PUBLICATIONS AND BOOK REVIEWS

Elizabeth Key Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran. The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 28. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. 227 pp. + xxii with bibliography.

KATHLEEN E. MCVEY, PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY [1] In this fascinating study Elizabeth Key Fowden draws upon a multitude of literary and material sources to describe the growth and dispersion of the cult of the martyr St. Sergius in Syro- from the fourth through the seventh centuries, C.E. She begins with the Passio of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, a fifth- century Greek account of the two famous soldier-martyrs. Critical analysis in the light of historical and topographic data (with occasional forays into the Syriac, Latin and Metaphrastic versions of the passio) yields the probability that the saints were executed under Maximin Daia in Augusta Euphratensis in 312 C.E. Rather than tarrying over its elusive historical core, however, Fowden rapidly shifts her gaze to the Passio itself and to the first homileticians who show familiarity with it: Severus of Antioch and Jacob of Sarug. Among other points of interest here is the fact that Rusafa, a town in the Syro-Mesopotamian plain, was identified in these earliest literary sources as the place of Sergius’ martyrdom and burial as well as the center at which his cult developed and thrived. [2] The first chapter, entitled “Portraits of a Martyr”, ends with a shift from literary to visual images. Dated from the mid-sixth through seventh centuries and appearing in various media (including mosaic, encaustic, silver vessels, bronze and silver jewelry, stone carving), they fall into two types. First, there are portraits (often of the two saints together) which show dependence on details of the passio (such as the maniakia, neckgear worn by soldiers, the removal of which plays a role in the progressive humiliation of the martyrs). Second, there are portrayals of Sergius as a rider saint. The latter image, she argues, is related to the Arab rider god, Aziz, and was “disseminated from the pilgrimage shrine at Rusafa” with a clear awareness of the relevance of this image to

273 274 Publications and Book Reviews

the lives of Arab pastoralists as well as others in the frontier zone betw een the Roman and Iranian Empires. [3] In the second chapter, “Martyr Cult on the Frontier,” Fowden turns to Bishop Marutha of Maypherkat and his establishment of the shrine for Roman, Syrian and Iranian Christian martyrs at this city of Sophanene in the mountains at the northeast edge of Syro- Mesopotamia. Emphasizing Marutha’s “cultural flexibility” and “political savvy,” she argues that his intent was to establish a symbol simultaneously of “détente and, at the same time, defense” in a place that he saw as the fulchrum between the two mighty empires, rather than as an outpost (pp. 52, 54, 57). The third chapter, “Rusafa”, begins with the presentation and analysis of the historical sources as well as of the archeological remains recently excavated under the direction of Thilo Ulbert of the German Archeological Institute. Fowden’s work, as she acknowledges, builds upon the insights, published and on the way to publication, of both Ulbert and Gunnar Brands in order to present a comprehensive view of the famous pilgrimage site. The center at Rusafa should be seen in terms similar to Marutha’s Martyropolis – as having strategic importance and as a “place of convergence”. Not only did trade routes pass through Rusafa, but it was -- as is well known – a place where Byzantine rulers and their Iranian, Arab Christian and Arab Muslim counterparts ostentatiously expressed their faith in the healing powers of Sergius and their gratitude to him. In the third and especially in the fifth chapter, “Frontier Shrine and Frontier Saint,” Fowden considers the motives of pious sovereigns from Justinian and Theodora, to Khusrau II, and al-Mundhir, who bestowed lavish gifts on the shrine at Rusafa. Here she persuasively argues that these rulers were not simply displaying personal piety but were astutely engaged in accomplishing a combination of political, cultural and religious goals. [4] The fourth chapter details “The Spread of the Sergius Cult in and Mesopotamia” through evidence drawn from a wide range of material and literary sources: prosopography, inscriptions and hagiography among them. A picture emerges of churches, martyria, monasteries and men dedicated to the powerful martyr in three distinct locales: the Hawran, in cities and towns crucially located on the routes of Roman Syria, and scattered through the Iranian Empire from Sargahan near Nisibis to Bethsaloe near

