Angold, Michael and Whitby, Michael - Historiography

Historiography
Historiography
Michael Angold and Michael Whitby
The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies
Edited by Robin Cormack, John F. Haldon, and Elizabeth Jeffreys
Print Publication Date: Oct 2008

Subject: Classical Studies, Middle Eastern Languages and Culture
Online Publication Date: Nov 2012 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199252466.013.0080
Abstract and Keywords
Byzantine historiography, which is heavily indebted to the classical tradition stretching

back to Herodotos and Thucydides in the fifth century BCE, continued to evolve over
more than a millennium, demonstrating the vitality of the genre and the stimulus provid
ed by its roots. Historiography was a branch of rhetoric in the classical world, with its
texts displaying events of the past to an audience in an attractive manner. Wars, with
their associated diplomacy, had always been a dominant subject of historiography. Two
important Greek world chronicles survive from Late Antiquity, both extending from Adam
to the present: one produced by John Malalas in Antioch and the other by John of Antioch
in the early seventh century. Eusebios of Caesarea created a separate genre of ecclesias
tical history, which was continued in the East by Gelasios. The classicizing historians of
Byzantium produced some of the most distinguished Byzantine literature.
Keywords: Byzantium, historiography, Gelasios, Eusebios of Caesarea, world chronicles, John Malalas, John of An
tioch, Late Antiquity, Byzantine literature
THE classical tradition of historiography stretching back to Herodotos and Thucydides in

the fifth century BCE offered Byzantine authors a rich and varied inheritance; on occa
sions expectations to conform imposed restraints but the continuing development of
Byzantine historiography over more than a millennium demonstrates 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 attrac
tive manner. Even if the ultimate audience would be readers, there was a continuing tra
dition of public recitation and historical texts were decorated with display pieces com
posed in higher style: speeches for participants 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 tradi
tion, from Dexippos (c.270) to Theophylakt (c.630). At least in Greek there was a sense of
continuity, with Agathias explicitly tacking his narrative on to Prokopios and Theophylakt
Page 1 of 16
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Historiography
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 (p. 839) Porphyrogennetos: for Priskos, Malchos, and Menander we have
significant narratives of diplomatic dealings, as well as shorter passages containing inter
esting opinions (sententiae), but it is impossible to be confident about the over all 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 appropriate
ly. 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 convoluted rhetoric (Cameron 1970); Theophylakt's
classicism was less thorough and he incorporated influences from the Septuagint and oth
er 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 distasteful for Greek writers. A major casualty of this anti
quarian façade was religion. Some writers, Ammianus, Eunapios, and Zosimos, were as
sertively pagan and their references to the new imperial faith were usually hostile; Proko
pios 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, Ammianus an imperial staff officer. Agath
ias was exceptional in disclaiming practical knowledge, but he believed his literary tal
ents offset this weakness. Most wrote about contemporary or recent events, so that infor
mation could largely be gathered through personal investigation. Digressions or résumés
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 Theophy
lakt 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. Ammi
anus' obituary notices: Matthews 1989), and a narrative might be slanted more insidious
Page 2 of 16

Historiography
ly to reinforce the desired opinion (e.g. Zosimos on the unfortunate consequences of

Constantine's conversion).
Classicizing histories were quite substantial productions (Prokopios and Theophylakt: 8

books; Ammianus: 31) and their literary pretensions meant that they were also a chal
lenge to read. One response was the Epitome, of which three Latin examples survive from
the fourth century: Aurelius Victor (imperial biographies), (p. 840) Eutropius and Festus
(both a history of Rome from the foundation). The authors held imperial office, and per
haps regarded their works as digests of essential knowledge 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 magis
trates 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 Chroni
ci Canones survive through Jerome's Latin translation as well as in Armenian (Mossham
mer 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 thework to 534 while a differ
ent 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 exten
sion which covers the years 527–32; a further continuation to 565 is definitely Constanti
nopolitan 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 specula
tion 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 ex
isted in at least three different versions, and these had a considerable impact on subse
quent chronography (Jeffreys 1986, 1990). In the early seventh century John of Antioch
combined Malalas with substantial information on Roman, especially Republican, history;
Page 3 of 16

