled oikoi much as they had in the secular world but in the company of a ‘logical family’ of mothers and daughters. Amelia Brown's survey of women's literacy (pp. 57–76) is very wide-ranging as it covers the whole Byzantine period. A tighter chronological focus would have brought out distinctive conclusions more clearly. Sarah Gador-Whyte's treatment of changing conceptions of Mary in sixth-century Byzantium as seen through the kontakia of Romanos (pp. 77–92) shows Mary presented as Theotokos, Protector, Intercessor and Mother. Reference to Roger Scott's (oral?) characterisation of Romanos's Theotokos as the ‘suburban mum’ (p. 87) perhaps jars, but this was the function of Romanos's kontakia: they made real, immediate and personal the actions being liturgically commemorated. James's evaluation of Constantinian imperial women (pp. 93–112) develops Scott's idea that ‘true’ and ‘good stories’ (that make the point) are not the same thing. These ‘ciphers’ are not about individual women, but these ‘good stories’ illuminate the men and their actions, by accounts about their womenfolk. Neil deals with Eirene on the throne and the response – both East and West – to this manifestation of feminine power (pp. 113–31). Rather than a woman on the throne (like a woman preaching) or the trail of blood that led to her assumption of power, Eirene's rule was questioned in the West because of her overt iconophilia. Wright's chapter on ‘The brides of 1420’ (pp. 133–52) deals with unusual marriages and mourning monodia; interesting because as well as crossing gender lines, these brides from Italy cross ‘ethnic’ lines as well. Tougher's chapter on masculinity and eunuchs (pp. 153–66) draws attention to the middle Byzantine norm of beards for men. In official lists the striking norm for civil servants is to be eunuchs; the exceptions are offices reserved for ‘the bearded’. As well as the ‘angelic’ eunuch, the case is made for eunuchs as ‘arrested development’ in the life-course. The final chapter is Casey's on spiritual valency (pp. 167–81). Gender highlights ‘the tension between what is and what should be’ (p. 167). Being ‘holy’ for a woman in Byzantium often required (like Mary of Egypt) the transgression of gender norms in order to transcend the flesh – and eunuchs as ungendered (p. 181) could be said to have ‘cheated’ in their struggle to overcome the flesh.

Striking by its absence is any ‘end word’ or ‘conclusion’. Each paper has a clearly identified ‘conclusion’ which hints at clear editorial direction; however, these excellent papers are very disparate in subject matter, in time, in place and in approach. Taken together they do advance ‘questions of gender in Byzantine society’ but it would have helped the reader to have had some manner of drawing the papers together: how far has the study of gender in Byzantium advanced (by these papers I would say ‘significantly’). Have all questions been answered? Here I – along with many if not all of the contributors here present – would say ‘no’. Pointing out some of the areas of fruitful investigation as well as the areas that remain contested – the clearest example here to me is the place of eunuchs in the Byzantine ‘gender system’, third gender, ‘no gender at all’ or ‘men … but different’; angels have no bodies but they do have gender – would have been a useful concluding paper.

The text is remarkably ‘clean’: I found only two typographical errors – on p. 53 in the second paragraph on line 4, insert space; italic ‘H’ needed in citation for Taft in the bibliography on p. 209. Formatting of references to the Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik are faulty (p. 71 n. 60; pp. 198, 201, 202, 210). On p. 116 at n. 16, reference is made to Treadgold's article, ‘An indirectly preserved source for the reign of Leo v’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik xxxiv (1984), 69–76 (again with faulty italicisation). In the bibliography, on p. 210, two citations due to Treadgold (Byzantine revival and the JÖB article) have been ascribed to Tougher. The index has surprising omissions: Narses (given extended treatments at pp. 12–14, 20, 163); and Justinian himself (though Theodora is cited in the index).

The papers in this volume are detailed as befits a complex subject. They repay close reading by delivering insights and new lines of inquiry.