Publications and Book Reviews 275

Ctesiphon. Especially through the efforts of Ahudemmeh and Marutha of Takrit monasteries dedicated to Sergius in eastern Mesopotamia provided “services... carefully tied to the terrain – shelter for travelers, food, drink, and security for their financial resources.” (p. 126) These not only brought the wandering tribes under stronger Christian influence, they also provided a model for Ummayad imitation. [5] The final chapter takes the cult of Sergius into the early Islamic period, examining the continuation of the Christian devotion as well as the development of a parallel Muslim reverence for the soldier martyr. Clearest evidence of the latter is al Hisham’s addition to the architectural complex at Rusafa. The book ends with a brief discussion of the scattered evidence of ongoing Muslim interest in Sergius as healer and defender. [6] The book is a valuable synthesis of the emergence and dispersion of the cult of Sergius. It is a model of the integration of literary and material sources. Maps and black and white photographs helpfully illustrate the argument. Equally commendable is the thoughtful analysis of topography and the persuasive argument for its critical impact on the development of this particular saint’s cult at this time and place. This will be a worthwhile addition to the libraries of students of late antiquity, early Christian and Byzantine history and early Islam.

The Chronicle of Pseudo-. Translated with notes and introduction by Frank R. Trombley and John W. Watt. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 32. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, 2000. 21 cm, LV, 170, 5 maps. ISBN 0–85323–585–6

JAN J. VAN GINKEL, UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT [1] “Few texts in an oriental language can be of such interest to students of the Graeco-Roman world as the `Chronicle of Joshua [sic] the Stylite’” (vii).1 Thus Trombley and Watt begin their preface to this easy to use translation and commentary of an extraordinary text. For their translation they have used the CSCO edition by J.-B. Chabot,2 but they have preserved the section numbers (§§) by William Wright,3 as these are most commonly used for reference to this text. Some later text corrections have been used for the translation and are indicated in the footnotes. The Syriac text itself bears the following title: ‘A Historical Narrative of the Period of Distress which occurred in , Amid, and all Mesopotamia’. This title immediately illustrates one particular aspect of this text. It focuses on a brief period—12 years—in history of a very limited geographical area—Mesopotamia. After a prooemium styled as a letter addressed to the abbot Sergius (§§ 1–6) the narrative starts with an account of the political situation in the Byzantine and Persian empires leading up to the outbreak of hostilities in 502 A.D. (§§ 7–24). Next the author ‘interrupts’ his narrative with a chronicle of events in Edessa during 494–502 A.D. describing portents, pestilence, famine and plague (§§ 25–46a). After this expose the chronicle continues with a detailed account of the war from 502–6 A.D. (§§ 46b–100) and ends with an epilogue once again addressed to Sergius (§ 101). The political situation is described in a continuous narrative, but the rest of the chronicle is

1 Trombley and Watt use, with good reason (xxiv–xxvi), throughout the book the title `Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite’. I will refer to the introduction by (roman) page numbers, to the translation by section numbers. 2 J.-B. Chabot, Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum (CSCO 91; Louvain, 1927). 3 W. Wright, The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, composed in Syriac, A.D. 507, with a translation into English and Notes (Cambridge, 1882). 276 Publications and Book Reviews 277

a chronological account on a year-by-year basis. Although it is structured year by year, the account is so extensive that the year lemmata could qualify as chapters of a narrative. [2] The text is preserved in one manuscript as part of a larger historiographical work, known as `the Chronicle of Zuqnin’.4 The authorship of our chronicle and of the has been extensively discussed using a colophon in our chronicle added by a later copyist. Watt / Trombley (xxiv–xxvi) follow Harrak and others in naming Joshua the Stylite the copyist / author (?) of the Zuqnin chronicle.5 Therefore the author of this particular text has to remain anonymous. He wrote the work almost immediately after the war (506 A.D.). A later copyist has added one sentence on the last years of the reign of Anastasius (xxviii–xxix). [3] This text is nearly completely independent of the known historiographical tradition. The author makes references to some ‘old books’ which he had used as sources, but it is impossible to identify them (xxx–xxxi). According to the author he relied on eye- witness accounts for the war and the preceding events (e.g. § 25, 34). Trombley argues strongly for the use of ‘news sheets’, official documents, which were read out load in the city announcing official news and edicts and which were then stored in the city archives (xxxii–xxxiv). In the text itself, however, these sheets are never mentioned. At least some of the material has been thoroughly reworked by the author into a continuous account of the war. [4] As to the reception of the text little can be said as well. The only chronicle containing references to this work is the Zuqnin chronicle, in which the work by Pseudo-Joshua is incorporated and preserved. Whether or not the author of the Zuqnin chronicle is

4 The Zuqnin chronicle is also known as the ‘Chronicle of Pseudo- Dionysius’. For an introduction and bibliography see W. Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre. A Study in the History of Historiography (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 9; Uppsala, 1987) and A. Harrak, The Chronicle of Zuqnin, parts III and IV, A.D. 488–775 (Mediaeval sources in translation 36; Toronto, 1999). 5 For a different conclusion see A. Luther, Die syrische Chronik des Josua Stylites (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 49; Berlin, 1997) 12–16 and Witakowski (1987) and W. Witakowski, Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre Chronicle, Part III (Translated Texts for Historians 22; Liverpool, 1996) xix–xxiii.

