ABSTRACT
The case of Byzantine chronicles and histories is suggestive in this respect, because the aforementioned frailty is present in most studies of Byzantine literature. Modern taxonomies are undoubtedly useful, as long as we keep in mind that they are made by us and not by the Byzantines themselves, and that we should utilize them as instruments, not as ready-made conclusions reflecting the Byzantine mentality – no one would part with Marxist and structural historiography, positivism and micro-history, or economic history. It is interesting to observe Whitby’s arguments, as he has an excellent knowledge of Byzantine literature. By dividing the historiographical works into three categories (histories, ecclesiastical histories, chronicles), Whitby raises the question of the disappearance of a cultivated public, which ceased to cultivate the traditional genres.
