tradition, and from the personal knowledge of the author,* is just what it professes to be. It is the history of Christianity in Britain. The first event which he notices is the invasion of the island by Julius Cæsar, and he continues his narrative to the year 731. But though invaluable as an early history of the church of England, it has no claim to be regarded as a general history of the church. His "Chronicle,"+ brief as it is, has more pretension to the character of a general history; and, at all events, it must not be omitted in a notice like the present, as having been the first historical work which employed the calculation of the year of the birth of our Lord, which had been made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus, and which has since become the common era.‡ FREDEGARIUS Scholasticus,§ a native of Burgundy, who flourished in the middle of the seventh century, and four later writers, whose names are unknown, continued the history of Gregory of Tours to the year 768. I only notice them here as professed continuators of a work of acknowledged importance in ecclesiastical history. The history of the church, as well as the political condition of Italy, under the domination of the Lombards, is illustrated by the works of PAULUS DIACONUS. Paul Winfried, a deacon of Aquileia, was the notary, or chancellor, of Desiderius, the last king of the Lombards; and upon the fall of that monarch, in 774, enjoyed the favour of the victorious Charlemagne. But his affection for his former master rendered him an object of suspicion to the conqueror. He was for some time an exile and a wanderer, and at last found a permanent residence in the monastery of Monte Cassino. He deserves to be ever had in honour as having contributed, with our illustrious countryman, Alcuin, to that remarkable revival of literature which distinguished the Carlovingian period; and a number of historical and biographical works, which are still extant, assert his claim to be regarded as an ecclesiastical historian. To the end of the sixth century we have found the east abundant in historical writers. We have hitherto, from the time of Eusebius, been Hæc de Historia Ecclesiastica Brittaniarum, et maxime gentis Anglorum, prout vel ex lit. teris antiquorum, vel ex traditione majorum, vel ex mea ipse cognitione scire potui, Domino adjuvante digressi.-Hist. Eccles. + "Chronicon sive de sex ætatibus sæculi." It begins with the creation, and ends with the year 729, and has been copied by several later chroniclers. Dass Beda der erste gewesen ist, der in Geschichtsbuchern die Jahre von der Geburt Christi an, nach der Bestimmung des Dionysius, gerechnet hat; dem man auch die Beschreibung des verlornen Dionysianischen Cyclus verdankt, (de ratione temporum, cap. 45, 47.) und durch den daher der Gebrauch jener Zeitrechnung in den Abendländern eingefuhrt worden ist, wie zwei bald nach seinem Tode, im Jahr 742, gehaltene Kirchenversammlungen, die eine zu Clovesho in England, die andere an einem ungenannten Orte in Ostfranken, welche sich derselben bedient haben, beweisen; alles dieses ist schon von Joh. Wilh. Janus (Hist. Æræ Christ. c. 3. pag. 88b, sq.) bemerkt worden.-Schrockh, Kirchengeschichte, xix. 74, 75. Fabr. Bibl. Latina Med. et Infim. ætatis, vol. ii., p. 605. Cave places Fredegarius in the eighth century (an. 740), but Ruinart most satisfactorily proves (Præfat. ad S. Gregor. Turon. n. 146) that he must have written soon after the middle of the seventh. Fabr. Bibl. Latina Med. et Infim, ætatis, vol. v. p. 620, et seq. See Fabr. Bibl. Latin. Med. et Infim. ætatis, tom. v., p. 620-634. His chief historical work is the well known history of the Lombards, "De gestis Langobardorum Libri vi." But his" Gesta Episcoporum Metensium," (printed in the learned work of Calmet, Histoire Ecclesiastique et Civile de Lorraine, tome i. Preuves, col. 51-60,) is more strictly ecclesiastical. Five books of the Historia Miscella. (xii.