Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Compte rendu
Averil CAMERON and Lawrence I. CONRAD, eds., The Byzantine and Early
Islamic Near East. I, Problems in the Literary Source Material, Studies in Late
Antiquity and Early Islam. I, Princeton (1992), xiv + 428 pages.
A project which was conceived in 1986 and came into being with a
workshop held in autumn 1989 now makes a first durable contribution to
scholarship. The proceedings of that workshop are published in what is intended
to be the first of a series of publications devoted to the transitional age at the end
of antiquity and focused geographically on the Near East. The general objective
of the project is to promote communication between specialists currently at work
in traditionally separate fields as well as between those dealing with different
aspects of the same field, and thereby to encourage a synthesis of methods and
ideas or at any rate a fruitful interaction between them. So far four workshops
have been held, each attended by some fifty scholars and graduate students with
very diverse interests and expertise. Discussions, which were always lively, have
proved remarkably successful both in conveying information across disciplinary
divides and in opening up fresh approaches to issues, familiar and unfamiliar.
The proceedings of the second and third workshops, dealing with Land Use
and Settlement Patterns and States, Resources and Armies will be
published in the near future.
It is fitting that the first volume to be published deals with basic questions
concerning the written source material. The principal issues are raised in the
course of the editorial introduction, which both summarises the thrusts of the
eight published papers and places them in a wider historiographical and literary
context. II may be a truism to say that no written text should be used for
historical purposes until it has been properly appraised, but it is one well worth
hammering home. First of all, questions of authenticity must be answered
satisfactorily. Then each text must be understood for what it is, the product of a
particular milieu, constrained to a greater or lesser extent by the requirements of
genre, reflecting to a greater or lesser degree the interests and quirks of an author
or authors, serving to a greater or lesser degree a cause or causes. Above all its
own internal structure must be delineated, its linguistic and intellectual level
gauged, and the effects of literary artifice identified and appreciated. All of these
points are made quite rightly by the editors, who are also concerned to
concentrate attention on the interaction between oral and written modes of
communication and to ensure that the full range of extant texts, however far
removed in form and substance some may be from conventional histories and
chronicles, be treated as the raw materials of history.
Topoi 5 (1995)
p. 675-685
676
J. HOWARD- JOHNSTON
The papers deal with two distinct subjects. Five and part of a sixth deal
with literary production in Christian societies, extending from the mid sixth
century to the beginning of the eighth. Two and the major part of a third
confront the central issue which fertilises or bedevils early Islamic studies in the
late twentieth century, that of authenticity how much faith, if any, should be
placed in the voluminous written materials dealing with the life of the Prophet,
the conquest by the umma which he created of the whole Near East in so short a
time, and the complex, turbulent history of the Umayyad Caliphate ? A lone
contributor adheres to what is termed a positivist approach and argues for the
authenticity of one important dossier of documentary material. She encounters
formidable opponents of the sceptical tendency, who seem to have won the
editorial team over to their side since the arguments of the lone positivist are
characterised as precarious (p. 16).
Michael Whitby ( Greek Historical Writing after Procopius : Variety and
Vitality ) presents a magisterial survey of historical writing in Greek, covering
the works of high-style classicing history written by Procopius' three successors
(Agathias, Menander Protector and Theophylact Simocatta), chronicles (chiefly
Malalas' and the Chronicon Paschale) and the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius
(with a side reference to that of John of Ephesus, written in Constantinople but
in Syriac). He then turns to the following phase of historiographical depression,
extending from the 630s to the late eighth century, and suggests that the reasons
for it are to be found in a diminishing inflow of ambitious provincials with
intellectual pretensions out to make their mark in the capital, a contracting radius
of collective historical memory, a distate for recording failures rather than
successes abroad, and a shift into other, non-historical modes of discourse
(theological disputation and apocalyptic futurology). He concludes with a
summary of what can be gleaned from East Roman sources about the Arabs
before the coming of Islam.
