Preview (translation, introduction, and notes)
Preview (historical commentary)
We have entered a golden age of Procopian studies, and there is no better indication of this than the two volumes under review, Geoffrey Greatrex’s historical commentary and translation of Procopius of Caesarea’s Persian Wars, both published by Cambridge University Press and appearing simultaneously, late 2022 in the UK and in the first half of 2023 in North America. Procopius has now entered the ranks of other giants of ancient historiography, like Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius, each the recipient of important commentaries of their own. Totalling close 1,100 pages, these two books make a significant contribution to Procopian scholarship, and, in the case of the commentary at least, late antique and ancient Mediterranean studies more broadly. As the author of the first commentary in English on Procopius, there are few, if any, as qualified as Greatrex, who has published extensively on Rome’s war with Persia including a monograph, a co-edited collection of primary sources, and a co-authored translation with notes on Pseudo-Zachariah’s Ecclesiastical History, to carry this out.[1] He is also the editor of a substantial on-going collection of bibliographic essays on Procopian scholarship for Histos.[2] Greatrex has done a great job with these two books, and there is very little to quibble with overall.
The translation includes Books 1 and 2 of Procopius’ eight-book Wars, the Persian Wars, and is the latest in a spate of translations of his works to appear in several modern languages (including English, French, and Spanish), such as Anthony Kaldellis’ translations of the Secret History and Wars, the former of which was reviewed here.[3] Besides the translation itself, Greatrex’s volume contains a table of names, a short and comparatively sparse introduction, and one appendix on Nonnosus’ lost account of Roman missions to southern Arabia, which is itself a translation of Photius’ summary. The book also includes an index of persons and titles, and there are excellent maps and city plans scattered throughout. The notes that accompany the translation are brief, but provide clarity on peoples, such as the identity of the Heruls (p. 59, n. 96); individuals such as Apion (p. 42, n. 43); points of detail, such as the fragment of the cross in Apamea (p. 148, n. 297); and even nods to other texts, such as the expression, “disease of the soul”, which is also found in Plato’s Timaeus, 87C2 (p. 103, n. 196).
Thanks to Procopius’ penchant for classicizing Greek in a work that consciously echoes the historians of classical Greece, the Wars is full of archaisms, and Procopius’ Atticism means that he often eschews technical, contemporary vocabulary. His account has several circumlocutions, and tendencies like this complicate translating Procopius’ prose. Greatrex, building on an earlier, out-of-print, translation by Averil Cameron, does a fine job, and the result is a strong and readable version of the Persian Wars.[4] Some of the inevitable infelicities have been discussed elsewhere,[5] so here I want to highlight one historical complexity, drawn from my own interests, which his translation obscures.
More than a few times, Procopius identifies leading commanders in the Roman and Persian military, and more often the former than the latter. To give one example, at 1.8.1-2 Procopius identifies four strategoi, “who led them all”, Areobindus, a general “in the east”; Celer, “chief/leader…of the tagmas in the palace”; and “the commanders of the soldiers in Byzantium, Patricius the Phrygian and Hypatius”.[6] Greatrex renders the Greek as “Areobindus…magister militum per Orientem…Celer, the chief of the palace guard (the Romans call this office magister)… the magistri militum praesentales Patricius the Phrygian and Hypatius”. Greatrex has here, as elsewhere, taken some liberties with Procopius’ classicizing terminology.[7] While on the surface this may seem to be an innocuous case of Greatrex’s fulfilling his obligation as translator – to turn this slightly opaque Greek into recognizable English with the proper terminology – the tendency (not Greatrex’s alone) to render archaizing Greek into technical Latin can, on occasion, muddle some of the nuances in Roman military administration.[8] Although it appeared after Greatrex’s commentary, Kaldellis and Kruse’s book on the eastern Roman field armies makes the case for the disappearance of the magistri militum praesentales early in the sixth century, especially as their troops were shifted to the east for the ongoing war(s) against Persia and folded into the army under the command of the new magister militum per Armeniam.[9] So, to my mind, to say Sittas, “held the general’s office in Byzantium and was in command of the whole army in Armenia” at 1.15.3 makes better sense of this ambiguity than Greatrex’s “held the office of magister militum praesentalis and was in command of the whole army in Armenia” (p. 70).[10] Sittas was based in Armenia with more newly transferred praesental soldiers under his command to continue the build-up of this Armenian army.[11]
On the other hand, just as there are occasions where archaisms are glossed over, there are places where Greatrex maintains Procopius’ archaisms, such as 1.14.42, where he notes (p. 66) that when 3,000 Persians perished, only some managed to make it “back in the phalanx”. The phalanx had not existed for centuries, though classicizing authors like Procopius would make you think otherwise. In this case, a note of clarification would have helped, possibly with a reference to the appropriate literature, like Rance on the fulcum.[12] The same is true, I would argue, for the inclusion of words like “paean” in English. Though this keeps the translation closer to Procopius’ original, leaving the word unexplained might mislead uniformed readers. Although soldiers undoubtedly still sang, the term “paean” is best left to classical Greece and explained in a note.[13] Though Procopius’ classicizing might seem unhelpful, I do think that keeping the terminology as close to the original as possible helps prevent any anachronisms from slipping in.