-xvi.) are also due to Paul the Deacon. The first eleven are, for the most part, merely the compendium of Eutropius; the last eight were compiled by Landulphus Sagax, in the fourteenth century. able to trace a succession, almost uninterrupted, of ecclesiastical historians in that branch of the catholic church; but we have now arrived at a period in which it was far otherwise: the seventh and eighth centuries are nearly destitute of original Greek writers of history. We know no particulars of the life of JOANNES MALELAS of Antioch. His Chronicle, which commences with the creation and terminates with the year 566, affords no positive evidence of the time at which it was written. Dr. Hody, in his prolegomena to the Oxford edition,* contended that it was not written till the ninth century; but his arguments were answered by Cave;† and later scholars have generally agreed with the learned author of the Historia Literaria in supposing him to have lived near the time at which he concluded his history. The PASCHAL CHRONICLE (Пlaoɣáλov),|| which extends from the creation to the twentieth year of Heraclius (629), is more strictly a chronological than an historical work. It possesses, however, altogether an ecclesiastical character, and sometimes throws considerable light on matters of church history. The name of the author is unknown; but there is every reason to believe that the work was written towards the end of the reign of Heraclius. From the time at which the Paschal Chronicle concludes,§ we meet with no Greek historian for upwards of an hundred and fifty years. That a civilized and polished people should during so long an interval have remained without any contemporary records, is a fact almost unparalleled in the history of literature. Yet it seems to have been actually the case. It is not that we have lost the historians of the period: none appear to have existed. Modern learning has detected the name of scarcely a single¶ historian or annalist who wrote in the Greek language between the year 629 and the very end of the eighth century. Destitute, however, as we are, of contemporary guides, we are not altogether without the materials of history for this period. For the seventh century, which is properly enough distinguished as the age of the Monothelites, we possess many important original documents, the acts of several councils,** and the works of St. Maximus and his disciples; but for the eighth century, which has been named from the Iconoclasts, our information is exceedingly scanty. The decree of the great council held at Con * An account of the circumstances attending the publication of the Oxford edition of Malelas, (the sole contribution which has been made by English scholars to the materials of Byzantine history,) is given by Bishop Monk in his learned and interesting Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 25, et seq. + Hist. Liter. Ed. 1740, tom. i. p. 568-570. + Fabricius, Bibl. Græc. vi. 139. Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, i. 621. Gibbon says, "John Malala (in spite of Hody, Prolegom. No. 14, 39, Edit. Oxon.) lived soon after Justinian, (Jortin's Remarks, &c., vol. iv. p. 383.)" Decline and Fall, vol. vii. p. 63, note 1. Gibbon's own opinion on a point of Byzantine literature is always worth knowing; but the remark of Jortin to which he refers is little more than a stale sarcasm. This is the name under which it was published by Ducange (Paris, 1688). Before that time it was known as the Chronicon Alexandrinum-the title assigned by its first editor, the Jesuit Rader. Vide Fabr. Bibl. Græc. vi. 142. The Pratum Spirituale (Actuór) of Joannes Moschus (Bibl. PP. Græcolatin, tom. ii. 1057-1162. Cotelerii Eccles. Græc. Mon. tom. ii. p. 341-456,) belongs to this period. It is a work written in imitation of the Lausiac History of Palladius, and is of great value for the light it throws on the Monacbism of the east. ¶The patrician Trajanus wrote a short Chronicle (Xpovikov σUVTOμov) in the reign of Justinian II. But we know not whether he brought it down to his own time.-See Suidas in Tpalavós, and Labbe, Protrepticon, p. 52, edit. Paris. **Concil. Tom, vi. Labbe. stantinople in 754 against image-worship, which is preserved among the acts of the second council of Nice,* a few original letters, and the works of John of Damascus, are the only documents extant which illustrate the ecclesiastical history of the reigns of the first Iconoclast emperors of the east.t And for this latter period we have the greater reason to regret the want of contemporary historians, as, upon the revival of a taste for historical composition among the Greeks, the history of these remarkable times was written solely by bigoted image-worshippers, whose prejudices and violence will not allow us to repose our confidence on the accounts which they give of the principles and proceedings of their opponents. GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS was the first to break this long