278 Publications and Book Reviews

responsible for these references or his source ( ?) is not clear although most scholars opt for a direct link for the chro nicler (xxii). [5] This chronicle is the only example of ‘secular’ or ‘political’ Syriac historiography, more or less disregarding ecclesiastical history and focusing on the ‘causes of the war’ (§ 6). Nevertheless, the chronicle is clearly a Christian text. The author is a Christian (xxvi–xxviii), addressing his work to an abbot named Sergius (xii– xiii), and describing the events as part of a greater Divine Plan by which God warns His people against un-Christian behaviour (xv– xvii, xix–xx). The account of this behaviour provides some unique insights into ordinary city life in the Sixth century and the development of a Christian culture filled with ‘pagan’ elements. [6] The text is also a ‘Fundgrube’ for historians of ancient economics. For several years the prices of wheat and other food products are mentioned. The reaction of the local administration to natural catastrophes like famine is documented. As a result the text is of interest for the study of the Byzantine administration as well. The detailed account of the war has enticed military and political historians for generations.6 In comparison with other sources like Procopius and Pseudo-Zachariah seems to be a reliable source (xxxiv–xxxvii). [7] In the well-known tradition of Translated Texts for Historians Trombley and Watt have have opened up an important text to a larger audience of non-specialists. In the introduction content, structure and literary character, as well as authorship, transmission and date are discussed by Watt. Trombley gives his view on the historical value, sixth-century Mesopotamian society, especially during the war of 502–6, and the chronological systems. There is some unnecessary overlap between the two parts,7 but on the whole the introduction is helpful for appreciating the chronicle. [8] The same is true about the maps and indexes. Although I would have preferred just one General Index in stead of an additional text index. Even more so since variants of names in ‘the index of persons and places in text’ are included in the General

6 For a survey and new discussion see G.B. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 502–532 (Leeds, 1998). 7 Most notably on the Edessan festival of light, xvi–xvii and xxxix.

Publications and Book Reviews 279

Index without indication in which index the main variant is to be found.8 [9] The translation is accurate, but in a very readable English. The footnotes are on the whole to the point and focus on the direct understanding of the text.9 Although William Wright and A. Luther among others (xxiii) have preceded this book with their rendering of the text, the combined knowledge of Trombley and Watt provide good access to this text with at times even refreshing new approaches.10

8 E.g. “Bismideon, see Tell Beshmai” General Index, p. 157. “Tell Beshmai” Index of Persons and Places, p. 153. 9 Trombley’s interest in epigraphy is obvious in both introduction and footnotes. 10 Wright is now outdated and Luther’s commentary is not so pinpointed to specific elements in the text. In addition, the fact that Luther wrote in German will not endear his book to some students. However, using both books in combination will profit many a scholar wanting to use this text.

Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar. With a table of characters by Julius Euting. Translated from the second and improved German edition by James A. Crichton. And with an Appendix: The handwritten additions in Theodor Nöldeke’s personal copy, edited by Anton Schall, translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winnona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2001; reprint of the 1904 edition. xxxiv + 365 pages. Cloth. ISBN 1–57506-050–7. $ 45.00.

