sign in sign up
<<
Home , Agathias, Anna Komnene, Chronicle of Monemvasia, Evagrius Scholasticus, George Akropolites, George Pachymeres

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 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 - 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 explicidy tacking his narrative on to Prokopios and Theophylakt doing the same for . Only four of these 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 (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 , for ), 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 of 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 compiled at 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 in , 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 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 was produced in Constantinople. This combined Malalas with the 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 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 approach for ecclesiastical historiography. He was also less comfortable about narrating recent events, since his Arianizing tendencies created difficulties in reporting Constantine's reign in detail; this too established a precedent. Eusebios' history was continued in the East by Gelasios, whose work does not survive; a Latin translation with an extension to the death of Theodosios (395) was composed by Rufinus. The extant Greek continuations of Eusebios were produced under Theodosios II: Sokrates from a Novatianist perspective (van Nuffeln 2004), from the Antiochene theological tradition, and the lawyer (Urbainczyk 1997a, 1997b). Each recorded the triumph of Christianity over pagans, especially the emperor , and the struggle to establish Nicene doctrine between Constantine and the early fifth century; they avoided mention, almost completely, of the major doctrinal controversy of their own day, the conflict between Nestorios and Cyril of , and instead stressed the piety of the emperor Theodosios which was demonstrated by his secular successes. The arguments of successive councils, and the machinations of Arianizing bishops and emperors occupy much space, while the acts of monks and other holy people replace Eusebios' martyrdoms. An Arian perspective on these events was composed by Philostorgios, but this does not survive complete. The progress of the Nestorian dispute was recorded from different angles in the early sixth century by the Monophysite Zachariah of Mitylene, whose work survives in a Syriac translation, and Theodore Lector, whose Chalcedonian narrative has to be pieced together from extracts and citations in later writers (Whitby 2003). Evagrios, a lawyer employed by the patriarch of Antioch, is our main continuation for the Theodosian writers. His narrative began with the Nestorian dispute under Theodosios, and devoted particular attention to the Council of Chalcedon and attempts to reach doctrinal compromise in the late fifth century. Like his prede- cessors, Evagrios focused more on secular events as he approached his own lifetime (Allen 1981; Whitby 2000). The Arab invasions of the 630s mark the start of a break of over 150 years m Greek historiography. It can be deduced from later texts that some works Were composed, but their scope and nature are debatable. What is clear is that historiography continued to flourish in the Syriac world where there was a tradition of local chronicles, associated especially with and neighbouring monaster- ies (Conrad 1990). These texts ranged from lists of brief notices in the Eusebian chronicle tradition to rather more substantial works such as the Chronicle of ps.- Joshua, virtually a local history of Edessa in the early sixth century. Syriac writers, for example ps.-Dionysios of Tel-Mahre (the Chronicle ofZuqnin) in the late eighth century, recorded the Islamic takeover of their world, fitting this into a providential narrative of world history as evidence that imperial heresy attracted punishment. Syriac historiography continued to flourish, with the genuine Dionysios of Tel- Mahre reshaping the tradition in the early ninth century; his work survives through the Chronicon ad annum 1234 and Michael the Syrian (Palmer 1993; Witakowski 1996). The Syriac tradition probably contributed to the re-emergence of Greek histori- ography, since George Synkellos, a monk from Palestine, brought to Constantinople in the late eighth century a translation of a contemporary eastern chronicle. George embarked on a grand project to map Christian history, managing himself to com- plete the first part which drew on Julius Africanus and Eusebios to take the narrative down to Diocletian (ed. Mosshammer 1984; trans. Adler and Tuffin 2002). By about 810 George had prompted the monk Theophanes to carry on the task, providing him with his eastern source and perhaps much other evidence so that responsibility for the creation of Theophanes' Chronographia is disputed (ed. de Boor 1883-5; trans. Mango and Scott 1997). Whatever its shortcomings