The Historical Scholarship of John Bagnell Bury Huxley, George Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1976; 17, 1; ProQuest pg. 81

The Historical Scholarship of 
John Bagnell Bury 

George Huxley 

I T IS OBVIOUS, even to a cursory student of Irish history, that many 
persons of intellectual distinction were members of Trinity Col­
lege, Dublin, in the nineteeth century. The most eminent of them, 

without doubt, was the inventor of the non-commutative algebra of 
quaternions, William Rowan Hamilton, who in early youth had com­
bined a powerful facility in the study of languages with skill in rapid 
calculation. In the physical sciences an honoured place is also held by 
G. F. Fitzgerald, whose supposition that the length of a measuring 
apparatus is not an absolute property of it but depends upon its 
motion, explained the failure of experiments intended to determine 
the velocity of the earth relative to the other planets and led to the 
theory of relativity. 

In the humanities, too, there were strong performers: one thinks, 
for example, of the rationalist historian of morals, W. E. F. Lecky; of 
the witty ancient historian Mahaffy, who in middle age turned success­
fully to papyrology; and of Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, the coeditor of 
Cicero's letters and an elegant composer in Latin and Greek. Lecky's 
writing has classic quality, but I do not hesitate to assert that the 
Trinity scholar whose work has the most enduring value in the annals 
of historiography was Bury. 

John Bagnell Bury, the son of the Reverend Edward John Bury, 
rector of Clontibret, Co. Monaghan, was born on 16 October 1861. 

His mother, who had been a Miss Rogers of Monaghan, is said to have 
been a very clever woman and very well-read. The boy was, like 
Rowan Hamilton, an apt pupil, having begun Latin with his father at 
four; at ten, in school at Foyle College in Derry, he surprised Tyrrell, 
who, when examining in Greek grammar there, «was unable to 
puzzle John Bury."! 

1 N. H. Baynes, A Bibliography of the Works of]. B. Bury compiled with a Memoir (Cambridge 
1929) 1 [hereafter, BAYNES]. R. C. Bury, the editor of Plato, was a brother of J. B. Bury. who 
often helped him (see R. G. Bury, The Philebus of Plato [Cambridge 1897] vii). 

81 



82 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

Having entered Trinity in 1878, he distinguished himself as an 
undergraduate by assisting Mahaffy with an edition of Euripides' 
Hippolytos; this was a genuinely cooperative undertaking, since Bury 
gathered matter for the book and drafted the notes.2 At this time, 1881, 
it would have been reasonable to suppose that the brilliant student 
would develop into a traditional editor of classical Greek texts. 
Mahaffy's lectures, however, had already stimulated his interest in 
ancient history, and a further incitement towards the professional 
study of history came from reading Edward Augustus Freeman's 
History of Federal Government,S a work Bury was later to edit. This 
widening of interests did not cause him to abandon philology: on the 
contrary, Bury's earliest papers, published in Bezzenberger's Beitrlige 
and elsewhere, as well as his translations into Latin and Greek, reveal 
the progress of his philological and linguistic studies, which bore fruit 
in his two editions of Pindar, the Nemeans of 1890 and the Isthmians of 
1892. BUry always insisted that Latin and Greek were an excellent 
training for a historian, since the historian must be a critic of texts 
and historical reasoning based upon insecure textual foundations was 
flawed. The doctrine was clearly stated by him in an article published 
in 1906, but he had thought it out as soon as he turned to historical 
writing in 1885: "it is ... a fundamental principle in historical work 
that philological criticism (literary and quellenkritisch) is the neces­
sary preparation for a satisfactory use of authorities. Documents are 
not ready for the constructive operations of the historian till they 
have been submitted to the analytical operations of the philologist."4 
It was this insistence upon working outwards from the sources that 
led him to learn Russian in 1887 and, later on, other eastern European 
languages; without access to original texts he did not feel himself to 
be a competent investigator. No doubt the polyglot Mahaffy had en­
couraged him in his early determination to have a thorough grasp of 
academic German, a qualification which gave Bury an advantage over 
some of the best British classical scholars of his time. 

Before 1889 the extent of Bury's historical knowledge was evident 

• W. B. Stanford and R. B. McDowell, Malutffy, A Biography of an Anglo-Irishman (London 
1971) 172-73. 

• Bury, Scottish Review 19 (1892) 29-30, quoted by Baynes 65. See also the Rev. R. H. Mur­
ray's "Memoir" p. xiii, prefixed to Bury's posthumously published History of~ Papacy in 
tM 19th Century (London 1930). 

'''The Treatise De Administrando ImperiO," BZ 15 (1906) 517-77, at 517. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 83 

from articles on topics as diverse as the Lombards and Venetians in 
Euboea5 and the chronology of the sixth-century historian Theo­
phylaktos Simokattes,6 and his careful reading of early mediaeval 
Latin chronicles is revealed by a parody entitled Anonymi Dublinensis 
Fragmentum; published in ·the periodical Kottabos in 1888, the piece 
describes, with dry and wry humour, Irish politics of the time.? Seen 
through Bury's Latin, the troubles have, for us too, a contemporary 
aspect: "sed in Hibernia seditiones foventur, quibusdam non patienti­
bus se ab alienigenis gubernari." 

Bury, then, had been gaining a reputation both as historian and 
philologist. But in 1889 no one can have been quite ready for the fact 
that in five years Bury had made himself a leading exponent of late 
antiquity and the early middle ages. In that year Macmillan published 
a two-volume work, consisting of over one thousand pages in all, 
entitled A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (A.D. 

395 to A.D. 800). In clear and measured prose and with deep scholarship 
infused by critical judgement, a Fellow of Trinity, no more than 
twenty-eight years old, maintained the magisterial thesis, which the 
author continued to expound for the rest of his life, of continuity. No 
empire fell in 476. "Nothing can be easier than to apprehend that the 
Roman Empire endured, one and undivided, however changed and 
di~membered, from the first century B.C. to the fifteenth century A.D., 

and that from the year 800 forward we distinguish it as Eastern, on 
account of the foundation of a rival Empire, which also called itself 
Roman, in the West."8 Not only did Bury demonstrate the continuity; 
he vindicated the claims of New Rome to serious study, in this follow­
ing the pioneer Finlay against the prejudices of Voltaire, Gibbon, 
Lecky and others. "Gibbon," we are told (I p. viii), "hurried over the 
history of the Emperors later than the seventh century with contemp­
tuous celerity, and his great authority has much to answer for"; 
indeed Bury himself did much to reverse the imbalance in The Decline 
and Fall when he came to edit Gibbon, who at least had the merit of 
recognising that the Roman Empire lasted-in theory at any rate-

5 JHS 7 (1886) 309-52,jHS 8 (1887) 194-213,jHS 9 (1888) 91-117. 

• ERR 3 (1888) 310-15. 
7 N.S. Trinity Term, p.64. Bury comments: "Latinitatis ratio indicat hoc chronicon sexto 

saeculo post Christum scriptum esse." 
• A History of the Later Roman Empirefrom Arcadius to Irene (A.D. 395 to A.D. 800) I (London 

1889, repro Amsterdam 1966) vii-viii. 



