Ρ. Τ. ANTONOPOULOS THE FLOW OF INFORMATION IN MEDIEVAL HISTORIOGRAPHY1 If I were to ask a postgraduate researcher, collect all the information explicitly stated to have been personally witnessed by the author through such phrases as «I saw», «I heard», «I witnessed» etc. then I gather that he or she, would hardly be able to compile a single volume of it, having been requested to read through the whole of Byzantine historical literature. He would then be prompted to follow the same pattern of work by searching through the whole of medieval Latin, or western historiography. If he/she were able to read through it. I am sure that we would be faced with several volumes of data which are supposed to convey personal accounts. Apart from the very fact that western literature taken as a whole, could amount to ten times as much as Byzantine, there are a few other factors which will be analyzed in the course of this lecture. It is however, important to stress that these are related to forms of writing, time, social attitudes, educational standards, and the author’s knowledge of the world. Until around the year A.D. 1.000, Byzantine historical literature is divided into two main branches, professional history and chronography. These branches could well be said to be respectively complementing the two main pillars of the Byzantine state, the Roman heritage of its political existence, and the Christian perspective of the world. The first thing we should bear in mind when we come to examine the work of professional historians, is that this work has not been casually composed, just for the sake of writing a history. It must serve a purpose, such as the description of emperor Justinian’s wars by the historian Procopius 1. This is the text of a lecture given at Framingham State College, Framingham Massachusetts, on April 15 1992.1 would like to express my thanks to Prof. Nicholas Racheotes and other members of college staff for inviting me to be their guest speaker, as well as for the hospitality they exhibited during my visit there. 96 Ρ. Τ. Antonopoulos in the 6th century', the continuation of the work in a poetic manner by his successor Agathias1 2, or the narration of the deeds of emperor Alexios I Comnenos by his daughter Anna in the 12th3. All these people share a higher than average social standing, and a higher than average level of education. This leads them write in a significantly polished form of Greek, which makes it difficult sometimes for the reader to follow exactly the historian’s mind, but which has the advantage for the latter of hiding an ambiguous or sinister fact, behind clouds of rhetoric. The problem of the nature of education in Byzantium has not as yet, been effectively resolved, but it appears that a vital part of it was played by prose compositions in imitation of a particular ancient author, exactly as I had to do in England at school level, when I had to pass a paper on Greek and Latin prose composition so as to succeed in obtaining my respective school degree. When they come to compose a history, they must usually imitate a prototype. The most popular models in this respect are the classical historians Herodotus and Thucydides, but others such as Cassius Dio and Herodian were among the prototypes of historians between the 4th and 6th century. The degree of dependence on a prototype is still, and will be for a long time to come, a vexing problem, especially in cases where the prototype has survived only in part, or has completely vanished. Scholars have generally been only too willing to ascribe every single fact or phrase reported, on a classical original. The results of such treatment seem to me very precarious, simply, because we tend to overestimate the degree of the Byzantine historians’ proficiency in their classical predecessors, which sometimes amounted to no more than a mere anthology of a particular author. If we follow such an approach, we may desist from reading them, regarding them as devoid of originality. It is far more positive to try and decode thier expressions, pick some important passages of ancient historiography that might have served as models, and attempt to enjoy what 1. The works of Procopius of Caesaraea have been collectively edited and translated by Η. B. Dewing into English in the Loeb Classics series, volumes 1-7, 1914-1940. There is also a more recent translation of the works of Procopius by Averil Cameron, Procopius. History of the Wars. Secret History, and Buildings. New York 1967. 2. There is an English translation by Joseph D. Frendo. Agathias. The Histories. Translated with an introduction and short explanatory notes by Joseph D. Frendo, Berlin-New York 1975. The most recent edition is that by R. Keydell, Agathiae Myrienei historiarum libri quinque. Berlin 1967. 