Historiography
only fragments survive. About 630 the Chronicon Paschale was produced in Constantino
ple. This combined Malalas with the Bible and Eusebios, but narrative was subordinated
to chronological computation since the exact calculation of (p. 841) certain liturgical cele
brations 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 establishment of imperial
Christianity by Constantine. Eusebios relied on a variety of previous 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 establish
ing a distinctive approach for ecclesiastical historiography. He was also less comfortable
about narrating recent events, since his Arianizing tendencies created difficulties in re
porting 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), Theodoret from the Antioch
ene theological tradition, and the lawyer Sozomen (Urbainczyk 1997a, 1997b). Each
recorded the triumph of Christianity over pagans, especially the emperor Julian, 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 Alexandria, and instead stressed the piety
of the emperor Theodosios which was demonstrated by his secular successes. The argu
ments 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' mar
tyrdoms. 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 togeth
er 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 nar
rative began with the Nestorian dispute under Theodosios, and devoted particular atten
tion to the Council of Chalcedon and attempts to reach doctrinal compromise in the late
fifth century. Like his predecessors, Evagrios focused more on secular events as he ap
proached his own lifetime (Allen 1981; Whitby 2000).
The Arab invasions of the 630s mark the start of a break of over 150 years in Greek histo
riography. It can be deduced from later texts that some works were composed, but their
Page 4 of 16

Historiography
scope and nature are debatable. What is clear is that (p. 842) historiography continued to
flourish in the Syriac world where there was a tradition of local chronicles, associated es
pecially with Edessa and neighbouring monasteries (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 of
Zuqnin) 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 attract
ed 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 historiography,

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 complete 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 per
haps much other evidence so that responsibility for the creation of Theophanes' Chrono
graphia 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 de
tailed 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).
Little 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 Con
stantine VII Porphyrogennetos (913/45–59), who commissioned a historian—usually
known as Genesios (ed. Lesmüller-Werner and Thurn 1978; trans. Kaldellis 1998) and a
series of histories—conventionally known as the Scriptores post Theophanem, or Theo
phanes Continuatus (ed. Bekker 1838)—to cover the period from 811/13 where Theo
phanes 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 Macedonian dynasty, whence
the attention paid to Basil I (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
(p. 843) according to subject matter. It was on a vast scale. There were fifty-three sepa
rate 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 of
ficial stamp on the history of the recent past and was designed to combat other historical
Page 5 of 16

Historiography
narratives, such as that which goes under the name of Symeon Logothete (ed. Bekker
1842), which were circulating at the same time. This was to become a pattern in the writ
ing of history at Byzantium : it tended to be concentrated at particular 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 Michael Psellos embarked upon
his Chronographia (ed. Renauld 1926–8; ed. Impellizeri 1993; trans. Sewter 1953). This
was presented as a continuation of the history of Leo the Deacon (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 histo
ry 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 justly famous pen portraits of the emper
ors 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 fit
ness to be the historian of his age by virtue of his intelligence, education, and political ex
perience (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 John Skylitzes criticized him for his failure to understand the
basic function of a historian, which was to record, not to make judgements on contempo
raries. Skylitzes was writing a chronicle which was conceived as a continuation of Theo
phanes (ed. Thurn 1973; trans. Flusin and Cheynet 2003). It is for the most part an annal
istic 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 biogra
phy 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
Michael Attaleiates who covered the years from 1043 to 1079 (ed. Pérez Martín 2002)
with the aim of (p. 844) providing an alternative to Psellos' Chronographia. It is a solid,
rather pedestrian work. Unlike Psellos, Attaleiates is careful not to intrude himself too ob
viously 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 cam
paigns. He was present, for example, at the fateful battle of Manzikert 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
Page 6 of 16