84 THE I-llSTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

until the fifteenth century. (The final year should be identified with 
the fall of the last Grand Komnenos in Trebizond in 1461 rather than 
with the capture of Constantinople in 1453.) 

Bury's pages show how the Monaghan protestant had already be­
come a rationalist, as he was to remain for the rest of his days till his 
death in Rome in 1927. In this wonderfully erudite pair of volumes the 
young freethinker displays fervour as well as detachment. The dis­
cussion of eighth-century iconoclasm, for example, shows Bury eager 
to present Leo ill and his son Constantine V as enemies of obscuran­
tism; Leo, indeed, is called a «knight-errant against superstition" (II 
435). In the opinion of Bury, the emperor's antagonism towards the 
cult of the Virgin points to a connexion with the Paulicians, and 
Mohammedanism, «though freer from superstition and materialism 
than a degraded Christianity," was a less potent influence upon him, 
no matter what the reformer's opponents may have said about Leo 
<the Saracen-minded' (II 431). Bury tries to go behind the universal 
hostility of the extant, iconodule, sources to discover the significance 
of Leo's reforms, and though much is still disputable about the origins 
of iconoclasm, the literary portrait of a stalwart general and capable 
administrator is compelling: HWhat gave the reforming spirit of Leo 
its peculiar complexion," Bury writes (II 411), «was the fact that he did 
not content himself with renovating each branch of the administra­
tion separately, but attempted to cut away the root of the evil. He 
improved the discipline and efficiency of the army, he restored the 
majesty of law and justice, he reformed the police control, and he 
attended assiduously to the financial and commercial interests of the 
Empire; but he did much more than this. He essayed to eradicate the 
prevailing superstition by the iconoclastic policy, which has made him 
so famous or notorious." Equally characteristic of Bury's secular 
rationalism is his account of the edict of the seventh-century Emperor 
Cons tans II called the Type. In the midst of the monothelite dispute, 
the emperor ordered that no one should declare Christ to have had 
one will or two wills. «The document," Bury comments, «certainly 
displays the true spirit of imperial indifference which cares more for 
the State than for the Church." It was, as he says (II 292-93), a Laodi­
cean judgement implying that the one doctrine (monotheletism) was 
at least as good as the other, the dyothe1etism approved by Pope 
Theodore. 

But to Bury theological disputes were not of central interest. His 



GEORGE HUXLEY 85 

constant theme was the role of New Rome in defending and pre­
serving the idea of the Empire. Not only was Constantinople a bul­
wark against danger from the Persians and Saracens-CfMaurice and 
Heraclius, Constantine IV and Leo the Isaurian were the successors of 
Themistocles and Africanus"; but New Rome kept Graeco-Roman 
civilisation alive until the West was ready to receive it again (II 536-

38). In the role of preserver, New Rome was more significant than the 
Old. 

It was the later Roman Empire, whose system of autocracy had 
been adopted by Aurelian, Diocletian and Constantine from the Par­
thians and more remotely from the Persian Achaemenids and the 
Seleucids of the Greek East, which most steadily engaged Bury's 
attention. Rome's conquest of the Seleucids and Ptolemies did not 
attract him, and because he regarded the principate as essentially un­
creative, relatively little of his scholarly effort was devoted to the 
period between Augustus and Diocletian.9 "It is a persistence of 
Achaemenid tradition through the Parthian period rather than a 
persistence of Seleucid tradition through the Roman principate that 
accounts for the similarities which are noted between the Roman 
autocrats and the Macedonian autocrats."lO Thus the continuity of 
New Rome could be traced back to the Hellenistic Age and thence, in 
part, to Greece. In fact, Bury's neglect of the Roman principate is one 
aspect of his Hellenism. 

The passion for Hellas is strikingly evident in his work on Pindar, a 
poet to whom he felt a special devotion. In his two editions the inter­
pretations are marred by oversubtle attempts, following the example 
of Mezger, to detect verbal assonances within the odesll-a system of 
criticism which Bury himself tacitly abandoned when he came more 
than thirty years later to write on Pindar in the Cambridge Ancient 
History.12 What is of lasting value in the book is the historical vision 
which enabled him to picture the poet within the context of late 

D Baynes 17. 
10 Bury in The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge 1923) 15. 
11 Note. however. David C. Young's insistence that "To look upon Bury's intricacies and 

excesses as a waste of time is an inexcusable mistake. There is much sound criticism in 
Bury. and it is not difficult to distinguish the sound from the unsound": cf "Pindaric 
Criticism" in Pindaros und Bakchylides. edd. W. M. Calder ill and J. Stern (Darmstadt 
1970) 30. 

11 CAH IV (1926) 513. 



86 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

archaic Greek society. Bury's eager imagination is aflame with the 
same youthful spirit which caused him to admire Swinburne for his 
praise of mankind, and we are some way here from his solemn 
asseveration in the Cambridge Inaugural Lecture of 1903 wherein 
the Professor of Modern History proclaimed that history was a 
science, "no less and no more." In much of his work, there is a poet 
trying to come out of the scholarly critic, but the internal conflict was 
relieved by verse composition in Latin and Greek; it was also released 
by the exercise of historical imagination. Pindar, Bury proclaims, 
"consorted continually with the great of the earth, he moved among 
the strong and the beautiful, where none was 'sick or sorry', he de­
rived his inspiration from success, being himself too intellectually 
successful in realising his desire of perfection. Kingdom and victory, 
nobility and wealth, strength and comely limbs, ay'\a{a and€VcppocvV7J, 
inherit his palaces of music. "13 

A less obvious, but equally significant, feature of Bury's developing 
historical imagination was his sense of place; an appreciation of land­
scape would have developed early in a boy brought up in the Mona­
ghan countryside, and it was that same sense which led him in 
maturity to edit Freeman's Historical Geography of Europe.u To show 
how Bury in 1892 was able to envisage Pindar in place as well as in 
time (as Wilamowitz also did), here is a passage from the brilliant 
essay on Aeginetan history prefixed to the commentary on the 
Isthmian Odes. "By that geographical necessity, which in politics is 
imperative, an ambitious city in Attica was doomed to collide with 
Aegina, just as, to compare a case on a larger scale, an ambitious city 
in Italy was doomed to interfere with Sicily. That homely, telling 
expression 'the eye-sore of the Piraeus' becomes more significant when 
one realises 'the conspicuous island', S,a7Tp€7Tta vacov. as Pindar called 
it, perhaps not only in a figurative sense but to suggest a physical 
feature, the pre-eminence of its high Mountain-the "Opoc-far seen 
in the bay and ranging above the other hills of the neighbouring coasts 
and islands."15 In his later writing Bury rarely allowed his imagination 
the freedom he had permitted himself in writing about Pindar and 
Aegina. The rapture passed, and instead the power of analysis grew; 