Now we turn to the commentary. There is a wealth of material to discuss in Greatrex’s commentary and a limit to the words available for this review. The commentary itself takes up most of the book. It is preceded by a detailed introduction and then three appendices: the first is an excellent excursus on Perso-Arabic sources for Persian history, the second a brief account of Procopius’ use of stades, and the third a near verbatim repeat of the Nonnosus appendix from the translation, only with fuller notes. There are an extensive bibliography and indices of Procopius’ oeuvre, Latin terms, imperial decisions, individuals and titles, and people and titles. At close to 800 pages, this thoroughly researched book is a veritable gold mine for readers of all levels of expertise. Each passage contains not just the original Greek but a translation, a feature which I think adds to the usability of the commentary. So too do the detailed introductions at the start of each major section, which are themselves divided into two parts, one with a focus on historical matters, the other with a focus on historiographical ones. Plus, although it is explicitly called “A Historical Commentary”, Greatrex’s notes are filled with philological matters. Smyth’s Greek Grammar features regularly (p. 525 on the use of the optative for indirect speech, for example). In one case, while describing the single combat before the primary stage of the Battle of Dara at 1.13.37, Greatrex refers to Procopius’ use of the dual forms here, which, in his words (p. 190), gives the “combat an epic resonance”. To give another example, he notes how Procopius sometimes uses tote, “then”, to signal a return from a digression to the main narrative (p. 247). To shift from grammar to literary questions, the passages are full of references to authors from whom Procopius draws to those who drew upon Procopius. This means obligatory allusions to Herodotus and Thucydides (see pp. 373 and 385, for example), and also their later, high imperial successors, such as Appian, Cassius Dio, and Herodian.[14] But the commentary is also full of references to later Byzantine readers such as Leo the Deacon and Anna Komnene (see pp. 210 and 452, for example). It is only recently that scholars have started looking at the reception of late-antique writers in later Byzantine texts, and Greatrex’s inclusion of these references here is a welcome feature.[15]
How does one capture the size and quality of this book? For one, Greatrex highlights in a few places all the work that remains to be done on Procopius, as is the case for Procopius’ style (p. 8). Along those lines, the places where he draws attention to more particular Procopian phrasings could be the starting point for more such work (for example, p. 87). Some of the discussions are packed full of insight that goes above and beyond what is required. On p. 54, when discussing the Persian war with the Hephthalites (1.3.1), Greatrex notes not just the Central Asian origins of the Hephthalites/Ephthalites, several pertinent scholarly works (in different modern languages), and a few parallel sources, but even some Bactrian terminology (and a supposition on how it might have been pronounced). On the subject of language, Greatrex regularly analyses Procopius’ use of Persian titles and terminology, as he does in the extended note for 1.11.5 at p. 145-46, where he discusses asped and spāhbed.
Sometimes Greatrex displays a knack for drawing out value from the innocuous. At 13.32, Procopius notes that the attendant Andreas slaughtered his Persian foe in single combat with a short knife like a sacrificial victim. In the corresponding note on p. 188-89, Greatrex proceeds to describe the kind of knife, which sacrificial rites Procopius is likely evoking, and even remarks on the validity of Procopius’ comment on the victim’s prone position, among other things. Sometime later, Greatrex covers Procopius’ description of the mythical Orestes’ role in the founding of Comana and its possible origins in a homophonous local name, Oaris or Oareis (p. 233 – but see too p. 234). Greatrex’s comments on putting one’s ear to the ground to detect mining operations (p. 616) could also be included in this category of surprising details. In another case, Greatrex provides a typically strong account of defensive terminology, particularly phylarchs, fortifications, and dukes (p. 244). Certain episodes, such as the Nika Riot, are described in astounding detail. There we find excellent plans to illustrate the events (p. 341) and multitudinous contextual minutiae to flesh out the action. Another example is Greatrex’s presentation of the nine-line lacuna at 2.12.29 (p. 489-91). These are just a few of the many such examples.