Historiography
were patrons. He represented a quite different interest group from Michael Psellos (Kazh
dan 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 Komnenos (1081–1118) to
power. Politics became family politics and the writing of history a family business. The
major histories of Alexios I's reign were written by his daughter Anna Komnene and by
her husband the Caesar Nikephoros Bryennios, 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 Alexios I
Komnenos, which created an alliance between two aristocratic blocks. Anna Komnene
continued 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 com
plete her Alexiad 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 ac
cess 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 seclu
sion. 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 fami
ly cultivate intellectual pursuits as a means of countering the pretensions of the civil ser
vice 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. Büttner-Wobst 1897). Though impressed with Alexios as (p. 845) 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 ser
vant Michael Glykas, 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 pre
lude to that of his more glamorous son Manuel I Komnenos (1143–80). His biographer
was John Kinnamos, who had been one of his secretaries. His History closes abruptly in
1175/1176 (ed. Meineke 1836; trans. Brand 1976) and does not include Manuel's defeat
Page 7 of 16

Historiography
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 manu
script 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 nu
anced and critical account of the reign written rather later by Niketas Choniates. Recent
ly, 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 dif
ferent circumstances, when the very existence of the Byzantine Empire 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 ulti
mate 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 ex
tremely sophisticated and intricate way. He is able to contrast the failings of the emper
ors 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 encroach
ment. He provides a tour de force of historical explanation. It (p. 846) was a work that was
much valued and survives not only in several contemporary or near-contemporary manu
scripts, 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, George Akropolites,
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 restora
tion of the seat of Empire to Constantinople but also as a justification of the emperor
Michael Palaiologos' 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 chroni
cle which followed Byzantine history to 1261 (ed. Sathas 1894). Its author has now been
conclusively identified with Theodore Skoutariotes, bishop of Kyzikos under Michael
Page 8 of 16

Historiography
Palaiologos (Tocci 2005). He makes important additions to Akropolites, notably on the pa
triarch Arsenios Autoreianos to whose circle he belonged, and provides a corrective to
Akropolites' partisan approach.
A pupil of George Akropolites, George Pachymeres, effectively continued the former's his
tory 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 materi
alize. Ominously the Byzantine frontier in Anatolia 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 Nicaea. 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 im
pressive analysis of the weaknesses of the Byzantine Empire. Unlike the majority of earli
er 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 work
ing on it at the time of his death. Though he never held public office, he was from an ear
ly age close to the seat of power. His deserved reputation as a scholar gave him consider
able influence. He was, for example, the literary executor of the Grand Logothete
Theodore Metochites, who was Andronikos II's (p. 847) 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 bal
anced 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 memoirs 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 abdication 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 mostly luck
that allowed it to stagger on until the middle of the fifteenth century. The fall of Constan
tinople to the Ottomans in 1453 produced a last burst of Byzantine historical writing.
George Sphrantzes, Doukas, Michael Kritoboulos, and Laonikos Chalkokondyles all
Page 9 of 16

Historiography
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 mem
oirs (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 Corfu. 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 Byzan
tium 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 is
land 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 Greeks 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. Darkó 1922–3; trans. Nicoloudis 1996). Writ
ing in the spirit of Herodotos, he saw the struggle between the Byzantines and the Ot
tomans as the latest round in a struggle that went back to that of the Greeks and the Per
sians: his history is an account of the rise of the Ottomans to imperial status at the ex
pense of the Byzantines (Harris 2003). This final episode of Byzantine history revealed
that its historiographical tradition had retained all its vigour. The four historians
(p. 848)
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 literature.