11 The NemeJln Odes of Pindltr (London 1890) xxxi. 
1& 3rd ed. (London 1903). 
11 The Isthmian Odes (London 1892) xviii. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 97 

but the feeling for places remained, and the joy could not be forgotten. 
Pindar, Bury admits, had his moments of sorrow, hut the note of 
ayAata "distinguishes him, even among the poets of Greece. He seems 
to come always with the Graces, cheerfully-cvv XaptCLV EJLOAOV. as he 
once says. And he makes us fancy him as living in a bright place-the 
light reasonably tetnpered by thoughts of death cotning in rarely, at 
pensive moments, and only making life seem the more precious­
and enjoying, as a being in full harmony with its environment, the 
daily transient pleasures, not spoiled for him by their brevity-O TL 

TEP1TVOV ~c/>aJLEpoV (UWKWV. a natural unconscious Cyrenaic."16 
The sense of place strengthened a determination to travel. In prep­

aration for his History of Greece he journeyed with his wife in 1895 
to Athens, Euboea and Sparta, and an expedition in the company of 
R. C. Bosanquet, who was to become in 1900 Director of the British 
School at Athens, took the historian to the North. From Lamia they 
travelled to Thermopylae escorted by a guard of soldiers provided by 
the chief of police on instructions from the Minister of the Interior. 
Bury had refused to believe in danger from brigandage until an official 
shrugging his shoulders had remarked, «As you like: the latest news 
is that he hoiled a man in oil." Bury, according to Bosanquet, "had a 
thought-out programme and adhered to it with placid obstinacy 
which made my work of piloting him easy. He knew little about travel 
in Greece, hut faced discomfort cheerfully so long as he saw what he 
wanted. "17 

Considered statistically, Bury's History of Greece is the most success­
ful of his books-the first edition was published by Macmillan in 
1900 and the fourth, edited by Russell Meiggs, in 1975. In recognition 
of the groundwork of the book, Trinity had already made Bury Pro­
fessor of Greek in 1898 and he was, at the same time, allowed by the 
College to retain his chair of Modern History, which he had occupied 
since 1893. The full title is a History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the 
Great; throughout, the work is balanced and sober without being dull. 
I can trace my earliest interest in Greek history to Bury, and there 
must be many scholars who can do the same, with equal gratitude. 
The vast increase in our knowledge of Greek prehistory has entailed 
complete rewriting of the earlier chapters, but we may say of the 

11 op.cit. (supra n.15) xii. 
17 Bosanquet in Baynes 17-21. See also Bury, «The Campaign of Artemisium and Ther· 

mopylae," BSA 2 (1895/6) 83, for a reference to the journey to Lamia. 



88 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

book what Bury wrote of The Decline and Fall: "That Gibbon is behind 
date in many details and in some departments of importance, simply 
signifies that we and our fathers have not lived in an absolutely in­
competent world. But in the main things, he is still our master, above 
and beyond 'date'."18 

Here are two examples of Bury's balance and sobriety. The Peace of 
Kallias between Athens and Persia and the character of the Athenian 
democratic politician, Kleon, are objects of continuing debate amongst 
historians of Greece. The main difficulty about the Peace is that 
Thucydides does not mention it, but Bury's account of the events of 
449/8 B.C. remains as defensible now as it was in 1900. He emphasizes 
that "the Great King would never have consented to treat either with 
a Greek city or a federation of Greek cities as an equal. And he 
certainly did not stoop to the humiliation of formally acknowledging 
the independence of the Greek cities of Asia. It was enough that he 
should graciously promise to make certain concessions, but whatever 
were the diplomatic forms of the agreement, both parties meant 
peace, and peace was maintained."19 Secondly, Kleon, who from 
Aristophanes onwards has been the butt of much abuse: Bury's fair­
ness towards the successors of Pericles, which Grote would have 
approved, is plain in the following passage, and Kleon at least he 
would not have described as a self-made man of the people if he had 
been alert to the fact that Kleainetos, Kleon's father, had been rich 
enough to own a workshop of slave-tanners.20 "Cleon and the other 
statesmen of this type," says Bury, "are especially interesting as the 
politicians whom the advanced democracy produced and educated. It would 
be a grievous error and injustice to suppose that their policy was 
determined by mere selfish ambition or party malice. Nearly all we 
know of them is derived from the writings of men who not only con­
demned their policy but personally disliked them as low-born up­
starts. Yet, though they may have been vulgar and offensive in their 
manners, there is abundant evidence that they were able, and there 
is no proof that they were not generally honest, politicians. To those 
who regretted the dignity of Pericles, the speech of Cleon or Hyper-

18 The History of till Decline and Pall of till Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. Ed. by J. B. 
Bury, I (London 1896) lxvii. 

It I quote from the two-volume edition of 1902 (I 391). Bury's formulation of the terms of 
peace is modified in the 4th ed. (1975) p.222. 

IU J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied FamiliEs (Oxford 1971) 318. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 89 

bolus may have seemed violent and coarse; but Cleon himself could 
hardly have outdone the coarseness and the violence of the person­
alities which Demosthenes heaped on Aeschines in a subsequent 
generation. "21 

Bury's objectivity is evident from the very beginning: in the preface 
to the first edition, he warns the reader about the false perspective 
resulting from the partial nature of our sources for the history of 
archaic Greece. Archaeology has, since then, done much to fill gaps, 
but it remains true that our knowledge of the eastern Greeks in the 
age of their enlightenment consists of disconnected glimpses: " ... the 
false impression is produced that the history of Hellas in the seventh 
and sixth centuries consisted merely or mainly of the histories of 
Sparta and Athens and their immediate neighbours. Darkness also 
envelopes the growth of the young Greek communities of Italy and 
Sicily during the same period. The wrong," Bury continues, "unfor­
tunately, cannot be righted by a recognition of it. Athens and Sparta 
and their fellows abide in possession. Les absents ont toujours tort." 

The preface includes, as one would expect, an acknowledgement to 
Mahaffy, and also, most interestingly, to Wilamowitz, whose brilliant 
combination of textual and historical scholarship was warmly 
approved by Bury, himself an analytic philologist who became a con­
structive historian. Baynes (23 n.l) was later to ask why Bury did not 
carry the history of Greece down to 220 B.C. or even later. Part of the 
answer to the question must be that in 1900 Bury felt himself not yet 
to have done the necessary spadework in the tangled records of the 
early Hellenistic age, but I suspect that he also considered Freeman's 
work on federal government, the second edition of which he had 
produced in 1893 with the title History of Federal Government in Greece 
and Italy, already to have covered much of the ground, in its dis­
cussion of the Achaean and Aetolian leagues. 

His essay of 1923 on the Hellenistic age22 shows how original a book 
on the successors of Alexander from his pen would have been, but in 
1900 there were more pressing tasks, amongst them his Life of St 
Patrick and his Harvard lectures, The Ancient Greek Historians (1908). 
The latter book followed logically from the History of Greece and 
again reveals the influence of Wilamowitz. Bury asks how Greek 

21 op.cit. (supra n.19) I 455 (4th edition ed. R. Meiggs [London 1975] 261, except that 
Meiggs does not keep Bury's italics). 

22 op.cit. (supra n.lO). 



