I'm working on a book review, and the book itself is a collection of papers on Byzantine chronicles, with Malalas and Justinian front and centre. There's a lot of good material in the book - by Roger Scott - and, generally, his perspective on reading chronicles is one that I am very much in agreement with, at least in part.
One issue Scott raises regularly is what constitutes the most important events of the reign of Justinian. Here, we part company, though Scott has given me much to ponder. On a number of occasions Scott identifies four events which he claims are the most famous of Justinian's reign. They include: Justinian's codification of Roman law, the building of Hagia Sophia, the closing of Plato's academy in 529, and Justinian's recovery of the west (North Africa and Italy - with a shout-out to southern Spain). The list makes some sense. The first two have had a lasting impact on our world - at least if you've ever visited Istanbul or have studied law in a number of western nations. The third and the fourth have 'romantic pedigree', the third because it represents the end (on some level) of one of the defining aspects of the Classical world, the fourth because it represented (at least in part) an attempt to regain and so re-unite a big part of the heart of the Classical world. So, important, and certainly interesting, stuff.
But, it's important stuff to us. The question that Scott raises is whether these four were important - or significant - to them, that is sixth century Romans living under Justinian. For him the answer, or at least an answer, lies in determining which works of history we ought to take as most representative of the reign, something like Malalas' Chronicle, or Procopius' Wars.
Malalas devotes very little space to Justinian's reconquest, Procopius a great deal. Which is right? Scott would argue for the former, I'm tempted by the latter. This split (a bit pretentious given that I don't know Scott and I'm sure he doesn't know me) is easily explained by context. In Scott's esteemed career he's spent a great deal of time dealing with sixth century (and later) chronicles like Malalas'. In my short career - to this point - I've spent a good deal of time thinking about Procopius. I also fancy military history. Which possibility (reconquest important or not), however, is more plausible?
Well, we would probably need a great deal of information to reach any sort of satisfactory resolution, and like nearly everything ancient a definitive answers seems unattainable. With that said, a close reading of either text, the Chronicle or Wars, can only be part of that answer. Ideally, we would like to know how much money was spent on the wars, and what portion of the state's budget they consumed. We would like to know what sorts of resources were mustered for the two wars, both in terms of manpower and supplies. We would like to know what people - besides two very different historians - thought about the wars, both elite and common. Some indication of the number of references to war-things in all texts and documents from the age of Justinian would be helpful too. I could go on.
In other words, a balanced judgement can only be reached after we've evaluated a huge pile of evidence, and as large a pile as we can get our hands on. That hasn't happened yet (the compiling) - though once I get rid of Procopius and Moesia I plan on tackling this next: a comprehensive study of war in the age of Justinian that doesn't simply provide us with the dates, people, and key events of the wars of the age, but which goes deeper and evaluates their impact on a number of levels (cultural, economic, social, etc.). That's the plan. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
Sunday, 20 January 2013
Agathias the Unloved
I've been working on a book on narrative in Procopius for some time now. I'd like to think I'm not that far off from finishing the thing, but obstacles pop up with greater frequency than I'd like. It has, at times, been an intensely frustrating experience, and for a host of reasons. Some recent feedback, for example, put a damper on the progress that I had made. At present, I've put it aside, and to prevent my motivation from slipping away in its entirety I've decided to look to the future and one of the many projects that I hope to return to in the course of this career: Agathias. It might be something of a cliche for someone whose spent time on
Procopius to turn to Agathias too - see Cameron and Kaldellis. But,
I've convinced myself that my desire to turn to Agathias has more to do
with my interest in all things late antique historiographical than with
any slavish career copying. In other words, the things that draw me to Procopius exist in Agathias too, and it's probably inevitable that I would be so drawn.