Averil Cameron ( New Themes and Styles in Greek Literature : SeventhEighth Centuries ) then broadens the field of inquiry to include a wide range of
texts composed without a primary historical purpose polemics, homilies,
patriographic literature, quaestiones, disputations, florilegio, and miracula. She
draws attention to an increasing element of orality and to the large scale of
cross-cultural communication forced on Christendom at a time of disaster, when
large numbers of refugees were flowing westward. She concurs with Whitby's
view that there was a dramatic contraction of historiography in seventh-century
Byzantium and a no less dramatic fall in standards which allowed legendary
figures increasingly to populate the past. Many of the same themes are taken up
by John Haldon ( The Works of Anastasius of Sinai : A Key Source for the
History of Seventh-Century East Mediterranean Society and Belief ), who adds
that the decline of the city, the basic cultural as well as social, economic and
administrative unit of the late Roman World, was responsible for much of the
677
depression of literary activity evident in the seventh and eighth centuries. His
main concern, though, is with a particular text, the Quaestiones of Anastasius of
Sinai, for which he defines a context (in terms of the author's career which just
reached the beginning of the eighth century, the development of the genre, the
compromises forced on Christian communities in the Caliphate, the transition
from oral to written form, and the evolving thought-world of the author's
milieu).
It has long been recognised that the unprecedented losses suffered by the
Roman state in the middle years of the seventh century induced a profound
transformation of its institutions. What else was to be expected when an empire
accustomed to bestriding the Near East was reduced in half a generation to a
modest power struggling to maintain its independence on the edge of the
Caliphate ? The three contributors who deal with Byzantine literary culture are
agreed that this plunging of political fortune with all its structural consequences
also had a historiographical analogue. The change was indeed a drastic one, as
they demonstrate. It can be illustrated most graphically by reference to the reign
of Constans II (641-668). When, over a century later (probably in the 780s), a
first attempt was made to bridge the gap between the early years of the seventh
century and his own time, by the future patriarch Nicephorus, writing a short,
consciously classicising history, he had no information about Constans II to
hand and simply leapt over what was probably the most critical period in the
history of Byzantium, the period when a new defensive system was devised and
the whole social order was put on a war footing. His younger contemporary, the
more scholarly Theophanes, who amassed a considerable library at the
monastery which he had founded, fared little better when, a quarter of a century
later, he confronted the reign of Constans II. He too could find no Byzantine
source dealing with secular affairs, and had to make do with the scanty materials
pertaining to Byzantium supplied by an eastern chronicle.
It would, however, be surprising if the Syriac- speaking former provincials
of the East Roman Empire had suffered a lesser cultural shock than those of Asia
Minor who had not been subjected to Muslim rule. The scale of the shock is
registered by GJ. Reinink ( Ps.-Methodius : A Concept of History in Response
to the Rise of Islam ) and Han J.W. Drijvers ( The Gospel of the Twelve
Apostles : A Syriac Apocalypse from the Early Islamic Period ) who examine a
small group of apocalyptic texts emanating from the occupied lands around the
year 700. Both conduct delicate dissections of the texts in question, that of
Reinink yielding the more interesting results since the ps. -Methodius
Apocalypse which he studies is the most innovative and influential of the texts.
The time and place of its composition are established relatively easily namely
Singara on the margin of the desert and the sown, at the junction of the western
and eastern segments of the Fertile Crescent, and 690 or 691, when Abd alMalik's successes in the second great round of civil war in the Caliphate had
678
J. HOWARD- JOHNSTON
679
The lesson to be drawn from Conrad's paper is that caution, the utmost
caution, must be shown in handling Arab accounts of the earliest phases of
Muslim history. It is rammed home yet more forcefully by Stefan Leder ( The
Literary Use of the Khabar : A Basic Form of Historical Writing ). He defines
khabar (p. 279) as a self-contained narrative unit which depicts an incident or
a limited sequence of occurences or conveys sayings . He views the khabar as a
basic component of early Islamic historical writing, but one which is detachable
from a specific context, ubiquitous and malleable. Originating partly in tribal
story-telling (as qissa) it infiltrates historical narrative, carrying in topoi, pithy
sayings, striking illustrations of character ; then feeding off the interest of the
story teller/writer and listener/reader, it grows in a process of elaboration which
introduces a great deal of fiction ; before long, these khabar growths break down
the structures of their host narratives and destroy them as useful historical
sources.