silence. This writer, who was σuykɛλλoç, or coadjutor,‡ of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, (784-806,) projected a chronological history of the world, from the creation to the end of the eighth century. His death prevented the completion of his undertaking. He proceeded only as far as the reign of Diocletian; but he wrote enough to shew that it was part of his design to incorporate in his work a pretty copious history of the church. The labours of Georgius Syncellus were, in consequence of the dying request of the author, continued by his friend THEOPHANES, in a work which is justly regarded as one of the most important in the series of Byzantine writers. Theophanes was himself a person of some importance in the ecclesiastical history of the Eastern Empire. His father, who was a member of a noble family, and had been employed in offices of trust and dignity by Constantine Copronymus, died while he was yet in his infancy. He was therefore educated under the care of his mother, and early derived from a domestic a wish to devote himself to a life of asceticism. But his splendid fortune rendered it difficult for him to indulge his inclination. Under the *Concil. Tom. vii. col. 396-533. + Considering the circumstances which I have mentioned, it is not at all surprising that the history of the first three Iconoclast emperors is encumbered with extraordinary difficulties. Whether the course which they pursued was founded upon conviction, or caprice, or policywhether they are to be applauded, or blamed, or pitied-what are the facts, what the exaggerations and embellishments, of the common story-are problems almost beyond the reach of criticism. But more might be done than has been done yet. It is a work, however, for which a critic is needed, not a disputant. Such writers as Maimbourg (Histoire de l'Hérésie des Iconoclastes) and Natalis Alexander (Hist. Eccles.) on the one side, and Spanheim (Historia Imag. Restituta) on the other, are but special pleaders. Walch, as usual, has made a noble collection of the evidence. (Historie der Kezereien, x.) The most recent work on the subject, that of Schlosser, (Geschichte der Bildersturmenden Kaiser, Frankfurt am Main, 1812,) has left the difficulties very much as it found them. It bears few traces of originality of thought, or investigation. The views are for the most part common-place, and the sentiments insipid. If any work on the subject should ever be attempted among ourselves, the writer should constantly remember the sneer of Gibbon-"On this head (i. e., image-worship) the protestants are so notoriously in the right, that they can venture to be impartial." Decline and Fall, vol. ix. p. 118, note, ed. 1820. Goar, in his preface to the Paris edition of Georgius Syncellus, explains the nature of this office, and states all that is known of his author. 4 Εκλογὴ χρονογραφίας συνταγεῖσα ὑπὸ Γεωργίου Μαναχου Συγκέλλου γεγονότος Ταρασίου Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Διοκλειτιανοῦ. Chronographia, p. 3, A. Edit. Venet. * Επει (Γεώργιος ὁ Σύγκελλος) τὸ τέλος τοῦ βίου τούτου κατέλαβε, καὶ εἰς πέρας ἀγαγεῖν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ κόπον οὐκ ἴσκυσεν, ἀλλὰ, καθώς προέφημεν, μέχρι Διοκλητιανοῦ ἀναγραψάμενος, τὸν τῇδε βίον κατέλυσε, καὶ πρὸς Κύριον εξεδήμησεν ἐν ὀρθοδόξῳ πίστει, ἡμῖν, ὡς γνησίοις φίλοις, τήν τε βιβλον ἣν συνέταξε ἀτελῆ καταλέλοιπε, καὶ ἀφορμὰς παρέσχε τὰ ἐλλείποντα ἀναπληρῶσαι. ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀμάθειαν οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες, καὶ τὸ στενὸν τοῦ λόγου, παρῃτούμεθα τοῦτο ποιήσαι, ὡς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς τὴν ἐγχείρησιν οὖσαν. αὐτὸς δέ παρακαλέσας ἡμᾶς πολλὰ μὴ ὀκνῆσαι, καὶ ἀτέλεστον καταλιπεῖν τὸ ἔργον, ἐβιάσατο ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἐλθεῖν. Theophanes in Proemio, p. 2. Edit. Venet. Iconoclast emperors, to be a monk was to be a rebel. He was compelled to marry the daughter of a favoured courtier; but, fortunately, the bride was not indisposed to her husband's views, and he embraced the opportunity which was soon after afforded by the regency of Irene (781), to retire altogether from the world, and employ his ample wealth in founding a monastery. He heartily co-operated in the reestablishment of the images. The circumstances under which he had embraced the monastic life, and his character for sanctity, procured him reputation; and when the Iconoclasts again triumphed (814), he had the opportunity of evincing his sincerity by enduring persecutions which obtained for him a place in the Menologium, and the title of Confessor.