Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/597

This page needs to be proofread.

5.31 ANNALS CoRNiLL, EM. in das A. T. (4th «!.), lOfi, 220; Bf.nsett AND Adenev, BM. Intr. (New York. 1899); Kent, lurael'a ttiatoru-al and Biographical Narratives; Smith, Samuel in /niemational Cril. Com. (CH) 14-17: Gunkel, Ausgeuuhlle I'salntm (2 ed. Uottingen, 1905) 2U5-272. Edward Abbez. Anna Comnena, Byzantine historian, eldest dauehtor uf Aloxius Conineniis, Enif)eror of Con- stantinople (lOM-lllS). Slie was born in 1083, and received, as was tlic custom for Byzantine princesses, an excellent education in the Greek classics, history, geography, niythologj', and even pliilosophy. She was married to Xicci)horus Bryen- niiis, son of a former pretender to the imperial office, and in 1118 joined in a conspiracy to place her hus- band on the throne. Failing in her ambition she retired with her mother, the Empress Irene, to a monastery that the latter had founded, and wrote there in fifteen books her famous "Alexias" ('AXtJids). It was finished by 1148, and describes the career of her father, from 1069 to his death in 1118; it is thus a continuation of her husband's "Historical Ma- terials", that comes down to 1079. The Princess is the historian of the fortunes of the fomneni family. Her own observations are often valuable by reason of her personal knowledge and the close acquain- tance with public atTaii-s that she owed to her high rank, but she also made use of di])lomatic correspond- ence, the reports of licr father's generals and soldiers, and the imperial archives. Critics praise the fullness and choice quality of her historical information; she seems to have gone so far as to utilize in her account of Robert Guiscard a Latin contemporary chronicle, whicli was written jjrobably by the Archdeacon of Hari. At the same time they point out the panegjTi- cal and ultra-filial character of her work, it being formally devoted to the fame and honor of her father. As a true Byzantine she looks on the Cru- sades only from the narrow and selfish standpoint of Constantinople, and detests soundly all Latins. The chronology is defective. She loves to describe scenes of sjjlendour, great state-actions, audiences, and feasts, whatever is concrete and picturesque. Nor is she adverse to satire, court gossip, and de- traction. Profounder matters, financial military, and constitutional, escape her purview. Withal, however, Krinnbacher calls it "one of the most re- markable elTorts of medieval Greek historiography ", the first notable production of the medieval Greek Renaissance set afoot by Psellos and powerfully furthered by the family of the Princess. She strains in her vocabularj' for an .ttic elegance, though con- strviction and style betray too often the distance between her and the models (Thucydides and Poly- bius) whom she aims at imitating. She avoids, as unfit for the i)en of an historian, imcouth foreign names and vulgar terms. Her studied precision in the matter of hellenizing causes her p-ages to take on a kind of mummy-like api>earance when compared with the vigorous, living Greek of contemjxjrary popular intercourse. The .ilerias was tirst edited by Poshincs (Paris, 1G51;) P.G. CXXXI, 39-1244. The best edition i!< that of the Corpus Scnpl. Buz.. I (Bonn, 1839); II (1878), with a Latin tran."*!. the commentary of Dcc. ge, etc; Khi'.muachkr, Gesch. d. binnnl. Lit. (2d ed., 1902). pp. 274-279. He >peak9 of VVai.tek SioTi'« Count Robert of I'aris ax "a rather unlucky reproduction" of the Aleriaa. See Col.ncitN. in .Vcu- Monthly .Vau.( KS()9). CXLIV, Iiti7; Osteh, .4nny Pagan historians, no longer appealed to Christian writers. History, as viewed from the Christian stand- point, took into account only the Kingdom of God, and to the new generation the centre of such history was the narration of the misfortunes undergone l)y the Jewish nation, a subject ignored by Roman historians. Christians hail need of a new general history in sympathy with their ideal. It was neces- sarj', first of all, to synchronize the dates of Chris- tian and profane chronology, so that an attempt might be made to combine the subject-matter of both. Thus it was that chronicles came into existence. Sextus Julius .fricanus (221) attempted to syn- chronize the facts of profane history with those of the Bible, .fter him Eusebius (340), in his " Uni- versal History", continuing the class of work origi- natcil by .fricanus, comijileil a chronological table in expository form, followetl by synchronistic tables reaching to 325. This chronological narrative, or chronicle, of Eusebius was the source of all universal chronicles, both Byzantine and Western. It was continued up to 378 by St. Jerome, and the revision is found at the beginning of all the universal histories of the Mitldle .ges. It was this chronicle that fixed forever the form to be atlopt«d in the annaUstic record of events. Chronicles were, as a rule, noth- ing more than collections of dates without causal connection or sjiithesis. The genius of one writer, St. .Vugustine, conceived an original way of fusing matter in a universal history, and embodied it in his treatise on "The Two Cities". He had no dis- ciples, however, in the Middle .Vges. These early chronicles reviewed the facts of universal history, and are to be distinguished from the chronicles of the eleventh centurj", which are merely local nar- ratives chiefly conceniing the history of the author's coimtrj'. Moreover, the chronicles deal chiefly with the past, and this distinguishes them from annals properly so called. An" — The tenn annals, though often confu.sed with chronicles, nevertheless iiulicates a dilTerent class. Like chroni>.les, they are chronological rec- ords, but taken tlown successively, registering from day to day the events of each year. Lliis gives an idea of the fundamental distinction between annals and chronicles. C'hroiiicles are ortlinarily compila- tions requiring lengthy preparatorj' work, arranged after a preconceied plan, and revealing the per- sonality of their author in the conduct of the narra- tive. Annals, on the other hand, are original, and are to be consulted as sources at first hand. Being written from day to day, they re<iuire no effort of composition; they reveal a succession of many hands, anil leave an impression of impersonal labour. They might well be compared with our ilaily papers, while chronicles come nearest to our modern memoirs. The prototype of all metlieval annals is the famous "Chronographus", or Calendar, of 354, an official document of the Roman Empire, containing in embrj'o the annals of later periods. Besides an official calendar, and other items, this precious docu- ment has a record of other consular annals up to 354, the paschal tables for the hundred years suc- ceeding 312, a list of the popes up to Liberius, and a universal chronicle reaching as far as 338. Be- sides the consular annals drawn up at Ravenna, anil of great importance for the fifth century, the p:i.schal tables are interesting. in.Tsmuch as they throw light upon the origin of medieval annals. Consular an- nals, and the method of calculation according to im- perial reigns, were inilecd of necessity before the ancient chronological system was abandoned. But once this custom fell into disuse, the paschal tables, used to determine the date of Easter and other movable feasts, became the basis of the chronology