The voice of Wadd al-Qdi ( Early Islamic State Letters : The Question
of Authenticity ) seems to be sounding in a wilderness, arguing that a dossier of
mainly official correspondence dating from the late Umayyad period can be
reconstituted from texts reproduced in later, often much later, sources. She
deploys several mutually reinforcing arguments in favour of the authenticity of
the letters in question : she indicates a likely line of early transmission in the
caliphal secretariat, identifies the large, only partially preserved anthology of Ibn
Tayfur (d.893) as the principal repository of the letters and the main source from
which they were quarried by later authors, argues from internal evidence against
a theory of wholesale fabrication, and demonstrates that changes introduced by
copyists were modest and almost entirely stylistic. Although her thesis has
considerable tensile strength and convinces this reviewer, all she can do is to
make one fairly substantial addition to the category of the demonstrably
authentic. The category may be growing, but it constitutes only a very small
proportion of the total volume of early Islamic historical material.
The first workshop on Late Antiquity and Early Islam was an informative
and exciting experience for participants. Cumulatively the eight papers which
were delivered then and are now published make a substantial contribution to
knowledge. The wide-ranging discussion which they provoked did much to
broaden and deepen understanding of the Near East at a crucial phase of its
history. The task of reviewing is made all the more pleasurable by memories of
the occasion and of many pertinent oral contributions, only some of which have
been caught and fixed in writing by the editors or by individual authors in the
course of revising their papers. No respectable library can afford to miss this
book, and such is its modest price that individual scholars can buy their own
copies without strain.
Three sets of reflections which occurred to me in the course of the
workshop seem worth fleshing out now by way of general comment on the
680
J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON
68 1
682
J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON
683
corpus of historical traditions before the end of the eighth century. As for vested
interests, it must be remembered that there were many of them and that they
were in competition with each other. It was hard, in a free historiographical
market of this sort, for any particular group to impose a radically reshaped or
fabricated version of the past on its rivals, especially as it would have to
overcome a coalition of well-established interests, with genuine stakes in the
shared past.
Much more serious, though, is the charge that later debates about religious
and legal matters and related political conflicts exercised a profound influence
on the learned world's view of the past, providing an interpretative framework
within which information was assembled, arranged and understood. There is no
doubt that this did happen, that polemics between rival parties (sectarian,
scholarly and political) led to a debasement of scholarship, to a lesser regard for
the painstaking deployment of evidence, to tendentious reworkings of the past.
But it is implausible to present this narrow piety of parties as a prime motivating
force behind the early Islamic historical enterprise. The main corpus of historical
traditions had already taken shape (the sira) or was taking shape (the futh)
before it took serious hold (in the second half of the eighth century). A more
inclusive piety, looking back with awed respect at the achievements of the
Prophet and the Companions, seems to have guided the work of the scholars of
earlier generations.
Equally damaging is the very different charge (the principal one levelled in
this volume) that the irreverent or irresponsible imaginings of story-tellers not
only created a mass of more or less fictional embellishments to sober history but
also managed to exercise a pervasive influence on the scholarly historical
enterprise. This is rather hard to accept, for two main reasons. First it
presupposes an extraordinary lack of discrimination and judgement on the part
of the scholars at work amassing and sorting historical material. And second it
explains the sucess of akhbar by postulating that they began life as small entities
which could insinuate themselves into existing historical narratives and then, in
a second phase of life, start growing and causing serious damage. The life-cycle
ascribed to the khabar, on this hypothesis, does not accord with commonsense.
A process diametrically opposed to that envisaged by Leder seems more likely
in most cases : initially long stories breaking apart and fragmenting with time,
leaving a residue of remembered sayings, punch lines, illustrations of character,
topoi and longer fragments to be scattered over more soundly based historical
narratives.
Nor is it safe to draw general conclusions from the treatment of the Arwd
episode. It is hard to accept Conrad's argument (pp. 389-90) that it can be taken
as a typical example of futh reporting. The island was surely too small to have
had real strategic importance, and the episode of its capture was less likely to
have lodged in individual or collective memories than other more significant
conquests. It should therefore probably be viewed as an unrepresentative event,
684
J. HOWARD- JOHNSTON
685
traditions about the conquests. There are grounds for reasonable optimism. The
results of this grander experiment will, I believe, justify historians in making
considerable but critical use of the huge volume of historical material generated
within Islam about its own origins and early history.
James HOWARD- JOHNSTON
Corpus Christi College, Oxford