on points of detail, it was a massive achievement in that it combined a detailed secular and religious chronological frame with accounts of events which ranged from the traditional brief chronicle notice to much more extensive narratives of particular events. At about the same time Patriarch Nikephoros resumed Theophylakt's historical narrative from its terminus in 602, though his style and approach were very different from the classicizing tradition he was continuing (Mango 1990). Litde in the way of historical writing was produced for more than a century following Theophanes and the patriarch Nikephoros. The revival of history was the work of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (913/45-59), who commissioned a historian—usually known as Genesios (ed. Lesmuller-Werner and Thurn 1978; trans. Kaldellis 1998) and a series of histories—conventionally known as the Scrip-

tores post Theophanemy or (ed. Bekker 1838)—to cover the period from 811/13 where Theophanes left: off down to the emperor's own times. They abandoned the annalistic form favoured by chroniclers for a biographical approach, centring on the deeds of emperors. Constantine intended history to glorify and legitimize the , whence the attention paid to (867-6), the founder of the dynasty. Constantine was acutely aware of the power of history. Another project of his was an historical encyclopedia known as the Excerpta. Its purpose was to put the experience of the past at the service of the emperor. Classical and early Byzantine texts were gutted and the extracts arranged according to subject matter. It was on a vast scale. There were fifty-three separate volumes, of which On Embassies' survives in full together with large parts of three other volumes (Lemerle 1986). Constantine's series of histories was intended to set an official stamp on the history of the recent past and was designed to combat other historical narratives, such as that which goes under the name of Symeon (ed. Bekker 1842), which were circulating at the same time. This was to become a pattern in the writing of history at Byzantium: it tended to be concentrated at par- ticular junctures, when different interest groups sought to control the commanding heights of history. Historians remained very conscious of the continuity of Byzantine history and sought to justify their writing of history either as a continuation of a particular historian or as a World History. So, in the middle of the eleventh century embarked upon his Chronographia (ed. Renauld 1926-8; ed. Impellizeri 1993; trans. Sewter 1953). This was presented as a continuation of the history of (ed. Hase 1828; trans. Talbot and Sullivan 2005), which covered the period of military expansion from 959 to 976 with a brief treatment of the troubled early years of Basil II's reign. Leo the Deacon's work is important because it was an attempt to revive the writing of contemporary history in classical style. This would then be taken much further by Michael Psellos. His Chronographia treats the period when Michael Psellos was close to the centre of power from 1043 to 1059 in some detail, but the work is unfinished and the final section from 1067 to 1079 consists only of sketches for a more sustained treatment. His approach is biographical. His History consists of a series of jusdy famous pen portraits of the emperors he had known intimately. He is careful to distinguish between history and eulogy (Chamberlain 1986). History in his opinion should aim at the truth. He tried to balance the good and the bad features of an emperor's rule and character, an approach which gives his history a deceptively modern air. More radical was his decision to put himself at its centre. There are long passages of autobiography, which are designed to justify his fitness to be the historian of his age by virtue of his intelligence, education, and political experience (Macrides 1996). It fitted with his pose as the philosopher who acted as the moral arbiter of his age (Anastasi 1969; Kaldellis 1999). A contemporary historian criticized him for his failure to under- stand the basic function of a historian, which was to record, not to make judgements on contemporaries. Skylitzes was writing a chronicle which was conceived as a continuation of Theophanes (ed. Thurn 1973; trans. Flusin and Cheynet 2003). It is for the most part an annalistic compilation which is invaluable for the period after 976 where it is fuller than any other source. The final section on Constantine Monomachos (1042-55) adapts a biography of the general Kekaumenos Katakalon which gives it a political twist (Shepard 1992). There is a continuation that carries the chronicle down to the year 1079, which may or may not be the work of John Skylitzes (ed. Tsolakes) and is a reworking of the History of who covered the years from 1043 to 1079 (ed. Perez Martin 2002) with the aim of providing an alternative to Psellos' Chronographia. It is a solid, rather pedestrian work. Unlike Psellos, Attaleiates is careful