* When we consider the circumstances of his life, it would be almost unreasonable to expect to find in the historical works of Theophanes either moderation or candour. In his Chronographia, which extends from the beginning of the reign of Diocletian to the end of that of Michael Rhangabe (814), he makes no profession of impartiality, but denounces the Iconoclasts with unmeasured violence. For his information, however, he professes to follow preceding writers;† and he is most undoubtedly an ecclesiastical historian. NICEPHORUS, Patriarch of Constantinople from 806 to 815, one of the most able defenders of the images, also wrote a short history§ of the period between the death of Maurice (602) and the year 769-a work admired by Photius,|| and of which a great part may be regarded as belonging to ecclesiastical history. After the final triumph of the image worshippers in 842, GEORGIUS HAMARTOLUS Compiled a Chronicle¶¶ from the creation to the reign of Michael III.** It has not been printed, though several manuscripts * A contemporary life of St. Theophanes, and the office for the day (March 12) on which he is commemorated, have been printed before the Chronographia (Edit. Goar et Combefis, Paris, 1655, et Venet. 1729). From these I have compiled the particulars given above. The account of this writer given by Hankius (De Byzantin. Scriptoribus, p. 200-218) displays great industry and learning. † Αναγκασθέντες διὰ τὴν τούτου ὑπακοὴν, εἰς τὰ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, ἐγχειρήσαντες κόπον οὐ τὸν τυχόντα κατεβάλομεθα. πολλὰς γὰρ βίβλους καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκζητήσαντες, καὶ κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν ἐρευνήσαντες, τόδε χρονογραφεῖον ἀπὸ Διοκλητιανοῦ μέχρι τῆς βασιλείας Μιχαὴλ καὶ Θεοφυλάκτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τὰς τε βασιλείας καὶ τοὺς πατριάρχας, καὶ τὰς τούτων πράξεις σὺν τοῖς χρόνοις κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν συνεγραψάμεθα, οὐδὲν ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν συντάξαντες· ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἱστοριογράφων τε, καὶ λογογράφων ἀναλεξάμενοι, ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις τόποις τετάχομεν ἐκάστου χρόνου τὰς πράξεις ἀσυγχύτως KATATάTTOVTES. Theophanes in Prooemio, p. 2. When he speaks of having written nothing on his own authority, οὐδὲν ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν συντάξαντες, it is most natural to understand him as speaking in reference to the times beyond his own memory. The last forty years of his history must surely have been original. For the preceding times, when he had not loropio pápor, historians, he had Xoyoypapoi, by whom I understand him to mean the panegyrists of the saints, a class of writers that existed, as we have sufficient evidence to prove, even in the indolence and troubles of the seventh and eighth centuries. ✰ A copious account of St. Nicephorus (Junii die ii. Menolog. Græc. apud Thesaur. Monum. Basnage, tom. iv. p. 436) may be found in Hankius de Byzant. Scriptoribus, p. 223-244. See also Fabr. Bibl. Græc. vi. 295. § Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νικηφόρου Πατριάρχου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Ἱστορία σύντομος ἀπὸ Tns Mauρikiov Baoiλeias, edited by Petavius, among the Byzantine historians, Paris, 1618. A chronological work of the same author is printed with Georgius Syncellus. [ Ἔστι δὲ τὴν φρίσιν ἀπεριττός τε, καὶ σαφής. καλλιλεξίᾳ τε καὶ συνθήκῃ λόγου οὔτε λελυμένη, οὔτε αὖ πάλιν συμπεπιεσμένη περιέργως κεχρημένος· ἀλλ ̓ οἷᾳ ἂν χρήσαιτο ὁ ρητορικὸς ὡς ἀληθῶς Kai Téλelos ȧvnp. Bibl. Cod. lxvi. p. 49. * Χρονικόν σύντομον ἐκ διαφόρων χρονογράφων τε καὶ ἐξηγητῶν συλλεγέν, καὶ συντεθὲν ὑπὸ Γεωργίου Αμαρτωλοῦ μοναχοῦ. ** Ἕως τελευταίου Μιχαὴλ, υἱοῦ Θεοφίλου. Hody says it is brought down to the end of this reign. "Chronicon suum produxit non modo ad initium Michaelis Theophili F. quod decernunt doctorum nonnulli, sed usque ad ejus mortem, hoc est usque ad annum 866." Hodii Prolegomena ad Joannem Malalam, num. xli. Myself an exile from the university, I shall feel greatly indebted to any gentleman who will inform me, whether the Bodleian MS. which was used by Chilmead, of it are still in existence,* * but the account which has