LUCAS VAN ROMPAY, DUKE UNIVERSITY, DURHAM, USA [1] “This book does not claim to be in any respect a complete Syriac Grammar” is the first sentence in Theodor Nöldeke’s preface to the first edition of his Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1880). However, his lucid description of Syriac orthography and phonology (I), morphology (II), and syntax (III) undeniably is one of the major achievements of Syriac studies in the nineteenth century. Re-edited in 1898, reprinted in 1966, translated into English in 1904, often excerpted and imitated, but never surpassed, it has remained the classical work of reference for Syriac students and scholars throughout the twentieth century. Now, in this splendid photographic reprint, the work seems to be positioned for a new life in the twenty-first century. How telling is this about the quality of the work... and about the state of Syriac grammatical studies in our day? [2] Nöldeke was the first grammarian to make full use of the new Syriac manuscripts, some from the fifth and sixth centuries, transferred from the Egyptian Monastery of the Syrians to European libraries, which began to be published from the middle of the nineteenth century onwards. The use of these new materials, providing a more solid basis for research, along with Nöldeke’s rigorous approach set the grammar apart from all previous works on the Syriac language. Although Rubens Duval’s Traité de grammaire syriaque (Paris, 1881), which in the section on syntax was dependent on Nöldeke, was somewhat similar in scope, the French work, despite its obvious merits, does not exhibit the linguistic skills or the sharpness of judgment appearing in the German work. To the present-day student, Duval’s grammar looks much more outdated than Nöldeke’s. [3] Particularly in the study of syntax, Nöldeke’s focus is on the Syriac language of the pre-Islamic period, when Syriac was “an absolutely living speech” (“eine völlig lebende Sprache”). Examples

280 Publications and Book Reviews 281

are taken mainly from prose texts originally composed in Syriac, “which adhere to a genuine Aramaic style” (“mit echt aramäischem Stil”). From the ancient versions of the Bible only those passages are quoted which “are free from Hebraisms and Graecisms” (p. IX). In the second edition of the grammar, however, more examples from the Gospels were added, since Nöldeke had then realized that the Syriac Gospels, especially in their pre-Peshitta text forms, “exhibit almost invariably an exceedingly flowing, idiomatic style of Syriac, which upon the whole reads better than the Semitic Greek of the original” (“zeigen fast durchweg ein recht fliessendes, idiomatisches Syrisch, das sich im Grunde besser liest als das semitische Griechisch der Originale” (p. XIII)—one notices here that subtle and elusive German adverbs and adverbial phrases posed serious difficulty to the English translator, e.g. “durchweg” = “invariably,” “ein recht fliessendes ...” = “an exceedingly flowing ...,” “im Grunde” = “upon the whole”). [4] While this approach still seems to be fully justified, we nowadays would not perhaps draw so sharp a distinction between genuine and less genuine Syriac texts. As a matter of fact, some of the early translations (e.g., the Syriac version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History)—not unlike the Old Syriac Gospels—are written in a very idiomatic style. Moreover, a number of fourth- to sixth-century prose texts, not known to Nöldeke, would now deserve to be considered. Ephrem’s prose writings, the Book of Steps, the Synodicon Orientale, the writings of John the Solitary and Philoxenus of Mabbog are just a few of the many important texts that have been published after the appearance of the grammar. Nöldeke himself was fully aware of the importance of these newly published texts, as is proven by his handwritten additions to the grammar, which include a number of references to Ephrem’s Prose Refutations (published 1912–21) as well as a few to the Synodicon Orientale (1902). Furthermore, we would nowadays pay more attention to the indigenous tradition of the study of the language, even beyond the period in which Syriac was “an absolutely living speech.” Some of ’s writings, the so-called “Masoretic” traditions, Barhebraeus’ grammars and biblical commentaries are directly relevant in this respect. But one immediately has to admit that even today, more than a century after Nöldeke’s work, all the texts have not yet been published and all the existing materials have not yet been properly studied.

282 Publications and Book Reviews

[5] Nöldeke’s basically descriptive and analytical approach and his use of a traditional, rather neutral terminology make the work easily accessible even to present-day (somewhat advanced) students. Although he was thoroughly conversant with the developments of Semitic linguistics in his day—a period of impressive scholarly activity—in his grammar, he did not engage in discussions or speculations in the field of historical or comparative Aramaic or Semitic grammar (some interesting comments and references to Arabic and Hebrew are to be found in the handwritten additions to the grammar). He rather always had the student and the teacher in mind, those who wanted to acquire a thorough knowledge of the language and read Syriac texts (see p. XI–XII). [6] Notwithstanding the more or less timeless character of Nöldeke’s descriptions, there are some fields and topics for which the grammar no longer reflects the present-day state of research. While none of the later grammars offer a more complete picture of Syriac phonology and morphology, the situation is slightly different for (morpho-)syntax. In later grammars as well as in separate studies and monographs, some of Nöldeke’s views have been refined, complemented or called into question. It may also be in this field, perhaps, that the lack of a theoretical framework led to certain weaknesses in Nöldeke’s descriptions. Among the most recent publications, I would like to single out Gideon Goldenberg’s illuminating work “On Syriac Sentence Structure” [in M. Sokoloff (ed.), , Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition (Ramat Gan, 1983) 97–140; reprinted in G. Goldenberg, Studies in Semitic Linguistics. Selected Writings (Jerusalem, 1998) 525–68)] and Jan Joosten’s The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew. Syntactic structure, inner-Syriac developments and translation technique (Leiden, 1996). The recent grammars by Takamitsu Muraoka, [Classical Syriac for Hebraists (Wiesbaden, 1987; reprint 1996) and Classical Syriac. A basic grammar with a chrestomathy (Wiesbaden, 1997)] and Wheeler M. Thackston [Introduction to Syriac. An elementary grammar with readings from Syriac literature (Bethesda, Md., 1999)] contain a good many useful insights and observations, but neither in scope, nor in thoroughness can they compete with Nöldeke’s grammar. There can be no doubt that Nöldeke’s grammar as a whole still stands unparalleled and basically unchallenged in the beginning of the new century.