They expressed that sense of continuity which was basic to the Byzantine sense of identi
ty. But their work was not the total extent of Byzantine historiography. 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 vernacu
lar versions. At its most basic there were the Short Chronicles, brief entries recording im
portant events (ed. Schreiner 1977–9). These might occasionally be expanded into more
substantial regional chronicles, such as the so-called Chronicle of Monemvasia (ed. Kalli
gas 1990). Other regional narratives include the verse Chronicle of the Morea (ed. Sch
mitt 1904), relating the conquest of the Peloponnese in the wake of the Fourth Crusade.
There were also narratives of particular events, such as the vivid account of the fall of
Thessalonike to the Normans in 1185 by its archbishop Eustathios (ed. Kyriakides 1961;
Page 10 of 16

Historiography
trans. Melville Jones 1988). Quite exceptionally he prefaced his narrative with some pre
liminary remarks on the writing of history. He drew a clear distinction between the histo
rian 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 reliability, but it was their ability to weave their own
experience into the treatment of events which gives Byzantine historiography its particu
lar stamp (Macrides 1996).
References Further Reading

ADLER, W., and TUFFIN, P. (trans.) 2002. The Chronography of George Synkellos
(Oxford).
ALLEN, P. 1981. Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian (Louvain).
ANASTASI, R. 1969. Studi sulla Chronographia di Michele Psello (Catania).
BARNES, T. D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius (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) (= Symeon Logothete).
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

(p. 849)
of the Later Roman Empire II (Liverpool).
—— (ed. and trans.) 1985. The History of Menander the Guardsman (Liverpool).
BOOR, C. DE (ed.) 1883–5. Theophanis Chronographia, 2 vols. (Leipzig).
—— and WIRTH, P. (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 of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopoli

tana: Two Contemporary Accounts of the Final Years of the Roman Empire (Oxford).
—— 1999. Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronology (Stuttgart).
Page 11 of 16

Historiography
BÜTTNER-WOBST, T. (ed.) 1897. Ioannis Zonarae Annales, 3 vols. (Bonn).
CAMERON, A. D. E., and CAMERON, A. M. 1964. ‘Christianity and tradition in the histo
riography of the Later Roman Empire’, CQ 14: 316–28.
CAMERON, A. M. 1970. Agathias (Oxford).
—— 1985. Procopius (London).
CHAMBERLAIN, C. 1986. ‘The theory and practice of imperial panegyric in Michael

Psellus’, Byzantion 56: 16–27.
CHRYSOSTOMIDES, J. 1982. ‘A Byzantine historian: Anna Comnena’, in D. O. Morgan

(ed.), Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds (London): 30–46.
CONRAD, L. I. 1990. ‘Theophanes and the Arabic historiographical tradition: some indi
cations of intercultural transmission’, BF 15: 1–44.
CRESCI, L. R. 1991. ‘Cadenze narrative e interpretazione critica nellʼopera storica di

Michele Attaliate’, REB 49: 197–218.
CROKE, B. 2001. Count Marcellinus and his Chronicle (Oxford).
DARKÓ, E. (ed.) 1922–3. Laonici Chalcocondylae Historiarum Demonstrationes, 2 vols.

(Bucharest).
DEWING, H. B. (trans.) 1914–54. Procopius, 6 vols. (London).
DINDORF, L. (ed.) 1832, Chronicon Paschale, 2 vols. (Bonn).
FAILLER, A. (ed. and trans.) 1984–99. Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, 4 vols.
(Paris).
FLUSIN, B., and CHEYNET, J.-C. (trans.) 2003. Jean Skylitzes, Empereurs de Constan
tinople (Paris).
FRENDO, J. D. (trans.) 1975. Agathias: The Histories (Berlin).
GAUTIER, P. (ed.) 1975. Nicéphore 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).

