In this volume, Greenwood presents the first English translation of Step‘anos Taronec‘i's Universal History composed in 1004 or 1005. Step‘anos, also often known as Asołik (see pp. 8–9), divides his narrative into three books. The first covers biblical and Armenian history until the end of the third century and the death of King Xosrov of the Arsacid dynasty of Armenia. The second treats the reign of King Trdat III/IV and the conversion of Armenia by Gregory the Illuminator until the accession of Ašot I Bagratuni as king in 884 (incorrectly dated to 888 by Step‘anos). The third brings the narrative to Tarōnec‘i's own day. Although increasingly relied upon by students of Armenian history, generally speaking this text has been an ignored work of Armenian historiography. Thanks to this fine and well-annotated translation, that situation should change.

As valuable as his translation is, it is Greenwood's introduction to the text which clearly situates Step‘anos's History both diachronically and synchronically within Armenian historiographical traditions. He not only discusses the work as a link within the chain of Armenian historical narrative between the histories of Yovhannēs V Draxanakertc‘i (c. 924) and Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i (c. 1072), but also compares it to four very different, but nearly contemporary, works: the first continuation of the History of the House of Arcruni by T‘ovma Arcruni, the History of the Anonymous Story-Teller, the History of Tarōn attributed to Yovhannēs Mamikonean, and the History of Uxtanēs, bishop of Sebasteia (pp. 10–32). Greenwood correctly concludes that, although the Universal History does not reveal any reliance upon them, they point to the remarkably variegated historiographical context in which Step‘anos worked. While Armenologists will certainly appreciate Greenwood's extensive discussion of the four texts, Byzantine and Islamic historians may find it a bit more challenging to follow his arguments and may have hoped for greater discussion of Step‘anos's work within a larger historiographical context. The author's attempt to locate “Armenian tradition firmly and deliberately in the context of world history” (pp. 91–2), for example, provides an opportunity to bring it into conversation with the attempt at chronological preoccupation of Theophanes the Confessor or the universalist perspectives of al-Ṭabarī.

Greenwood is to be especially commended for arguing for the significance of the first two books of the History. Long dismissed as derivative from earlier histories, Greenwood successfully demonstrates how scholars need to pay attention not just to Tarōnec‘i's sources, but to how he chose to re-present them. Greenwood's analysis of these two books allows him to reach critical judgements on Step‘anos's objectives and methodology such as his “deeply sustained, systematic chronological precision and coherence”, and his willingness to contour “the historical record, adapting material as required to suit his purposes or express his opinions” (pp. 54–5). For example, Greenwood dissects Step‘anos's small editorial interventions in Bk. II, ch. 2, in a passage concerning the manoeuvres of Emperor Constans II in Armenia that has been lifted seemingly wholesale from the seventh-century History erroneously attributed to Sebēos. As Greenwood convincingly suggests, Step‘anos's reshaping of this material is deliberate and reflects the author's discomfort with the expansion of the Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty, illuminating “how the past could be reimagined in order to comment upon the present” (p. 49).

Many of Greenwood's other proposals are based on a careful examination of the text and are very reasonable. For example, his reconstruction of Catholicos Xač‘ik I's intellectual and bibliographic programme and Step‘anos's active participation within it (pp. 4–8) is more than plausible. So, too, is his assertion that Step‘anos relied upon a lost imperial Byzantine chronicle, possibly favourable to Bardas Skleros, for large portions of Book III as well as possibly for notices on imperial history in Books I and II (pp. 57–61). Greenwood nicely characterizes Step‘anos's millenarianism as “subdued” (p. 73), although I argue in a forthcoming article that Aristakēs Lastivertc‘i holds a similar suspicion of the turning of the first millennium.

There are, however, a few instances where I think some push back to Greenwood's positions may be justified. Throughout the introduction, he underscores that Step‘anos lived at a time of transition and change. This was undoubtedly so, but I think one may question when an author did not live in a time of transition or change? The idea of a “period of transition” in and of itself does not appear to be a very helpful heuristic, particularly as the author is unaware of the state into which his or her society is supposedly transitioning. In my opinion, it would be more illuminating to discuss explicitly whether an author employs a discourse of change or of continuity, and if so, how he or she constructs it.

Greenwood also contends that Step‘anos delineates a “new concept” of Armenian identity that was not necessarily predicated on kingship or on the office of Catholicos (pp. 69–70). The “novelty” of Step‘anos's formulation, however, can be challenged: I would suggest that Tarōnec‘i tapped into earlier and alternative articulations of Armenian identity. Indeed, it could be argued that it was the monarchy and the catholicossate that had propagated new expressions of Armenian identity that privileged these institutions. Greenwood's deduction that Step‘anos's focus on Bagratuni lands to the exclusion of Vaspurakan and Siwnik’ “attests a shrinking of Armenian identity” (p. 91) in the author's mind comes across as over-interpreted.

On p. 91, Greenwood presents Grigor Narekac‘i solely as a composer of penitential hymns who developed an interior form of spirituality that “constitutes an implicit rejection of all other forms of collective Christian organization”. This assessment ignores Narekac‘i's ecclesial spirituality as well as his impassioned refutations of the antinomian T‘ondrakian sect and appreciation of Emperor Basil II.

A small correction should also be noted. On p. 85 Greenwood lists M4854 (1168, Tigranakert) as a witness to Step‘anos's text. This should read M4584 (1668, Tigranakert).

These remarks are meant to underscore that Greenwood's keen insights into the text will generate further lively discussion, and that his work represents an advance in scholarship that readers will find both useful and stimulating.