Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography 3515075305, 9783515075305

Citation preview

Richard W. Burgess

Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography HISTORIA Einzelschriften 135

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

RICHARD W. BURGESS

STUDIES IN EUSEBIAN AND POST-EUSEBIAN CHRONOGRAPHY

HISTORIA ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ALTE GESCHICHTE REVUE D’HISTOIRE · ANCIENNE JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY RIVISTA · DI STORIA ANTICA

EINZELSCHRIFTEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VON MORTIMER CHAMBERS / LOS ANGELES HEINZ HEINEN / TRIER FRANÇOIS PASCHOUD / GENEVE HILDEGARD · TEMPORINI / TÜBINGEN / BASEL GEROLD WALSER ·

HEFT 135

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART

1999

RICHARD W. BURGESS with the assistance of Witold Witakowski

STUDIES AND

IN

EUSEBIAN

POST-EUSEBIAN

CHRONOGRAPHY 1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius of Caesarea: Structure, Content, andChronology, 325 AD282– AND

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii: A Chronicle of Antioch andtheRoman Near East during the Reigns of Constantine andConstantius II, 350 AD 325–

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART

1999

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Die Deutsche Bibliothek –

[Historia / Einzelschriften] Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte. Einzelschriften. –Stuttgart: Steiner Früher Schriftenreihe Reihe Einzelschriften zu:Historia H. 135. Burgess, Richard W.: Studies 1999 chronography. –

in Eusebian andpost-Eusebian

Burgess, Richard W.: Studies in Eusebian andpost-Eusebian chronography / Richard W. Stuttgart: Burgess. Withtheassistance of Witold Witakowski. – Steiner, 1999 (Historia: Einzelschriften; H. 135) of Eusebius of Caesarea. – 2. The Chronici canones” Enth.: 1.The “ “ Continuatio antiochiensis Eusebii” ISBN 3-515-07530-5

ISO 9706

Jede Verwertung des Werkes außerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig undstrafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere fürÜbersetzung, Nachdruck, Mikroverfilmung odervergleichbare Verfahren sowie fürdieSpeicherung inDatenverarbeitungsanlagen. © 1999byFranz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, SitzStuttgart. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Druckerei Peter Proff, Eurasburg. Printed inGermany

Hunc librum dedico magistris praeclarissimis William S. Elliott,

Ian Hundy, Timothy

D. Barnes,

sine quibus nihil essem

Contents

9 15 17

Preface andAcknowledgements Abbreviations A Note onCitations

STUDY 1 TheChronici canones of Eusebius of Caesarea: Structure, Content, andChronology, AD 282– 325

1. Introduction:

Overview

21

andWitnesses

23

1.1. The Witnesses

2. Regnal Years andOther Chronological Systems

28

3. Errors andCorrections

36

4. The Episcopal Lists

44

325 5. Text andChronology, 282– 5.1. Methodology 5.2. Establishing the Text 5.3. Reconstruction andTranslation

46 46 47

6. Commentary

66 66 90

59

6.1. Eusebius 6.2. Jerome

Appendix Appendix Appendix

99 104

1: The Witnesses

2: TheCalendars of Josephus 3: Imperial Reigns inEusebius, Theophilus,

Clement, Hippolytus,

Tertullian, andthe Chronica urbis Romae

107

STUDY 2

The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii: A Chronicle of Antioch andtheRoman NearEast during theReigns 350 of Constantine andConstantius II, AD325–

1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Quellenforschung andthe Recovery of the Text 1.3.TheEntries andtheWitnesses 1.4. The Nature of the Work, its Extent, the Theology of its Author, and the Place of Composition

113 113 114 119 122

8

Contents

1.5.The Relationship of theWitnesses to the Original 1.6.Style andStructure 1.7. Chronology 1.8. Preliminary Analysis 1.9. Preface to theFollowing Chapters

2. TheReconstruction Introduction Part 1. TheWitnesses Part 2. Hypothetical Reconstruction andTranslation Appendix: Hypothetical Reconstruction of Unical Page Layout

3. Commentary Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix

134

143 147

148 148 150 164 174

178

1: A Guide to the Syriac andArabic

Transliterations Usedin this Work 350, andConsolidated Bishop 2: The Bishops of Antioch, 313– Lists for Studies 1 and2 3: TheDates in Syriac Martyr Acts byRaymond Mercier 4: Table of Chronological Data for Entry 34 350 5: Chronology, 311– 350 6: Earthquakes, Comets, andEclipses, 325–

Bibliography 1. Ancient Sources 2. Modern Works andCollections

129 132

of Ancient Sources

Indices 1. Ancient Authors andWorks 2. Modern Scholars 3. Names of People, Places, andThings

284

285 287 302 304 305 307 307 314

327 327 334

338

Preface andAcknowledgements The secret dream of most ancient historians is to discover the text of a long-lost

or Roman historian that will shed light ona hitherto dark area of history, a text thatwill confirm oldhypotheses orputa completely newperspective onimportant events orpersons. Asthetwentieth century draws to a close, most of usrealize that barring a papyrological discovery in Egypt or the Near East this dream is unlikely to come true. Documentary texts of all sorts continue to stream outof these areas onpapyrus, buta newwork of ancient history is rare indeed. Often ouronly recourse is Quellenforschung, bywhich wetryto identify lost sources from surviving histories. The results of this method can be important –the discovery of the Kaisergeschichte attheendof thelast century is anexcellent example –butthey are often not as earthshaking as a completely newtext would be, andone can rarely completely reconstruct thelost work from surviving histories. Often great effort is spent just trying toconvince thescholarly community thatsucha lostcommon source did actually exist (it has taken almost 100 years in the case of the KG!). Sometimes thepostulated workturns outnotto have existed at all. The texts that I present in these studies fall somewhere between these twoextremes: they arenotcomplete, newly-discovered works, norarethey hazy postulatedworks hinted at by Quellenforschung. They have been revealed through Quellenforschung, butalmost all their content canbe restored –perhaps more than would even have been thecase hadthey beendiscovered onpapyrus –andtheir existence cannot be doubted. The first study treats a work familiar to all who study the fourth century, the Chronici canones or Chronicle of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. Although it is certainly oneof the most important andinfluential historical works of western literature andthought, not a single folio of its text survives in its original state. It exists only in two generally complete ancient translations, two translated epitomes, andmanyfragments of theoriginal recovered fromother ancient histories that excerpted the original Greek document before it waslost. The last part of the Canones is particularly badly transmitted and it is that section that I have undertaken toreconstruct. Onlyoneperson ever hasundertaken to reconstruct Eusebius’ Canones andthat wasin 1606; it hasalways been assumed that either Jerome orthe Armenian translation is sufficiently accurate to be considered as the work of Eusebius himself. As we shall see, that does not turn out to be the case. Before beginning Greek

the process of reconstruction, however, a number of matters involving Eusebius’ chronology mustbeestablished. Thereconstructed text oftheCanones allows usfor the first time to compare Jerome’s translation with the original (or at least a close approximation) andto analyse howhetranslated andaugmented Eusebius’Greek original. Theresults of boththereconstruction andtheanalysis arequite surprising. As well they maybe: it is the first time in over onethousand years that anything approximating the original Greek text hasbeen available for study. Thesecond study is rather morecomplicated anddeserves a rather longer introduction. This is a chronicle whose existence hasbeensuspected inthepast, butthat