Page 12 of 16

Historiography
HAURY, J. (ed.) 1905–13. Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, 3 vols. (Leipzig).
HEISENBERG, A., and WIRTH, P. (eds.) 1978. Georgii Acropolitae opera, 2 vols.
(Stuttgart).
IMPELLIZERI, S., and others (eds. and trans.) 1993. Michele Psello, Imperatori di
Bisanzio: cronografia, 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 Theo

(p. 850)
phanem’, 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 Philosophy at the End of Antiquity
(Philadelphia).
KALDLLLS, H. 1990. Byzantine Monemvasia: The Sources (Monemvasia).
KAZHDAN, A. 1980. ‘Lʼ Histoire de Cantacuzene en tant quʼ œuvre littéraire’, Byzantion
50: 274–335.
—— and FRANKLIN, S. 1984. Studies on Byzantine Literature 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 Comnène, Alexiade, 4 vols. (Paris).
LEMERLE, P. 1986. Byzantine Humanism: The First Phase, trans. A. Moffat and H. Lind
say (Canberra).
LESMÜLLER-WERNER, A., 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.), ΦIΛΛE ΛΛHN. Studies in Honour of Robert Browning (Venice): 205–24.
—— (trans.) 2007. George Akropolites: The History (Oxford).
MAGDALINQ, P. 1993. The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge).
Page 13 of 16

Historiography
MAGQULIAS, H. J. (trans.) 1975. Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman
Turks (Detroit).
—— (trans.) 1984. O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas 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).
MARASCQ, 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 Thessaloniki: The Capture of Thessa

loniki (Canberra).
MOSSHAMMER, A. 1979. The Chronicle of Eusebius and the Greek Chronographic Tra
dition (Lewisburg).
—— (ed.) 1984. Ecloga chronographica (Leipzig).
MUHLBERGER, S. 1990. The Fifth-Century Chroniclers: Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gal
lic Chronicler of 452 (Leeds).
MULLETT, M., and SMYTHE, D. (eds.) 1996. Alexios I Komnenos (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 Commen

tary of the Demonstrations of Histories (Books 1–3) (Athens).
PALMER, A. 1993. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles (Liverpool).
PASCHQUD, F. (ed.) 1971–89. Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, 3 vols. (Paris).
PÉREZ MARTÍN, I. (ed.) 2002. Miguel Attaleiates, Historia (Madrid).
PHILIPPIDES, M. (trans.) 1980. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by

(p. 851)
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).
Page 14 of 16

Historiography
RENAULD, E. (ed.) 1926–8. Michel Psellos, Chronographie, 2 vols. (Paris).
RIDLEY, R. T. (trans.) 1982. Zosimus, New History (Canberra).
RIGGS, C. T. (trans.) 1954. History of Mehmed the Conqueror 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. ‘A suspected source of Scylitzes' Synopsis Historiarum: the great Cat
acalon Cecaumenus’, BMGS 16: 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 Theodor
os Skutariotes’, BZ 98: 551–68.
TSOLAKES, E. T. (ed.) 1968. He Synecheia tes Chronographias tou Ioannou Skylitse

(Thessalonike).
URBAINCZYK, T. 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. ‘John of Ephesus, a Monophysite Historian in Sixth-Century

Byzantium’ (D. Litt. diss.; Groningen).
VAN NUFFELN, P. 2004. Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclési
astiques de Socrates et de Sozomène (Leuven).
Page 15 of 16

Historiography
WHITBY, L. M. 1988. The Emperor Maurice and his Historian: Theophylact Simocatta 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 Transla

tion with Introduction and Notes (Oxford).
—— 1989. Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD (Liverpool).
WITAKOWSKI, W. 1996. Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre: Chronicle III (Liverpool).
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 chronogra
phy’.
CAMERON, A. M., and CONRAD, L. (eds.) 1992. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near
East, I: Problems in the LiterarySource Material (Princeton).
CROKE, B., and EMMETTA. 1983. History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Sydney).
ROHRBACHER, D. 2002. The Historians of Late Antiquity (London).
Michael Angold
Michael Angold, Emeritus Professor of Byzantine History, University of Edinburgh.
Michael Whitby
Michael Whitby is Professor of Classics, University of Warwick.
Page 16 of 16

