Conrad

Review Essay Conrad, L. I. (2004). Theophanes and the Arabic Historical Tradition: Some Indications of Intercultural Transmission. In M. Bonner (Ed.), Arab-Byzantine Relaionships in Early Islamic Times (Vol. 8, pp. 317-360). Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company. Jacalyn Moffat Dr. Jozef C. Raadschelders LTSD 5313

Conrad Introduction At the beginning of the seventh century, the Byzantine Empires overextended frontiers had

collapsed, and over the next 120 years it struggled to survive. Its great capital, Constantinople was besieged three timesby the Persians and Avars in 626, and by the newly unified Islam in 674-678 and 717-718. After the failure of the great Arab assault of 717-718, when it became clear Constantinople would not fall to an outside attack, the Empire was still far from peaceful. Iconoclasm, a great religious upheaval, had gripped the Empire over the use of images in worship. The controversy would have profound theological implications, as well as social and political. Theophanes was born in the midst of the dispute over images. Had it not been for his Chronographia he left behind, he would have gone unnoticed in historical documents. Byzantine historians usually covered a specific allocation of time, and usually took up where their predecessor left off. Conrad remarks that from a historical point, the first half of the Chronographia (covering A.D. 284 to 602) is of little value since for the most part it reproduces the writing of authors whose works are still extant. However, the latter half of the Chronographia is of special importance by virtue of the fact it provides a detailed account from Greek historical sources which are no longer extant. This gives the Chronographia important historiographical importance because it stands alone as a historical source for Byzantium from A.D. 602 to 813. Conrad states its major problems are well-known; Theophanes makes no attempt to write as a critical historian whose task is to explain and interpret the past. He devotes his energies to determining the order and timing of events. He devises an elaborate system of comparative chronology and gives brief accounts of selected events, which are listed and noted in annalistic form. However, his chronologythe core of his worksis sometimes erroneous or confused. He simply

Conrad

strings together historical notices, showing little or no editorial concern for the standardization of names, nor in eliminating contradictions. In the Chronographia historical accuracy is often sacrificed to other concerns. Theophanes reveals his iconophilic sentiment when covering the iconoclast controversy. His views lead him to accept reports which go to great extremes in maligning the iconoclast emperors. Conrad also notes he seems to have a high tolerance for exaggeration, particularly where numbers are concerned. Theophanes also evinces the medieval fascination with the preternatural and bizarre, reporting events such as two-mile-deep chasms opening up in the earth, or icebergs floating down the Bosporus, often written in great detail. There has been much scholarly discussion as to whether Theophanes was the actual author or whether it was actually written by George Synkellos, and Theophanes task was to revise the text for publication after Georges death. However, Conrads concern is not concerned with who the actual author was. The question he would like to consider is whether the authorwho he will refer to as Theophaneswas primarily a compiler and redactor of already available information, or whether he actually composed anything of his own. Summary Conrad presents his thesis as a question: Even though Theophanes primarily acted as a compiler and redactor of previous available information, Conrad questions whether or not he actually wrote any of it himself, writing from an intercultural transmission with Islamic Arabs. This is an ambitious question, since Conrad admits Theophanes, in his Introduction, specifically denies he composed anything of his own.

Conrad

Scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to the question of Theophanes sources; while the Chronographia is regarded as a mlange of identifiable and separate extant sources of Greek historical documents, it is also implicit that all of his sources were not of the Greek historical tradition. When Theophanes writes about events in Syria after Byzantium lost these lands during the Arab conquests of the seventh century. Theophanes simply knows too much about these events, and including the early history of the caliphate, for it to be plausible his sources were limited to Byzantine Greek tradition. From the beginning scholars have focused on Theophanes Eastern or Oriental sources because of this. Byzantium was a truly international empire in which the languages and cultures of many groups played important roles. Hence, translation was a common activity in Byzantium, and many Syrian-speaking Christians were fluent in Greek. Greek-Syriac intercultural transmission of historical material was the logical choice for primary consideration. Conrad explains some of the different scholars research on this concept, and he asserts they prove, beyond any doubt, the Chronographia contains information from Syriac sources, particularly those on Islamic history. However, he notes they did not immediately consider that some of these sources might have been so broadening it was conceivable the sources could extend to the Arabic tradition of Islam. It was long-believed the Arab conquests marked a sharp break and discontinuity in the history of the original Classical world. Textual comparison was fairly simple, since the Syriac historical texts often contained the same kind of succinct notices on Islam which Theophanes preferred. In Arabic sources the events were described in page upon page of detailed narrative, and these could not be collated in any relevant way with the brief notices of the Chronographia. Conrad contends the Arabic narrative presents even

