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

III. Theophylactus of Simocatta, a sophist and civilian of Egyptian extraction, wrote the history of the Emperor Mauricius (582–602) in eight books, all of which are preserved. The work seems to have been completed under Heraclius. Theophylactus lived until 628 or 629. He is an accurate and not inelegant writer, but frequently trivial and frigid. IV. Joannes 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 (591). His history has never been printed, but is said to exist in MS. at Heidelberg. V. The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (reigned 911–959). 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 867 to 886. VI. Genesius, who lived in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, wrote by his order the history of Basil II. and of his four immediate predecessors (813–886). The work is brief and meagre, but is almost the only authority we possess for a portion of the period described. VII. Joannes Cameniata, 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 904. Cameniata himself was one of the captives, and his narrative is very lively and valuable. VIII. Leo Diaconus, an ecclesiastic in the latter half of the 10th century, 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 (959–975). Leo wrote at least as late as 993. IX. Nicephorus Bryennius, the son-in-law of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, and one of the first statesmen and generals of his time, wrote in four books the history of the empire under the Comneni from 1057 to 1081. X. His still more celebrated wife, Anna Comnena, daughter of the Emperor Alexius, and the marvel of her sex at that extremely low period of female education, wrote (1148) the history of her father in fifteen books. The period of Alexius is peculiarly interesting as that in which the barrier of Byzantine 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 Princess Anna 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 Joannes Cinnamus, one of the in most eminent of all the Byzantine historians. He was one of the imperial notaries under the reign of Manuel Comnenus (1143–1180), 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 Alexius Comnenus in 1118 to the siege of Iconium by Manuel Comnenus in 1176, four years 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. Nicetas Acominatus, or Choniates, a patrician and holder of many important public offices under the emperor Isaac Angelus at the beginning of the 13th century, described the same period as Cinnamus, but continued his narrative to 1206. The latter books of Nicetas's history possess especial importance, inasmuch as they contain the Byzantine account of the taking of Constantinople by the Latins in the fourth crusade (1204). 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. Georgius Acropolita, an eminent scholar and diplomatist, who lived from 1220–1282, wrote the history of the Eastern empire during its subjugation by the Latins (1204–1261). The work is so brief that it has been regarded as merely an epitome of Acropolita's original history. XIV. Georgius Pacymeres, a priest and ecclesiastical jurist under Michael and Andronicus Palæologus, wrote the history of these emperors (1258–1308) 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. Nicephorus Gregoras, a man of great learning, but passionate and untrustworthy as an historian, wrote the history of his country from 1204–1358, 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 1261, Byzantine 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 his church, and his personal knowledge of affairs imparts considerable value to his history. He was at one time a favourite of the Emperor Cantacuzenus, but was subsequently persecuted by him. He possessed extensive attainments, and is especially celebrated for having anticipated the astronomers of Pope Gregory XIII. in the correction of the Julian Calendar. XVI. The Emperor John Cantacuzenus, after his abdication, wrote the history of his times from 1320–1357, including the fifteen years of his own eventful reign. This “is written,” as Dr Plate observes, “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;” but Gibbon's remark is no less just that Cantacuzenus “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.” The truth is arrived at by a comparison of Cantacuzenus with the rival and inimical narrative of Nicephorus Gregoras, so far as they cover the same ground. XVII. Joannes Cananus wrote an account of the siege of Constantinople by Amurath II. in 1422; and XVIII. Joannes Anagnostes described the capture of Thessalonica by the same Sultan in 1430. XIX. Michael Ducas, the chief historian of the fall of

the Greek empire, escaped from the sack of Constantinople