90 THE I-llSTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

historical writing originated, what did the Greeks know, or think they 
knew, about their past, and who were the forerunners of Herodotos 
and Thucydides. He traces the growth of antiquarianism, and in com­
pany with Wilamowitz, emphasizes the importance of local histories. 
The story is taken down to Poseidonios and thence to Greek influences 
upon Roman historical writing, all the way from epic poetry, which 
for the earliest Greeks was the equivalent of history. In the eighth and 
last chapter Bury turns to the philosophy of history, to the idea of 
development and the idea of progress, the notions of Turgot and Con­
dorcet being contrasted with ancient concepts of cyclical recurrence. 
Over the entire book there broods the austere figure of Thucyd­
ides, the founder of <political' history, but some of the most attrac­
tive pages concern Herodotus, whose work" assumed the character of 
a study in the history of civilisation."23 Bury is charmed by what he 
takes to be the quiet scepticism of the Halicarnassian about divine 
matters: "He says, as it were, to the gods and heroes, <Please do not 
be angry with me-supposing you to exist. But at this time of day, 
you know, one really must draw the line somewhere'. On the other 
hand," Bury continues (p.49), "he says to the infidels who disbelieve 
in oracular prophecy, <1 know you will think me credulous. But still 
in this case the evidence is so remarkably clear that I do not see my 
way to resisting it'." Bury was far more patient than many of his con­
temporaries were with Herodotean anecdotes, because he appreciated 
their literary quality. "He had a wonderful flair for a good story; and 
the gracious garrulity with which he tells historical anecdotes is one 
of the charms which will secure him readers till the world's end." 
"Gibbon," Bury adds (p.57), "happily observed that Herodotus 'some­
times writes for children and sometimes for philosophers'; the anec­
dotes he relates often appeal to both." The Harvard audience must 
have been charmed too, and the quality of Bury's pioneering work 
was at once recognised by the young Felix Jacoby, who was to become 
the leading exponent of Greek historiography, in his review: "Ein 
gutes Buch, dessengleichen wir in Deutschland leider noch nicht 
haben." The book, says the reviewer, deserves to be translated; what 
Bury states about Thucydides is the best that Jacoby has read 
about him for a long time; the treatment of the Roman historians, 
however, ~s neither fish nor meat; and Jacoby thinks that Bury has 

23 The Ancient Greek Historians (London 1908, repro New York 1958) 78 and 45 [hereafter, 
AGH]. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 91 

misunderstood the spirit in which Herodotus wrote; but the prevail­
ing judgement is warmly favourable.24 The book is still, in my 
opinion, the clearest and most satisfying introduction to Greek 
historiography, even if later work, especially on the fragments of lost 
historians, has rendered parts of the discussion inadequate. 

The more general problem of the nature of historical enquiry had 
often engaged Bury's attention. In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge 
in 1903 he had spoken about the scope of history. The exclusive idea 
of political history, descending from Thucydides and Ranke, had, he 
thought, been giving way to a larger conception of historical study, 
originating with Herodotos. This wider view will embrace all manifes­
tations of human activity-institutions, law, art, economics-and 
historians will have to be alert to the interconnexions while pursuing 
their own specialisms. Bury's conclusion that "though history may 
supply material for literary art or philosophical speculation, she is 
herself a science, no less and no more"2a left him open to misunder­
standing. Some thought that he cared not for the form in which his­
torical results were presented, though anyone who had pondered his 
consistently urbane prose should have been aware that he knew the 
writing of history, as distinct from the technique of research, to be an 
art. Bury was quick to correct the misconception: in a note in his book 
on St Patrick26 he repeats that history is Wissenschaft, but denies that 
"the presentation of the results of historical research is not an art, 
requiring the tact and skill in selection and arrangement which belong 
to the literary faculty." A respect in which history resembles natural 
science is the necessity of hypotheses for the advancement of know­
ledge; this is especially so in ancient and mediaeval history, where the 
materials are so often inadequate. Bury agreed with his predecessor 
at Cambridge, Lord Acton, in regarding the study of modern times 
as "the most pressing of all," not least because some hope of progress 
was assured by the abundance of records. On the other hand, Bury 
continued to be drawn to antiquity and the middle ages because of the 
great intellectual challenge presented by the fragmentary testi-

24 BPW 29 (1909) 419-29 (=Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung, ed. H. Bloch 
[Leiden 1956J 65-72). 

25 "The Science of History," repro in Selected Essays of]. B. Bury, ed. Harold Temperley 
(Cambridge 1930) 22. 

26 op.cit. (infra n.3l) viii n.1. 



92 THE I-llSTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

monies of mediaeval manuscripts, ancient papyri, inscriptions and 
archaeology. 

To see how Bury sifted modern sources to take full advantage of 
their bounty we may turn to a little-read work of his on Vatican 
politics. The posthumous book on the papacy from 1864 to 187827 deals 
with theological issues far beyond my competence, but it is not 
necessary to be a theologian in order to appreciate the detailed nar­
rative, which moves forward, with all the dramatic skill of a carefully 
wrought detective story, from Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors to the 
triumph, or catastrophe, of the proclamation of papal Infallibility in 
1870. Bury had read all the relevant continental journalism and doc­
trinalliterature of the time, and so was able to trace in detail-and 
with distaste-the diplomatic moves, the shifts of opinion, and the 
role of the Jesuits. To Bury, the historian, the traditional claims of the 
Church were fundamentally antihistorical because they failed to take 
note of the differences between the early Church, the mediaeval 
Church and the modern Church. He argues (p.49) that the Dogma of 
the Immaculate Conception proclaimed in 1854 was already an asser­
tion of the infallibility and sovranty of the Pope, since dogma could 
be, and had then been, defined on the basis of tradition alone. After 
1854 the definition of Infallibility became necessary, for there was 
always the "haunting nightmare" that Pius IX's act might subse­
quently be considered an Husurpation." Manning's statement that the 
definition ofInfallibility mattered little to Pius is dismissed as "simply 
false" (p.53). 

Even the most dedicated ultramontanist may today smile at the 
pawky irony in Bury's delineation of the interacting characters at the 
Council of 1870. Of Monsignor Pie: "The calibre of the Bishop of 
Poitiers may be estimated by one of his arguments. The Apostle 
Peter, he said, had been crucified with his head downwards, so that 
his head bore his body: even so the Pope is the head who bears up the 
Church which is the body; but evidently it is he who bears that is 
Infallible, and not that which is borne" (p.122). To Cardinal Schwar­
zenburg, who brought forward objections to Infallibility, the Pope 
said, "I, Giovanni Maria Mastai, believe in Infallibility. As Pope I have 
nothing to ask from the Council; the Holy Ghost will enlighten it" 
(p.83)-words which after Vatican II come as from a distant age, 