not to intrude himself too obviously into his narrative although his position as a military judge meant that he was present at many of the key meetings and that he participated in some of the decisive campaigns. He was present, for example, at the fateful in 1071 and has left the most accurate account of what happened. He uses his History to extol the virtues and claims of Romanos Diogenes (1068-71) and Nikephoros Botaneiates (1078-81), who were patrons. He represented a quite different interest group from Michael Psellos (Kazhdan 1984; Cresci 1991). The writing of history became very largely the preserve of highly educated civil servants, who saw themselves as the upholders of the power and the traditions of the state. The concentration of history writing in the period C.1050-C.1080 reflects the bitter political struggles of the time. The position of civil servants as arbiters of the political process was challenged by the aristocratic coup which brought Alexios I (1081-1118) to power. Politics became family politics and the writing of history a family business. The major histories of Alexios Is reign were written by his daughter and by her husband the Caesar Nikephoros , but well after the emperor's death. The Caesar left unfinished at his death around 1136 his Materials for a History (Hyle Historias), which covered the rise of the Komnenoi in the decade following the defeat at Manzikert (ed. Gautier 1975). The key was the marriage of Eirene Doukaina and , which created an alliance between two aristocratic blocks. Anna Komnene con- tinued her husband's work and made use of other materials that he had collected for her father's reign (ed. Leib 1937-76; ed. Reinsch and Kambylis 2001). She did not complete her until towards the end of her life. It is in many ways an apologia for her father, whose life and achievements are idealized. To a large extent measures or events that did not redound to his credit are left out. On the other hand, Anna Komnene had access to excellent information. Her History reflects the official Komnenian view of the restoration of Empire. As a sustained narrative it is one of the masterpieces of medieval historical writing, which recovers the power and style of classical history at its best. Anna Komnene was at loggerheads with her brother John II Komnenos (1118-43) and had tried to prevent his succession to the throne; this meant that she spent his long reign in seclusion. She used the writing of history to set herself up as the conscience of the dynasty. She must also have realized that effective exercise of power required that the ruling family cultivate intellectual pursuits as a means of countering the pretensions of the civil service intelligentsia (Buckler 1929; Chrysostomides 1982; Mullett and Smythe 1996; Gouma-Peterson 2000). These were kept alive by John Zonaras. He had served Alexios Komnenos, but went into monastic retirement after the latter's death in 1118. He devoted himself among other things to compiling a World Chronicle. Only the section on Alexios Komnenos is original (ed. Buttner-Wobst 1897). Though impressed with Alexios as a human being he is critical of his style of government, which he sees as a dangerous innovation, where the civil service was forced to take second place to family rule. It alerts us to the nature of the opposition the Komnenoi faced (Magdalino 1993). Zonaras' critical estimate of the Komnenoi was taken over towards the end of the twelfth century by a disgraced civil servant , who also wrote a world chronicle down to 1118 (ed. Bekker 1836). John II Komnenos found no contemporary historian and his reign is presented as a prelude to that of his more glamorous son (1143-80). His biographer was , who had been one of his secretaries. His History closes abrupdy in 1175/1176 (ed. Meineke 1836; trans. Brand 1976) and does not include Manuel's defeat at the hands of the Seljuq Turks at Myriokephalon in 1176. It is not clear whether this was because Kinnamos was unable to complete his History or because the unique is missing its final pages. Kinnamos was close to Manuel Komnenos and was well informed. His history is intended to glorify the emperor. This contrasts with the more nuanced and critical account of the reign written rather later by . Recendy, an attempt has been made to argue that Kinnamos offers a more accurate narrative of Manuel Komnenos' reign (Magdalino 1993). The truth of the matter is that we are dealing with different perspectives. Down to 1176 Manuel had been immensely successful and warranted the plaudits of John Kinnamos, who may well have begun his biography at a time when the emperor was carrying all before him. Niketas Choniates was writing in different circumstances, when the very existence of the was in doubt and he was forced to look more critically at Manuel's legacy. Niketas Choniates' History covers the period from the death of Alexios I to the aftermath of the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 (ed. van Dieten 1975; trans. Magoulias 