to Lesbos, where he entered into the service of the prince of that island, and wrote his history after the reduction of Lesbos by the Turks in 1462. It commences in 1342, aud goes down to the conquest of Lesbos. Ducas is the most difficult and barbarous of all the Byzantine historians, and the only one who appears entirely unacquainted with classical models. At the same time he is among the most intelligent, impartial, and sagacious. The ruin of the Greek empire has also been recorded by XX. Georgius Phrantzes and XXI. Laonicus Chalcocondyles. Both of these were eminent among the states men of their disastrous period, and Phrantzes in particular played a very important part in diplomacy. Broken hearted at the capture of his native city and the death of his son and daughter in slavery, he retired to a monastery in Corfu, where he wrote his Chronicon about 1477, to which year it extends. It commences at the year 1259, but by far the most valuable portion is that which records the transactions of the author's lifetime, and the value of this is very great. Chalcocondyles, beginning at 1298, brings his history down to the invasion of the Morea by the Turks in 1463. He also is an accomplished man, of much experience in. public business; and although his digressions respecting the affairs and manners of other nations are irrelevant, and betray ignorance, they are interesting as an index to the knowledge possessed by his
countrymen at his time.
II. Chroniclers and Chronologers. The chronologers usually published in the Byzantine collection are frequently very valuable, but neither their lives nor their writings need detain us long. They are I. Georgius Syncellus, the attendant (syncellus) upon the patriarch Tarasius, about the beginning of the 9th century. His unfinished chronicle extends from Adam to Diocletian, and was continued to 813 A.D. by II. Theophanes Isaurus, a martyr in the cause of image worship. III. Leo Grammaticus and IV. Georgius Monachus continued Theophanes to 948 and 944 respectively. V. The chronicle of the Syrian Joannes Malalas extends from the beginning of the world to the year 566. Malalas is usually supposed to have lived in the 9th century, and to have left his work incomplete, but some regard him as contemporary of Justinian. VI. Nicephorus Patriarcha, Patriarch of Constantinople under Leo the Armenian, early in the 9th century, compiled a chronological history from the murder of the Emperor Mauricius to his own times, and an abridged chronological manual of events from the Creation. VII. Julius Pollux, a writer of the 10th century, compiled a chronology, chiefly of ecclesiastical occurrences, to the year 963, which has only been printed as far as the death of Valens (377). VIII. The contemporary chronicle of Hippolytus of Thebes is of little value. IX. The valuable Chronicon Paschale, which extends to 1042, is the work of three anonymous writers. There has been considerable difficulty in settling the respective claims to originality of X. Joannes Scylitza and XI. Georgius Cedrenus, but the latter was probably the copyist. The contrary opinion has prevented the publication of Scylitza's work, with the exception of the portions not transcribed by Cedrenus. These extend from 1057 to 1080. The chronicle of Cedrenus reaches from the Creation to the former of these dates. XII. The chronicle of Constantine Manasses is written in political verses, and extends from the beginning of the world to the accession of Alexius Comnenus in 1281. XIII. Michael Glycas, a writer of uncertain date, published a general chronology down to the year 1118. XIV. The abbreviated chronicle of Joel reaches the capture of Constantinople by the Latins in 1204 XV. The chronicle of Georgius Codinus, a writer of the 15th century, comes down to the capture of Constantinople, and is associated with a compilation respecting the antiquities of the city, which is of much greater value.
The contribution of the Byzantine historians to literature may be compared with the part enacted by the Byzantine empire in the history of the world. That empire added nothing to the treasures of civilization, but it preserved much. Like the earth in winter, it seemed barren and unlovely, but it kept the good seed hidden in its bosom for better days. Had it perished before the intellectual revival of Western Europe, the solution of continuity between ancient and modern culture would have been irreparable. In like manner the Byzantine historians preserved the traditions of historical composition, while their brethren of the West were merely chroniclers and annalists. They have safely embalmed in their generally unattractive pages a vast mass of most valuable information, for which we are in most cases solely dependent upon them, and they aid us to reconstruct the polity, and to some extent the social life, of what was for several centuries the only really civilized Christian state in the world. They are undoubtedly for the most part perfectly ignorant of the significance of their own times; they have postponed what was really interesting to barren details of battles and court intrigues, and have wasted opportunities which would have been invaluable to a philosophic historian. Cinnamus and Ducas are the only two with any claim to this character, and Anna Comnena is the only artist. When, however, all their disadvantages are taken into consideration, it will probably be deemed that they are much better than might have been expected. They were isolated from all the rest of the known world by prejudice, policy, and religious hatred. There was no scientific or other intellectual movement in their times, no aspiration for liberty, no conception of a more liberal culture; they were crushed by a rigid despotism, and enthralled by an abject superstition. Under these circumstances the good sense and sagacity of many among them are very remarkable, and are chiefly to be explained by the large proportion among them of men accustomed to practical life and public affairs. Their roll includes sovereigns, generals, prime ministers, secretaries of state, diplomatists, and other important public officers; even the ecclesiastics among them are not recluses but men versed in business. The Byzantine civil service was the strong point of the empire, and its solid if prosaic qualities are admirably reflected by its literary representatives.