3. Translated into English by E. R. A. Sewter, The Alexiad of Anna Comnena. Penguin classics, 1969 repr. 1979. The flow of information in Medieval Historiography 97 remains of their originality, which I can assure you. still continues to be abundant. The significance of such a topical approach can be illustrated by two examples. In A.D. 542. there occurred a plague which crippled several regions of the Empire, including Constantinople. Both medieval and medical historians studied the relevant passage in Procopius in their attempt to reach some conclusions as to the form and effects of the plague'. A thorough comparison with the famous plague which devastated Athens and disabled the invading Spartan army in 431 B.C, shows however, that Procopius uses the famous description of Thucydides almost word by word, so no firm historical conclusions can be thus reached. On the other hand, the same author's description varies substantially from other sources of the period in the depiction of the famous Nika riot of A.D. 5321 2. Procopius wishes to attribute the glory of its successful suppression to his own patron, the acclaimed general Belisarius, when it is evident that his, was not the most celebrated part. If this justifiably sounds biassed treatment for someone who is inexperienced of the twists and points of emphasis of medieval historiography, it must be pointed out that Procopius represents the point of view of the upper class in that particular episode, and he can in this context, be considered original. One of the most favourite techniques of both ancient and medieval historians, is the inclusion of speeches, put on the mouth of their protagonists. Their style can range from a relatively literary one, to a highly rhetorical one, irrespective of who is delivering them. The effect can be quite amusing when we have, say the king of the Vandals, or a Turkish chief, addressing their folk in exactly the same words that an Athenian general of the 5th century B.C. might use to stimulate the courage of his troops. In most cases the information offered within speeches is minimal, and even when it exists, it cannot be relied upon. Nevertheless, these speeches serve well the study of attitudes, principles and logicality of argument. They are often the chief weapon (so we are told) of Byzantine diplomats. This can be illustrated by the following example. In 535, a Byzantine diplomat and would-be historian, Peter the patrician, visited the Ostrogothic court at Ravenna in Italy, and negotiated with king Theodahad 1. Procopius. De bello Persico 11. 22-23, vol. 1, p. 450-470 (Loeb edition). The English translation is to be found in the opposite pages. 2. ibid, book I, chapter 24. p. 218-236. See also Alan Cameron. Circus factions. Blues and greens at Rome and Byzantium. Clarendon Press. Oxford 1976. chapter 10, p. 271-296. 98 Ρ. Τ. Antonopoulos the terms under which he could be recognised by Byzantium as its ruler. This task had been made easier by the latter’s involvement in the murder of his predecessor queen Amalasuntha, who had adopted probyzantine policies, and was greatly esteemed in Constantinople. Theodahad, so we are told, was an adherent of Platonic philosophy and would have nothing to do with the qualities regarded as supreme by his race, of manly virtue on the battlefield. Being threatened with war on all fronts, Theodahad reached an agreement with Peter in the autumn of 535, but soon afterwards he recalled the Byzantine ambassador who was on his way to Constantinople. The following dialogue, quoted in a translation by J. B. Bury', took place between the two men. «Suppose m y terms do not satisfy Justinian, what wiil happen?» asked the king. «You will have to fight», said Peter. «Is that fair, my dear ambassador?» «Why not», replied Peter. «It is fair that every man should be true to his own character». «What do you mean?» «Your interest is philosophy» said Peter, «while Justinian’s is to be a good Roman emperor. Observe the difference. It could never be seemly for a philosopher to cause death to men, and in such numbers: especially for a Platonist, whose hands should be pure of blood. Whereas it is natural that an emperor should seek to recover territory which of old belongs to his dominions». It would be frustrating to trace a real knowledge of Plato in this argument which appears to be more closely connected to the ideals of the neoplatonists. but in any case we are told that after this little speech Theodahad swore to surrender Italy, if he were paid a substantial sum of money, promised a seat at the Constantinopolitan Senate, and offered permanent stay in Constantinople.