All that said, there are (very) occasional slip-ups. There are cases where there is some inconsistency in the discussion of technical terms. To get back to my own fixations, on p. 168 (1.12.24) he refers to katalogoi and notes this usage is as close as a classicizing historian such as Procopius could get to the technical term for the units stationed at Dara. A few sections earlier (1.8.1 – p. 116), Procopius uses symmoria and Greatrex notes that the word is “unusual and untechnical”. He is undoubtedly right, but I think the same is true of katalogos, a word that never had a technical sense, despite some assertions to the contrary.[16] Rather, in Wars it is a neologism that reflects Procopius’ classicizing tendencies coupled with his likely personal experiences with troop enlistment. Even the word lochos, which has good classical pedigree, is occasionally overlooked, as is the case on p. 197 (1.14.31) where Procopius refers to the Persian “lochos of the so-called Immortals”. While Greatrex notes the ambiguities of these Sasanian Immortals, he overlooks the word lochos, a missed opportunity. Along those lines, Greatrex sometimes refers to “regular Roman forces” (pp. 217, 459, and 637, for example), a somewhat ambiguous and anachronistic – because of its modern connotations with contemporary militaries – term that does not get explained.
Overall, the two books are mostly free of errors, though there are occasional slips, mostly with regard to missing items in the commentary’s bibliography, not surprising when the bibliography itself is eighty-five pages in length.[17] Also, although they are few and far between, there are occasions where an important item of scholarship is missing. For example, in his discussion of the Palm Grove in Arabia (1.19.13, p. 276) Greatrex notes Strabo’s downbeat assessment of the region (16.4.24). More recent research, particularly that carried out by Bouchaud, supports Greatrex’s scepticism about the veracity of Strabo’s report.[18] A reference to Andrade’s biography of Zenobia would have helped his discussion of Procopius’ references to Odenathus and Zenobia (2.5.5, p. 422).[19] I hope it is clear, however, that these are minor and infrequent issues.
All in all, the commentary is chock full of insights and keen observations on so many aspects of Procopius and the wider eastern frontier. There is enough material on his narrative practices and stylistic tendencies alone to advance our understanding of Procopius the writer considerably. Greatrex is, for the most part, fair and balanced in his presentation of the scholarship and in interpreting Procopius’ material. Plus, as the ample references to his own work testify, he is not unwilling to note where he erred in the past (see p. 211, for example).[20] In the end, the time Greatrex spent on this translation and commentary (especially) have been put to excellent use. Although he might hate to hear this, I only wish he had turned his attention to the remaining books of the Wars too.[21]
Notes
[1] G. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War: 502-532 (Leeds, 1998) (https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1998/1998.11.23/); G. Greatrex and S. N. C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, A.D. 363-630 (London, 2002); G. Greatrex, R. Phenix, and C. Horn, The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity (Liverpool, 2011).
[2] https://histos.org/SV09Procopius.html.
[3] A. Kaldellis, Prokopios. The Secret History with Related Texts (Indianapolis, 2010) (https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.11.48/) and A. Kaldellis, Prokopios: The Wars of Justinian. Translated by H. B. Dewing. Revised and Modernized, with an Introduction and Notes (Indianapolis, 2014).
[4] A. Cameron, Procopius: History of the Wars, Secret History, and Buildings (New York, 1967).
[5] M. Whitby, “Procopius Meets His Gomme? Greatrex on the Persian Wars”, Plekos 25 (2023): 89–125, https://plekos.jimdofree.com/ausgaben/plekos-25-2023/.
