Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/148

 BYZANTINE

116

BYZANTINE

great heroes, but no great historians, if we except the solitary, and therefore more conspicuous, figure of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.

The first period is dominated by Proeopius, not so much because of his personal character, as on ac- count of his share in historical events of universal interest, and his literary importance. As a man he was typically Byzantine, as is evident from a com- parison of two of his works, in one of which his de- preciation of the Emperor Justinian is as emphatic as his unqualified apotheosis of him in the other. In literature, and as a historian, however, he still has one foot on the soil of antiquity, as is evident in the precision and lucidity of his narrative acquired from Thucydides, and in the reliability of his infor- mation, qualities of special merit in the historian. Signitieantlj r enough, Proeopius and to a great degree his continuator, Agathias, remain the models of de- scriptive style, even as late as the eleventh century. Proeopius is the first representative of the over-laden, over-ornamented Byzantine style in literature, and in this is surpassed only by Theophylaktos Simo- kattes in the seventh century, while others continued to imitate the historian of the Gothic War. In spite of their unclassical form, however, they approach tin- ancients in their freedom from ecclesiastical and dogmatic tendencies.

Between the historical writings of the first period, in form and content half antique, and those of the second, characterized by reverence for an artificial classicism, there is an isolated series of works which in matter and form offer a strong contrast to both the aforesaid groups. These are the works current under the name of the Emperor Constantine VII Por- phyrogenitus (tenth century), dealing respectively with the administration of the empire, its political division, and the ceremonial of the Byzantine Court. They treat of the internal conditions of the empire, and the first and third are distinguished by their use of a popular tongue. Their content also is of great value; the first is an important source of information for the ethnological conditions of the empire, while the last is an interesting contribution to the history of civilization in the Byzantine Orient.

The second group of historians present very dif- ferent characteristics. In their works a classical ec- lecticism veils theological fanaticism quite foreign to the classic spirit and an arrogant chauvinism. Bevelling in classical forms the historians of the period of the Comneni and Palreologi were absolutely devoid of the classical spirit; there are among them, however — and this goes far to palliate their faults — much stronger and more sympathetic, personalities than in the first period. It seems as if. amid all the weakening of civil and imperial power, a few great individual personalities stood out, all the more strik- ing because of the general decay. Indeed, the in- dividuality of each is so vigorous that it impairs the objectivity of his work. This is particularly true of those historians who belonged to an imperial family or were closely related to one. Most of these writers produced partisan works. Such are the "Alexiad", the pedantic work of the Princess Anna Comnena i i glorification of her father Alexius, and of the re- organization of the empire set afoot by him), the his- tories! work of her husband, Nicephorus Bryennius (eleventh and twelfth centuries; a description of the internal conflicts thai accompanied the rise of the Comneni, done in the form of a family chronicle), and lastly tin' self-complacenl narrative of his own achievements by one of the Palaeologi, John VI Cantacuzene (fourteenth century). The historical writers of this period exhibit also very striking an- titheses, both personal and objective." Beside Cin-

namus, who In stly hated everything Western,

stand the broad-minded Nicetaa Acominatus (twelfth century) and the conciliatory but dignified Geor-

gius Acropolites (thirteenth century); beside the theological polemist, Pachymeres (thirteenth cen- tury), stands the man of the world, Nicephorus Gregoras (fourteenth century), well versed in philoso- phy and the classics. While these and other similar writers are less objective than is desirable in their presentation of internal Byzantine history, they are all the more trustworthy in their accounts of ex- ternal events, being especially important sources for the first appearance of the' Slavs and Turks on the borders of the Empire.

B. Chroniclers. — Unlike the historical works, By- zantine chronicles were intended for the general pub- lic; hence the difference in their origin, development, and diffusion, as well as in their character, the method in which materials are handled, and their style of com- position. The beginnings of the Byzantine chronicle have not yet been satisfactorily traced. That they are not very remote seems certain from their com- paratively late appearance, as compared with his- torical literature (sixth century), and from their total lack of contact with hellenistic (pagan) tradition. In point of locality, also, the chronicle literature is originally foreign to Greek civilization, its first im- portant product having been composed in Syria. by an uneducated Syrian. Its presumable prototype, moreover, the " Chronography " of Sextus Julius Africanus, points to an Oriental Christian source. Accordingly, the origins and development of the chronicle literature are confined to a much narrower circle; it has no connexion with persons of distinction and is not in touch with the great world; its models are bound almost exclusively within its own narrow sphere. The high-water mark of the Byzantine chron- icle was reached in the ninth century, precisely at a time when there is a gap in historical literature. Afterwards it falls off rather abruptly; the lesser chroniclers, met with as late as the twelfth century, thaw partly from contemporary and partly, though at rare intervals, from the earlier historians. In the Pala?ologi period there are, significantly enough, no chroniclers of any note.

The importance of Byzantine chronicles lies not in their historical and literary value, but in their re- lation to civilization. They are not only an important source for the history of Byzantine civilization, but themselves contributed to the spread of that civiliza- tion. The most important chronicles, through nu- merous redactions and translations, passed over to Slavic and Oriental peoples and in this way became one of their earliest sources of civilization. Their influence was chiefly due to their popular tone ami bias. They depict only what lies within the popular world of consciousness, events wonderful and dread- ful painted in glaring colours, ami interpreted in a Christian sense. The method of handling materials is extremely primitive. Beneath each section of a chronicle lies some older source usually but slightly modified, so that the whole story resembles a crude collection of material, rather than ingenious mo- saic like the narratives of the historians. The dic- tion corresponds with the low level of education in both author and reader, and is naturally that of the popular tongue in its original purity, therefore these chronicles are a rich treasure-house for the compara- ti >e study of languages.

Representative Byzantine chronicles, typical also of the different stages in the development of the chronicle, are the three of Joannes Malalas. 1 1 1 . ■. •- phanes Confessor, and Joannes Zonaras respei ti The first is the earliest Christian Byzantine monastic chronicle, and was composed at Antioeh in the sixth century by a hellenized Syrian (consequently Mono- physite) theologian. Originally a chronicle of the

city, it was later expanded into a worl.l-elironiele. It is a popular historical work, full of the gravest historical and chronological errors, and the first