1984). After studies in Constantinople he began his career at the time of Manuel Komnenos' death. He was a provincial governor in Thrace during the passage of the third crusade in 1189 under the German emperor Frederick Barbarossa (1152-90). He then returned to Constantinople, where he became Grand Logothete or head of the civil service. He was extremely well informed about the events of his own times. Though of provincial origin he was also well connected and close to the heart of that network of civil service families who by the late twelfth century had renewed their domination of Byzantine public life. Like Michael Psellos or John Zonaras he was using the writing of history as a way of demonstrating the moral and political ascendancy of the civil service elite. More seriously, he was seeking to understand the reasons for the failure and ultimate overthrow of the Byzantine Empire. He works within the traditional framework of Byzantine political history which centres on individual emperors, but this is done in an extremely sophisticated and intricate way. He is able to contrast the failings of the emperors with the courage and flair demonstrated by western leaders. Though lamenting the failure of Byzantium he nevertheless probes its weaknesses in the face of Latin encroachment. He provides a tour de force of historical explanation. It was a work that was much valued and survives not only in several contemporary or near-contemporary , but also in a demotic version intended for a wider readership (Kazhdan 1984; Harris 2000). The writing of history came to an end during the period of exile. It was revived after the recovery of Constantinople in 1261, when another Grand Logothete, , wrote a history covering the period from 1204 to 1261 (ed. Heisenberg and Wirth 1978; trans. Macrides 2007). It was intended not only to provide a background to the restoration of the seat of Empire to Constantinople but also as a justification of the emperor Michael ' usurpation. He is relatively well informed from the 1230s when he went as an adolescent to the Nicaean court to finish his education. His History is clear and concise, but far from impartial. It provided the basis for an anonymous world chronicle which followed Byzantine history to 1261 (ed. Sathas 1894). Its author has now been con- clusively identified with , bishop of Kyzikos under Michael Palaiologos (Tocci 2005). He makes important additions to Akropolites, notably on the patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos to whose circle he belonged, and provides a corrective to Akropolites' partisan approach. A pupil of George Akropolites, , effectively continued the former's history down to his own death around 1308 (ed. Failler 1984-99). He did not share his master's admiration for Michael VIII Palaiologos. By the time he was writing it was clear that the hopes raised by the recovery of Constantinople in 1261 were not going to materialize. Ominously the Byzantine frontier in was already breaking down under Turkish pressure. He could only contrast this with the much more favourable situation that had existed when he was growing up under the emperors of . He blamed Michael Palaiologos for neglecting these frontiers in favour of his European provinces, stripping the frontiersmen of their privileges; the result was that they threw in their lot with the Turks. He also blamed the emperor for mismanaging his relations with a series of patriarchs. His unionist policy was especially ill-judged. He left his eldest son and heir Andronikos (1282-1328) with an impossible legacy. George Pachymeres provided an impressive analysis of the weaknesses of the Byzantine Empire. Unlike the majority of earlier historians, he was not a civil servant or a monk but an official of the patriarchal church. His loyalty to the patriarchal church colours much of his history, but he could just as easily be critical of patriarchs as he was of emperors. His History recovers the grandeur and sweep of the great historians of the twelfth century. Nikephoros Gregoras wrote a large-scale history in thirty-seven books which covered the period from 1204 down to the time of his death around 1359 (ed. Schopen and Bekker 1829-55). It was never properly revised and there is every chance that he was still working on it at the time of his death. Though he never held public office, he was from an early age close to the seat of power. His deserved repu- tation as a scholar gave him considerable influence. He was, for example, the literary executor of the Grand Logothete Theodore Metochites, who was Andronikos II's chief minister from 1305 to 1328. He was also for a time a confidant of the emperor John Kantakouzenos (1341/47-54). He was in a good position to know what was going on and objective enough to provide a balanced account of his own times. He serves as a necessary check on the History of his former friend, the emperor John Kantakouzenos (ed. Schopen 1828-32). This was written in the form of mem- oirs designed