Liverpool Translated Texts for Historians (TTH) has grown to include an exceptional range of late antique and early medieval works in an attractive and, most importantly, inexpensive imprint. [1] Although the series is largely western in orientation, recent translations have included Byzantine and Syriac chronicles of the seventh century, which together provide crucial insights into near eastern society at the time of the Arab conquests. [2] Indeed, where Islamicists have questioned the veracity of the vast number of Arabic works detailing the conquests, works in Greek and Syriac, together with The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, present compelling alternative vistas. James Howard-Johnston's historical introduction and commentary to Sebeos draw together the strands which show how "the established binary world-order in western Eurasia [being the Sasanian Persian and Eastern Roman empires] was destroyed in a few strokes". In his commentary on the third and final section of Sebeos' narrative, Howard-Johnston weaves together Greek, Syriac and (limited) Arabic material, as well as later Armenian material, into a rich, variegated tapestry. This is complemented by Robert Thomson's attractive and richly annotated translation from the Armenian. The end of antiquity/beginning of the Middle Ages has been very well served.
It is unlikely that the author of our text was called Sebeos, or that he was an attested bishop with that name (Council of Dvin, AD 645), both of which were assumptions of previous editors and translators of his history. Indeed, Sebeos is rather unexceptional in being anonymous, devoutly religious and fascinated by the actions of great men. Equally unexceptional is his failure to cite the vast majority of his sources. Here the reader will be consistently grateful that Thomson has read all, and translated several, of the extant works by Armenian, Georgian and Greek authors whom Sebeos has used, or who have used Sebeos. For Sebeos, as all Armenian authors, "the Bible was the literary resource par excellence", and themes and motifs are borrowed freely. Occasionally, so are specific details. For example, in describing the siege engines aboard ships employed by Muawiya during his siege of Constantinople, Sebeos lifts information directly from the account of the siege of Jerusalem in I Macabees 6.51 (Books now included in the apocrypha, especially Macabees, were popular in medieval Armenia).
Thomson's translation is the first to be based on the latest critical edition (ed. G. V. Abgaryan, 1979). It thus supersedes earlier French and English versions based on the Mihrdatean edition of 1851, or its derivatives (e.g. the Patkanean edition of 1879). [3] Although he pitches the text at non-Armenian readers, Thomson provides ample opportunity and grist for experts anxious to quibble with his word selection. Up to a dozen words or phrases are transliterated and presented in footnotes, which explain, inform or delight. As a reader of Greek, but not Armenian, my eye was drawn to the numerous borrowings or literal translations from Byzantine Greek, e.g. , barbarosk' for barbaroi, 'foreigners' (15); hrogs for roga, 'donatives' (78); or surhandak, which renders the Greek tachydromos, 'fast messenger' (67).
Howard-Johnston's historical commentary is replete with insights. His detailed notes on the Roman-Persian war of 602- 30 surely serves as a taster for his magnum opus, forthcoming, on "the last great war of antiquity". [4] Howard-Johnston has a high regard for traditional political and military history, and a high regard for Sebeos as a political and military historian. Howard-Johnston applies a series of tests to evaluate Sebeos as historian, and awards him high marks. The historian is to judged by his critical acumen in handling source material, his creation of a coherent, synthetic narrative, and his objectivity. Both Howard-Johnston and, in his opinion Sebeos, accord documents the status of "highest available grade of source material". Both, then, have a very traditional, empirical approach to historiography, which some may find limited or limiting. As Howard-Johnston notes, "The modern historian may seek to supplement political causes with social and economic, but the importance of political decision- making and the military action initiates is undeniable." Modern historians may find still further supplements, and may ask questions that are of little interest to Howard-Johnston, but perhaps of greater interest to Sebeos. One question, the nature and context for Sebeos' apocalypticism, Howard-Johnston addresses only briefly. This will disappoint scholars interested in reading between Sebeos' lines, or discerning his mentalite. However, it will delight those who persist in seeing the value of facts and events, chronology and historical geography, emperors and generals. Indeed, Howard-Johnston's erudition and meticulous scholarship are both a necessary precondition for and provocation to further study. [5]
The two volumes, produced with the assistance of Tim Greenwood, have been carefully copy edited, leaving but a few typos. [6]
NOTES
[1] See http://www.liv.ac.uk/~egclark/tth.html; or http://www.liverpool- unipress.co.uk/TTH.htm
[2] The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, introduced, translated and annotated by A. Palmer, contributions by S. Brock and R. Hoyland, TTH15 (Liverpool,1993); Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD, translated with notes and introduction by M. Whitby and Mary Whitby, TTH7 (Liverpool, 1989).
[3] Histoire d'Heraclius, trans. F. Macler (Paris, 1904); Sebeos, History, trans. R. Bedrosian (New York, 1985), http://www.virtualscape.com/rbedrosian/seb1.htm.
[4] See also his "Heraclius' Persian campaings and the revival of the East Roman empire, 622-30," War in History 6/1 (1999), 1-44.
[5] This is not unprecedented: Howard-Johnston published a provocative and meticulously-argued piece suggesting that Anna Komnene's Alexiad was largely the work of her husand, the military historian Nikephoros Bryennios. "Anna Komnene and the Alexiad," in M. Mullett & D. Smythe (eds), Alexios I Komnenos. Papers (Belfast, 1996), 260-302. This has been rejected by many middle Byzantinists, and countered by Ruth Macrides, "The pen and the sword: who write the Alexiad," in T. Gouma-Peterson, ed., Anna Komnene and her times (New York 2000), 63-81.
[6] I noted only the following: p. xxii, n. 13, an i is missing its dot; p. xlvii. Movsis is missing the dash above his e; p. 9, littoral is spelt with a single l; p. 298, the Irish journal Peritia has acquired an additional e.