Publications and Book Reviews 283

[7] The English translation is based on the second edition of the grammar (1898). In comparison with the first edition (1880), Nöldeke, according to his own words had introduced here “a considerable number of improvements in points of detail” (“im Einzelnen ... sehr viel gebessert”), while “abstaining from radical alterations except in a very few cases” (“aber tiefgreifende Aenderungen nur wenig vorgenommen”) (p. XIII). James A. Crichton’s English translation appeared in 1904. Nöldeke himself added a note to it (p. XVI), in which he expressed his satisfaction with the translator’s work. That this approval was not merely a gesture of courtesy is clear from his fierce opposition to an earlier attempt of translation (of the first edition). After having embarked on the translation with Nöldeke’s consent, the British translator sent a few samples of his work to the German master, who then realized that the translator “did not sufficiently understand either Syriac or German.” Uncertain about the outcome of his complaints, lodged with the translator and with the editor, he emphatically chose to distance himself from the work, which he regarded as “a monstrum ... of no value,” and he alarmed his colleagues in England and America [a copy of his letter to Isaac Hall, of New York, was reproduced in the American periodical Hebraica 2,3 (April 1886) p. 187]. Nöldeke’s action apparently resulted in stopping the translation, which, as far as I know, never appeared. James Crichton’s translation indeed is a remarkable achievement. Even for students of our day, his English, a hundred years old now and occasionally marked by the underlying German, has not lost any of its accuracy and clarity. It goes without saying, however, that once in a while Syriac students and scholars using the English edition will not resist the temptation to turn to the German original and to kee p in touch with the master’s original voice! [8] The Nachträge of the German edition (p. 306) have been incorporated as footnotes into Crichton’s translation. Under “Additions and Corrections” (p. 318–9), minor mistakes and misprints in the English edition are listed. With a photographic reproduction of J. Euting’s table of the different forms of the Syriac alphabet and useful indexes (p. 321–36, absent from the German 1898 edition!), the facsimile reprint of Crichton’s work comes to an end. In an Appendix (p. 337–65) to the reprint, one finds a new translation, by Peter T. Daniels, of the handwritten additions in Nöldeke’s personal copy, as edited by Anton Schall in

284 Publications and Book Reviews

the Anhang to the German reprint of 1966. While a few post–1930 references (the year of Nöldeke’s death) point to Schall’s editorial work (as do some notes in which Nöldeke is mentioned in the third person), a small number of references to post–1966 publications, printed between square brackets, have been added by Peter Daniels. Some of them concern the pagan inscriptions of Edessa, ignored in the original work, but mentioned more than once in Nöldeke’s handwritten additions. Daniels has added references to the recent editions of H.J.W. Drijvers [Old Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions (Leiden, 1972)] and H.J.W. Drijvers and J.F. Healey [The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene (Leiden, 1999)]. Other additional references concern publications by J. Blau [“The Origins of Open and Closed e in Proto-Syriac,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 32 (1969): 1–9] and S. Kaufman [The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago, 1974)]. [9] In conclusion, there can be no doubt that the decision of the publishing house to bring out this slightly updated and annotated reprint is a most felicitous one. Nöldeke’s grammar, in both its German and English versions, still is the best, the most thorough, and the most complete of all existing Syriac grammars. Advanced students as well as Syriac scholars will benefit from it for many years to come. In addition, they may look back on the great achievements of the past with admiration or nostalgia, and find pleasure in the truly beautiful printing work of the once so distinguished Drugulin house at Leipzig!