10

Preface andAcknowledgements

wasnever properly reconstructed. Eventhough this chronicle hasbeen reconstruct-

edfromexisting sources, manyof these sources areobscure orrarely usedbymodernhistorians ofthefourth century, andthereconstruction hasitsownchronological

framework, thus providing a context that didnot exist in many of the source documents. Asa result muchof whatthis reconstructed work hasto sayhastheappearance of novelty. In essence, then, wehave a newly discovered lost history, whose existence hasbeen postulated by modern scholars, butwhich hasnever been properly reconstructed or subjected to a serious, detailed analysis. So even though certain aspects of this chronicle are known andunderstood, this newreconstruction puts what we do know on a much more solid footing. As I explain in Chapter 1 of Study 2, most of theentries that I include in this newchronicle were collected by Joseph Bidez in anappendix to hisedition of Philostorgius for GCS (Anhang VII); this is the work of the so-called ‘Arian Historiographer’. Unfortunately Bidez didnothing to establish a chronology for the fragments andincluded a vast amount of material that demonstrably does notbelong to this work: most of his pages 204 to 214 do belong, but pages 203 and215 to 241 do not. Recent studies have even suggested that this work wasa continuation of Eusebius’Ecclesiastical History, rather than his Chronici canones, as Bidez suggested. In spite of Bidez’s collection, however, I deduced the existence of this chronicle quite independently through a comparison of Jerome andTheophanes, andI therefore introduce it here through this avenue of Quellenforschung, starting with the study of Jerome, notthrough the collection of Bidez. I hope that this will notconfuse readers into thinking that I amclaiming for myownsomething that hasbeen undertaken by others. It is better in thecase of such a reconstruction as this to start fromfirst principles andnottoskipanystepintheprocess of analysis anddeduction by simply assuming the validity of Bidez’s identification, especially since I do not agree with it in its entirety. This will allow critics tojudge themethod as well as the results. That bothBidez andI independently came tovirtually thesame conclusions regarding thecontent of this work (between 325 and350 at least) is a strong testamentto thereality andcontent of theoriginal document. Thecommentary is primarily anattempt to evaluate the historical andchronological value of this source. If its chronology is unsound or it retails inaccurate or misleading information, it will corrupt thereconstructions of those whouseit blindly. Only after a detailed analysis could I evaluate the reconstructed chronicle as a historical source, like anyother. Such ananalysis seemed like a simple task, given that weare dealing with a chronicle that covers only twenty-six years, butI soon found that I wasfaced witha vast array of differing scholarly opinion. I came tothe study of fourth-century historiography via the chronicles of the fifth century, where one hasto extract every drop of meaning from every oneof the meagre sources at one’s disposal. Yet I found that in many cases the evidence of this chronicle (or rather of the witnesses to it) had not been given the weight it deserved or had not even been considered. Such fundamental facts as the dates of the bishops of Antioch, of thefirst siege of Nisibis, of thePersian persecution of theChristians, andof therefoundation of Amida were found tobematters either of long-standing scholarly dispute orof almost complete indifference, withsome scholars making sweeping pronouncements onthebasis ofa tinyfraction oftheavailable evidence. This forced

Preface andAcknowledgements

11

meinto theposition of having toevaluate all therelevant evidence formyself, going back to theoriginal sources ineach instance to determine whatcould plausibly and reliably be derived from them. As Marie-Joseph Pierre says, Il faut beaucoup d’audace ou beaucoup de naïveté pour s’engager dans unetelle ‘recherche, où les savants les plus reconnus ne se sont pasaccordés’ (Pierre 1995: 266 n. 59). In my case I amsure it is a bit of both. In myanalysis I have sought to examine all thepertinent evidence that I could find; I amsure I have missed some, nevertheless. Inmost, if notall, of theinstances that I analyse, it is myhopethat this commentary offers themostdetailed examination of theindividual events andsources available. Such a commentary, I believe, should provide a newbasis forfuture scholarly consensus concerning theevents that arediscussed, whether suchconsensus forms around myconclusions ornot. If not, I should hope that the commentary would at least serve to spur others to undertake the sort of detailed analysis that has been lacking in some of the recent scholarship on these events. Sweeping historical narratives and structuralist interpretations may turn outto have been built onsand if thedetails are notcorrect. Thus, whether my conclusions andhypotheses areaccepted ornot(that is notreally important), I hope that they will serve the greater interests of the history and historiography of the period.

I also hope that my detailed presentations will help scholars to become more aware of thehistoriographical currents andeddies that underlie manyof thesurviving accounts of the period. This is anaspect of historical reconstruction that I find that most historians avoid in their attempts to reconstruct the ‘truth’of the past. An understanding of howtheevents of thepastwere perceived, modified, andrecorded, however, is fundamental for our attempts to explain andunderstand those events (see Burgess 1993/4 andFowden 1994 fortwoexamples of thesorts of studies I am talking about here). I have refrained from seeking out all the ramifications of my conclusions andincorporating them into a larger historical narrative, though I have hinted at some, chiefly with regard to ecclesiastical politics andRomano-Persian relations between 337 and350. In almost all cases theContinuatio hasproven tobe accurate andvaluable, andI would venture to assert that it is oneof the most valuable sources for the history of Syria and the eastern frontier for the period that it

350). covers (325– Thecommentary is very unusual in its form. Most sections are very short, but some arequite long, andoneis very long indeed, being greatly outof proportion to the rest of the work (no. 34). This was to a great extent deliberate. Anywhere I believed that I hadsomething interesting oruseful to contribute with regard to the history orhistoriography of a particular sequence of events, anepisode, or a date, I took whatever space wasrequired to set forth myexposition. In most cases I have provided only theminimum of b ackground’information that onefinds ina stand‘ entry of the text is more of a starting point for an ardhistorical commentary; each examination of theevent narrated orthenarrations of theevent. Some of these sections I have published separately indifferent journals sothat scholars whomayfind myanalyses of interest butwhomaynotbeaware ofthis volume will haveaccess to myarguments andconclusions. In all cases the final version appears here.

12

Preface andAcknowledgements

Inthispost-modern agemyattempts todetermine thedetails ofpastevents must seem naïve at best. I must admit that myownapproach to history is very muchin sympathy with post-modernists, though I have always favoured the more classical

epithet of ‘Pyrrhonist’formyviews ontheunrecoverability ofthepast. Howfarcan wetruly know what happened in the past? For the most part, generalities only, it mustbeadmitted. Mymethod hasbeentouncover theversion orversions thatmake the most sense within the twin prerequisites of the context within which the event supposedly occurred andthecontext of therecording of thevarious perceptions of that event, i.e. the historical andhistoriographical contexts. The result is a general likelihood or probability that things happened in one wayrather than in another. For instance, that Constantine wasa real manwhodied on22 Mayof the year wecall 337, cannot be doubted; post-modernists go too far in denying the security of such knowledge. But thecircumstances of his final days are very foggy; myreconstruction is based onprobabilities andassumptions about theevents andthe sources that make thereconstruction different fromwhatanyother scholar haspresented. But a different approach –an acceptance of the truthfulness of the earliest account, by Eusebius, forinstance –would render a different setof probabilities anda different description of thepast. Each would bejust as ‘true’within its ownparameters. The past, of course, never changes; however it wasthat Constantine died remains the same nomatter whatwesay. It happened thewayit happened andweareleft trying tocatch distant echoes andglimpse vague reflections indistorting mirrors. Theimportant thing to realize is the precariousness of anyreconstruction. I have no illusions about discovering anytruth; I have only thehope of offering a more complete account of the historical andhistoriographical contexts than before andthat such approaches will seem more likely or plausible or acceptable than earlier such attempts because of this. Assuch, mine aresimply attempts to come closer to ancient reality as it hasbeen described tous. Another unusual aspect of this commentary, since I amtreating a lost text, is its attention to certain philological aspects of the reconstructed text. The necessarily small scale of this analysis nevertheless brings to light many fascinating aspects of the style andvocabulary of the chronicle, most especially its detailed reliance on the Chronici canones as a stylistic model. In many cases these verbal andphraseological parallels also help to confirm the accuracy of our witnesses. Having noticed certain problems that some have hadwith non-Attic Greek in relation to some of the witnesses to this text (e.g. ἐ ν+ dative = ε ἰς+ accusative) I have also commented uponcertain obvious aspects oflate Greek grammar andvocabulary thatcould cause problems. Readers will note that there is some duplication in the text andnotes of these twostudies. I wanted eachtobeable tobereadonits ownanddidnotwantreaders of the second study having to constantly flip back to related matters in the first. The overlap is minor andI think that theextra space taken is more than madeupforby theconvenience for thereader. Finally, I should point outthatinthese studies I usetheterm ‘Arian’as nothing more than a convenient short-hand to describe those who held that Christ was of a similar substance andnature to Godandwasnotco-eternal with him. The orthodox’andprobably majority viewatthetime wasthat theSonwasof thesame‘nature