27 See n.3 supra. The book was edited from lectures delivered in 1908. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 93 

though in fact they were spoken just over a century ago. Cardinal 
Guidi, who had declared that separate Personal Infallibility of the 
Pope was not known till the fourteenth century and that a Pope had 
never condemned a heresy by his own authority, was shouted down 
in the Counal; and when he was reproved by the Holy Father, Guidi 
told the Pope that his own words had been in accordance with scrip­
ture, the general teaching of the Church, and tradition; to which the 
Pope retorted, "La Tradizione son' 10" (pp.123-24). Bury's account of 
the enforced resignation of Audu, the aged Chaldaean Patriarch of 
Babylon, whose punishment prompted Georges Darboy, Archbishop 
of Paris, to say, HIt is simply a robber synod" (pp.lOD-Ol), shows how 
deep was the pain felt by many faithful ecclesiastics at the conduct of 
the Council. The Roman Curia crushed the minority by numbers, 
though the minority represented a population of some ninety millions 
(p.105), and Newman, now deeply troubled in spirit, was moved to 
write to Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham that the definition would 
cause pain of conscience to multitudes: "What have we done to be 
treated as the faithful have never been treated before? When has a 
definition of doctrine de fide been a luxury of devotion and not a stern 
painful necessityr' On the 2nd and 3rd of July the French, German 
and Austrian members of the minority declared their intention of 
speaking no more. Too soon: for a French bishop was told by tele­
gram from Paris, "Hold out yet a few days. Providence is sending an 
unexpected help." The Franco-Prussian war soon came, but the 
French had already lost the right to speak (p.125). As a piece of his­
torical reporting, Bury's narrative is magnificent, and in an ecumeni­
cal age his study of ecclesiastical diplomacy is still of practical 
relevance. 

In Bury's opinion the history of the Papacy was the reverse of the 
history of intellectual freedom. In his book A History of the Freedom of 
Thought (London 1914) he wrote with passion (and not always with 
accuracy), forgetting the Gibbonian principle of being zealous only in 
opposition to zeal. Bury argued that liberty of thought and discussion 
is a supreme condition of progress, and he expresses the opinion­
astonishing in view of subsequent events-that freedom is now 
assured to mankind forever (p.248), though he admits that the Russian 
censorship is notorious (p.250), and concedes that a revolution in­
spired by faith in formulas would almost certainly lead to coercion­
as indeed happened in Russia from 1917 onwards. Bury never lived to 



94 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

see the autocracy of Stalin nor the Nazi atrocities nor the horrors of 
'brainwashing', but it is difficult to believe that his serene optimism 
could have survived the wickednesses of the 'thirties and later 
decades. The book was written in haste, so that insufficient care was 
taken with references (like Wilamowitz, he was sometimes over­
reliant on his fine memory), and there were even deficiencies in 
historical perspective. All this was eagerly pointed out by Hilaire 
BeHoc,28 who complained that Bury's academic position was being 
used to give his criticisms of the Catholic Church a respectability they 
did not deserve. The catalogue of errors is a long one and there are 
distortions-for example, the rather patronising dismissal of St 
Thomas Aquinas as the constructor of an "ingenious" system of 
philosophy (p.69); the book must therefore be regarded as unworthy 
of Bury, no matter how sincere its author was in writing it. Zeal, 
regrettably, also led him into false generalisations: such, for instance, 
was the indignant assertion that the prohibition of Galileo's works and 
their retention upon the Index until 1835 was, during the interval. 
"fatal to the study of natural science in Italy" (p.90). This brought the 
curt comment from BeHoc: " ... one might suppose that Professor 
Bury had never heard of Torricelli. let us say, of Volta, or of Gal­
vani."29 The zeal against political Catholicism shows that Bury was, 
in many respects, still a child of the Anglo-Irish ascendancy. and the 
impression is not diminished when we consider his attitudes to Ireland 
and Irish history. 

Late in life, at a luncheon party in Cambridge in 1922. Bury was 
talking about Ireland. With a smile he said, "The Irish-except for 
the descendants of the English of the Pale and of the Scotch in Ulster, 
the rest of them are simply Hottentots." Many a revealing word is 
spoken in jest: we see here the lasting impress of Bury's upbringing 
and perhaps also a malign consequence of tutorials with Mahaffy, 
who never lost an opportunity to denigrate the aspirations of eeho­
philes and to deplore what he regarded as the parochialism and intro­
version of the Irish national movement. The notion of the Pale was 
attractive to the historian of the Later Roman Empire: in 1889, 
writing about the battle between Aetius and Attila at the Catalaunian 
Field, Bury declares, "We cannot forget that the only Teutons within 

28 Anti-Catholic History. How it is written (London, Catholic Truth Society, June 1914), 
adapted from an article in the Dublin Review, January 1914. 

29 Belloc, op.cit. (supra n.28) 23. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 95 

the Roman pale, who, though they did not take part in the conflict, 
not only hoped for the victory of the Hun, but had even provoked 
him to war, were the settlers in Africa; we can not forget that when 
Aetius and Theodoric did battle for the common cause of cosmos and 
civilisation, the Vandals alone sided with chaos and barbarism; even 
as the Greeks could not forget that the Thebans had chosen the side 
of the Persian invader and refused to fight for the freedom of all the 
Greeks."30 

It is not surprising therefore that when Bury, who had been born in 
a province whence many able administrators and missionaries had 
been sent out in the heyday of another empire, came to write about 
the patron saint of Ireland, he was at pains to emphasize St Patrick's 
Romanitas, seeing him as the agent of imperial civilisation, who 
brought light to those in outer darkness at the ends of the world. 
Bury, relying on the seventh-century witness of Tirechan, insists that 
the saint visited Rome in 441(2 because Patrick needed to consult Leo 
the Great about the establishment of a primatial church at Armagh, 
and the Pope's approbation was likely to further the progress of 
Christianity in Ireland.3! Thanks to Patrick's introduction of Latin, 
which was one of the arcana imperii of the Catholic Church, "the Irish 
were soon busily engaged in trying to work their own past into the 
woof of ecumenical history, to synchronise their insular memories 
with the annals of Rome and Greece, and find a mark for their remote 
land in the story of the world"32-in fact to bring themselves within 
the Roman Pale; on the other hand, Bury argues (p.214), if the western 
empire had not collapsed, the isolation and eccentricity of the Irish 
Church would not have been so marked after the saint's death. Bury's 
spirit was never anima naturaliter Christiana, but there is truth in the 
description of him as anima naturaliter Romana-his neglect of the 
Augustan principate notwithstanding; he thought that the pale of 
civilisation retreated after Patrick's death, and his verdict on the stand­
ing of early Hibernian scholarship remained unsympathetic, as it had 
been in 1889 when he wrote: HIt is a strain on our credulity to accept 
the remark that in western Europe during the seventh century Greek 
was studied more in the remote island of Ireland than elsewhere. At 
Trim, indeed, there was a church called 'the church of the Greeks', 

30 op.dt. (supra n.8) I 178. "Hottentots": Baynes 53. 
31 The Life ofSt Patrick and his Place in History (London 1905) 367-69 [hereafter, St Patrick]. 
32 Sf Patrick 220. 