Conrad

more difficult historiographical problems: Though Islamic historical writing was well-developed by the time of Theophanes death, when he wrote the Chronographia most of the Islamic events were only beginning to receive the systematic historical attention Theophanes gave them. Conrad asseverates it is now not only possible, but essential, that the question of Eastern sources needs to be reconsidered. In recent years research has made it clear the case for the disastrously and disruptive effects of the Arab conquests was much overstated. He argues that the possibility of the Eastern Source of Theophanes including material from the Arab-Islamic tradition, should be excogitated. This is not only important for the consideration of the history of relations between Byzantium and Islam from the seventh to ninth centuries A.D., it is even more significant for the historical reconstruction of the events of this era. Conrad acknowledges that, because of the textual differences, line-by-line comparison for specific intercultural transmission is of no use. He asserts the recent advances in the study of early Islamic history and historiography now make it clear that, in some of the instances, agreements between the Chronographia and the Arabic sources demonstrate Theophanes was dependent on the Islamic tradition for his sources of information. Conrad also recognizes the medieval Islamic tradition contains spurious material, and that the narratives were retouched or fabricated, as is the case in most historical traditions. He explains that reports of this kind describe, not the historical event itself, but the way an evolving Islamic society came to conceptualize or idealize the narratives of their selves as they evolved. This is significant because these narratives originate in the historical tradition of Islam, and reflect concerns and issues specific to the Islamic community. Hence, he argues, if Theophanes has incorporated such narratives into

Conrad

the text of the Chronographia, the primary source for them can only be the Arabic tradition, on which Theophanes is accordingly dependent at those specific points. Conrad reiterates this is the working premise of his paper, and states it is a hypothesis which obviously has important implicationsnot only for the use of Theophanes as a historic source, but also for the question of cultural contacts between Byzantium and Islam in the early medieval period. Conrad continues to support his premise by noting some of the passages of the Chronographia contain well-informed summaries of Arabic tradition, the ancestry of the major tribes in Arabia, and their genealogical interrelationships. He notes these relationships, as given in the Chronographia, stand in exact agreement with Arab genealogical tradition. In addition, he notes that the accuracy with which Theophanes reproduces the Arabic genealogical tradition is remarkable. Tribal genealogy was a slow process which did not begin until after Islam, and a large amount of fiction was used to fill in enormous gaps. It emerged as an elaborate detailed system describing the interrelationships of all the tribes. The sketch in the Chronographia is fully grounded in this tradition and participates in its most prominent fictions. These examples demonstrate Conrads method of examining and interpreting evidence to support his thesis. He continues this approach when he examines several other historical documents, going into great detail to support his line of reasoning. Along the same line, he continues to validate his argument by also examining historical texts for explanation of the possible means of intercultural transmission. Conrad explains if certain details are isolated from possible textual parallels, it is difficult to judge the merits of proposed explanations for each passage. He corrects this by examining two different

Conrad

versions of a specific story; in this manner it can reveal significant textual correspondence, and the points where they differ. This is used to determine whether or not the passage is derived from Greek or Syriac sources; the Syriac sources are longer, clearer, and more detailed. Conrad concludes by stating , from the evidence he has demonstrated, it should be clear historiographical consideration of the Chronographia of Theophanes must be revised to take into account the presence of sources which ultimately came from the Arabic tradition of Islam. This phenomenon of intercultural transmission of historical documents, can raise serious doubts about the value of the Chronographia as an independent witness for events in Islamic history. However, Conrad asserts it is still of considerable historiographical importance because of its indications of the content and scope of historical discussions, within Islamic circles of the late Umayyad and early Abbsid periods. Because these narratives are presumably Syrian, the Chronographia can be a source of significant value for elucidating the extent and character of early Islamic material. Conclusion This paper demonstrates how important it is for the historian to consider the intercultural transmission of ancient civilizations when examining a historical source. Conrads article illustrates how understanding global connectivity in the past can lead to innovative and fresh perspectives of historical documents. His argumentation is well-documented and he documents his argument very competently by providing many specific quotes from historical texts. The article flows smoothly and his reasoning is easy to follow. When studying the intercultural transmission between Byzantium and Islam, Conrads article is a valuable resource.