Preface

andAcknowledgements

13

andsubstance as andwasco-eternal with the Father. The theology of the various parties is for the most part of no concern of this work, just the ‘us’and ‘them’ opposition preserved inmostof oursources, the ‘Arians’usually being ‘them’. The name was, of course, a pejorative term andused as a very wide brush to tar nonorthodox bishops and clergy of many differing shades of belief with regard to the Trinitarian question. The reader should treat the term ‘Arian’as the convenient, if inaccurate, shorthand that it is intended to be. The same should also be said of my use of the word ‘pagan’.

I should first like to thank Eleanor Dickey for reading early drafts of parts of this workandformaking comments uponit. Timothy Barnes readovertwodrafts of the second study andthefinal draft of thefirst study, andoffered manyvaluable suggestions andsaved mefromnumerous errors. Hehasbeenextremely encouraging during the writing of this book and without that encouragement it might never have been completed. His willingness generously to accept correction (more often just clarification) from a former student is a model for us all andI thank him for it. Whatever is meritorious in the methodology and approach of this work is due to what he has taught me, both in the classroom and in print. Tom Elliott drew my attention to thecontinuing, if minor, controversy of thedate of thecouncil of Serdica andreadoverandcommented uponthedeveloping versions of that section of the commentary. Geoffrey Greatrex, mycolleague fora too-short yearhere inOttawa in 6, provided anexcellent sounding board for various ideas while hewashere, 1995– andafter his return to Britain took the time to read over andcomment upon the

penultimate draft of the second study andprovided much-needed bibliographical assistance. Raymond Mercier, anexpert onancient calendars whose questioning on the theory of M. J. Higgins first lead me to suspect that the Jewish calendar was the unknown calendar used in the Persian martyr acts, hascomposed anappendix that bothsets forth theargument fortheuseof theJewish calendar inthemartyr acts and explains the errors of Higgins’theory. I should also like to thank Kevin Coyle for his preliminary help with certain Syriac texts, andSebastian Brock, Aho Yamac, andMarina Greatrex forlast minute helpwithother Syriac problems. I owea further debt of gratitude toMarina Greatrex forsupplying camera-ready copy of theSyriac text for Study 2 at the proof stage when other means hadfailed. I also wish to thank ananonymous referee whoencouraged meto undertake a number of changes that have made this a substantially better work than it waswhen s/he read it. Wolfson College elected mea Visiting Scholar for the spring andsummer of 1998, which allowed meto finish this book andlaunch myself into newprojects intheincomparable atmosphere of the Bodleian, Ashmolean, andOriental Institute libraries. For this overdue return to Oxford I amgrateful. Finally, I mustexpress mygratitude to Witold Witakowski, whoentered this project originally simply as anexpert in Syriac whocould check a fewof myconclusions against theoriginal texts. His assistance wasso thorough andcomprehensive that I asked himtoassume a larger role in theproduction ofthework. Heagreed andhehasbeenresponsible forproviding me withcitations to andtranscriptions andtranslations of theSyriac, Arabic, andEthiopic texts, aswell asproviding mewiththeSyriac texts themselves forchapter two of the second study. All this in spite of a heavy workload of his own. In addition, he

14

Preface andAcknowledgements

andhis work have provided mewith many invaluable insights into Syriac andSyriac historiography. However, heshould notbeheldresponsible foranyerrors, inferences, or conclusions with respect to the texts that he has analysed for me. It is always theauthor’s right to claim forhimself all errors, andI amsure manyremain. Whatever is good in this tumultuarium opus is the result of the scholars who have gone before me (they are named in the bibliography), those whohave taught me (they are named in my dedication), and those who have helped directly with the writing of this book (they arenamed above andbelow). I finally wish to thank mywife Louise for her constant support andencouragement, especially over the last three years as I attempted to finish this book amidst seemingly unending academic crises brought onby government funding cuts, the closure of oursister Classics department at Carleton University across town, and further (andcontinuing) budget cuts to thedepartment andFaculty bytheadministration of myownuniversity, during which time I have seenmycolleagues dwindle from twelve to four as a result of early retirement, regular retirement, death, illness, anddisgust.

RWB Kal. Iun. MCMXCVIII ciuitate Oxoniensi

Abbreviations Journal abbreviations are those used byL’Année Philologique.

AASS ACOec

Acta Sanctorum. Paris andBrussels, 1643– . Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Leipzig andBerlin, 1914– .

BHO

PaulPeeters. Bibliotheca hagiographica orientalis. Subsidia hagiographica Brussels, 1910.

CLRE

Roger S. Bagnall, AlanCameron, SethR. Schwartz, andKlaas A.Worp. Consuls of theLater Roman Empire. Atlanta, 1987. Chronica minora Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1863– . Corpus Christianorum series Latina. Turnholt, 1953– . . Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Paris andLouvain, 1903– SA Scriptores Arabici SS Scriptores Syri . Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna, 1866– 1897. Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. Bonn, 1828–

Chron. min.

CIL CCSL CSCO

CSEL CSHB DAC

DCB DHGE

EEC EOMIA

10.

Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq (eds.). Dictionnaire d’archéologie chré53. tienne et de liturgie. Paris, 1907– William Smith andHenry Wace (eds.). A Dictionary of Christian Biography, 87. Literatures, Sects andDoctrines. London, 1877– A. Baudrillart, A. Vogt, U. Rouziès, et al. (eds.). Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. Paris, 1912– . Angelo diBerardino (ed.). Enclyclopedia oftheEarly Church. NewYork, 1992. Cuthbert Hamilton Turner (ed.). Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta luris Antiquissima. Oxford, 1899– 1939.

FGrHist

Felix Jacoby (ed.). Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, 2B. Berlin, 1929.

GCS

Diegriechischen christlichen Schriftsteller derersten Jahrhunderte. Leipzig and . Berlin, 1897– NF Neue Folge

HE

Historia ecclesiastica

LSJ9

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, andHenry Stuart Jones (eds.). A Greek English Lexicon.9 Oxford, 1940. Josef Höfer, Karl Rahner, et al. (eds.). Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche.2 65. Freiburg, 1957–

LTK MGH: AA

1919. Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Auctores Antiquissimi. Berlin, 1877–

NIDCC

J. D. Douglas (ed.). TheNewInternational Dictionary of theChristian Church. Exeter, 1974.

ODB

Alexander

1991.

P. Kazhdan (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford,

16 ODCC

Abbreviations

F. L. Cross andE. A. Livingstone (eds.). TheOxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.2 Oxford, 1983.

PG PL PLond.