96 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

but we can only smile when we are told by a recent writer that <the 
Celtic monastery of Bangor became a potent focus of Hellenism'. In 
other countries, certainly, we meet Greek scholars, such as they were, 
of more distinction than any Irish monk."33 

A Bury-like attitude towards Ireland is even now occasionally to be 
encountered amongst the Anglo-Irish: there is a love of the country 
but also a detachment from its epichoric inhabitants. In the Life of St 
Patrick the feeling for place is again manifest. Here (p.29), for instance, 
is Bury writing about Slemish and its neighbourhood in a passage 
not less interesting because he believed the saint's captivity to have 
been spent in Co. Mayo, not in Co. Antrim: HHere, it was believed and 
recorded, Patrick served a master whose name was Miliucc. His lands 
and his homestead were in northern Dalaradia, and Patrick herded 
his droves of pigs on Mount Miss. The name of this mountain still 
abides unchanged, though by coalescing with sliabh, the Gaelic word 
for <mountain', it is slightly disguised in the form Slemish. Not really 
lofty, and not visible at a distance of many miles, yet when you come 
within its range, Mount Miss dominates the whole scene and produces 
the impression of a massive mountain. Its curious, striking shape, like 
an inverted bowl, round and wide-brimmed, exercises a sort of charm 
on the eye, and haunts one who is walking in the valley of the Braid, 
somewhat as the triangular form ofPentelicus, clear-cut like the pedi­
ment of a temple, follows one about the plain of Athens." Bury freely 
admitted that his imperial view of Patrick was closer to the Catholic 
view of him than to that of anti-papal divines, but that is typical of his 
objectivity; after all, it is the business of the historian to ascertain facts 
and there is something "essentially absurd" in his wishing that any 
alleged fact should tum out to be true or turn out to be false.3' 

Bury kept his youthful appearance and many of his youthful en­
thusiasms into his old age, and his vigour helps to explain his enor­
mous industry; there are 369 items in Baynes's bibliography, and not 
a few of them are substantial books. Many are the tales told of the 
industrious professor who was mistaken for an undergraduate. But 
there were other influences. He enjoyed a stable and happy home life 

aa op.cit. (supra n.8) II 392. Compare W. B. Stanford, "Towards a History of Classical 
Influences in Ireland," ProcRlrAcad 70.C.3 (Dublin 1970), at pp.22-27. M. Esposito (Studies 1 
[Dublin 1912] 665-83) shows how little evidence there is of knowledge of Greek in medi­
aeval Ireland. 

3. St Patrick vii-viii. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 97 

before and after his marriage in 1885; his wife, Jane Bury, who was his 
second cousin, shared his interests and accompanied him on his 
travels; and her intellectual quality can be seen from the chapter on 
Byzantine art she contributed to the two-volume History of the Later 
Roman Empire of the annus mirabilis 1889. He was always helpful to 
serious scholars and to those undergraduates who were eager for 
knowledge, but he did not go out of his way to gather pupils, and by 
contemporary standards his lecturing duties were light, his tutorial 
work minimal. Above all, he avoided that bane of modern university 
administration, the academic committee. He regarded time spent 
away from scholarship as time wasted; some scholars, he said, were 
like the sailors in St Paul's shipwreck: they trusted to achieve their 
intellectual salvation on boards.35 He was prompt and punctilious in 
all business matters, but his lack of administrative experience was 
held against him when he was considered a possible Provost of 
Trinity. It is doubtful, in any case, that he would have accepted the 
post. The Cambridge chair, which A. J. Balfour secured for him in 
1902, was precisely what he needed in his pursuit of learning. Bury's 
own views on the purpose and function of universities are of vital 
significance nowadays, when bureaucratic paymasters insist upon the 
introduction of ephemerally 'practical', and often costly, subjects. He 
insisted that the uselessness of some subjects made them specially 
suitable for study in universities; amidst the contemporary en­
thusiasm for 'relevance', it is encouraging to read that it is our duty 
"to keep the Zeitgeist at a civil distance .... To allow him to have any 
voice in the regulation of academic studies-that is fatal indeed." 
Besides, the Zeitgeist may not always mean what he is said to mean. 
"One may be more disposed to believe that the alleged voice of the 
Zeitgeist is often nothing more significant than a Zeitungsgeschrei."36 
True: but nowadays it is the administrator with an eye on the news­
papers who holds the purse-strings of nearly all universities, and that 
is a problem to which Bury, blessed in his generation, had to find no 
solution. 

It was to be expected that in the course of half a century of pro­
fessional scholarship Bury would change his mind, but his readiness 
to do so in response to further reflexion, new knowledge or the argu­
ments of others, is a remarkable testimony to his lack of party spirit. 

35 Murray, op.cit. (supra n.3) xxix. 
38 Bury, quoted by Baynes 59-60. 



98 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

There were days, he said, when he was a determinist and looked on 
history in one way, and days when he was an indeterminist and looked 
on it in quite another,37 and he even asserted that he was not doing his 
duty unless he changed his views every two years-a deliberate jest 
perhaps, but one designed to emphasize the provisional character of 
historical knowledge. He seemed never able to make up his mind 
about impartiality in the historian: history should be scientific, yes; 
but, in the preface to The Life of St Patrick, he states bluntly that, in his 
opinion, freedom from bias is impossible and undesirable. "Whoever 
writes completely free from bias will produce a dull and colourless 
work." 

No one could accuse Bury's Homeric studies of the defect he 
ascribed to Gladstone, that of clinging consistently to one idea from 
his youth Up.3S Bury modified his historical interpretation of Homer 
as archaeological research developed. Having once doubted that there 
had been a Trojan war, he came in the course of time to believe that 
the leading heroes of the Iliad and the Odyssey had been historical 
characters. In 1924 the editors of the Cambridge Ancient History, of 
whom Bury was one, were moved to remark, "For the last hundred 
years it has been so usual to treat the traditions with disrespect and 
scepticism that the treatment of the Achaean period by Professor Bury 
may seem indecently radical just because it is exceptionally conserva­
tive."39 In the History of Greeee4° he had said that we need not doubt 
that Troy fell through "Grecian craft or valour," but a quarter of a 
century later he even maintained that the heroes of the tales, like the 
geographical scenes in which they moved, were real; the deeds of 
princes were sung by minstrels in the days of their sons and grandsons, 
and as the minstrels created the mythology, the chieftains who played 
eminent parts were transmuted into heroes, heroic poetry having 
been a characteristic feature of Greek life in the thirteenth and 
twelfth centuries B.C.n We may note, incidentally, that in the History 

37 AGH 204. Bury returned to the problem of determinism in discussing Herder in The 
Idea of Progress (London 1932, repro New York 1955) 2.40-42. 

38 Baynes 102, quoting from "The Insurrection of Women. A Criticism," Fortnightly 
Review N.S. 52 (1892) 651-66, at p.654. The criticism is not quite fair, since Gladstone was 
prompt to welcome Schliemann's discoveries: see for example the statesman's preface to 
Schliemann's Mycenae (London 1878). Bury alludes to Gladstone's lasting belief that the 
Homeric poems are evidence of God's revelation to mankind. 

3tCAHl n viii. 
'0 A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great2 I (London 1902) 43. 
n CAHl n 478-79. 



GEORGE HUXLEY 99 

of Greece he had insisted, "No reasonable chronology can avoid the 
conclusion that Greeks had already begun to settle in the area of 
Aegean civilisation, when the Aegean civilisation of the bronze age 
was at its height."42 The decipherment by M. G. F. Ventris of Linear B 
as Greek would have come as no surprise to BUry. 