Of sixth century historians Agathias falls somewhere in the middle. He lacks the depth and descriptive force of Procopius; yet, his classicizing language and more consistently reliable narrative put him above Malalas. That is, for all intents and purposes, the communis opinio. Unlike those other historians, however, he's also an 'esteemed' poet, having written and collated a well-known collection of poetry, the Anthology. Of course, it's not the poetry that I'm interested in, though the poetry is inseparable from the history, as Agathias himself makes clear: in this regard see his comments in lines 4-11 of his preface and the papers of Kaldellis. The scope of his Histories is narrow: he describes the some of the last few years of Justinian's reign, 552-559, though he himself was writing in the last quarter of the sixth century (probably the 580s). As befits a classicizing history, his focus is on war and politics, and his short but detailed text is filled with standard history features such as a preface that highlights the work's importance and its place in the tradition; set-pieces like battles (Casilinum); speeches (comparatively few, in fact); and ethnographic excurses (the Persians), to name but a few. Yet, his religious leanings are far from clear, for some see him as a Christian, others as a pagan (as problematic that term in itself is).
There hasn't been a whole lot of work done on Agathias: one book, at least in the last few decades (1970 - Cameron), and a host of book chapters (Brodka, Treadgold, Whitby), journal articles (Alexakis, Baldwin, Cameron, Kaldellis, Whitby), and occasional notices (Syvanne) - that list is fairly representative. As I say, the scholarly opinion is mixed, though later Byzantine authors such as Leo the Deacon and John Kinnamos, to judge by the character of aspects of their own works, felt that his style, at least in some parts (battle, for example), could serve as model to be emulated.
What I would like to undertake is a book-length study of this little understood historian. The comparative brevity of his History might mitigate against such a project, though I think the detail therein is suggestive.
Do we need such a thing? The limited number of scholarly treatments is, I think, as good a justification as any. Plus, though Kaldellis - and Brodka - have made some important advances, the fact is there is the one book, and it's coming up on 45 years old. Late antique and Byzantine historians are still poorly served, particularly in relation to their classical and western medieval cousins. Justinian is one of the most important - or at least one of the most famous - historians of late antiquity, lo, antiquity in general, and Agathias details a significant part of the period of Justinian's decline - the last half (even two-thirds) of his reign. All in all, then, there are good reasons for doing this.
What would I do? That gets a bit more tricky.
I'd like to see how closely his work follows the classicizing ideal. Is he Procopius' sloppy cousin? In other words, like Theophylact - and to some degree Evagrius - after him, is he completely befuddled in his attempt to blend classical and Christian in his text? Or, does he deserve more credit? Not everyone can agree - and admittedly likely never will - on whether the classicizing style and framework was an appropriate means of describing and explaining the past in the sixth century. Still, a detailed study might go some small way towards resolution.
How closely does he adhere to the truth? Though this has attracted some attention - and I wouldn't want this to be an old-school positivistic analysis of all that he describes - a sustained study of the work in its entirety would be useful. Again, getting back to the comparative brevity of the text, this fact itself might necessitate a study that discusses as many aspects of the History and Agathias the historian as possible. Though the late antique audience had a different understanding of history from us, a good part of that understanding was adherence to the truth and so it's worth tackling.
The final aspect I want to highlight at this point is the narrative and organization of the text itself. How is it structured? What sort of chronological structure underlines the text? How does Agathias characterize key individuals in the text? Are his characterizations one-dimensional, well-rounded, or some combination of the two? If he isn't consistent, why is that? What role does the narrator play in the text? How does the organization of the text affect the view of the past that it presents, if it does so at all? Are the ways that Agathias structures the narrative tied at all to the explanations that he advocates? Hell, what attempts are there to explain what happens? Is the History mere reportage? A related - and important - issue is the influence of rhetoric. We know (or are aware of) the relationship between history and rhetoric, and that Agathias was himself a well-educated lawyer (i.e., well-versed in tools of rhetoric). So, what impact does rhetoric play in his work? Do ekphrases, and other aspects of ancient rhetorical theory underline his work?
Consequently, I think there's a great deal of scope there for a major study, and since I haven't come across anyone doing just that I'm happy to plow ahead. If you're out there, however, and you're reading this, please do get in touch!
Of sixth century historians Agathias falls somewhere in the middle. He lacks the depth and descriptive force of Procopius; yet, his classicizing language and more consistently reliable narrative put him above Malalas. That is, for all intents and purposes, the communis opinio. Unlike those other historians, however, he's also an 'esteemed' poet, having written and collated a well-known collection of poetry, the Anthology. Of course, it's not the poetry that I'm interested in, though the poetry is inseparable from the history, as Agathias himself makes clear: in this regard see his comments in lines 4-11 of his preface and the papers of Kaldellis. The scope of his Histories is narrow: he describes the some of the last few years of Justinian's reign, 552-559, though he himself was writing in the last quarter of the sixth century (probably the 580s). As befits a classicizing history, his focus is on war and politics, and his short but detailed text is filled with standard history features such as a preface that highlights the work's importance and its place in the tradition; set-pieces like battles (Casilinum); speeches (comparatively few, in fact); and ethnographic excurses (the Persians), to name but a few. Yet, his religious leanings are far from clear, for some see him as a Christian, others as a pagan (as problematic that term in itself is).
