Customer Reviews

The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As this is a primary source, I am reviewing the edition, not Theophanes as a historian.

There is not a whole lot to say about this text. It is quite simply the best translation available in English today. I cannot comment too much on the translation itself as I have little experience with Theophanes' Greek, but it is clear and highly readable. It also does not attempt to play with the Greek quite to the extent that Turtledove's translation does. This edition also benefits from having a wider range of text available. Turtledove chose to start his in 602 AD, which was a rather poor starting point as it eliminates the possibility of using his translation for Justinian and his successors, something that is relevant. Mango chooses to start with Diocletian, which places this text on much firmer ground. While there is very little of the text that is not actually extant in Theophanes' sources before the time of Herakleios, it is nice to have, and helps put Theophanes' chronicle in wider perspective. Mango has also gone to the pains of citing Theophanes' sources for us. This is absolutely invaluable, for it helps us determine how Theophanes used source material as well as allowing us to analyze what sources he used, and thus look for unique material.

This is a great text. It far surpasses Harry Turtledove's The Chronicle of Theophanes: Anni mundi 6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813) (The Middle Ages) in length, notes, and general usefulness. THe reason that it does not get 5 stars is the fact that it is unreasonably expensive, even for an academic book. It simply has no chance to compete in terms of usefulness to students who are looking for an edition of Theophanes to buy, as the $20 for Turtledove's inferior edition is far more reasonable than the $240 for Mango's translation.

This edition of the Chronicle of Theophanes has all the formidable scholarly characteristics of a definitive work, and it includes the whole scope of the text from 284 AD to 813. I do not know, however, why a print-on-demand academic text needs to be so expensive. And there is a curious feature of the translation. The proper name of the Roman Empire, "Romania," which Theophanes uses extensively, is here systematically concealed by the translation. What we get is "the Roman country" or "Roman territory," and no gloss, warning, or explanation that this is being done. One of the translators here, Cyril Mango, has elsewhere said, "The kingdom of Constantinople, which had become extinct in 1453, needed a distinctive name, and that is how the adjective byzantinus came into being" [The Oxford History of Byzantium, 2002, p.2]. Since the actual "distinctive name" occurs abundantly in the Chronicle of Theophanes, let alone in other contemporary Greek and Latin literature, one might reasonable wonder what is going on here -- why "Byzantine" scholars seem to be suppressing evidence of the usage of the name "Romania." Some explanation is in order, and the reader should be warned about a way in which the language of Theophanes is misrepresented.