The difficulty in the historicising interpretation of Homer is, of 
course, testis unus testis nullus: the Homeric poems are, by definition, 
the only evidence for the Homeric age, if it existed. Bury argued, with 
some danger of circularity, that old Greek singers kept more closely 
to fact than did Teutonic bards, one reason being the accurate topog­
raphy of the Troad in the Iliad (but may not this have been the result 
of Homer's autopsy rather than an inheritance from an Achaean 
bard?), another reason being the superiority of the Greeks in the art 
of poetry-in the discriminating treatment of their matter.4a He 
argues that the Greek tradition of a war for Troy, added to the fact 
that the fortress of Hissarlik was destroyed at about the time 
assigned by Greek chronography to the Trojan war, entails that there 
had been a Trojan War. To the questions "How was Hissarlik des­
troyed?" and "What gave rise to the tradition?" the hypothesis of an 
Achaean sacking of Troy is a complete answer. While allowing that 
the significance of the war transcended the "personal incident" which 
occasioned it, he states that the abduction of a princess is in keeping 
with the character of a heroic age, "and there appears to be no very 
good reason why it should not be accepted as a historical fact."44 
Helen apart (and even in this matter, who shall prove Bury mis­
taken ?), it is safe to say that the renewed excavations at Troy have not 
diminished the likelihood that a war for Troy (VII A) was a historical 
event. 

The problem of interpreting historical tradition is part of the more 
general problem of source-criticism. The logical problem of the 
single witness greatly troubled Bury, and at the beginning of his 
masterly book of 1912 on the Eastern Roman Empire we find him 
exercising great caution.45 If a historian can use a number of indepen­
dent reports of the same events, then he can approach the truth by 
making comparisons. But suppose there is only one report, as often 

U op.cit. (supra nAO) 41. 43 CARl II. 510-13. 
u CAHIll 492. Compare J. V. Luce, Homer and the Heroic Age (London 1975) 121-39, who 

allows "a generous measure of historicity to the celebrated tale of Troy." 
45 A History of the Eastern Roman Empirefrom the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I (A.D. 

802-867) (London 1912) ix-x. 



100 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

happens in the history of the ninth century. We can eliminate ob­
vious errors and try to make allowance for bias; but are we entitled 
to accept the residue as true? If we had had several contemporary 
reports of the tangled events leading to the murder of the Emperor 
Michael ill, there would be serious divergencies between them, we 
may be sure. As it happens, we have only one report and it is not con­
temporary; it has been handed down, orally or in writing, from a 
narrator about whom we know nothing. Bury therefore asks, HIs 
there a serious probability that this story presents to our minds 
images at all resembling those which would appear to us if the scenes 
had been preserved by a cinematographic process?" Bury says that he 
follows the usual practice, since it is difficult to do otherwise; and then 
he again draws attention to the obstacles to an understanding of 
ancient and mediaeval history, many portions of which "will always 
remain more or less fables convenues"; for their accuracy, "at least, no 
discreet person will be able to stand security even when scientific 
method has done for them all it can do." 

Bury's Eastern Roman Empire is my favourite amongst his books. 
Here we see his learning and critical acumen effectively deployed 
against a host of tough problems which yield one by one. The book 
has been criticised for lack of coherence, but the charge that it 
resembles a series of articles between covers is not just; the story 
hangs together well when the material allows it to do so. We follow 
imperial history from reign to reign, then we are given a view of 
ecclesiastical, economic and military affairs before turning to consider 
the empire's relations with its neighbours in peace and war. A con­
cluding chapter dealing with the revival of learning in the Amorian 
period emphasizes the role of Constantinople as inheritor and inter­
preter of ancient civilisation. Then, as in the Life of St Patrick, follows 
a series of appendices treating specific problems; here the author 
enables the determined reader to dip deeply into the sources. Not 
the least of Bury's successes in the book is the use of hagiographic 
texts, many of them superficially unreliable or irrelevant, as props for 
historical arguments. Some of the texts he sifts were, and are, barely 
known in western Europe; to have hunted them out after recognising 
their potential was no mean undertaking. 

In dealing with the second iconoclasm, the Bury of 1912 has less 
fervour but greater detachment than the twenty-eight year old 
laudator of Leo III. He sees that to tolerate images, if iconoclasts are 



GEORGE HUXLEY 101 

also tolerated, is less troublesome than to smash them. Leo V, the 
Armenian, would never have thought of reviving the doctrine if 
iconoclasm had not possessed a strong body of supporters, but "that 
he committed a mistake in policy can hardly be disputed in view of 
subsequent events." Nicephorus I had wisely allowed the iconoclasts 
to propagate their views but had preserved the settlement of the 
Council ofNicaea. Image-worship was more advantageous than icono­
clasm because it did not need to lead to persecution, since the icono­
clasts could not be forced to worship pictures; " ... they had only to 

endure the offence of seeing them and abstain from insulting them; 
whereas the adoption of iconoclasm rendered persecution inevitable." 
Bury then shows that Leo V resolved to upset the Church and to 
oppose the monks, because he believed that his own name was 
propitious. Leo V might rival Leo III, for he reasoned that iconoclasm 
had been proved in the outcome to be pleasing to God.46 

From the many delights, Arabian as well as Byzantine, in the book, 
I choose the story of the bluestocking who might have become the 
wife of the young Emperor Theophilus. "His stepmother Euphrosyne 
assembled the maidens, who had been gathered from all the pro­
vinces, in the Pearl-chamber in the Palace, and gave the Emperor a 
golden apple to bestow on her who pleased his heart. Theophilus 
halted before Kasia, a lady of striking beauty and literary attainments, 
and addressed to her a cynical remark, apparently couched in metrical 
form, to which she had a ready answer in the same style. 

THEOPHILUS: A woman is the fount and source 
Of all man's tribulation. 

KASIA: And from a woman sprang the course 
Of man's regeneration. 

The boldness of the retort did not please the Emperor and he gave 
the golden apple to Theodora."47 The point of the story, whose truth 
Bury is willing to accept, must have been that Theophilus, knowing 
Kasia's reputation as a docta puella, had tried to draw her.48 In re­
cognising the quasi-metrical form of the exchange Bury once again 
illustrates his alertness to the ties between history and literature. 

Alongside the continuity of institutions in New Rome there was 

u op.cit. (supra n.45) 57-58. 
&7 op.cit. (supra n.45) 81-82. For the bride-show see also W. T. Treadgold. GRBS 16 (1975) 

327. 
48 Bury, EHR 13 (1898) 340. 



