For 7th century Byzantium, we have (only) two major narrative sources, that is, things that actually try to relate the history of political events as they occurred.
-
Show this thread
-
Both date to the 9th century. That is, they are substantially *later* than the events they describe. What is moar, the manuscripts that transmit them are even later.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
Also keep this in mind going forward, when we begin to probe the boundaries of what might possibly be true about 7th century history (as opposed to the boring stuff we are fed in Wikipaedia-adjacent pseudo-oracles).
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
The first and most important is the Chronographia, or Chronicle, of Theophanes the Confessor. Available to everybody in excellent English translation: Mango & Scott, Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Oxford 1997.
1 reply 2 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
The Chronicle had a fairly wide readership from the mediaeval to the early modern era, and there survive a substantial number of manuscript copies. Here is a picture of the earliest, preserved at the Vatican library (Vat. gr. 155)pic.twitter.com/6iK2ZUBGeC
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
I have much to say on the details of Theophanes, but I feel your exhaustion. You are tired. This is tedious. We pass over all of that unless there is demand. You want detail on these sources, I will drown you in it. We go to the second major source.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Patriarch Nikephoros I, Breviarium / Short History. I don#t have a good picture of the earliest manuscript for you, sorry. Only this black-and-wide thing. Still that's the first page, that's what it looks like.pic.twitter.com/CN01vhYHAa
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread -
What's interesting about the Short History, is we only have this and one other manuscript, and the other manuscript has an entirely different version of the text. It seems Theophanes produced two unfinished rather different drafts.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, there is a lot of other evidence for the 7th-century world, but this is the narrative frame we hang everything on. Both Theophanes & Nikephorus depend upon the same set of lost sources, so they're not totally independent. But we must believe them, or not.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
Soon (almost surely tomorrow): A by-the-book post-Justinian political history. You survive that, we get to Interesting Things.
3 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread
Oh, and I forgot to note, the Breviary of Nikephorus os available to you (also in good translation) here: Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople, ‘Short History,” ed. & trans. Cyril Mango, Washington DC 1990.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.