to justify his central and largely insidious role in the history of the Byzantine Empire from 1320 to 1356. Though often mendacious and time-serving his reminiscences illuminate a critical period of Byzantine history. After his abdi- cation in 1354 the ex-emperor continued to exercise considerable influence down to his death in 1383. He used history quite shamelessly as apologia (Kazhdan 1980; Nicol 1996). John Kantakouzenos left the Byzantine Empire in a very poor condition. It was mosdy luck that allowed it to stagger on until the middle of the fifteenth century. The to the Ottomans in 1453 produced a last burst of Byzantine historical writing. , , Michael Kritoboulos, and all sought from rather different perspectives to come to terms with the bitter end. George Sphrantzes is the most sympathetic. His treatment of events comes in the shape of memoirs (ed. Maisano 1990; trans. Philippides 1980). He had been in the service of Manuel II Palaiologos (1391-1425) and had served his sons faithfully. He represented the traditional wisdom of the ruling class. He had no desire to be subjected to the Turk nor any wish to accept the union of churches. He believed that Byzantine independence required a skilful balancing act, which had been fatally compromised by the union of Florence (1439). He lived through the final siege and was captured by the Turks. He was released, eventually ending his days on the island of . A different viewpoint is provided by Doukas (ed. Grecu; trans. Magoulias 1975); he came from a prominent Byzantine family which had taken service with the Genoese. He was an ardent unionist who blamed the fall of Byzantium on the failure of the population to embrace the unionist cause. Michael Kritoboulos, for his part, quickly adjusted to the Ottoman conquest and was made governor of the island of Imbros by Mehmet II. He did not write a history of the fall of Constantinople so much as a life of Mehmet the Conqueror (1451-81) (ed. Reinsch 1983; trans. Riggs 1954), treating him as the legitimate heir of the Byzantine emperors. He believed that the fall of the City was all for the best and that the would prosper under Turkish rule. He was a spokesman for the majority of Greeks who threw in their lot with the conqueror. The final historian of the Fall was the Athenian Chalkokondyles, a pupil of the Platonist George Gemistos Plethon. His History dates from the 1480s and therefore represents the last flicker of Byzantine historiography (ed. Darkd 1922-3; trans. Nicoloudis 1996). Writing in the spirit of Herodotos, he saw the struggle between the Byzantines and the Ottomans as the latest round in a struggle that went back to that of the Greeks and the : his history is an account of the rise of the Ottomans to imperial status at the expense of the Byzantines (Harris 2003). This final episode of Byzantine history revealed that its historiographical tradition had retained all its vigour. The four historians of the fall of Constantinople maintained the very high standards of history writing which had been inherited from the classical past. Doukas' lament for the fall of Constantinople echoes Menander Rhetor's prescriptions. Byzantium's classicizing historians produced some of its most distinguished lit- erature. They expressed that sense of continuity which was basic to the Byzantine sense of identity. But their work was not the total extent of Byzantine historiogra- phy. Maintaining the standards of classical historiography meant writing in a form of Attic Greek which was only accessible to a handful of the intelligentsia. There was a much wider audience for World Histories which summarized the relevant sections of the classicizing histories, which in the case of the Alexiad and Niketas Choniates' History also circulated in vernacular versions. At its most basic there were the Short Chronicles, brief entries recording important events (ed. Schreiner 1977-9)· These might occasionally be expanded into more substantial regional chronicles, such as the so-called Chronicle of (ed. Kalligas 1990). Other regional narratives include the verse Chronicle of the Morea (ed. Schmitt 1904), relating the conquest of the in the wake of the . There were also narratives of particular events, such as the vivid account of the fall of Thessalonike to the in 1185 by its archbishop Eustathios (ed. Kyriakides 1961; trans. Melville Jones 1988). Quite exceptionally he prefaced his narrative with some preliminary remarks on the writing of history. He drew a clear distinction between the historian and the eyewitness reporter in a way that favours the latter (Melville Jones 1988). In practice, the distinction was not so clear-cut. The best historians were eyewitnesses of much that they included in their histories. It is the immediacy of eyewitness reporting that gives their histories depth and reli- ability, but it was their ability to weave their own experience into the treatment of events which gives Byzantine historiography its particular stamp (Macrides 1996).

