Theophanes Sources
Mango and Scott (1997:lxxiv-xcviii) state the following about Theophanes' sources
SOURCES
Except for an indeterminate part of its final section the Chronicle of Theophanes can best be viewed as a file of extracts borrowed from earlier sources. These have been subjected in varying degrees to a process of abbreviation and paraphrase (see below, p. xciff.), but no attempt has been made to impose a stylistic uniformity to the resultant text. On the contrary, peculiarities of diction and style, from the archaic to the vernacular, that were present in the sources have, more often than not, been left untouched. An extreme case is provided by the borrowings from the iambic poems by George of Pisidia, many of which retain their metrical form. Unfortunately, this telltale diversity cannot be fully conveyed in translation and can only be sensed in the original.
... It should be noted that, unlike the Syriac chroniclers, who are often scrupulous in naming their authorities, Theophanes hardly ever does so.
... 2. An eastern (Syriac) chronicle. Theophanes is unique among Byzantine chroniclers in his direct use of a foreign source, which makes up a major part of his narrative for the seventh and eighth centuries. The credit for proving this fact is due to E. W. Brooks,101 whose acute remarks admit of further elaboration thanks to the subsequent publication to texts not available to him, in particular the Chronicle of 1234 and Agapios of Membidj.
There can be little doubt that the source used by Theophanes (for the sake of simplicity we shall speak of a single source, although there may have been more than one) was a Greek translation of a chronicle written in Syriac. That this translation was made in the East is indicated, amongst other clues, by the use of Macedonian months, which was traditional in Syria—Palestine: these occur between 6126 and 6242. It is also evident that this source in its final form was a product of Melkite circles. It is difficult to determine its place of origin, since there are divergent pointers to Edessa, Antioch, Emesa, and Palestine. But even if the final redaction was Melkite, the source incorporated a good deal of material common to the Syrian Jacobite tradition, as represented notably by Michael the Syrian and the Chronicle of 1234.
The identification of the eastern passages (which, for the reader's convenience, we have distinguished by a different font) is not always beyond dispute. Setting aside some cases of overlap as early as the fourth century (discussed below), the passages in question start with the Persian invasion in the reign of Phokas (Am 6099), become more or less continuous from AD 630 onwards, and extend at least to AD 780.
If we wish to go further and try to identify Theophanes' eastern source, we find ourselves in deep waters. It is known that Michael's Chronicle (completed in 1195) was chiefly based for the period 582-842 (i.e. books x. 2I-xii) on that of Dionysios of Tel-Mahre, who is also acknowledged to have been the source of the Chronicle of 1234, the latter being independent of Michael. But Dionysios died in 845 and his Chronicle, which is lost except for a few fragments,102 could not, therefore, have been the source of Theophanes. The latter must have been already incorporated in Dionysios.
The next point to notice is that whereas Theophanes' eastern source extended to at least 780, his correspondence with Michael (as with Chr. 1234) stops in about 750, as already stressed by Brooks. The relationship of the various texts we have been discussing, setting aside Agapios, can, therefore, be expressed by the following schema:
Schema for the 'eastern source' - Mango and Scott (1997:lxxxiii)
With regard to the postulated Chronicle of 750, it ought to correspond to the work of one of the six authors cited by Dionysios in his Preface, which is reproduced by Michael (ii. 358). Their respective claims have been examined by Brooks, who, after eliminating four of them as being too early, too late, or otherwise unsuitable, was left with two candidates, namely a certain John son of Samuel and Theophilos of Edessa, expressing a preference for the former. Since nothing whatever is known concerning John son of Samuel, we shall be none the wiser if we ascribe to him the Chronicle of 750. Theophilos of Edessa, who is specifically mentioned as a source by Agapios of Membidj (whose work belongs to the same nexus of sources),103 is a more attractive candidate. He was a Melkite, an 'astrologer', and a favourite of the Caliph al-Mahdi. In addition to his historical interests, he also translated the Iliad and the Odyssey into Syriac. He died in 785.104 Recently a detailed case has been made for Theophilos' authorship of the 'Chronicle of 75O,105 which may be accepted as a working hypothesis. That, however, still leaves open the identity of the eastern source for the period 750-80, which does not appear to offer any close parallels either with the Syriac tradition or with Agapios, whose published text breaks off in the second year of al-Mahdi (AD 776/7). One possible solution would be to suppose that whoever translated Theophilos into Greek wrote the post-750 narrative in addition to being responsible for a number of other entries in the pre-750 section, which, although of eastern derivation, are unique to Theophanes.
