This was very nearly my first DNF of this reading cycle. It was just not really enjoyable; it was okay, but I didn't have fun, didn't enjoy my reading experience, or anything like that. Between the characters, the development, the pacing, etc., I just couldn't get into it. It was a chore.

DNF at 50%

I am a huge fan of historical crime fiction, especially fiction books that are set in less explored places and periods. So it was with some excitement and a bit of hesitation (since as a historian I am somewhat familiar with the location and period) that I approached Anthony Earth's A Court at Constantinople.

The synopsis of the book hints at an intriguing plot set in a fascinatingly beautiful and diverse city of Constantinople (Istanbul) undergoing a turbulent modernisation. Everything pointed out that this would be an interesting read, but alas, for me it was far from it.

The Queen of Cities, the glorious Ottoman Istanbul, which is the setting of this historical crime fiction is unutilised. The descriptions of the city that is undergoing significant modernisation in the 19th century are almost non-existent. As are descriptions or explanations of the geopolitical and cultural situation of the period and location the author chose to set the plot of his novel. In all honesty, this novel could have been set in any country and/or city the British Empire (at that time) had any strategical interest in, or a fictional country/city and it would have no bearing on the plot itself.

I don't expect historical fiction books to explain historical, geopolitical and cultural situations of the period they are set in in great detail. As long as the story and characters are intriguing, somewhat believable and capture my attention I don't mind if the book doesn't provide a detailed historical explanation. After all, I'm reading fiction, not an academic textbook. However, a significant portion of the book I've read was dedicated to the characters discussing or musing about law, justice and different legal practices. This was quite clunky, so in my opinion, more historical, cultural and geopolitical context was needed. In addition, neither the characters nor the story (in my opinion) were interesting enough to motivate me to read passed the 50% mark when I decided to DNF the book.

The characters, but especially the principal characters (James Bingham, Osman Mehmed and Rosamund Colborne) were bland and one-dimensional. I hadn't noticed any significant character development, or character development at all. They appeared to be stumbling through the book like ghosts and evoked no interest or any significant emotion from me.

The synopsis of the book was interesting and it has potential. However, in my opinion, this book did not fulfil it, so it's a pass from me.

I am so excited that this book seems to be about actual courts of law, rather than royal courts. What an unexpected treat! There is also legislation and the formation of a judicial system. Hopefully, Earth is a good enough writer to deliver on what he’s promising me.

Our main character, more or less, is James Bingham, a hapless young barrister, who is strong-armed into leaving England to serve as a junior clerk for Edmund Hornby, an English judge working for the Supreme Consular Court in Turkey to develop a new Ottoman judicial code which incorporates sharia and Western legal practices. Bingham’s Turkish counterpart in his new position, Mehmed, views Westerners (not inaccurately) as interfering imperialist interlopers and wishes Turkey to determine its own future without Western meddling. They are largely kept too busy with other work to work on the criminal code as assigned, which later proves unfortunate for most concerned.

Then there is Rosamund Colborne, a young Englishwoman of means raised in Turkey and chafing at having no rights and no voice. She reads, to me, as somewhat anachronistic, but in truth she may not be. It is not an era with which I am greatly familiar. At any rate, Rosamund elects to pursue Bingham for personal reasons wholly unrelated to romance. When, in the course of their courtship, Rosamund and Mehmed meet, things quickly become complicated on a personal and political scale, affecting the law, courts, and diplomatic relations between England and Turkey.

Despite being a law librarian, I don’t know much about English law and nothing at all about 19th century Turkish law, so I’m unequipped to say whether the courtroom scenes are accurate, but they come across that way. The jurisdictional and procedural difficulties that arise in the course of legal pursuits are ones that face real criminal courts, and I believe Earth has done sufficient research to make them historically accurate as well as believable. Apparently the case of R v Sinclair was a real one, by the way, which I definitely count as a point toward Earth’s dedication to historical research, and an effective point on which to turn his novel in the desired direction.

