THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF BYZANTINE STUDIES Edited by ELIZABETH JEFFREYS with JOHN HALDON and ROBIN CORMACK OXPORD UNIVERSITY PRESS CHAPTER III.18.2 HISTORIOGRAPHY MICHAEL ANGOLD MICHAEL WHITBY THE classical tradition of historiography stretching back to Herodotos and Thucy- dides in the fifth century BCE offered Byzantine authors a rich and varied inheri- tance; on occasions expectations to conform imposed restraints but the continuing development of Byzantine historiography over more than a millennium demon- strates the vitality of the genre and the stimulus provided by its roots. In the classical world historiography was a branch of rhetoric, and its texts displayed events of the past to an audience in an attractive manner. Even if the ultimate audience would be readers, there was a continuing tradition of public recitation and historical texts were decorated with display pieces composed in higher style: speeches for partici- pants in the narrative, digressions on topics of interest such as foreign customs or strange tales, and editorial comments on people and events. A sequence of classicizing writers in the early Byzantine centuries operated in this tradition, from Dexippos (c.270) to Theophylakt (c.630). At least in Greek there was a sense of continuity, with Agathias explicidy tacking his narrative on to Prokopios and Theophylakt doing the same for Menander. Only four of these histories are substantially complete, by Zosimos (from the mid-third century through to 410; ed. Paschoud 1971-89; trans. Ridley 1982), and Prokopios (ed. Haury 1905-13; trans. Dewing 1914-54), Agathias (ed. Keydell 1967; trans. Frendo 1975), and Theophylakt (ed. de Boor and Wirth 1972; trans. Whitby and Whitby 1986) (most of sixth century); in addition there survive the last 18 books (354-78) of Ammianus, a Greek from Syria who wrote in Latin (Matthews 1989; Barnes 1998). For others we rely on fragments, primarily preserved in the tenth-century Excerpta of Constantine Porphyrogennetos: for Priskos, Malchos, and Menander we have significant nar- ratives of diplomatic dealings, as well as shorter passages containing interesting opinions (.sententiae), but it is impossible to be confident about the overall shape and nature of their works (Blockley 1983). Education was the primary qualification for composing such histories, since writers had to understand the tradition in which they worked and present their narrative appropriately. Classical vocabulary and style were adopted, with varying success: Prokopios created a flowing narrative in the manner of Arrian; Agathias devoted himself to literary study of his predecessors but often produced convo- luted rhetoric (Cameron 1970); Theophylakt's classicism was less thorough and he incorporated influences from the Septuagint and other Christian texts (Whitby 1988). Literary purity required that modern terms be avoided, or explained for the benefit of the notional classical reader: thus names of contemporary tribes might be lost behind approved archetypes (Scythians for Huns, Getae for Goths), and titles or institutions rendered by a periphrasis; Latin terms (e.g. for ranks, military equipment) were especially distasteftd for Greek writers. A major casualty of this antiquarian facade was religion. Some writers, Ammianus, Eunapios, and Zosimos, were assertively pagan and their references to the new imperial faith were usu- ally hostile; Prokopios and his successors were Christian, but affected detachment (Cameron and Cameron 1964; Kaldellis 2004; Whitby 2007). Wars with their associated diplomacy had always dominated historiography; major public events, especially in the capital city or involving the emperor, were also suitable material, but religious events were not sanctioned by classical precedent. Writers tended to have experience in public life: Olympiodoros, Priskos, and John of Epiphania participated in embassies, Prokopios was adviser to a general, Ammi- anus an imperial staff officer. Agathias was exceptional in disclaiming practical knowledge, but he believed his literary talents offset this weakness. Most wrote about contemporary or recent events, so that information could largely be gathered through personal investigation. Digressions or resumes of earlier events might be based on written accounts, but it was not customary to cite sources except to note disagreements. Quotation of documents was unusual, though not unknown: Menander preserved the long text of the 561 treaty with Persia, while Theophylakt and Ammianus included letters from Persian kings which are probably genuine. An accurate and impartial record was the professed ideal, but personal views impinged; speeches and editorial comments offered opportunities to pass judgement (e.g. Ammianus' obituary notices: Matthews 1989), and a narrative might be slanted more insidiously to reinforce the desired opinion (e.g. Zosimos on the unfortunate consequences of Constantine's conversion). Classicizing histories were quite substantial productions (Prokopios and Theo- phylakt: 8 books; Ammianus: 31) and their literary pretensions meant that they were also a challenge to read. One response was the Epitome> of which three Latin examples survive from the fourth century: Aurelius Victor (imperial biographies), 840 michael angold and michael whitby Eutropius and Festus (both a history of Rome from the foundation). The authors held imperial office, and perhaps regarded their works as digests of essential knowl- edge of Roman affairs for the wide range of recruits to public life (Bird 1984,1993). Chronicles probably originated in the same official milieu. In the classical world there once existed collections of brief historical information, attached to lists of annual magistrates or priests. Christian writers had to marry the accepted corpus of Graeco-Roman events to biblical history, a challenge first met by Julius Africanus whose Chronographies extended from the Creation to 221 ce; his work was extended by Eusebios, whose Chronici Canones survive through Jerome's Latin translation as well as in Armenian (Mosshammer 1979). The more recent sections of these works used Olympiads or consular lists as their backbone. In the late fourth century a number of chronicles were produced, often local spin-offs from, or continuations of, Eusebios or Jerome (Burgess 1999): north Italy and Gaul seem to have had their own traditions (Muhlberger 1990), but the best known are by the Spanish bishop Hydatius and the Latin chronicle which Marcellinus Comes compiled at Constantinople in the early sixth century. Hydatius started from Jerome's con- clusion in 379, with Olympiads and regnal years to structure his entries through to 469 (Burgess 1993). Marcellinus also continued Jerome, using a framework of consulships and indiction years; his first terminus was 518, but he extended the work to 534 while a different author added a further continuation to 548 (Croke 2001). Few entries are longer than 5 or 6 lines, though both Hydatius and Marcellinus managed to convey their own opinions on topics of importance, in particular the fates of their local regions, Spain and Illyricum. Two substantial Greek world chronicles survive from Late Antiquity, both extending from Adam to the present. The first was produced by John Malalas in Antioch, to judge from the coverage of local events, though this interest is not so pronounced in the first extension which covers the years 527-32; a further continu- ation to 565 is definitely Constantinopolitan in focus. Biblical events are narrated at length, classical myths are slotted into the historical sequence, while classical history is covered quite briefly. The narrative only becomes expansive in the fifth century, especially from the reign of Zeno for which Malalas could draw on eyewitnesses (ed. Thurn 2000; trans. Jeffreys 1986). Global chronology was significant for Malalas, since one of his concerns was to disprove speculation that the world had reached its sixth millennium c.500, but unusually for a chronicle he did not construct an annual frame for his narrative: some entries are precisely dated, but imperial reigns provide the main organization for the Roman section. Malalas' text existed in at least three different versions, and these had a considerable impact on subsequent chronography (Jeffreys 1986,1990). In the early seventh century John of Antioch combined Malalas with substantial information on Roman, especially Republican, history; only fragments survive. About 630 the Chronicon Paschale was produced in Constantinople. This combined Malalas with the Bible and Eusebios, but narra- tive was subordinated to chronological computation since the exact calculation of certain liturgical celebrations was of overriding importance: each year was noted, even when there was no event to report, being marked by an Olympiad, regnal year, indiction, and consulship (ed. Dindorf 1832; trans. Whitby and Whitby 1989). The triumph of Christianity generated a new focus for historiography. A separate genre of ecclesiastical history was created by Eusebios of Caesarea, who recorded the Church's progress from the Apostles to Diocletian's Persecution and the establish- ment of imperial Christianity by Constantine. Eusebios relied on a variety of previ- ous texts, accounts of martyrdoms, acts of councils, episcopal correspondence, and other patristic material (Barnes 1981). In contrast to classicizing authors, Eusebios did not conceal the origin of his information but included substantial quotations from these sources, thereby establishing a distinctive