...
the Latin translation of Anastasius (also edited by de Boor)127 assumes considerable importance. This was made in Rome between 871 and 874 in the interests of John Immonides, who was then compiling his historico-ecclesiastical encyclopaedia.128 The Greek manuscript Anastasius had before him may have been acquired in the course of his mission to Constantinople in 869-70 and was probably similar in content to some of the extant Greek manuscripts, since it also included part of Synkellos and the Chron. syntomon of Nikephoros (like f and o). It was, however, of much better quality than the entire Greek tradition, except a and b. Unfortunately, Anastasius did not translate it in full: he made only short excerpts down to the death of Theodosios II, fuller ones to the death of Justinian I, but from the accession of Justin II (and even more closely from that of Maurice) he provided a full translation.
As long as it was believed that the oldest manuscript of Theophanes was not earlier than the late tenth century it was possible to speculate, in view of the undoubted superiority of Anastasius, that the chronicler's text underwent considerable deterioration between c.850 and 950. The view that de Boor's Theophanes was not the 'real' Theophanes was argued at length by a Russian clergyman, P. G. Preobranskij,129 who thought that the authentic text had to be reconstructed with the help of A[nastasius] as well as d = Paris. gr. 1710 (of which he had a much higher opinion than did de Boor) and later compilers, notably Kedrenos130 and pseudo-Symeon,131 who allegedly had access to a better tradition than we do. It was further suggested that the preserved Theophanes represented an inferior edition made at the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who, undoubtedly, had a keen interest in the Confessor, as shown by the lengthy extracts he included in his De administrando imperio.132 Besides, Constantine believed that Theophanes was related to him through his mother Zoe.
...
The deterioration of the Greek text by comparison with Anastasius must, therefore, have taken place much earlier, towards the middle of the ninth century, that is as soon as it was published, and can best be explained on the assumption that the Chronicle enjoyed a wide diffusion from the start. The fact that the same scribe (or, at any rate, the same scriptorium) made two copies, c and o, seems to indicate something like mass production, which one may be tempted to localize in the monastery of Megas Agros. Palaeographically these two manuscripts belong to a much discussed group, which has been christened 'tipo Anastasio'.133 It may be worth noting that another important member of the group (Paris. gr. 1470 + 1476) has been attributed to Bithynia on the basis of its ornament,134 a conclusion that has been tentatively endorsed in a recent study.135 The chronicler George the Monk, who was probably active in the second half of the ninth century,136 used Theophanes in a version that appears to have been rather distinctive. At about the same time the Chronicle, including its Preface, was extensively plagiarized by the author of the Life of the probably imaginary St Theodore of Chora,137 a monastery which, incidentally, had close links with Palestine. Further research in this direction may prove fruitful.
In sum, we do not wish to claim that the text we have translated is the 'definitive' Theophanes. There may be room for further improvement of the text, but that can only be done in the context of a new edition, an undertaking that will require many years of labour.
The three earliest Byzantine sources (Paul the Deacon, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and Theophanes in that order1) speak of two earthquakes separated by 3 years. The similarity of the ten Byzantine accounts, dates of composition, and the distance of the authors from the region (e.g., writing in Constantinople or Italy) suggests that the accounts are derived from a shared local source(s) and each other. None of the three earliest Byzantine authors could have experienced the earthquakes firsthand. As none of the Byzantine authors cite a source, the shared source - often referred to as the ‘eastern source’ - is a matter of conjecture2. Several scholars (e.g., Brooks, 1906) have suggested that the ‘eastern source’ was cobbled together by a Melkites3 monk who wrote around 780 CE. After civil unrest led to the dissolution of Melkite monasteries in Palestine and Syria, a number of Melkite Monks ended up in Constantinople in 813 CE (Brooks, 1906:587). One of the monks may have brought this text with him – a text that would eventually find its way into the hands of Theophanes. How this source was cobbled together is also a matter of conjecture. Two authors whose works are now lost have been proposed as promising candidates in providing source material - John son of Samuel of whom nothing is known beyond that he lived in Western Syria and Theophilus of Edessa. Theophilus, who wrote in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic, was in his 50’s and living in the region when the earthquakes struck4. John’s Chronicle is thought to have ended in 746 CE (supposedly5) and the unknown editor of ~780 CE may have been a continuator – meaning he added his own version of events from ~746 to ~780 CE. He may have also incorporated Theophilus’ text, simply used Theophilus alone, or used other texts and information. Further, he may have been a redactor meaning that he modified John and/or Theophilus’ original text in addition to adding his own events. Some hypothetical possibilities are shown in Fig. 2. However this ‘eastern source’ came to be, since the Byzantine accounts write about earthquakes which affected Palestine, Syria, and Jazira (northern Mesopotamia), it would appear that the original report(s) of these earthquakes came from these territories.
Figure 2 - Three hypothetical source dependencies for Theophanes. Dashed arrows indicate uncertain textual transmission. Solid lines are certain. Other Sources refers to some of the many sources thought to have informed Theophanes Chronicle. Mango and Scott (1997: lxxiv-lxxxviii), for example, list 20 possible sources for different time periods and subjects. Other local source refers to unknown sources of information for the Continuator. Alternative source dependencies are also possible. - Williams (in press)