There hasn't been a whole lot of work done on Agathias: one book, at least in the last few decades (1970 - Cameron), and a host of book chapters (Brodka, Treadgold, Whitby), journal articles (Alexakis, Baldwin, Cameron, Kaldellis, Whitby), and occasional notices (Syvanne) - that list is fairly representative. As I say, the scholarly opinion is mixed, though later Byzantine authors such as Leo the Deacon and John Kinnamos, to judge by the character of aspects of their own works, felt that his style, at least in some parts (battle, for example), could serve as model to be emulated.
What I would like to undertake is a book-length study of this little understood historian. The comparative brevity of his History might mitigate against such a project, though I think the detail therein is suggestive.
Do we need such a thing? The limited number of scholarly treatments is, I think, as good a justification as any. Plus, though Kaldellis - and Brodka - have made some important advances, the fact is there is the one book, and it's coming up on 45 years old. Late antique and Byzantine historians are still poorly served, particularly in relation to their classical and western medieval cousins. Justinian is one of the most important - or at least one of the most famous - historians of late antiquity, lo, antiquity in general, and Agathias details a significant part of the period of Justinian's decline - the last half (even two-thirds) of his reign. All in all, then, there are good reasons for doing this.
What would I do? That gets a bit more tricky.
I'd like to see how closely his work follows the classicizing ideal. Is he Procopius' sloppy cousin? In other words, like Theophylact - and to some degree Evagrius - after him, is he completely befuddled in his attempt to blend classical and Christian in his text? Or, does he deserve more credit? Not everyone can agree - and admittedly likely never will - on whether the classicizing style and framework was an appropriate means of describing and explaining the past in the sixth century. Still, a detailed study might go some small way towards resolution.
How closely does he adhere to the truth? Though this has attracted some attention - and I wouldn't want this to be an old-school positivistic analysis of all that he describes - a sustained study of the work in its entirety would be useful. Again, getting back to the comparative brevity of the text, this fact itself might necessitate a study that discusses as many aspects of the History and Agathias the historian as possible. Though the late antique audience had a different understanding of history from us, a good part of that understanding was adherence to the truth and so it's worth tackling.
The final aspect I want to highlight at this point is the narrative and organization of the text itself. How is it structured? What sort of chronological structure underlines the text? How does Agathias characterize key individuals in the text? Are his characterizations one-dimensional, well-rounded, or some combination of the two? If he isn't consistent, why is that? What role does the narrator play in the text? How does the organization of the text affect the view of the past that it presents, if it does so at all? Are the ways that Agathias structures the narrative tied at all to the explanations that he advocates? Hell, what attempts are there to explain what happens? Is the History mere reportage? A related - and important - issue is the influence of rhetoric. We know (or are aware of) the relationship between history and rhetoric, and that Agathias was himself a well-educated lawyer (i.e., well-versed in tools of rhetoric). So, what impact does rhetoric play in his work? Do ekphrases, and other aspects of ancient rhetorical theory underline his work?
Consequently, I think there's a great deal of scope there for a major study, and since I haven't come across anyone doing just that I'm happy to plow ahead. If you're out there, however, and you're reading this, please do get in touch!
Return of the Blog
Many moons ago, while I was a graduate student at Warwick, I had a wee blog. What posts I had were usually about late antique things, with Procopius, Justinian, and sixth century warfare the subject of the bulk of those posts. There were occasional posts about non-academic things. Here, I plan on doing the same. On the academic side of things probable topics include the Classical World, Late Antiquity, Byzantium, Rome, historiography (classical, late antique, and byzantine), ancient and medieval warfare, frontiers, barbarians, and teaching. Those of a less academic sort are likely to include Winnipeg, hockey, and, well, whatever else comes to mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)