REFERENCES

Adler, W., and Tuffin, R (trans.) 2002. The Chronography of George Synkellos (Oxford). Allen, r1981. the Church Historian (Louvain). Anastasi, R. 1969. Studi sulla Chronographia di Michele Psello (Catania). Barnes, T. D. 1981. Constantine andEusebius (Cambridge, Mass.). 1998. Ammianus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca). Bekker, I. (ed.) 1836. Michaelis Glycae Annales (Bonn). (ed.) 1838. Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn). (ed.) 1842. Leonis Grammatici Chronographia (Bonn) (= ). Bird, H. W. 1984. Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study (Liverpool). 1993. Eutropius Breviarium (Liverpool). Blockley, R. C. (ed. and trans.) 1983. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire II (Liverpool). (ed. and trans.) 1985. The History ofMenander the Guardsman (Liverpool). Boor, C. de (ed.) 1883-5. Theophanis Chronographia, 2 vols. (Leipzig). and Wirth, R (eds.) 1972. Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae (Stuttgart). Brand, C. (trans.) 1976. Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (New York). Buckler, G. 1929. Anna Comnena (Oxford). Burgess, R. W. 1993. The Chronicle ofHydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana: Two Contemporary Accounts of the Final Years of the Roman Empire (Oxford). 1999. Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronology (Stuttgart). BiJttner-Wobst, T. (ed.) 1897. Ioannis Zonarae Annates, 3 vols. (Bonn). Cameron, A. D. E., and Cameron, A. M. 1964. 'Christianity and tradition in the historiog- raphy of the Later Roman Empire', CQ14:316-28. Cameron, A. M. 1970. Agathias (Oxford). 1985. (London). Chamberlain, C. 1986. 'The theory and practice of imperial panegyric in Michael Psellus', Byzantion 56:16-27. Chrysostomides, J. 1982. Ά Byzantine historian: Anna Comnena', in D. O. Morgan (ed.), Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds (London): 30-46. Conrad, L. 1.1990. 'Theophanes and the Arabic historiographical tradition: some indica- tions of intercultural transmission', BF15:1-44. Cresci, L. R. 1991. 'Cadenze narrative e interpretazione critica nell'opera storica di Michele Attaliate', REB 49:197-218. Croke, B. 2001. Count Marcellinus and his Chronicle (Oxford). Dark6, E. (ed.) 1922-3. Laonici Chalcocondylae Historiarum Demonstrations, 2 vols. (Bucharest). Dewing, Η. B. (trans.) 1914-54. Procopius, 6 vols. (London).

Dindorf, L. (ed.) 1832, Chronicon Paschaley 2 vols. (Bonn).