Angold, Michael and Whitby, Michael - Historiography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Angold, Michael and Whitby, Michael - Historiography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Angold, Michael and Whitby, Michael - Historiography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historiography

Print Publication Date: Oct 2008

Abstract and Keywords

Byzantine historiography, which is heavily indebted to the classical tradition stretching

THE classical tradition of historiography stretching back to Herodotos and Thucydides in

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

ly to reinforce the desired opinion (e.g. Zosimos on the unfortunate consequences of

Classicizing histories were quite substantial productions (Prokopios and Theophylakt: 8

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

The Syriac tradition probably contributed to the re-emergence of Greek historiography,

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

Byzantium's classicizing historians produced some of its most distinguished literature.

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

References Further Reading

ALLEN, P. 1981. Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian (Louvain).

ANASTASI, R. 1969. Studi sulla Chronographia di Michele Psello (Catania).

BARNES, T. D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius (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) (= Symeon Logothete).

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).

BOOR, C. DE (ed.) 1883–5. Theophanis Chronographia, 2 vols. (Leipzig).

—— and WIRTH, P. (eds.) 1972. Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae (Stuttgart).

BUCKLER, G. 1929. Anna Comnena (Oxford).

BURGESS, R. W. 1993. The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopoli­

—— 1999. Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronology (Stuttgart).

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

BÜTTNER-WOBST, T. (ed.) 1897. Ioannis Zonarae Annales, 3 vols. (Bonn).

CAMERON, A. M. 1970. Agathias (Oxford).

—— 1985. Procopius (London).

CHAMBERLAIN, C. 1986. ‘The theory and practice of imperial panegyric in Michael

CHRYSOSTOMIDES, J. 1982. ‘A Byzantine historian: Anna Comnena’, in D. O. Morgan

CRESCI, L. R. 1991. ‘Cadenze narrative e interpretazione critica nellʼopera storica di

CROKE, B. 2001. Count Marcellinus and his Chronicle (Oxford).

DARKÓ, E. (ed.) 1922–3. Laonici Chalcocondylae Historiarum Demonstrationes, 2 vols.

DEWING, H. B. (trans.) 1914–54. Procopius, 6 vols. (London).

DINDORF, L. (ed.) 1832, Chronicon Paschale, 2 vols. (Bonn).

FRENDO, J. D. (trans.) 1975. Agathias: The Histories (Berlin).

GAUTIER, P. (ed.) 1975. Nicéphore Bryennios, Histoire (Brussels).

GRECU, V. (ed.) 1958. Ducas, Istoria Turco-Bizantina (Bucharest).

HASE, C. B. (ed.) 1828. Leo Diaconi Historiae libri X (Bonn).

Subscriber: Universitaetsbibliothek Mainz; date: 12 December 2019

HAURY, J. (ed.) 1905–13. Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, 3 vols. (Leipzig).

JENKINS, R. J. H. 1954. ‘The classical background to the Scriptores post Theo­

phanem’, DOP 8: 11–30.

KALDELLIS, A. (trans.) 1998. Genesios, On the Reigns of the Emperors (Canberra).

—— 1999. The Argument of Psellos' Chronographia (Leiden).

KALDLLLS, H. 1990. Byzantine Monemvasia: The Sources (Monemvasia).

—— and FRANKLIN, S. 1984. Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and

BURGESS, R. W. 1993. The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopoli

JENKINS, R. J. H. 1954. ‘The classical background to the Scriptores post Theo

MELVILLE JONES, J. R. (trans.) 1988. Eustathios of Thessaloniki: The Capture of Thessa

NICOLOUDIS, N. (trans.) 1996, Laonikos Chalkokondyles: A Translation and Commen

—— and WHITBY, J. M. 1986. The History of Theophylact Simocatta: An English Transla