The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century (review)

Abstract

The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. Introduction, translation, and annotations by Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis F. Sullivan with the assistance of George T. Dennis and Staniatina McGrath. [Dumbarton Oaks Studies, XLI.] (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 2005. Pp. xx, 264.) Byzantine civilization has left a rich and varied body of historical writings. The assortment of chronicles, histories, and memoirs provides an almost unbroken narrative of the empire's history from the sixth to the fifteenth century. The early chronicles offer thin gruel to modern historians trying to form a coherent account of the dark seventh and eighth centuries, but by the tenth century the growing maturity and scope of Byzantine historiography aEow for a more developed understanding of the dominant events and people of the time. The History of Leo the Deacon, focussing mainly on the reigns of the two great soldier emperors Nikephoros II Phokas (963-969) and John I Tzimiskes (969-976), has long been recognized as the most important source for the military and dynastic policies that shaped the course of events in the later tenth century. Strangely, however, Leo's history has long languished in an outdated edition, without an English translation, and has until now remained inaccessible to all but specialists. The appearance of this fine, meticulously annotated, translation by Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis Sullivan will be welcomed not only by Byzantinists, but perhaps even more so by students and scholars in the related fields of western medieval and Islamic history. The History of Leo the Deacon bears aE the hallmarks of the genre. The author writes in an archaic Greek full of recondite vocabulary and allusions to earlier models, particularly Procopius and Agathias. He employs rhetorical devices, notably the set speech and the excursus, to dramatize the narrative. He intends to present an orderly, connected record but often strays from his chronological line and occasionally conflates events. Leo was also writing the history of his own time, stating when he was an eyewitness or participant in the events he describes. This gives his work an authoritative immediacy and firsthand perspective; yet Leo also displays the fantastic conception the Byzantines had of the outer world, its workings and peoples. Throughout his work the classical idea of Chance and the Christian agency of Providence operate side by side, reminding readers of the uncertainty of this life and reinforcing the moralizing, instructive value not just of this history but of History itself. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Leo's history is the insight it offers into the mind of an educated Byzantine of middling social rank-what he knew, what he made of the world around him, and what he deemed useful or necessary for his and later generations to know. …