Patrologia graeca. Paris, 1857– 66. 65. Patrologia latina. Paris, 1844– F. G. Kenyon etal. (eds.). Greek Papyri

intheBritish Museum. London, 1893–

1974.

PLRE I

PO POxy

PSyr

A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, andJ. Morris (eds.). TheProsopography of the Later Roman Empire 1. Cambridge, 1971. . Patrologia orientalis. Paris, 1905– Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, etal. (eds.). TheOxyrhyncus Papyri. Lon. don, 1898– Ignatius Ortiz deUrbina. Patrologia Syriaca. Rome, 1958.

QGB

Johannes Karayannopulos andGünter Weiß. Quellenkunde zurGeschichte von Byzanz (324– 1453) 2. Wiesbaden, 1982.

RE

Georg Wissowa et al. (eds.). Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alter1963. tumswissenschaft. Stuttgart, 1894–

SB

F. Preisigke et al. (eds.). Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. . Wiesbaden et alibi, 1915– C. Wessely et al. (eds.). Studien zurPalaeographie undPapyruskunde. Leip24. zig, 1901–

SPP TAVO

TIR L 34

TU

. Tübinger Atlas desvorderen Orients. Wiesbaden, 1977– Tabula Imperii Romani. Aquincum-Sarmizegetusa-Sirmium. L 34 Budapest. Budapest, 1968. Texte undUntersuchungen zurGeschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Leip. zig andBerlin, 1883–

A Note on Citations Pageorcolumn numbers usually follow thecolon ina name-date citation, e.g. Smith 78. Thevolume number of separately paginated volumes of thesamework 1991: 34– follow the date anda comma, e.g. Ginzel 1885, 2: 34. There is no comma where there is no date, e.g. DCB 2: 34. Whena text does nothave theusual book orchapter divisions, page orcolumn numbers are cited. Line numbers appear after the page number anda period. In a

reference to an ancient author in a sentence these numbers are placed in brackets without a ‘p.’or ‘col.’, e.g. in a reference to a passage in Chron. Pasch. (324.4– 7). Whenthename ortitle of anancient author is usedas a simple citation, thepage or 3. If page column numbers immediately follow the name or title, e.g. Sync. 343.1– numbers are included with a book or chapter reference, usually when the chapters are very long, the page numbers will follow a ‘p.’or ‘pp.’, e.g. in a reference to a 3). passage of Zonaras (12.34, p. 625.2– In cases where I believe that a reference to theoriginal Syriac or Arabic text is useful or of value, thepage orcolumn number appears in italics following the page reference to the translation anda slash, following the same rules as above, e.g. Ps6. Often in such cases the Syriac or Arabic 7/169.24– Dionysius, Chron. 126.25– reference will contain line references that do not appear in the translation. This is because thetranslation hasnoline numbers andit will always beeasy fora reader to find therelevant passage in the translation. The line references make theSyriac or Arabic passage easier to find, especially for non-specialists. For texts whose pages do not have line numbers ‘fb’ means ‘from the bottom’; otherwise the counts are

from thetop.

8 Constantine or 8 Const.: this refers to the regnal years of the emperors as expressed by the marginal regnal year figures used in chronicles; in this case, the eighth year of Constantine. Other Notes

All translations aremine unless otherwise stated, with theexception of Syriac, Arabic, andEthiopic texts, which have been translated by Witold Witakowski. A pronunciation guide for the Syriac andArabic transcriptions has been provided

in Appendix 1 at theendof Study 2.

STUDY 1

The Chronici canones of Eusebius of Caesarea: Structure, Content, andChronology, 325 AD282–

1. Introduction: Overview andWitnesses 30 May339) waswithout doubt oneof the most imEusebius of Caesarea (c. 260– portant Greek scholars of theearly church. Hismostinfluential andlasting contributions, to theeastern andthewestern parts of theempire, were in thefield of history, forheboth merged Hellenistic andChristian chronography tocreate thefirst Christian world chronicle andalmost single-handedly invented thegenre of ecclesiastical ρ ο ν ικ ο ὶ κα history. His Χ ν ό ν ε ς(Chronici canones or Chronological Tables) was probably first composed around 308– 311, during the lull in themiddle of theGreat Persecution, as a work of apologetic andscholarship, aimed at Christians andnonChristians alike. The first edition of hisHistoria ecclesiastica (Church History) followed twoyears later, after the endof the persecutions. Both works reached their culmination in 325 with theadvent of thesole reign of Constantine. The Canones was actually the second of two linked works, the first being the Chronographia, a compendium of regnal lists, commentaries, andsource lists setting out nation by nation, as Eusebius himself said, the rawmaterial for a complete chronology of world history from the time of Abraham, all derived from existing histories and chronological works (Chapter 2, n. 11, below). The second volume, the Canones itself, is the synthesis of the Chronographia. It sets forth all known world history from the birth of Abraham, in what we would call 2016 BC, to Constantine’s uicennalia, celebrated in Nicomedia on 25 July 325, noting each regnal year of thekings of thenineteen important world kingdoms insynchronized vertical columns: inorder, theAssyrians, Hebrews, Sicyonians, Egyptians, Argives, Athenians, Mycenaeans, Latins, Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Medes, Macedonians, Lydians, Romans (kings), Persians, Alexandrians (Ptolemies), Asia (Antigonids), Syria (Seleucids), andRomans (emperors). These columns appeared first on double-page spreads, to a maximum of nine at a time, i.e. the Medes, Juda andIsrael of the Hebrews, Athenians, Latins, Spartans, Macedonians, Corinthians/Lydians, and 86), andthen Egyptians (see Helm’s edition of Jerome’s Latin translation, pp. 83– onsingle pages (after p. 105 inJerome). Oneach page theregnal year columns are crowded to the left andright sides of the page. Important events from secular and Biblical history were noted opposite their proper regnal years or Olympiads –as well as Eusebius could calculate themonthebasis of theoften conflicting evidence that he possessed –within the resulting large blank space down the middle of each page, the so-called spatium historicum, Biblical history on the left-hand page, secular on the right (though it often spilled over onto the left). The regnal years of a single kingdom could be read from topto bottom; the kingdoms existing within a single year could be read across the page from left to right. Eventually all the columnsresolved themselves into a single column of text representing theyear byyear chronology of theRoman Empire. Although Eusebius waswriting within a definite chronographic tradition, asweshall seeinchapter 6, nosuchuniversal synchronism for world history hadever been written before.1 1

For thedate of thefirst edition of theCanones andtheHE,seeBurgess 1997. FortheCanones

22

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

Unfortunately, the Canones no longer exists in the original Greek –indeed it would seemthatanintact, uncontaminated version of thechronicle failed tosurvive even thefourth century2 –andin order to study it onemustreconstruct it fromother histories that canbe shown tohave usedit orthat reproduce material atsecond hand thatcanbetraced backtoEusebius. Surprising asit mayseem, inspite oftheimportance of Eusebius’Canones forsomanyaspects of both history andhistoriography, no attempt reconstruct the chronicle to find out exactly what it was that Eusebius wrote has been undertaken since the early seventeenth century (see below). The Canones is usually cited from Jerome’s Latin translation andsometimes from the Armenian translation –itself always cited froma Latin orGerman translation –as if they were both accurate representations of Eusebius’original (these translations are discussed below). Neither translation, however, is a certain guide to Eusebius’original, since Jerome andthe Armenian translation often differ greatly in their content, translation, andchronology, making it difficult if notimpossible torecover the original from a simple comparison of thetwo. Furthermore, the loss of theArmeniantranslation after AD301complicates anytrue understanding ofthelast partof the chronicle separate from Jerome’s version, which, as weshall see, hasbeen heavily augmented fromother sources, thusmaking therecovery of Eusebius’original even

more difficult.

