ANHANG ZU DEN REZENSIONEN

A REPLY TO A RECENT REVIEW

WARREN TREADGOLD/ST. LOUIS

In replying to Dr. Wolfram Brandes review of my History of the Byzantine State and Society and
Concise History of Byzantium in BZ 95 (2002), pp. 71625, I shall confine myself to correcting
what I consider distortions of fact, and pass over my differences with the reviewer about theory,
which cannot be usefully discussed until those distortions are corrected.
Dr. B.s assertion on p. 718 that I do not know about...the intensive debate which has taken
place during recent years over narrative is disproven by my articles cited in n. 14 of his own
review and by my remarks on p. xvii of my History and pp. xixii of my Concise History. There
and elsewhere, I have explained my disagreements with the positions taken by Dr. B. and his
translator, Prof. John Haldon (whose views are extreme even within the terms of that debate). On
p. 719, Dr. B. criticizes my characterization of some of Prof. Haldons theorizing as Marxist
saying, one must ask, perhaps somewhat irritably, what T. understands by the word Marxist.
It would appear enough that one concerns oneself with social and economic history to be thus
branded To illustrate his point, Dr. B. cites (n. 13) a review in which I quoted directly from
Prof. Haldons Byzantium in the Seventh Century (p. 6), where he wrote, this book is conceived
and written within a historical materialist framework that is to say, it is written from a Marxist
perspective. Prof. Haldons description of his own book seems to me amply justified by its
contents, including its citations of Marx.
On p. 718, Dr. B. declares that T. offers nothing comparable to Ostrogorskys biblio-
graphical and source-analytical sections at the beginning of each main chapter These words
incorrectly imply that my bibliographical and source-analytical sections are less detailed than
Ostrogorskys, though mine do differ in appearing at the end of the book. As for Dr. B.s asser-
tion on p. 719 that in my book the abbreviated literature is not presented fully in the section on
abbreviations at pp. 873891, he mentions no abbreviation that was omitted, and I have never
learned of any. Apparently he has been misled by my statement on p. 873: Works cited only
once are not abbreviated and do not appear here [in the list of abbreviations]. Even these works
can be found in my index under the authors name.
I turn now to the errors that Dr. B. attributes to me. By means of a sole example, he undertakes
to show (p. 721) that in essence, T. does not know his way around the late ancient period,
quoting my statement on p. 168 that the emperor Anastasios introduced the vindex civitatis
[sic!] or defender of the city. Dr. B. seems to imply that I have confused the vindex with the
defensor civitatis. However, though in my book I happened not to mention the defensores (like
many other things for which I had insufficient space), on p. 168 I am clearly referring to the
vindices, who certainly were introduced under Anastasius. Since several sources show that vin-
dices were appointed for individual cities, vindex civitatis seems a sound Latinization of a term
that is itself Latin (even if the surviving references are in Greek), and defender is a standard
English translation of vindex.
My statement on pp. 17879 of my book that the first edition of Justinians Codex was pub-
lished in 529 is correct, unlike Dr. B.s statement, The fact that a revised version was published
shortly thereafter (in 534 that which is known today) is not mentioned. On p. 185, in its proper
place in my chronological account, I say, In 534 [emphasis added] the commission finished its
work by publishing a revised and corrected version of the Justinian Code, and I observe that
along with the other elements of the Corpus it became the definitive form of Roman law
Dr. B. also states, John the Cappadocian, the well-known praetorian prefect of the 530s, is here
made out to be chairman of the first commission (p. 179) here a critical comment is hardly
worthwhile! Yet John was indeed chairman of the first commission that produced the Code (cf.
Tony Honor, Tribonian, p. 13 n. 114), and I repeatedly mention that John was pretorian prefect
(on that same p. 179 and pp. 181, 182, 184, 185, 195, and 19899).

