Scriptores post Theophanem: Normative Aspects of Imperial Historiography in Tenth-Century Byzantium

Abstract

Tenth-Century ByzantiumYannis Stouraitis A comparative approach to the social role of history in the construction and communication of collective identity in Latin Europe, Byzantium, and Islam towards the end of the first millennium seems to be facilitated by the common cognitive character of historiography in these three cultural spheres. It is generally accepted that the so-called Western historiographical tradition was marked by the role of the person. An author wrote his or her work of history for other persons with the aim to provide them with knowledge of the past, the image of which remained constantly open to scrutiny and reformulation. 1 In contrast, in the East Asian historiographical tradition history writing was principally considered as an official, state-run task. The ruling power employed public servants to anonymously write history based on facts provided by state documents. The latter were to be destroyed after the conclusion of the work in order to prevent any revision of what was intended to become the final, official version of the past published under the seal of state authority. The emperor was not allowed to see the text before it had taken its original final form. 2 1 Liakos, 'Γνωστική ή δεοντολογική ιστοριογραφία ' , 'Cognitive Historiography' ,