and it falls to his lot to become custodian of his former chief when arrested on suspicion of conspiracy.[1] He had no biographer, and of his private life and connections nothing is known except that he was a native of Caesarea, in Palestine.[2]
As literature, all other Byzantine authors are practically negligible, but their value as sources of historical information has been sufficiently evidenced in the course of this work. At no subsequent period did a second Procopius arise, but a few words may be said about his immediate continuator, Agathias. He was an advocate by profession, in modern phrase, a briefless barrister, whose tastes were literary rather than forensic. He attempted poetry with slight success, and finally hoped to find his vocation in writing history in emulation of Procopius.[3] Not being a man of action like his predecessor, nor occupant of a post which enabled him to base his narrative mainly on personal experience, he wrote as a student rather than as an observer of events. He is thus better acquainted with books than with men, more widely read than Procopius, but studied, diffuse, deficient in personal convictions, and lacking in historical insight. His short history, which was interrupted by death, is, however, invaluable as being a sole source; and it is unlikely that, had he not undertaken it, anyone else would have filled his place and done it better.[4]*
- ↑ Jn. Malala, loc. cit. The name was not uncommon, so that the identification is only highly probable.
- ↑ De Bel. Pers., i, 1.
- ↑ See his own remarks, i, introd., iii, 1. For an expanded account and appreciation of Byzantine writers, see Krumbacher's Gesch. d. Byz. Lit., 2nd ed., Munich, 1896; also the