Failler, A. (ed. and trans.) 1984-99. Georges Pachymeris, Relations historiquesy 4 vols. (Paris). Flusin, B., and Cheynet, J.-C. (trans.) 2003. Jean Skylitzes, Empereurs de Constantinople (Paris). Frendo, J. D. (trans.) 1975. Agathias: The Histories (Berlin). Gautier, P. (ed.) 1975. Niciphore Bryennios, Histoire (Brussels). Gouma-Peterson, T. (ed.) 2000. Anna Komnene and her Times (New York-London). Grecu, V. (ed.) 1958. Ducas, Istoria Turco-Bizantina (Bucharest). Harris, J. 2000. 'Distortion, divine providence and genre in Nicetas Choniates' account of the collapse of Byzantium, 1180-1204', Journal of Medieval History 26:19-31. 2003. 'Laonikos Chalkokondyles and the rise of the Ottoman Turks', BMGS 27:153-70. Hase, C. B. (ed.) 1828. Leo Diaconi Historiae libri X (Bonn). Haury, J. (ed.) 1905-13. Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, 3 vols. (Leipzig). Heisenberg, Α., and Wirth, P. (eds.) 1978. Georgii Acropolitae opera, 2 vols. (Stuttgart). Impellizeri, S., and others (eds. and trans.) 1993. Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bisanzio:

cronografiay 2 vols. (Milan, 2nd edn.). Jeffreys E., Jeffreys M., and Scott, R. (trans.) 1986. John Malalas: The Chronicle (Melbourne). with Croke, B., and Scott, R. 1990. Studies in John Malalas (Sydney). Jenkins, R. J. H. 1954. 'The classical background to the Scriptores post Theophanem, DOP 8: 11-30. Kaldellis, A. (trans.) 1998. Genesios, On the Reigns of the Emperors (Canberra). 1999. The Argument of Psellos' Chronographia (Leiden). 2004. Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History and at the End of Antiquity (Philadelphia). Kalligas, H. 1990. Byzantine Monemvasia: The Sources (Monemvasia). Kazhdan, A. 1980. Τ Histoire de Cantacuzene en tant qu oeuvre litt£raire', Byzantion 50: 274-335. and Franklin, S. 1984. Studies on Byzantine of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Cambridge-Paris). Keydell, R. (ed.) 1967. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque (Berlin). Kyriakides, S. (ed.) 1961. Eustazio de Tessalonica, La Espugnazione di Tessalonica (Palermo). Leib, B. (ed.) 1937-76. Anna Comnine, Alexiade, 4 vols. (Paris). Lemerle, P. 1986. Byzantine Humanism: The First Phase, trans. A. Moffat and H. Lindsay (Canberra). Lesmijller-Werner, Α., and Thurn, H. (eds.) 1978. Genesii Regum libri quattuor (Berlin- New York). Macrides, R. 1996. 'The historian in the history', in C. Constantinides and others (eds.), ΦΙΛΛΕΛΛΗΝ. Studies in Honour of Robert Browning (Venice): 205-24. (trans.) 2007. George Akropolites: The History (Oxford). Magdalino, P. 1993. The Empire ofManuellKomnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge). Magoulias, H. J. (trans.) 1975. Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks (Detroit). (trans.) 1984. Ο City of Byzantium, Annals ofNiketas Choniates (Detroit). Maisano, R. (ed.) 1990. Giorgio Sfranze, Cronaca (Rome). Mango, C. 1990. Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History (Washington, DC). and Scott, R. (trans.) 1997. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford). Marasco, G. (ed.) 2003. Greek and Latin Historiography in Late Antiquity (Leiden). Matthews, J. F. 1989. The Roman Empire of Ammianus Marcellinus (London). Meineke, A. (ed.) 1836. Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum (Bonn). Melville Jones, J. R. (trans.) 1988. Eustathios of : The Capture of Thessaloniki (Canberra). Mosshammer, A. 1979. The Chronicle of and the Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg). (ed.) 1984. Ecloga chronographica (Leipzig). Muhlberger, S. 1990. The Fifth-Century Chroniclers: Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gallic Chronicler of 452 (Leeds). Mullett, M., and Smythe, D. (eds.) 1996. Alexios IKomnenos (Belfast). Nicol, D. M. 1996. The Reluctant Emperor: A Biography of John Cantacuzene, Byzantine Emperor and Monk, c.1295-1383 (Cambridge). Nicoloudis, N. (trans.) 1996, Laonikos Chalkokondyles: A Translation and Commentary of the Demonstrations of Histories (Books 1-3) (). Palmer, A. 1993. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles (Liverpool). Paschoud, F. (ed.) 1971-89. Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, 3 vols. (Paris). P6rez MartIn, I. (ed.) 2002. Miguel Attaleiates, Historia (Madrid). Philippides, Μ. (trans.) 1980. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes, 1401-1477 (Amherst). Reinsch, D.-R. (ed.) 1983. Critobuli Imbriotae historiae (Berlin-New York). and Kambylis, A. (eds.) 2001. Anna Komnene, Alexias (Berlin-New York). Renauld, E. (ed.) 1926-8. Michel Psellos, Chronographie, 2 vols. (Paris). Ridley, R. T. (trans.) 1982. , New History (Canberra). Riggs, C. T. (trans.) 1954. History of by Hermodorus Michael Kritobulos (Princeton). Sathas, C. 1894. Mesaionike bibliotheke, vol. 7 (Venice). Schmitt, J. (ed.) 1904. The Chronicle of the Morea (London). Schopen, L. (ed.) 1828-32. Ioannis Historiarum libri quattuor, 3 vols. (Bonn). and Bekker, I. (ed.) 1829-55. Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia, 3 vols. (Bonn). Schreiner, P. 1977-9. Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, 3 vols. (Vienna). Sewter, E. R. A. (trans.) 1953. Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus (London). Shepard, J. 1992. Ά suspected source of Scylitzes> Synopsis Historiarum: the great Catacalon Cecaumenus', BMGS16:171-81. Talbot, A.-M., and Sullivan, D. (trans.) 2005. The History of Leo the Deacon (Washington, DC). Thurn, H. (ed.) 1973. Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum (Berlin-New York). Thurn, J. (ed.) 2000. Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Berlin-New York). Tocci, R. 2005. 'Zu Genese und Kompositionsvorgang der Σύνοψις χρονική des Theodoros Skutariotes', BZ 98:551-68. Tsolakes, Ε. T. (ed.) 1968. He Synecheia tes Chronographias tou Ioannou Skylitse (Thessalonike). Urbainczyk, Τ. 1997a. 'Observations on the differences between the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen, Historia 46:355-73. 1997b. Socrates of Constantinople (Ann Arbor). van Dieten, J. L. (ed.) 1975. Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 2 vols. (Berlin-New York). van Ginkel, J. J. 1995. ', a Monophysite Historian in Sixth-Century Byzantium' (D.Litt. diss.; Groningen). van Nuffeln, P. 2004. Un hiritage depaix et depiiti. Etude sur les histoires ecclisiastiques de Socrates et de Sozomtne (Leuven). Whitby, L. M. 1988. The Emperor and his Historian: on Balkan and Persian Warfare (Oxford). 1992. 'Greek historical writing after Procopius: variety and vitality', in A. M. Cameron and L. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I: Problems in the Literary Source Material (Princeton): 25-80. - 2000. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes (Liverpool). 2003. 'The Church Historians and Chalcedon', in Marasco 2003:447-93· -2007. 'Religious views of Procopius and Agathias', in D. Brodka (ed.), Electrum (Krakow): 73-93. -and Whitby, J. M. 1986. The History of Theophylact Simocatta: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes (Oxford). — 1989. Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD (Liverpool). Witakowski, W. 1996. Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre: Chronicle III (Liverpool). Further Reading Details of editions and bibliography down to 1977 can be found in H. Hunger, Die hochsprachlicher profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Munich, 1978). In addition to the works already cited, the following are useful: Brubaker, L., and Haldon, J. 2001. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Period (ca. 680-850). The Sources: An Annotated Survey (Aldershot): ch. 12: 'Historiography and chronography'. Cameron, A. M., and Conrad, L. (eds.) 1992. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I: Problems in the Literary Source Material (Princeton). Croke, B., and Emmett, A. 1983. History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Sydney). Rohrbacher, D. 2002. The Historians of Late Antiquity (London).