NOTICE ON THE BYZANTINE HISTORIANS AFTER THEOPHANES (Fabric. Biblioth. Gr. VI, 348.)
We now proceed to review the volume of the *Scriptores post Theophanem* [Writers after Theophanes], or those who extended the Byzantine history from Leo the Armenian, the successor of Emperor Michael Curopalates—where the *Chronicon* of Theophanes concludes—down to Emperor Nicephorus Phocas. These were reviewed from manuscript codices and donated with a translation by François Combefis, of the Order of Preachers of the Congregation of Saint Louis, though they finally saw the light of day only after his death, Paris, 1685, folio; hence the annotations which that learned man prepared for these writers are also missed. The writers themselves are read in this order:
1. A ANONYMOUS (whom, based on an uncertain conjecture, see Labbe in *Protrepticon*, p. 14 and 46, I see called Leontius the Byzantine): A *Chronicle*, written by the command of Constantine Porphyrogennetus continuing Theophanes, in four books, concerning as many emperors: Book I, on Leo the Armenian, who began to reign in the year of Christ 813; Book II, on Michael Balbus; Book III, on Theophilus, son of Michael; and Book IV, on Michael, son of Theophilus, whom he writes was removed by slaughter on September 24 of the year of the Greeks 6376, that is, of Christ 868. Combefis published the Greek from a Barberini copy of a Vatican manuscript codex, which Holstenius had sent from Rome. Words seem to have been inserted by Constantine Porphyrogennetus, or in his name, in Book II, where there is a discussion about the liberation of Crete from the Saracens, p. 51.
2. B CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENNETUS, Emperor, deceased A.C. 959, from the life of his grandfather, Basil the Macedonian, who succeeded Michael son of Theophilus in A.C. 868, whom he notes to have held the reins of empire for one year with that predecessor of his, Michael, but afterwards to have administered the sum of affairs alone for nineteen other years, namely until the year 888. This *Life* had already seen the light of day, with the translation of Leo Allatius, in his *Συμμικτοῖς* [Symmikta], 1653, 8vo, divided into 70 sections or chapters. But Combefis revised the Greek according to the aforementioned Barberini copy, added a new translation, and divided it into 101 sections, differently than Allatius did; this diverse distinction of chapters is accustomed to fix a cross upon those citing the writer or desiring to search for cited passages. Regarding what is read in the title: *Ιστορική διήγησις τοῦ βίου καὶ τῶν πράξεων Βασιλείου τοῦ ἀοιδίμου βασιλέως, ἣν Κωνσταντίνος βασιλεὺς ἐν Θεῷ Ρωμαίων ὁ τούτου υἱωνός, φιλοπόνως ἀπὸ διαφόρων ἀθροίσας διηγημάτων τῷ γράφοντι προσανέθετο* [Historical account of the life and deeds of the celebrated King Basil, which King Constantine, in God, of the Romans, his grandson, having painstakingly collected from various narratives, assigned to the writer], by *τὸν γράφοντα* [the writer] understand the author of the four preceding books, to whom he subjoined this *Life* with the emperor’s polite permission, and by which he testifies that he was deterred from writing the *Life of Basil* himself, for that anonymous writer of the *Chronicle* thus writes in the preface to the same Constantine, by whose command he professed to have come to continue Theophanes: *Εἰ καὶ τοῦ ἀοιδίμου σου πάππου, τοῦ ἐν βασιλεῦσι εὐκλεοῦς Βασιλείου τὰ παρὰ σοῦ ἱστορούμενα, καὶ μετὰ πάσης σαφηνείας καὶ λόγου εὐκοσμίας κατὰ τὸ τῶν γενομένων ἀληθὲς καὶ εἰλικρινὲς εἰς τὸ φανερὸν παρὰ τῆς σῆς πολυμαθεστάτης εἰδήσεως ἐξαγορευθέντα, περιττὸν ἂν εἴη οὐδοτιοῦν διηγήσασθαι* [If indeed what is being historicized by you concerning your celebrated grandfather, the glorious among kings, Basil, and expressed with all clarity and propriety of speech according to the truth and sincerity of what occurred, having been brought to light by your most learned knowledge, it would be superfluous to relate anything whatsoever]. Labbe, who suspected that this *Life* was not written by Constantine himself but by another at his command, was refuted by Martin Hanckius, *De Hist. Byz. scriptoribus*, p. 473; and he alone (the passage of the anonymous writer not having been seen by Hanckius, for it had not yet appeared) suffices to refute the conjecture of Labbe and of Cave, who follows him (where he discusses Leontius the Byzantine chronographer at the year A.C. 920).