In 1606 one of Jerome’s first editors, Joseph Justus Scaliger, attempted to reconstruct both the Chronographia andthe Canones in Greek (Scaliger 1606; Scaliger 1658). His knowledge of the Greek andLatin witnesses was very good for his time, butincomplete by today’s standards, since he knewnothing of the Armenian version ortheSyriac epitomes. Theresult, though impressive forthestate of knowledge in 1606, is today unfortunately completely useless, even asa scholarly aid.3 It is long since past time for someone to attempt a reconstruction of at least this last, confused portion of the Canones, since, as will be seen, neither Jerome northeArmenian translation is anaccurate witness to Eusebius’original.

2 3

112 (a andthe historiographical background to it, see, for example, Mosshammer 1979: 29– fundamental workwitha full bibliography); vonGutschmid 1868; Gelzer 1885, 1 and1885, 2: 3; Wallace73; Quasten 1960: 311– 84; Milburn 1954: 57– 55; RE 6: 1376– 107; DCB2: 348– 1– 20; 9; Barnes 1981: 111– 134; Grant 1980: 3– 89; Sirinelli 1961: esp. 31– Hadrill 1960: 155– 73, 155– 36; Adler 1992; Inglebert 1996: 55– 71; Croke 1990b: 27– Croke 1983; Adler 1989: 15– 75; andChapter 6.1.3, below. For a detailed description of the Canones in the translation of Jerome, seeBurgess forthcoming. Forthepioneering nature of theCanones, seeCroke 1982. Onthis, see Study 2. Thereconstructed Greek texts of theChronographia andCanones form thethird partof thefirst 212, with anaddendum to 72 and73– edition of the Thesaurus temporum (Scaliger 1606), pp. 3– 29. In thesecond edition (Scaliger 1658) they appear inthefourth part, theformer onpp.213– 226. Scaliger followed theformat of later andinferior manuscripts of Jerome, 86 and87– pp.3– crowding theregnal years along theleft-hand side of thepage andsqueezing theactual historicalentries along theright-hand edgeandacross thepageinlarge blocks atvarious points onthe page. Olympiads andyears of Abraham weremarked intheleft-hand margins. Scaliger includedfewof Eusebius’historical entries since hebelieved that mostof thehistorical material was intheChronographia, andhealso included a separate column foryears AD.Themostnoticeable addition he made wasthe name of every consular pair from 509 BC to AD325 in large capital letters that extend right across the page.

1. Introduction: Overview andWitnesses

23

The question of a starting place for a newreconstruction is difficult. A Greek version of the entire Canones would be impractical, however desirable. To begin with, a small section of the particularly problematic final section would be sufficient as a starting point, as anexperiment, to determine the value of any further reconstruction. Anypoint before the termination of the Armenian translation in 301 is valid for such a test, butit is only withthereigns of Carus andhissons that Jerome starts replacing Eusebius’ text or interweaving his text with that of other sources withgreater frequency thanbefore (see n. 5, below, forHelm’s difficulties indifferentiating between Eusebius andJerome from about this point). For that reason I have begun this reconstruction with the accession of Carus andhis sons in 282, though this is notto deny that there areserious problems with ascertaining thecontent andchronology of earlier sections as well. Further reconstruction will have to await theoutcome of this experiment. Before such a reconstruction canbe undertaken however, there are various prolegomena that must be dealt with. First of all, the witnesses to the Canones, i.e. the sources forthereconstruction, mustbeintroduced anddescribed (below). Anexamination of these witnesses reveals twoextremely problematic aspects of chronology that hamper reconstruction: Jerome’s chronology for thereign of Constantine is at variance with the other witnesses by one year andthere is an instance of a single regnal year that seems tobe divided into twocalendar years (Chapter 3). In order to understand andexplain these problems, it is first necessary tounderstand Eusebius’ chronological systems andhis methods of presenting his chronology (Chapter 2). Next, Eusebius’practice of naming andenumerating the bishops of the apostolic sees mustbedetermined, since there is reason tobelieve that heterminated themat thebeginning of thepersecution, yetthey continue inmost witnesses past that point (Chapter 4). Theevidence foreachentry inthereconstructed Canones mustbeevaluated andtherationale for each reconstructed entry must be presented (Chapter 5). Thereconstruction itself andtranslation thenfollow, inthesamechapter. This study concludes with a commentary evaluating some of the results of the reconstruction forbothEusebius andJerome. A large partof thisconcerns ananalysis ofEusebius’ accuracy as a historian andJerome’s methods of translating andaugmenting Eusebius’Greek original. Citations for all the evidence used in the reconstruction are presented inanappendix attheend. 1.1. The Witnesses Jerome’s Latin translation andcontinuation of theChronici canones, madeinConstantinople in 380/1, is without doubt the most faithful witness to the Canones we possess,4 butas Jerome himself indicated, he augmented the work in many places from Latin histories: 4

73. For Je8, 67– 5 andMosshammer 1979: 37– For Jerome’s translation, see Kelly 1975: 72– rome’s version of theCanones ingeneral, seeSchöne 1900 (though inmanyimportant respects 95; andBurgess forthcom38; Inglebert 1996: 205– it hasbeen superseded); Donalson 1996: 1– ing.

24

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius Sciendum etenim estmeet interpretis et scriptoris ex parte officio usum, quia et Graeca fidelissime expressi et nonnulla, quaemihi intermissa uidebantur, adieci, inRomana maxime historia, quamEusebius huius conditor libri nontamignorasse uteruditus, sedutGraece scribens parum suis necessariam perstrinxisse mihi uidetur. Itaque a Nino et Abraham usque adTroiae captiuitatem puraGraeca translatio est. A Troia usque aduicesimum Constantini annum nunc addita, nunc admixta sunt plurima, quae deTranquillo et ceteris inlustribus historicis curiosissime excerpsi. A Constantini autem supra dicto anno usque adconsulatum Augustorum Valentis sexies 7.3) et Valentiniani iterum totum meumest. (Helm, 6.8–

Asa matter of fact, youshould knowthat I have served as both translator and, to some extent, author, since I have translated the Greek very faithfully andI have added quite a number of items that I felt hadbeenomitted, especially withregard to Roman history. It seems tomethat Eusebius, theauthor of this book, wasnotso muchunacquainted with Roman history, since he wasa well-educated man, butthat he treated it cursorily because it wasless important for his readers, since he waswriting in Greek. Therefore, from Ninus andAbraham downto the capture of Troy is straight translation from the Greek. From Troy down to the twentieth year of Constantine I have added manynewentries andaugmented manyexisting entries using material that I have most carefully excerpted from Tranquillus andother famous historians. Andfrom theabove-mentioned yearof Constantine downto thesixth consulship of Valens Augustus and thesecond of Valentinian Augustus thematerial is all mine.