[6] στρατηγοὶ δὲ ἅπασιν ἐφεστήκεσαν τέσσαρες, Ἀρεόβινδός… τῆς ἑῴας δὲ τότε στρατηγὸς ἐτύγχανεν ὤν…τῶν ἐν παλατίῳ ταγμάτων… Κέλερ μάγιστρον Ῥωμαῖοι τὴν ἀρχὴν καλεῖν νενομίκασιν… καὶ οἱ τῶν ἐν Βυζαντίῳ στρατιωτῶν ἄρχοντες, Πατρίκιός τε ὁ Φρὺξ καὶ Ὑπάτιος…
[7] Although note his comments about the title dux on p. 168 of the commentary. For more on the katalogoi, which he discusses in the same passage, see below.
[8] As a comparison, the translators of Malalas’ Chronograph (E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott, John Malalas [Melbourne, 1986]) do the same with Malalas’ text, which contains both Latin terms transliterated into Greek and other slightly looser titles.
[9] A. Kaldellis and M. Kruse, The Field Armies of the East Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2023). Cod. Iust. 1.29.5 reveals Sittas to be the first to hold this rank. Kaldellis and Kruse discuss the creation of this position and its effect on the old office of magister militum praesentalis (pp. 72, 148).
[10] Σίττας δὲ ἀρχὴν μὲν τὴν στρατηγίδα ἐν Βυζαντίῳ εἶχε. Kaldellis translates this phrase as “Sittas held the office of general in Byzantion” (see n. 3 above). In his commentary, Greatrex (p. 210) includes this same translation: “held the office of magister militum praesentalis (lit. the office of general in Byzantium)”. Malalas’ reference to Sittas in the context of the same event is apt (18.60, p. 389.58, Thurn), for he calls Sittas “the praesental general living in Armenia”, Τζίττᾳ τῷ στρατηλάτῃ πραισέντου ἐν Ἀρμενίᾳ.
[11] On that note, I also do not think Sittas was there as a magister militum praesentalis and “trusted imperial agent” (Greatrex, p. 210 in the commentary), but rather as means of shifting a substantial number of soldiers to Armenia.
[12] P. Rance, “The Fulcum, the Late Roman and Byzantine Testudo: the Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics?”, GRBS 44 (2004): 265-326. This passage is not discussed in the commentary. On the other hand, he does, at 1.18.43 (p. 259), argue that the description there corresponds to a fulcum.
[13] For more on the paean, see now J. Gersbach, The War Cry in the Graeco-Roman World (London, 2023), pp. 78-83.
[14] Research on Procopius’ intellectual debts has tended to concentrate on writers from classical Greece. Few scholars, like Elodie Turquois (Envisioning Byzantium: Materiality and Visuality in Procopius of Caesarea, unpublished DPhil thesis, Oxford University, 2013), have investigated Procopius’ debts from the authors of the Second Sophistic.
[15] E. Németh, The Excerpta Constantiniana and the Byzantine Appropriation of the Past (Cambridge, 2018); M. Jankowiak, “Procopius of Caesarea and His Byzantine Successors”, in M. Meier and F. Montiaro (eds), A Companion to Procopius of Caesarea (Leiden, 2021), pp. 231-51; S. Kennedy, “A Lost Classic: The Reception of Prokopios’ History of the Wars in Byzantium”, Byzantinoslavica 1-2 (2021): 5-40; and M. Ritter, “The Byzantine Afterlife of Procopius’s Buildings”, DOP 75 (2021): 143-70.
[16] The glossary for volume two of the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (P. Sabin, H. Van Wees, and M. Whitby, eds [Cambridge, 2007]) calls katalogoi “units of the field army in the sixth century” (p. 480), for example.
[17] For more on specific errors, see Whitby 2023, pp. 101-10. Among the missing items in the bibliography are Brzóstkowska 1980 (p. 559), Gervais 1972 (p. 567), Maas 1986 (p. 558), and Greenwood 2002 (p. 668).
[18] C.Bouchaud, “Exploitation végétale des oasis d’Arabie”, Revue d’ethnoécologie 4 (2013): 1-24.
[19] N. Andrade, Zenobia: Shooting Star of Palmyra (Oxford, 2018).
[20] As someone who has sometimes cringed at my own past work, I find this willingness to be proven wrong refreshing.
[21] Commentaries on the Buildings and Secret History at least are not far off: the commentary on at least part of the Buildings by Max Ritter, Elodie Turquois, and Marlena Whiting has recently been sent to press, and in his commentary, Greatrex points to the imminent release of a Secret History commentary carried out by Rene Pfeilschifter and Johann Thesz.