3. C ANONYMOUS (who appears to be different, and more concise than the author of the previous four books): On the affairs of Leo the Philosopher, who was the son and successor of Basil, pp. 217-232. On Alexander, brother of Leo, p. 233; he reigned for seven years under Patriarch Nicholas and other tutors, and mother Zoe; for twenty-six years with Romanus Lacapenus, his father-in-law; and finally he ruled alone for fifteen years, and thus lived and held the dignity of emperor for 55 years: pp. 255-292. And on Romanus the Younger, son of Constantine Porphyrogennetus, pp. 293-300.
That writer promises more concerning Theophilus, prefect of the city (p. 275), and concerning the life of other men of highest authority in the imperial court of Constantinople, which do not exist, and certainly have not seen the light of day.
4. An anonymous *Steliteutic Dissertation against the Iconoclasts* (c) and the Copronymian synod, written circa A. C. 745, and thus before the seventh or Second Nicene synod, pp. 303-311.
5. *Narrative of Brother John of Jerusalem concerning the origin of the Iconoclast disturbances*, pp. 312, 313. This same John (perhaps later bishop of the city of Jerusalem) whose *Demonstrative Discourse concerning the Holy Images* against Constantine Caballinus, or Copronymus, was edited by Combefis in the second volume of his *Auctarium novum*, or *History of the Monothelites*, page 665, and which other codices attribute to John of Damascus. Regarding the royal codex from which Combefis copied these two small works, and in which are also read the testimonies of the Fathers brought forward on behalf of the images at the second Nicene synod, see the *Palæographia Græca* of the most illustrious Montfaucon, pp. 65, 66. But one can see, says Combefis, that that noble codex is like a universal *armarium*, having collected all the principal fortifications of the Catholics against heretics (especially those attacking the mystery of Christ). From it the illustrious Peter de Marca long ago produced the confirmation of the fifth Synod by Vigilius (d), although he did not make it believable to everyone. Indeed, the one who himself compiled the book, and arranged in it so many of the Fathers and councils, wrote concerning this confirmation—as if to him it were not clearly a matter of explored truth, but rather of wavering faith—that it was found among the acts of the fifth synod.... This codex holds Leontius’s *De sectis*, far more emended than those already edited, and richer in authorities which are desired in those versions. It is possible to make many new *Hodegetia* from it (of which this covers all and more), so laboriously handled in the edited versions that even Anastasius himself would not recognize his own work, although the editor and interpreter refined everything.
6. *From the Narrative of the miracles of St. Demetrius the martyr* (e), *from the account of the wonder-workings of the shield-bearer Demetrius*, a fragment concerning the revealing of the destruction and sacking of Thessalonica by himself, pp. 314-316.
7. *John Cameniata of Thessalonica, a learned and elegant narrative*, A. C. 904, written to Gregory the Cappadocian, *concerning the destruction of Thessalonica*, at which the writer himself was present, and which in that very year (the 19th of Leo the Philosopher) Leo Tripolites, leader of the Hagarenes, took. This had appeared previously with the version of Allatius in his *Symmikta*, published by Barthold Nihusius in 1653, 8vo. But Combefis reviewed it again, added his own new interpretation, and divided it into 79 chapters, whereas in the Allatian edition it is dispersed into 45 sections. This Cameniata, born to a father who was exarch of Hellas, was in the clerical order as a lector, and was a cubicularius of the Church of Thessalonica, that is, one who would carry the episcopal feet for the metropolitan when he proceeded in public. He is also said to be one *of those appointed in the houses of the emperors*. See chap. 55 of the Combefis edition (Allat. 36) and Hanckius, book 1, *De scriptoribus Hist. Byz.*, chap. 22.
...concerning the citizens who perished in the dissensions, seditions, and domestic turmoil in Thessalonica in A. C. 1343 under the reign of John Cantacuzenus. Pp. 385-392. Concerning that turmoil, see Gregoras XIII, 10, and Cantacuzenus III, 94.
...disciple, concerning the defeat and death of Constantine Ducas, whom Nicholas (f), patriarch, and certain others appointed to the empire while Constantine Porphyrogennetus was still a boy, page 394-399. Henschenius published that entire *Life of Basil the Anchorite* in volume III of the *Acta Sanctorum*, at March 26, p. 668, in Latin from the version of Combefis, and in Greek at the end of the volume, page 24, from the Mazarin manuscript codex, Antwerp, 1684, folio.