In his now-standard edition of Jerome, Rudolf Helm attempted to sort outwhat was Eusebian andwhat wasHieronymian by denoting Jerome’s additional entries withasterisks andentries withsupplements orchanges madebyJerome witha bracketed asterisk. In the latter case, however, there is no sure or easy wayto sort out which author is responsible for whattext without a careful reading of thetestimonia supplied by Helm in an appendix. Even so, Helm wasoften incorrect, especially towards the endof the Canones.5 However, Jerome also made a number of important changes to Eusebius’chronology. These changes areless well-known andwere not signalled by Helm. For instance, Jerome changed the date of the battle of Actium (162h) from the fifteenth year of Augustus (= 29 BC) to the eleventh year (= 33),6 which was his equivalent of the year 722 AUC (ab Urbe condita), which he found in anindependent Latin source.7 Since Jerome dated the foundation of Rome 5

6 7

As we shall see below, the following entries should be followed by a ‘(*)’: 229a, c,d,k,230e, h, i, 230a, b,d,231d. 231b, e; andthe following should be followed bya ‘*’: 225c, 227m, 228e, 229e,g, These wereeither missed orincorrectly denoted byHelm. This isanextreme example, fromthe particularly problematic section of thetext that will bediscussed below. Fora fewearlier examples, see 201e, 205g, 206i, 213a, 216c, and223a, which should all be followed by a ‘(*)’, and 221k, which should be followed bya ‘*’. Barnes’description of theprocedure forreconstructing theoriginal Greek is toosimplistic, aswell asbeing incorrect instating that ‘theSyriac tradition 3). Brugnoli 1995 is a brave attempt toidentify Jerome’s additions, canbe ignored’(1981: 112– butit is wildly inaccurate, insensitive to Jerome’s methods, andnotinterested inchronology or Eusebius’original text. Onthis, see myreview, Burgess 1998, andChapter 6.2, below, which 20 and 53 (see also 217– shows the shortcomings of Brugnoli’s methods. Inglebert 1996: 221– 76) is aneven less detailed andrigorous attempt to locate Jerome’s additions. I amembark255– ingona moreambitious andaccurate attempt toascertain Jerome’s additions andmodifications with a view to determining Eusebius’original, of which Chapter 6.2 is a preview. Inspite ofchanging thedateofCleopatra’s death, Jerome left herregnal years astheyappeared inEusebius. That is whyshestill hasfour regnal years after herdeath. That is the now-lost Kaisergeschichte, as reported by two witnesses, Aurelius Victor: ‘Anno

1.Introduction: Overview andWitnesses

25

to 755 BC (88aa), hisdate forActium is twoyears early. Eusebius dated the foundation to 752. Jerome also moved the date of Christ’s crucifixion from 19 Tiberius to 18 Tiberius (AD 32 to 31).8 Without careful comparison of the existing witnesses, such changes are difficult to identify. For the purposes of this study the most important chronological change that Jerome introduced involves the regnal years of the reign of Constantine andthis will be discussed in chapter 3. TheArmenian translation survives intwomanuscripts of thethirteenth or fourteenth century (anda later copy of one) that present a text that is a compilation of an earlier Armenian translation anda Syriac translation.9 It is theonly intact, uninterpolated version of the Canones weposses, but its structure has been completely reworked, it is chronologically corrupt (for instance, the Olympiads have all been shifted back one year andEusebius’sometimes peculiar treatment of regnal years has been regularized), a number of folios are missing from various places in the manuscript, andit is missing manyentries throughout thetext. Worse, it breaks off at 16Diocletian (AD301).10 Wealso possess a witness to a different tradition of the Armenian version, that of Samuel Aniensis (of Ani), whoused a complete text of the Armenian translation when compiling his Summarium temporum in the late twelfth century.11 In spite of his late date anddistance from Eusebius’Greek original, hisentries cansometimes be more accurate anduseful than those of thesurviv-

8

9

10

11

urbis septingentesimo fere uicesimoque duobus etiam mosRomae incessit uniprorsus parendi’ (de caesaribus, 1.1) andthe anonymous Epitome de caesaribus: ‘Anno urbis conditae septingentesimo uicesimo secundo, ab exactis uero regibus quadringentesimo octogesimoque, mos Romae repetitus uniprorsus parendi, prorege imperatori uelsanctiori nomine Augusto appellato’(1.1). For the KG, see Chapter 5, n. 1, below. Cf. Jerome’s date for 174dand his translation of line three of the same entry, ‘anno Tiberii XVIII’, with Eusebius’ owncomment, translated by Jerome unchanged, that the crucifixion 5) as well as with the took place in the fourth year of Olympiad 202 (= 19 Tib.; p. 174.24– Armenian translation, ‘im neunzehnten Jahre der Regierung des Tiberios’ (213); Syncellus’ ʹτ ῆ ςΤιβ ερ α ίο σ ιλ υβ εία υ ο ςιθ ς(394.3); the Syriac excerpt from Eusebius’Greek original, ἔτ chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, which contains a Syriac epitome of theCanones, ‘(in) thenineteenth yearof thereign of Tiberius’(73.33/96.4– 5); andtheother sources cited by 9. Helm in thetestimonia, pp.398– 4, 49–50, 58– For the Armenian translation, see Karst 1911: xi-liv and Mosshammer 1979: 41– 60. Karst’s German translation is superior to Petermann’s Latin, in spite of being, strangely, a critical edition of theArmenian inGerman, andis thetext cited here. 83. On For an overview of Jerome andthe Armenian translation, see Mosshammer 1979: 37– 7 andMossham1900: 184– the general inferiority of theArmenian version, see Turner 1899– mer 1979: 81: ‘As far as the Chronological Canons is concerned, the Armenian version is of considerably less value as a witness to thechronological traditions preserved byEusebius than is the Chronicle of St. Jerome.’With regard to thedifferences between Jerome andthe Arme17and nian translation with respect to the bishop lists, for instance, see Sundermeier 1896: 4– Schwartz 1909: ccxxxvi-ccxxxviii. ThatSamuel wasusing thesameArmenian translation isproven, forinstance, bythefact thathe reproduces the same chronological error with regard to the Olympiads as does the surviving Armenian translation. Thelastyear intheArmenian translation, 16Diocl., is assigned toOlympiad 270.4 (227), which is the same Olympiad preserved in Samuel (41/663). In Jerome and other witnesses it is Olympiad 270.1 (227c). There arenoYears of Abraham in Samuel. Onthe accuracy of Jerome’s chronology at this point, see Chapter 3, n. 12.

26

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

ingtext of theArmenian translation andit is ouronly witness to theoriginal Armenian version after 301. Luckily, wealso possess twomajor Syriac epitomes, contained in the Chroniconmiscellaneum adannum Domini 724pertinens (Chron. 724) andthe Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius ofTel-Mahre (Ps-Dion.). There also survive a number of other Syriac witnesses to the chronicle, including the Chronicon Maroniticum (Chron. Mar.), the Chronicon ad annum 846 pertinens (Chron. 846), the Opus Chronologicumof Elias of Nisibis, the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, andthe Chronicon ad annum 1234 pertinens (Chron. 1234).12 These chronicles are of varying value and quality as witnesses. For all these witnesses to Eusebius, the easy availability of other sources andnarratives for the reign of Constantine led to the alteration of much of Eusebius’ narrative andchronology, a cause of much difficulty for any modern scholar trying to reconstruct the Canones. Still useful, though of lesser value, aretwolater Arabic sources, the Chronicle of Se‛ert (Chron. Se‛ert) andtheKitab alUnvan or Universal History of Agapius, thefirst Christian Arabic historiographer.13 ‛ theperiod under discussion, both depend almost exclusively onSyriac sources. For In Greek, all wehave of the Canones arefragments derived from later authors whousedEusebius to compile their ownworks. Fortheearlier portions of the Canones the chronicle of Syncellus is of great importance, but it ends in 284 andits continuator, Theophanes, though still of importance for content, is less reliable for chronology. The chronicler Cedrenus copied Theophanes but seems to have compared histext tothatof Eusebius (ormorelikely a Eusebian witness) andsometimes his chronology or wording is of independent value. Like Syncellus, the Chronicon Paschale (Chron. Pasch.) is animportant witness to the earlier Eusebian material, but like Theophanes its chronology becomes less reliable under Diocletian, since it starts to rely on a variety of different sources including the more accurate consular chronology supplied by anearly recension of theDescriptio consulum.14 TheAnonymusMatritensis (Anon. Matr.), oneof many surviving short Byzantine chronologi12

