BOOK REVIEWS 501 not succeed. This failure, they argue, opened the way for ambitious chieftains like Alaric to exploit the ensuing rivalries between Eastern and Western courts. Whatever one thinks of these conclusions, they are nonetheless based on current scholarship and reasonably argued. The same cannot be said about the authors' treatment of the equally significant religious developments of this reign, which saw a quantum leap in the level of coercion against non-Catholic Christians and pagans. Here the authors are content to paste together a collage of views, taken uncritically from such disparate sources as Edward Gibbon and Ambrose of Milan. If by so doing they aimed at impartiality, what they hit was cartoon, with the sober Theodosius of other chapters now a "persecuting fanatic , priest-ridden to the point of puppetry" (p. 70). Not coincidentally, at this point the authors' rhetoric goes over the top as well, including a summation of Theodosius' religious policy as "the Christianity of the monks and the mobs, expressed in the language of imperial law; inspired not by a sober policy of desirable religious aims, but the ruler's dread of damnation and need for magical prescriptions to counteract the juju"(pp. 120-121). While not, therefore, a comprehensive reassessment of the career ofTheodosius , this is nevertheless a book with many useful things to say about a pivotal period in Roman relations with Germanic peoples. There are some proofreading errors that should be corrected in any subsequent edition: Theta for Phi in the Greek spelling of Theodosius (p.24); four years, not six, for the time between Adrianople and 382 (p. 334); 306 instead of 307 as the date of Constantine's rule (p.37); eighteen months instead of three years forJulian's rule (p.51); 395, not 394, for the death ofTheodosius (p. 138); 251, not 231,forGallienus (p.190). A marginal comment: I have rarely seen a book with so many useless, unnecessary and occasionally misdirected notes. Is quantity of notes the new criterion for publishing generalist works with university presses? H. A. Drake University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara Koriwns Biographie des Mesrop Mastoc': Übersetzung und Kommentar. By Gabriele Winkler. [Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 245.] (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale. 1994. Pp. 452.) The conversion of Armenia to Christianity was a long process. Of the first stage—the infiltration of Christians from Asia Minor to the west and from Syria to the south—little is known. The emergence of the Church as a factor in Armenian politics was marked by the consecration of St. Gregory (the Illuminator ) at Caesarea in 314 as the country's first bishop. But the full impact of Christianity as the dominant cultural force came only a century later with the invention of a national script. The person responsible for this dramatic devel- 502 BOOK REVIEWS opment was Mastoc', also known in later texts as Mesrop. He was born between 361 and 364 and received a good Greek education. After a successful early career in the royal chancellery he abandoned the secular world for the ascetic life, and with his disciples engaged in numerous missionary travels in remoter parts of Armenia. His biography was written by Koriwn, one of his disciples, not long after the master's death in 439 or 440. This short work thus has a double significance. It is the earliest evidence for the creation of the native script, which was immediately followed by the rapid translation of necessary ecclesiastical texts into Armenian. And being probably the first original work written in that language, it is important as an influential document in the development ofArmenian literature. Such an important text has not passed unnoticed in previous scholarship. This new translation with commentary is particularly valuable in that it provides a comprehensive review and critical assessment of earlier studies. There has been much scope for scholarly controversy; for although the Armenian text is only forty pages long, its episodic character and lack of clear dating have led to numerous problems, including the actual order of the narrative. Furthermore , a second recension was composed at a later date under the influence of the History by Movsës Xorenac'i (of disputed date, probably early eighth century ). Professor Winkler here...
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
May 30, 2009
Ana López-Montes + 4
Open Access