10. *The Annals of Symeon Magister and Logothete from Leo the Armenian to Nicephorus Phocas* (pag. 401-498) from the manuscript codex of Raphael Trichet du Fresne, which was carried into the treasury of the most Christian king after his death. This Symeon wrote likewise *Annals from the foundation of the world*, which have not yet seen the light of day, and they exist in another and greater royal codex which ends with Leo the Armenian, and in that earlier part the author seems to have performed his work more lightly, and in many places he agrees with Theophanes, who himself also is known to end with Leo the Armenian. "Attributed to that greater Royal codex," says Combefis, "by another and somewhat more recent hand: this is Metaphrastes; whose *Annals and Chronicles* seemed so great to Hippolytus the Theban, that he prefers them to all others." See the words of Hippolytus in Allatius, *De Simeonum scriptis*, p. 34, who argues at length that Symeon Metaphrastes first held the office of master and logothete, and then also the dignity of general logothete. These *Annals* of Symeon also exist in the Imperial Library, into which I brought them: Busbeq, as noted by Lambecius in book II, page 588. Since, however, the history of Michael Psellus was inserted last into this Chronicle in the codex of Raphael Trichet du Fresne, Combefis... [suspects it belongs to him] who collected 24 orations from the works of St. Basil: for Metaphrastes ceased to be among the living a little before Psellus. Unless Psellus himself, to that *Chronology* of Symeon from the nine historians, added himself as the tenth.
(c) It is inscribed *Dialogus*. But it has nothing that relates to a dialogue. (d) In *Diss. de epistola Vigilii*, Paris, 1642, and at the end of the work *De concordia sacerdotii et imperii*, among the various dissertations of Peter de Marca, page 207, 227 sq. See also Baluze on book v of the same work, chap. 12. (e) Concerning this Demetrius, see Baronius in the *Martyrology* of 8 October. (f) The writer inveighs vehemently against Nicholas on this account, and calls him by dishonor, p. 398, *agrikolaon*, and p. 399, *hettilaon*.
or others have added: a work certainly highly necessary to supplement the Byzantine History by Theophanes. Psellus’s *History* may receive much light from the reading of his letters to emperors, Caesars, and the highest princes of the age and magistrates, to patriarchs, metropolitans, prelates of churches and governors—not to speak of his accusation against Michael Cerularius before the synod, and the very brilliant eulogies of his, composed by Constantine Lichudes, who succeeded him, and also by Xiphilinus, on those men of course who shone brilliantly in both military and civil service of Constantinople, and regarding his own statements—he who was himself a partner in public concerns with them, and almost the greatest of those who participated in civil administration—especially under the Emperor Constantine Monomachus, to whom he directed tracts on policy that are not to be despised.
Besides the History of Michael Psellus, Combefis intended immediately to publish a similar lucubration of Leo the Deacon in a second volume, but that most industrious man being overtaken by death, there has been no one until now to oblige students of letters with this benefit (*). In the code of the King of France 1837, besides the *letters* and the account *of the fall of the temple of St. Sophia* and the *Monodies on the Patrician John* by Michael Psellus, an *esteemed philosopher*, there exists his *Miscellaneous Chronography* from Basil and Constantine Porphyrogenitus down to Michael Ducas. In another code of the same Royal treasury occurs the History of Leo the Deacon from the passing of Constantine Porphyrogenitus to John Tzimiskes, under whom that writer lived: *The history of Leo the Deacon beginning from the death of the emperor nicknamed Tzimiskes*. The illustrious Du Cange used both authors, Psellus and Leo the Deacon, in manuscript for his Greek Glossary and in his other writings. From the manuscript Chronicle of the continuator of Theophanes, and from another manuscript of Simeon the Logothete, some things concerning the XLII Amorian martyrs killed by the Saracens circa A.D. 841 are related by Henschenius in Vol. I of the *Acta Sanctorum* for March, pp. 466, 467, and in Greek p. 894 et seq.
11. Finally, the Combefisian collection of writers after Theophanes is concluded by George the Monk’s *Lives of the New Emperors*—the lives of the emperors from Leo the Armenian, and those who governed affairs after him, up to Romanus Lacapenus, when Constantine Porphyrogenitus was already ruling alone, having died in A.D. 948. This George is different from George Hamartolus, whose *Chronicle* from the beginning of the world to Michael the son of Theophilus, under whom he lived his life, still lies hidden in manuscript in various libraries. Raderus, in his *Viridarium Sanctorum*, in his notes to the *Life of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople*, written by Nicetas the Paphlagonian, testified that he had examined the manuscript *Chronicle* or *History* of both, and a third, George the Monk, in addition: "Besides those things which I noted here and there in the margin, it pleased me to note certain things from George Hamartolus, who is different from George Syncellus of Tarasius, although he bears the name of Syncellus on the front; different also from George the Monk who wrote the *Chronicle* which is praised by Panvinius, even though that *Chronicle* does not have the name of George written on it." For I have with me three different manuscript monks, partly from the Palatine Library of the Bavarians, partly from the Augustan Library, all of them unedited and not yet translated, and I am comparing them.
(g) From this it appears he did not live long afterwards. Moreover, on page 528 it is noted: *Up to here the Chronicle of George, and from here that of the Logothete.*
(*) This task has been performed in our own days by the most distinguished man, Charles Benoît Hase, member of the Institute of France and the Academy of Inscriptions. Ed.