Brought to you by | Saint Louis University - St Louis

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 7:13 AM
 Anhang zu den Rezensionen 803

Dr. B. continues, On p. 396f. [T.] dates the Ecloga of Leo III and Constantine V to the
year 726 a glance through the introduction to the edition he cites, by Burgmann, would have
shown him that the year should be 741. I both read and cited that introduction, as Dr. B. would
know if he had checked my index under Burgmann. I say on p. 939 (n. 7, referring to p. 350),
This [726] is the traditional date, and seems to fit the historical context better than the other
possible date of 741. Though Burgmann, Ecloga, [pp.] 1012, prefers the later date, he gives
no compelling reason. This is one of many places where Dr. B. depicts my disagreement with
others as ignorance of their work.
Dr. B. states that I transform the Hunnic chieftain Grod into the king of the long-since van-
ished kingdom of the Bosporus! Since John Malalas and Theophanes both refer to Grod/Gordas
as a king ruling the town of Bosporus (Kerch), I see no objection to referring to his state as the
Kingdom of Bosporus as I do on my p. 180. Not even Dr. B.s misquotation of my words
(Kingdom of the Bosporus) can justify his assertion that I think Grod/Gordas kingdom per-
petuated the ancient Bosporan Kingdom (which I never had a reason to mention).
On pp. 72122, Dr. B. gives two examples of my alleged difficulty with the history of
Byzantine church and dogma. He first asserts, Clearly, T. considers monotheletism to have
been a simple continuation of monophysitism, without grasping that both the dyotheletes as well
as the monotheletes were Chalcedonian! But on p. 305 I say, The Ecthesis [which defined
Monotheletism] affirmed the Council of Chalcedon [emphasis added] and the two natures of
Christ...and declared...that Christ had one will. This doctrine of one will, or Monotheletism,
differed from Monoenergism Second, Dr. B. deduces from my allusion on p. 937 (n. 10,
referring to p. 329) to the later western doctrine of papal infallibility that Obviously, T. has
never heard of the conflicts over the doctrine of papal infallibilitas in matters of dogma before
and during Vatican I (1870). I first heard of those conflicts about forty years ago. My statement
that Pope Honorius advice to Heraclius was not intended as a formal pronouncement is an
obvious reference to the position taken at Vatican I, though I used the word formal instead of the
Councils ex cathedra so as not to imply that the latter term was used in the seventh century.
Dr. B.s statement on p. 722 that I present my belief that Constans II created the themes in
65962 as an apparently firmly-proven fact is untrue. On pp. 31517 my summary of my
arguments begins with the words In all probability and ends with If this conjectural date is
right Contrary to Dr. B.s assertion, Prof. Walter Kaegis review of my Byzantium and Its
Army, despite its misrepresentations (see below), does not purport to provide a demolition of
my argument on Constans II and the themes. Prof. Kaegi merely calls my argument unproven,
which in the strict sense must be true of all theories of the origin of the themes in the present
state of our evidence.
Of my sloppiness (p. 724), Dr. B. cites only Two examples: in 672 the Arabs occupied
also the coast...of Lydia (p. 325): is Lycia meant? While on pp. 330 and 333, Mopsouestia is
placed in the Armenian Hexapolis! What I actually say on p. 325 is that the Arabs wintered
on the coasts of Cilicia, Lycia, and Lydia. By changing my plural (coasts) to a singular and
omitting my word Lycia, Dr. B. has distorted my clear and accurate statement (cf. Theophanes
p. 353, Smyrna being in Lydia), then criticized me for an ambiguity that exists only in his ver-
sion. On p. 330, where I wrote Constantine [IV] led an army that retook much of Cilicia and the
Armenian Hexapolis, including Mopsuestia, I do see that my last phrase can be misunderstood,
and the next printing will change it to as well as Mopsuestia. But my map on p. 302 plainly
shows that Mopsuestia is not in the Hexapolis, nor do I say that it was, as Dr. B. claims, on p.
333 (where neither Mopsuestia nor the Hexapolis is even mentioned).
Of the frankly, shocking (p. 724) number of errors imputed to me in Dr. B.s review, just
one is a true mistake rather than a disagreement (p. 723): my statement on p. 406 that Smyrna
seems not to have fallen to invaders in the seventh and eighth centuries. (The next printing will
correct Smyrna to Attalia, which is mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph and was, I
suppose, what I meant.) Dr. B. is however wrong to conclude that I clearly never actually used
his Die Stdte Kleinasiens (which, as he mentions, I called a careful study), merely because I
reject his conjectures that Ephesus and Nicaea fell in the eighth century. That I consider a book
careful does not of course mean that I agree with everything in it, nor did I seek Dr. B.s thanks
(n. 27) when I judged it objectively.