been given of it by Leo Allatius,+ who had prepared it for publication, will not allow us to doubt that it formed a history of the church. BERNARD, NICHOLAS, AND PETER. I. G. D. "Is it thus that you think fit to joke?" says Bernard to his friend Peter of Clugny, who, notwithstanding his title of "Venerable," and his being scarcely known in the present day except as a monk of the dark ages (that is, in the minds of many, a mere vegetation of overfed stupidity), was certainly a very facetious person "Is it thus that you think fit to joke? It is all very proper, and very friendly, provided only that it is not meant to take me in. Do not wonder at my saying this; for the very circumstance of your sudden and unexpected condescension makes me suspect it. It is not long ago that I wrote to salute your greatness with all due reverence, and you did not answer me a word. Not long before, also, I had written to you from Rome, and then too I did not get a single syllable. Do you wonder that on your recent return from Spain I did not intrude my nonsense upon you? At any rate, if it is a fault merely not to have written, whatever may have been the cause, surely some blame attaches to unwillingness, not to say contemptuous neglect, in answering. Observe what I might say on the score of justice (as you put me on that) were it not that I desire rather to meet returning kindness, than to retard it either by useless excuses or recrimination. But I have said this, that I may not keep shut up in my mind anything which I have not fairly spoken out; for that is inconsis tent with true friendship. As to the rest, since charity believeth all things, let every remnant of suspicion be removed. I rejoice that you have again warmed to the remembrance of former friendship, and even to the recalling of your friend, injured as he is. I come gladly as soon as I am called, happy that I am called, and have quite forgotten all my wrongs. Here am I, that used to be, and am, the servant of your holiness. I am thankful that I am excellently well-situated, being, as you are and described by Hody as being inter Volumina Græca MSS. Barocciana, num. 194 (vide Prolegom. ut supra) comes down to the end of the reign of Michael. * Fabr. Bibl, Græc. vi. 155. ...... + In his "Diatriba de Georgiis," Fabr. Bibl. Græc. tom. x. p. 641-650. Georgius alter Monachus, qui gaudet Hamartolus, Peccator Latine diceres, in sui contemptum : quod etiam plerique alii, sed Theophanes Syncelli continuator, notissimum in inscriptione operis, et ex Latinis etiam multi consueverunt, appellari. Chronicon et ipse scripsit ab exordio mundi ad Michaelem Theophili filium, quando ipse vitam agebat, ex variis, et diversis Chronographis, et interpretibus sacris contextum; Historia quidem non admodum opulentum, sed ad firmanda fidei capita, dissertationibus, et sanctorum patrum auctoritatibus longiusculum.. Historiam ad aliorum scriptorum loca obscura, et ardua explananda apprime necessariam nos e Græca lingua multis ab hinc annis vertimus in Latinam. Quæ utinam aliquando bono Reipublicæ literariæ lucem videat, p. 641, 642. He has printed the Prooemium as a specimen of the work. The author thus describes his materials :-Ἡμεῖς δὲ πάμπαν οἱ τῶν ἔνδον ἀνάξιοι δοῦλοι τῶν δούλων τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀμέτοχοι τῆς τῶν ἔξω φυσιολογίας, καὶ τεχνολογίας ἐξ ἐπιμέτρου πέλοντες, οὐ μόνον ἑλληνικῶν καὶ παλαιῶν ἱστοριῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ νέων, καὶ πολὺ μεταγενεστέρων, καὶ σεμνοπρεπῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἐλλογίμων ἐξηγήσεσι, καὶ χρονογραφίαις, ἱστορίαις τε καὶ διδασκαλίαις ψυχωφελέσιν ἐντετυχηκότες, ἀκριβῶς κατὰ τὸ ἡμῖν ἐφικτὸν, καὶ περιεσκεμμένον ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ, καὶ πίστει χρονικῇ, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ μικρὸν, καὶ πανευτελές βιβλιδάριον ἐξεθέμεθα. Ρ. 644. The difficulty of translating letters of this period is much increased by the titles; which, though common at that time, can now scarcely be put into English without some appearance of burlesque, not to say derision. This is the case with "your holiness," which some protestants know only as a title of the Pope, and suppose to belong exclusively to him. The thing, however, was common, and sufficient specimens might be furnished from the correspondence of Bernard and Peter alone to shew that it was so. Geoffry of Chalons writes to Peter, "rescribat humilitati meæ Sanctitas |