Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 4.djvu/685

Rh III. of Simocatta, a sophist and civilian of Egyptian extraction, wrote the history of the Emperor Mauricius (–) in eight books, all of which are preserved. The work seems to have been completed under Heraclius. Theophylactus lived until or. He is an accurate and not inelegant writer, but frequently trivial and frigid. IV. of Epiphaneia, a contemporary of Theophylactus, wrote the history of the wars of the Greeks and Persians from the latter part of Justinian's reign until the restoration of Chosroes II. by Mauricius . His history has never been printed, but is said to exist in MS. at Heidelberg. V. The Emperor (reigned –). Among the many services rendered to literature by this learned sovereign is to be enumerated his history of his grandfather Basil the Macedonian, emperor from to. VI. , who lived in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, wrote by his order the history of Basil II. and of his four immediate predecessors (–). The work is brief and meagre, but is almost the only authority we possess for a portion of the period described. VII. , a native of Thessalonica, and cross-bearer to the archbishop, wrote an account, which has been preserved, of the sack of that wealthy city by the Saracens in. Cameniata himself was one of the captives, and his narrative is very lively and valuable. VIII. , an ecclesiastic in the, is the author of an indifferently written, but honest and instructive, narrative of the remarkable period of national recovery under the emperors Romanus II., Nicephorus Phocas, and John Zimisces, when Crete was reconquered, Syria invaded, and the Russians driven out of Bulgaria (–). Leo wrote at least as late as . IX. , the son-in-law of the Emperor, and one of the first statesmen and generals of his time, wrote in four books the history of the empire under the Comneni from to. X. His still more celebrated wife,, daughter of the, and the marvel of her sex at that extremely low period of female education, wrote the history of her father in fifteen books. The period of is peculiarly interesting as that in which the barrier of  isolation was broken down, and the East and West brought into contact by the encroachments of the Normans on the Eastern empire and by the Crusades. We cannot be too grateful to the for her vivid sketch of the arrival of the Crusaders at Constantinople, and the relations between them and the Byzantine court. Her work, however, must be used with great caution. Gibbon's employment of it is an example of his usual discernment. XI. Her history was continued by , one of the in most eminent of all the Byzantine historians. He was one of the imperial notaries under the reign of Manuel Comnenus (–), an office nearly corresponding to that of a modern secretary of state. He had, consequently, great administrative experience, and a thorough knowledge of the relations of the empire with foreign states, and of the internal affairs of the latter. He is thus in an excellent position for writing history, besides which his own judgment and sagacity are of a very superior order, and his style is commonly terse and clear. Like most writers who have themselves participated in the transactions they describe, he is not altogether exempt from partiality. His history comprehends the period from the death of in  to the siege of Iconium by Manuel Comnenus in, four s before the death of that emperor. There is little doubt that Cinnamus brought his work down to the close of Manuel's reign, and that the conclusion is lost. XII. , or, a patrician and holder of many important public offices under the emperor Isaac Angelus at, described the same period as Cinnamus, but continued his narrative to. The latter books of Nicetas's history possess especial importance, inasmuch as they contain the account of the taking of Constantinople by the Latins in the fourth crusade. Nicetas's own palace was burned and plundered, and he escaped with difficulty to Nicæa, where he composed his history under the protection of the emperor Theodore Lascaris. His narrative, though too rhetorical, is striking and pathetic; it necessarily requires careful comparison with the Latin accounts. The remainder of his history is also valuable. He is also said to be the author of an account of the statues destroyed by the Latins, which, however, is thought to have been interpolated by a later writer. It has been published by Wilken (Leipsic, 1830). XIII. , an eminent scholar and diplomatist, who lived from –, wrote the history of the Eastern empire during its subjugation by the Latins (–). The work is so brief that it has been regarded as merely an epitome of Acropolita's original history. XIV. , a priest and ecclesiastical jurist under Michael and, wrote the history of these emperors (–) in thirteen books. Pachymeres is one of the best of the Byzantine historians ; his style is singularly good for his age, and his tone dignified and impartial. XV. , a man of great learning, but passionate and untrustworthy as an historian, wrote the history of his country from –, in thirty-eight books, the last fourteen of which remained unpublished until 1855, when they were edited at Bonn by Immanuel Bekker. After the recovery of Constantinople by the Greeks in, politics entered into a new phase; the feeble and distracted empire, unable to make head against the Turks, was compelled to lean for support upon the European powers, which it sought to obtain by patching up the long-standing religious schism. Greeks and Latins, however, were equally resolved to concede nothing save in appearance, and the history of the time is to a great extent that of hollow negotiations, meant only to deceive. In these Gregoras had a considerable share; he also took an active part in the internal religious controversies of, and his personal knowledge of affairs imparts considerable value to his history. He was at one time a favourite of the, but was subsequently persecuted by him. He possessed extensive attainments, and is especially celebrated for having anticipated the astronomers of in the of the. XVI. The, after his abdication, wrote the history of his times from –, including the fifteen s of his own eventful reign. This &ldquo;is written,&rdquo; as DrPlate observes, &ldquo;with elegance and dignity, and shows that the author was a man of superior intelligence, fully able to understand and judge of the great events of history;&rdquo; but Gibbon's remark is no less just that &ldquo;presents, not a confession, but an apology of the life of an ambitious statesman. Instead of unfolding the true counsels and characters of men, he displays the smooth and specious surface of events, highly varnished with his own praises and those of his friends.&rdquo; The truth is arrived at by a comparison of with the rival and inimical narrative of Nicephorus Gregoras, so far as they cover the same ground. XVII. wrote an account of the siege of Constantinople by Amurath II. in 1422; and XVIII. described the capture of Thessalonica by the same Sultan in 1430. XIX. , the chief historian of the fall of the, escaped from the sack of Constantinople 