102 THE HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

continuity of language and literature. The Greek language prevailed 
in the East, but not before borrowing heavily from the Latin language 
of administration. Some of the borrowings, words such as 80vg (dux) 
and KovalcTwp (quaestor), and some of the Greek equivalents of Latin 
terms, aVToKpaTwp (imperator) , v1Tapxoc (praefectus) , were noted by 
Bury in his introduction to the fourth volume of the Cambridge Medi­
aeval History (1923);\9 an undertaking which he had planned. But there 
was also continuity of literature; ancient Greek literature would not 
have survived in quantity if the later Romans of the empire had not 
copied texts, and the texts would not have been copied if there had 
not been readers eager and willing to use them as models. In particu­
lar, Bury observes, «the continuity which links the fifteenth century 
A.D. with fifth B.C. is notably expressed in the long series of Greek 
historians, who maintained, it may be said, a continuous tradition of 
historiography. From Critobulus, the imitator of Thucydides, and 
Chalcocondyles, who told the story of the last days of the Empire, 
we can go back, in a line broken only by a dark interval in the seventh 
and eighth centuries, to the first great masters, Thucydides and 
Herodotus."5o Thus there is a sense in which Bury's Ancient Greek 
Historians had ended too soon, but in that book already the indebted­
ness of Procopius and Critobulus to Thucydides is noted.51 

Procopius and Critobulus were professionals, but the notion of 
continuity is also appropriate in the study of popular literature, as 
Bury pointed out in his Romanes lecture, entitled Romances of Chivalry 
on Greek Soil. 52 Here once again he exercises historical insight upon the 
interpretation of literature, so that we are reminded of his early work 
on Pindar. Bury shows that the Frankish invasion of Greece left its 
mark upon later Byzantine romances, but the Western touches are 
adventitious. The tradition of romantic chivalry can be traced back 
in the Greek world through Byzantium to the prose romances of the 
ancient world. Owing to this novelistic background of separated 
lovers, beautiful gardens, shipwrecks and chance encounters, we do 
not have to resort to the hypothesis of Western influence to explain 
the Byzantines' notions of knighthood and chivalrous adventure. 
Before the Crusades there had been a long tradition of knightliness 

U Reprinted in CMHI IV.Z (1967) xii-xx, at xiv n.l. 50 op.cit. (supra n.49) xv. 
51 AGH 148-49. For Procopius' use of Thucydides see also Bury, History of the Later Roman 

Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565) II (London 
1923, repro New York 1958) 4Z8-Z9. 

52 Romances of Chivalry on Greek Soil, being the Romanes Lectllrefor 1911 (Oxford 1911). 



GEORGE IIDXLEY 103 

among the kavallarioi and the akritai or borderers of the eastern 
Roman frontier in the wars with the Saracens. In Asia Minor men of 
independence and courage had watched the passes, defended their 
castles, and pursued the Mohammedan invader on horseback; they 
had lifted cattle and captured princesses; and they had inspired 
heroic poetry. The hero who symbolizes their romantic world is 
Digenes Akrites, the warden of the marches, whose mother was a 
Greek noblewoman and father a Saracen emir. The poem Digenes, 
Bury insists, "has an epic quality, which justifies us in naming it along 
with Homer and the Nibelungenlied-its comprehensiveness,"53 and 
while the toughness of frontier life is not concealed, the poem pre­
sents Digenes as a true cavalier who is gentle towards women and not 
lacking in delicacy. It is impossible that the portrait of Digenes comes 
from a Western, Frankish source; he appears too early in Byzantine 
literature, and we must therefore recognise parallel developments 
amongst the Franks and amongst the Romans of the East. Accord­
ingly, "the romantic literature of the West did not come as a new 
revelation to a people who possessed in their own literature motives, 
ideals, and a tradition which were in many respects homogeneous."54 
Bury felt strongly the significance of Hellenic continuity in Asia 
Minor, a continuity which survived even the upheavals of 1204 and 
1453. We may imagine with what sorrow he followed the Graeco­
Turkish struggles of this century and the consequent exchanges of 
populations, the more so since he had expressed the view that, in 1919 
at least, if anyone power had a claim to Constantinople, it was 
Greece.55 

Continuity for Bury meant, above all, continuity of language and 
civilisation. He constantly opposed the partiality of nationalist 
historiography, and chauvinist or racial doctrines had no place in his 
mature thinking. Great as was his respect for Freeman, he felt bound 
to give warning about his mentor's use of the word Aryan. "Though 
< Aryanism' was, if I may say so, one of the pillars of his reconstruction 
of history, I think he might have been induced to substitute the phrase 
< of Aryan speech' in many cases where he committed himself to 
'Aryan'. For the truth is, that in designating a people as Aryan, speech 
was his criterion and the inference from Aryan speech to Aryan stock 
is invalid. How the Indo-Germanic tongue spread is still an unsolved 
problem, but it is certain that all the European peoples who spoke or 

53 op.cit. (supra n.52) 18. 54 op.cit. (supra n.52) 23. 55 Baynes 166. 



104 THE I-USTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP OF J. B. BURY 

speak tongues of this family are not of common race, and many of 
them probably have little <Aryan' blood."56 (Freeman had called 
Europe pre-eminently an Aryan continent with a homogeneous popu­
lation.)57 I have quoted Bury in extenso here to show that there can 
have been no ethnic bias underlying his insistence upon the continuity 
of Hellenic civilisation. 

Almost half a century has passed since Bury died in Rome on 1 June 
1927, and the time may be supposed to have come for an assessment 
of his place in the history of scholarship. The evidence is there, but a 
fair estimate may now be beyond the capability of one man-such is 
the growth of specialisation and the increase in knowledge. Certainly, 
such an estimate is beyond my power. But it can be said with truth 
that, in the analysis of evidence and in the exercise of historical judge­
ment, he has few peers and no superiors amongst the practitioners of 
history. In short, Bury, "besides being a very great historian, was also 
a masterly editor of Greek texts:'58 
THE QUBBN'S UNIVERSITY OF BELFAST 

November, 1975 

1i8 Prefatory note to E. A. Freeman. The Historical Geography ofEurope3 (London 1912) vi-vii. 
S7 op.cit. (supra n.56) 12. 
68 A. J. Toynbee. Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his Age (London 1973) viii. I thank Pro­

fessor W. B. Stanford for reading the manuscript and for advice concerning Trinity College, 
Dublin in Bury's time. Two referees also made helpful points. 

To Mr H. W. Gillespie. Headmaster of Foyle College. I am indebted for the follOwing 
information about Bury's schooling: "It seems that he came here with Mr Maurice Hime 
who, when he was appointed Headmaster. brought a number of boys with him from 
Monaghan Diocesan School. where Bury had been one of his pupils. The main bits and 
pieces of interest are his early writings in Our School Tim£s, the magazine first of Monaghan 
school and later of Foyle College. The first of these. a poem entitled 'Hector' by J.B.B. a 
Juvenile Poet (aged 10). appears in the October 1872 number." Professor J. L. McCracken 
kindly lent to me a copy of the Foyle College Song Book. The school song, composed 
anonymously in 1878, is typical of the genre. Bury's Latin version dignifies conventional 
sentiments in the English; here is the first verse: 

o schola quae in Foylium 
8uperba despicis. 

Quae nobis cara facta es 
Ludis et stlldiis, 

Primo paventes venimus. 
Ad aulam hanc claram; 
Sed nunc illustris nominis 

Amamus glonam. 

The text of this paper was read by me to the Belfast Literary Society on 2 February 1976 
and at the University of Birmingham on 12 February 1976; also at Trinity College. Dublin 
on 10 February 1976. I thank Dr A. B. SCOtt. a Derryman. for advice.