Personally, I would have liked to see more from Mehmed’s point of view. There is a lot of narration from the English perspective describing what Mehmed does, but there are comparatively few instances when the reader gets to find out what he’s actually thinking or feeling as they do with Bingham or Hornby or even Rosamund (who gets more page time than the brown characters, but less than the male ones). Some of this can be explained by the fact that much of the action revolves around English or English-style law, with which the judge and barrister are more familiar and would have more useful thoughts on, but it feels to me like it removes a degree of agency from the perspective of female and brown characters.

The above aside, I had no difficulty maintaining interest in this book from start to finish, and admit that the final pages, with their unanswered question and the implication of what would come next, chilled me. I think the audience for this sort of work seems at first to be both specific and limited, but I believe that it would appeal to a wider audience if readers managed not to be misled into thinking it about (literal) Byzantine scheming by members of a royal court, and not to be intimidated by the atypical setting. Certainly I intend to speak well of it to my friends and hope that a few decide to read it.

Thanks to netgalley for providing this advanced copy for the purpose of review.

This was a decent read but I felt like the story did start to drag at points which lost my attention a little. Otherwise a well written book.

Thank you NetGalley for the eArc copy of this book. Such an enjoyable read. I liked how the authors weaves elements of history into each page.

Set in the mid-1800s, the book follows a young British lawyer seconded, against his will, to serve at the British overseas court in the Sublime Port at Constantinople. This little-known corner of history sets the backdrop for musings on the nature of empire, civilization, freedom, class, gender, and law and justice.

The elegant writing style is well-suited to the book's historical setting; it reminded me of A Gentleman in Moscow. In fluid, natural prose, I think the author explains complex history and concepts of law, philosophy, politics, diplomacy, and culture rather well, but it helps that I personally find legalese interesting. Nevertheless, for the sake of the book and the story's impact, the editorial team would have done well to steer the author more towards accessibility.

This is to say that the book has good qualities. Overall, though, the book is just not very satisfying. Nothing is really resolved. I'm not sure if the author's intention was to leave the plot open for a sequel, but if so, a degree of closure would still have served the story well. From beginning to end, aside from the main character gradually coming to terms with a personal loss, nothing really changes.

The coterie of secondary characters are difficult to follow. I also found myself continually wanting more of the Ottomans, more of Mehmed. He's a fascinating character, but we hear so little from him. Few of the secondary characters really pull their own weight in the plot, so I would have been happy to see some of their page space given instead to Mehmed.

This is something of a niche title. If you have a background in British-Ottoman history or law, especially colonial law, you're likely to get a good deal out of it. For a general audience, it's a bit chewy.

Somehow I was able to read the book in its entirety, but nonetheless it wasn't something I actually enjoyed. Having said that it would be difficult for me to review as most of the time I skimmed through the pages. This was not what I was looking for when I requested the book.

As someone who's lived around the world, I know firsthand how cultures can collide, and the book, A Court at Constantinople, does a great job showing just that. After the Crimean War (1853 to 1856), Turkey wants to expand its international reputation and is selling business opportunities like hot cakes. They've negotiated a treaty with the British who want to impose their occidental legal system on a sharia-based Turkish system.
James Bingham, a young English lawyer and a commoner who’s won his position via the school of hard knocks, is struggling to succeed in his chosen profession. His fiancée has just died. Since he’s now unattached, he’s coerced into joining Her Britannic Majesty's Supreme Consular Court at Constantinople. Bingham is ordered to work on legal reforms with Osman Mehmed, a Turkish law student, but there’s never enough time to get the job done. The two men meet Rosamund Colburne, an early feminist. The cases brought before the British court interweave with the story of these three young people’s lives. A brutal beating of a rich merchant’s daughter and the subsequent trials of the various suspects (the British suspects by the Sultan’s legal system and the Muslim suspect by the British system) highlight the legal and diplomatic channels between Turkey and Great Britain and the differences between the two legal systems.
The book has a lot of legal terms, but I felt they were needed to add verisimilitude to the writing.