ABSTRACT
The distinction between chronicles and works of history forms an integral part of our understanding of Byzantine literature. The assumptions underlying the literary identity of Byzantine chronicles frequently go unchallenged, yet the implications of these assumptions for our understanding and appreciation of Byzantine literature call for special consideration. The study of the Roman Latin chronicle traditions by Burgess and Kulikowski, which appeared after this chapter was completed, has identified a number of issues that are of paramount importance for our understanding of the history of this genre between the first century bc and the sixth century ad. 1 The present chapter will offer some additional considerations on this subject. On the one hand, it examines several major attempts by historians of Byzantine literature to define the identity of chronicles as a distinct group of texts within the larger body of Byzantine historiographical writing and, on the other, it tries to identify various types of evidence offered by the texts themselves that can be used either to cast doubt on or to corroborate the hypothesis that chronicles possessed an identity of their own in the eyes of Byzantine authors and readers.