13 14

Chron. 724, compiled c. 640 from a variety of earlier chronicles (PSyr no. 146.IV, QGB no. 46, andPalmer 1993: xxix-xxx, 5–12); Chron. Mar., written c. 664 (PSyr 173, Palmer 1992: 31– no. 146.III and Palmer 1993: xxx, 29); Ps-Dionysius, Chron., written c. 775 (PSyr no. 149, QGBno. 172, Siegfried andGelzer 1884, Witakowski 1987, andPalmer 1993: xxxi, 53); Chron. 4); Elias, Op.Chron., written c. 1,83– 846 (PSyr no. 146.V, QGBno.209, andPalmer 1993: 80– 1018 (PSyr no. 157 andQGB no. 348); Michael the Syrian, Chron., written c. 1195 (PSyr no. 162, QGB no. 402, andPalmer 1993: 103– 4); and Chron. 1234 (PSyr no. 150, QGB no. 458, and Palmer 1993: xxxi-xxxii, 103). For the general background to most of these works, see Wita146, andespecially Wright 1894, Duval 1899, Baumstark 1922, Chabot 1934, kowski 1987: 76– Brock 1979/80, andNagel 1990. Fortherelationship of theSyriac sources toEusebius inparticular, see vonGutschmid 1886 andKeseling 1927. TheSyriac evidence is byfar themost accurate witness wepossess after Jerome. Agapius Hierapolitanus, Kitab al-‛Unvan (‘Book of theTitle’), written c. 942 (QGB no. 278), andthe Chronicle of Se‛ert, anArabic translation of c. 1036 of a lost Syriac history (QGB no. 6. 40 and 195– 351). For these twoworks, see Graf 1947: 39– For theDescriptio consulum (the text Mommsen called the Consularia Constantinopolitana), 98, esp. 195and197. It wasessenseeWhitby andWhitby 1989: xvii andBurgess 1993a: 187– tially a consular list, noting theconsuls of eachyear, withshort historical entries added beneath theappropriate year.

1.Introduction:

Overview

andWitnesses

27

cal compendia, is useful forcontent butprovides nochronology, andis very abbreviated. There area variety of other Greek sources that contain material that canbe identified as Eusebian butthey areusually useful only incertain instances.15 Unfortunately, therefore, the Greek witnesses to Eusebius’ original text are extremely limited, especially withregard tochronology, andareoften modified andrewritten. Finally, there is Eusebius’ownEcclesiastical History (HE) –though this source is

only of limited value since it seems to represent Eusebius’revised chronological ideas after the composition of the Canones –and, to a much lesser extent, hisMartyrs of Palestine (MPal) andLife of Constantine (VConst).16 It is therefore plain to see that anyone whowishes to knowwhatexactly it was that Eusebius said –with respect to both content andchronology –must compare andsift through manydifferent sources, piecing together thefragments andexcerpts withgreat care andcaution, asif reconstructing a smashed glass goblet thathasbeen mixed with broken glass fromother objects. Asweshall see, theresults aresurprising, forscholars havebeendiscussing Eusebius’chronicle forseveral hundred years andyet it turns outthat wereally have hadno clear idea what Eusebius actually wrote.

15 These are Malalas; Socrates, HE; Leo Grammaticus (as the representative of the Logothete tradition; on which, see Study 2, Chapter 3, n. 126); Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus, Chronographicon syntomon; Anonymus, Synagoge chronon; and the Excerpta Latina barbari (a poor Latin translation of anoriginally Greek document that contains, among other things, excerpts from Eusebius’Chronographia; onwhich, see n. 11inChapter 2, below). 16 Onthedate of theHEandtherelationship of theMPal to it andthe Canones, seeBarnes 1980 3. 8, 502– 6, 487, 495– andBurgess 1997: 482–

2. Regnal Years and Other Chronological Systems In the Chronici canones Eusebius used three main chronological systems: years since the birth of Abraham, Olympiads, andthe regnal years of kings, emperors, pharaohs, andother leaders. The Years of Abraham were merely notional units designed to give anoverall chronological context for the work as a whole andsimply counted eachpassing year from2016 BC. Olympiads ranfromc. July of thequadriennium that began with the celebration of the games themselves. Each Olympiad wasbroken downbyhistorians into fouryear-long units forchronological purposes.1 Ordinarily each king oremperor’s regnal years began fromthedayheascended the throne andchanged to the next year on each anniversary of that day, though some kings, suchasthose of Persia andEgypt, synchronized thebeginning of their second regnal year andevery regnal year after that with the first dayof the local calendar. Thus the regnal years andcalendar years of those kingdoms were almost always in synchronization. Thecalendars of somekingdoms were solar, some were lunar, and some were lunisolar; consequently they were never in synchronization with one another from one year to the next.2 Eusebius’owncivic year, that of Caesarea, like most of those in the eastern Roman empire, wasbased uponthe Seleucid or SyroMacedonian calendar, a Babylonian calendar withMacedonian month names that in origin waslunisolar buthadbeen correlated in a variety of different ways at different times with the solar Julian calendar during the first century AD.3 Analysis of Eusebius’ correlations between his own calendar and the Roman calendar in the Martyrs of Palestine shows that his calendar was of the unusual type used in Tyre; his year therefore probably began on3 October.4 1

2 3

4

6 and For short accounts of Olympiads as a chronological system, see Bickerman 1980: 75– 94. Samuel 1972: 189– 6. Onancient calendars, see Bickerman 1980 andSamuel 1972. See also Meimaris 1992: 35– 5, and 300–1; Schürer, 71, 172– For the Syro-Macedonian calendar, see Grumel 1958: 168– 5; Samuel 1972: 139– 90; Bickerman 1980: 24– Vermes, andMillar 1973: 588– 45; andMeima41. For the effect of the Julian calendar on local Eastern calendars, see Samuel ris 1992: 38– 88. 1972: 171– Rey-Coquais 1978: esp. 62, which shows that 1 Hyperberetaios = 3 October. That Hyperberetaios wasthe first month of the Caesarean calendar is implied by the similarities between the calendars of Caesarea andTyre. Forthecalendar of Tyre, known frommanuscript hemerologia ultimately dating from thesecond half of thethird century (for thedate, see Samuel 1972: 171– 30; Lietzmann andAland 3 andMeimaris 1992: 36), see Schwartz 1906: 346; Ginzel 1914: 29– 1(where 18 October’is anerror for 19 October’); 19;Bickerman 1980: 70– 1956: 81 and108– ’ modified 2. Bickerman (1980: 48)’andSamuel (1972: 176) have andMeimaris 1992: 41, 60– their calendars of Tyre to start inDios (18 November) rather thanHyperberetaios (19 October) onthebasis of aninscription that hasbeen interpreted as showing that byAD576 thecalendar of Tyre hadshifted its first month to Dios (see Ginzel 1914: 30 andMeimaris 1992: 61), but Schwartz (1906: 346) rightly discounts this evidence, which is irrelevant for this period anyway. Josephus indicates that the first month of the Macedonian calendar he wasusing was Hyperberetaios (AJ 1.80) andsynchronisms prove that this calendar wasTyre’s (see Appendix