Brought to you by | Saint Louis University - St Louis

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 7:13 AM
804 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 96/2, 2003: II. Abteilung

In a brief treatment of my Concise History, Dr. B. writes with disapproval (p. 724), on p. 93
we can read how Heraclius was able at the end of his reign to raise 109,000 soldiers against the
Arabs. The relevant part of p. 93 actually says, The empire still had an army of about 109,000
men, including the soldiers...tied down defending faraway Africa and Italy a total calculated
from an army payroll of 641 recorded by the Patriarch Nicephorus (see my Byzantium and Its
Army, pp. 14547). This misreading echoes a persistent failure by Profs. Haldon and Kaegi to
distinguish (not only in my work but in the sources) figures for the total establishment of the
Byzantine army from figures for troops in specific places. As for Dr. B.s assertion that my view
of the themes is presented here as simple fact (see pp. 94ff.), on pp. 9496 I qualify my state-
ments with the words presumably, probably, disputed, most likely, and apparently,
and I also state the main argument to the contrary.
I would be glad to ignore this sort of reviewing (as Prof. Cyril Mango did a similar review
of his work by Dr. B. in BZ 91 [1998], pp. 54961) if it did not keep building on its own distor-
tions. In support of his assertion on p. 719 that Earlier works by T., the results of which are
incorporated into the History, met very considerable opposition in international scholarship,
Dr. B. names four scholars: Profs. Haldon, Kaegi, R.-J. Lilie, and F. Winkelmann. Though as
a rule Prof. Lilie finds my treatment of the sources too respectful and Prof. Winkelmann finds
it not respectful enough, they have expressed their mutually incompatible criticisms with only
some minor rhetorical exaggeration. Profs. Haldon and Kaegi, on the other hand, have adopted
a style of reviewing that resembles Dr. B.s.
Thus in International History Review 21 (1999), p. 722, Prof. Haldon claims that my Historys
preface presents a diatribe on modern Byzantine studies which, besides leaving many gaps
and agreeing on some dubious propositions, is also accused of being mistaken, repetitious,
or insignificant (p. xvi). What I actually wrote is however not a diatribe but a much more
balanced critique: Modern Byzantine scholarship, besides leaving many gaps and agreeing on
some dubious propositions, has often come to conclusions that are inconsistent with each other
Much that has been written on Byzantine history as on other topics is mistaken, repetitious,
or insignificant None of these comments means that modern scholarship on Byzantium is
worse than that on most other subjects. ...Byzantium has inspired more than its share of studies
that are both original and valid. Again, in the review in Speculum 74 (1999) praised by Dr. B.,
Prof. Kaegi claims on p. 521 that my Byzantium and Its Army fails to realize its goal, because
The author seeks to write a general book on the army (p. 1) (apparently interpreting gen-
eral as comprehensive) but instead deals with selected Byzantine military topics In fact,
I stated on p. vii that I was only focusing on the main evidence for understanding the armys
role in Byzantine history chiefly the armys size, organization, and pay.
Today, when so much more is published than any one scholar can read, scholars naturally
tend to rely on reviews, so that accurate reviewing, especially in a journal of record like the BZ,
is more important than ever. Readers should be able to assume that what a reviewer criticizes in
a book is what the book actually contains. Criticizing a book for errors it did not make, as Dr.
B. has done, leaves the books real arguments unanswered, misinforms readers, and damages
scholarly debate.

Brought to you by | Saint Louis University - St Louis

Authenticated
Download Date | 9/19/17 7:13 AM