Following his universally acclaimed translation of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon (2005) Richard Price has now produced a two-volume set with the translation of the acts of the Council of Constantinople, held in 553, and including much additional material from the so-called Three Chapters Controversy for which this council is the decisive event. The translation is, where I checked, reliable and always highly readable in English. It represents yet another significant achievement of almost equal importance to that of the translation of the acts of Chalcedon, even though, or perhaps rather, especially because, the council of 553 is less well known outside a small circle of specialists. Very helpfully, therefore, a general introduction of 108 pages not only offers the necessarily technical description of the available texts and versions here translated, but also sets out lucidly and succinctly the ecclesiastical politics and theological problems at stake. Later on individual texts receive more specific introduction, adding many important insights. The volumes further include maps, indices of persons and documents, a glossary for the uninitiated into the theology and ecclesiastical affairs of the time, and an extensive up-to-date bibliography, which between them offer various gateways into the documents, topics and scholarly debates for the non-specialist, and have much to offer for those who have already puzzled over the theological and historical questions of the council, Emperor Justinian's religious policies and the competing theologies. The Constantinopolitan Council of 553 – the fifth ecumenical council – is in many ways related to that of Chalcedon and reflects the century of discussion and controversy about that council's achievement, or otherwise, and the dramatic developments in the Churches between the mid-fifth century and the times of Justinian. By the time that Justinian convened it, the complex issues became condensed in the controversy over the so-called Three Chapters. Justinian proposed, taking up a suggestion made by the so-called Miaphysites (Non-Chalcedonians) a few years earlier, to condemn three items: the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (the forefather of ‘Antiochene’ theology), specific writings of Theodoret of Cyrus (d. c. 460) directed against Cyril of Alexandria and the (part-) Council of Ephesus (431) under his leadership, and the Letter of Ibas to Mari the Persian, another denunciation of that council and of Cyril. The proposed condemnation attracted much resistance particularly in the Churches of Africa and the west, where the idea of a posthumous condemnation of persons deceased in the peace of the Church was criticised on principle and where the move was feared to fatally undermine the Council of Chalcedon (and with it Pope Leo), which had seemingly endorsed Theodoret and Ibas. Pope Vigilius initially wrote against the condemnation, but was cajoled and coerced into agreeing to it eventually, causing a protracted and bitter schism in the west. This fascinating but convoluted story can be traced in Price's translation of a selection of documents: (1) letters from Africa that show the grievances and objections there before the council; (2) Justin's Edict on the Orthodox Faith of 551, which very much predetermined the later course of action at the council; (3) letters by Pope Vigilius of the time; (4) the acts of the council itself, meeting in six sessions in May and June 553; and (5) Vigilius's two constituta, that is two lengthy and elaborate examinations of the case of the Three Chapters, the first despite a very full rebuttal in particular of the heterodoxies of Theodore refusing to assent to their condemnation – and therefore not preserved with the acts; the second agreeing under immense pressure to do just that; and a terse but revealing letter to the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Eutychius announcing his de facto capitulation. (An appendix adds the canons of the condemnation of Origen whose relation to this controversy remains obscure.) With these texts the collection reaches significantly beyond the protocols and the documentation preserved in the Latin edition (the original Greek is lost) of the acts of the council. In so doing it renders an invaluable service to the historical understanding of the council and its political and theological contexts. Much of the drama happened off stage, with Justinian and Vigilius the main protagonists. The records of the official sessions of the council reveal very little about the struggles behind closed doors and appear at times rather pale. In large parts they relied on documents drawn up in advance and appear occasionally almost scripted or stage-managed. The documents presented here at least allow a glimpse behind the stage. In Price's interpretation of the central questions of the politics and theology of Justinian and the council two related elements deserve particular attention. Building on suggestions (not only) from eastern orthodox scholarship Price rejects more conventional views that it was Justinian's policy to accommodate the Non-Chalcedonian Christians and to compromise over Chalcedon in the hope of increased internal stability of the empire. Rather the emperor mounted a strong defence of the Council of Chalcedon by hedging it with the condemnations of the Three Chapters. Yet in so doing he also committed the Chalcedonians to the more radical statements of Cyril, including his Twelve Chapters against Nestorius. Theologically, the advocated reading of the Christology originally outlined at Chalcedon a century earlier was, to Price, the real and necessary clarification of issues left unresolved there, and was, moreover, also fundamentally in the spirit of the original sentiments and decrees of that council. According to this view, the theology of the council of 553 may seem less ‘new’ than the debate over its so-called ‘Neo-Chalcedonianism’ suggests and is certainly not, to Price, to be juxtaposed to an imaginary original, ‘pure’ Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Implied in this is a more sympathetic hearing of ‘miaphysite’ arguments and positions than is traditionally granted. This assessment merits, and requires, serious scholarly discussion. Overall, Price must be congratulated for a translation that will remain indispensable both for historians and for scholars of historical theology.