2. Regnal Years andOther Chronological

Systems

29

All these differing calendar systems would have been impossible for Eusebius tocalculate, synchronize, andrepresent if theywere alltreated asaccurate representations of reality. Inorder to workthey all hadto becoordinated to a single system. Consequently all Years of Abraham, Olympiads, and regnal years were equated with thecivic Syro-Macedonian year of Caesarea andbegan atthesame time of the year. As a randomly selected example, the various regnal years that arerelevant to theslaughter of theGauls in 133dinJerome’s translation, 20 Ptolemy (Alexandrinorum), 20 Seleucus (Syriae et Asiae), and7 Antigonus (Macedonum), as well as the

year 1790 Abr. andOlympiad 138.2, were all exactly equated with 3 Oct. 228 BC to 2 Oct. 227 BC by Eusebius.5 For all his history from 776 BC to AD217 Olympiads were Eusebius’primary chronology. That the ‘real’Olympiad year in this example actually began in c. July of 227 BC, just a few months before the end of the stated O lympiad’, is completely irrelevant. These are not ‘real’ Olympiads, they are ‘‘chronological’ Olympiads adjusted to correlate with the Syro-Macedonian calendaryearof Caesarea: thesystem Eusebius followed simply equated thebeginning of each Olympiad with thebeginning of the Syro-Macedonian calendar year in which the ‘real’Olympiad actually fell.6 This is the system Eusebius used for his regnal years as well: theyear in which anemperor or king’s accession fell wascounted as his first year from the previous 3 October, no matter howlate in the year before 3

October that accession took place (see below). Throughout the early imperial period, starting with the sole rule of of Julius Caesar in 48 BC, Eusebius’ regnal chronology is almost perfectly accurate. Each regnal year is treated as the equivalent of a full calendar year, andno attempt is madeto indicate partial regnal years. Inthecase of eachemperor –let ususeTrajan as an example –Eusebius noted the true length of the reign in calendar years and months in a notice of accession (originally in red), noting also that emperor’s position in the succession of legitimate emperors (Helm, 193). Trajan wastheeleventh legitimate emperor (Galba, Otho, andVitellius areomitted) andhereigned for nineteen years andsix months (this figure is correct). 1 Trajan (= thefirst regnal year of Trajan) is noted in theleft margin immediately after hisaccession anda sequence of regnal years tonineteen follows fromthere. Hisdeath is noted asthelast event in 19 Traj. (197a) andthere immediately follows the notice for Hadrian’s accession (as twelfth emperor) andhisfirst year is noted immediately after that rubric. 1Trajan is theequivalent of theYearof Abraham andOlympiad thatcorrespond to98 (starting 3 October 97), the correct year of his accession, and 1 Hadrian corresponds to 117 (from 3 October 116), the correct year of his accession. Trajan’s death andHadrian’s accession are actually noted in 19 Traj., which is 116, a year earlier than the

5

6

2). Furthermore, at this period the influential calendar of Antioch also began with Hyperberetaios, as didthose of Ascalon andPalmyra: see Bickerman 1980: 48; Samuel 1972: 174 n. 1, 5. 1; andHonigmann 1944– 9; Ginzel 1914: 32; Downey 1940– 177, and 178– The accuracy of Jerome’s date is confirmed by the Armenian andPs-Dionysius, butthe entry should be followed bya (*) because Jerome hasmodified theentry somewhat. Forthecorrelation of Olympiads withtheSyro-Macedonian year, seeBickerman 1980: 76. This correlation leads to theepoch of 777 BC rather than 776 BC, as Bickerman notes; inthis case, theautumn of 777 BC (for theexact date, see below).

30

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

events themselves. This is thepattern foreach emperor from Julius Caesar, with the exception of theaccession of Augustus:7 like theOlympiads theyear of accession is equated with thecalendar year within which it occurred. The fundamental point to realize here is that theregnal year markers that Eusebius uses throughout the Canones donotcount theactual regnal years of each emperor fromthedate of hisaccession tothedate of hisdeath, asis normally assumed, just as the Olympiads do not mark real Olympiads. They are simply chronological place-holders for calendar years. For his chronology of the Roman emperors (and for all earlier historical rulers) Eusebius wasinterested in only twothings: that the first regnal yearof a ruler should correspond totheyearof hisaccession andthatthe overall accounting of regnal years for each kingdom should be accurate. He hadno interest in matching the exact length of each ruler’s reign with his regnal years, which was, of course, impossible, given that most rulers didnotreign for anexact number of full years. Thepoint wasnotto represent accurately theexact fewyears of each ruler’s reign, buttohave a system of representation that could keeptrack of multiple decades andcenturies of reigns with a minimum of confusion, calculation, anderror. A number of examples will demonstrate this principle. Aswehaveseen, Trajan issaidtohavereigned fornineteen years andsixmonths, butis given only nineteen regnal years, nottwenty aswemight expect since hedied within his twentieth regnal year. Ontheother hand, Pius is said to have reigned for twenty-two years andthree months, andis given twenty-three regnal years (which is actually closer to the correct twenty-two years andeight months that he reigned; pp. 38). Pertinax is said to have reigned for six months (it wasjust three, 31 Dec. 202– 28 March 193) andsomustbeassigned a minimum of oneregnal year since he 192– is regarded as a legitimate emperor (number sixteen), but the overall chronology would notallow hima full regnal year andSeverus hisproper eighteen regnal years (emperor from 9 April 193 to 4 Feb. 211), since both Pertinax andSeverus dated their accessions to the Syro-Macedonian equivalent of 193 (which started in the autumn of 192). Eusebius wasthus forced to the unique expedient of counting 1 Pertinax as 1 Severus as well (p. 210). After the notice of Severus’ accession his regnal years begin with the second year. Thus thefirst year of each emperor is correctly placed in 193. Theresult of this accuracy is that fortheRoman emperors, for example, Eusebius assigns 373regnal years totheperiod from 1Caesar in48 BC to 20 Constantine in AD325, a total of 373 calendar years. Inorder to create this imperial chronology Eusebius hadto have accurate sources that told him not only howlong each emperor hadreigned butin what year each hadbecome emperor. For the period from Caesar to M. Aurelius he hada source that provided him with the detailed lengths of the emperors’ reigns in years and months, except forTiberius, whose twenty-three years is rounded fromtwenty-two years andseven months, andforHadrian, whose twenty-one years is rounded from

7

8

ForEusebius’treatment of thedeath of Julius Caesar andtheaccession of Augustus, seeChapter3, n. 1.There area fewinstances where theemperor’s first regnal yeardoesnotimmediately follow hisaccession orhisdeath doesnotimmediately precede anaccession rubric butthese are mostly a result of changes made byJerome andare unimportant for mypurposes here. Fora possible explanation forthis, see Chapter 3, n. 2, below.

2. Regnal Years andOther Chronological

Systems

31

twenty years andeleven months.9 For Nero, Claudius, andVespasian he also includes the number of days (Claudius is too long by nine days, Nero by one, and Vespasian is exact). FromCommodus to Philip heknewonly inrounded years how long eachemperor hadreigned andfromDecius toCamsandhissons heagain had thelengths of thereigns inyears andmonths (see below forchanges tothereigns of Carus andhissons10). Inthefirst andlast periods noted above thefigures overall are veryaccurate: only seven months short overalmost 227years fromAugust 48 BCto March AD 180, andonly four months short over exactly thirty-three years from c. Sept. 249 to c. Sept. 282 (not including thereign of Carus andhis sons since wedo notknowEusebius’original figures; see below). Thecorrection of a possible error inthereign of Decius (see Chapter 3, n.2, below) would alter this latter discrepancy to a month or less. Interestingly, for thecontemporary reign of Diocletian he used just a rounded figure of twenty years, probably because he didnot know exactly whenDiocletian’s reign began orwhenhe abdicated (see below, Chapter 3). Whetherthis regnal year information fromCaesar toCarus derived froma single source or a number ofdifferent sources, cannot beknown. Judging fromtheerrors that appear forthereigns inthemiddle period, I suspect twodifferent sources fortheaccurately recounted reigns, the first of which deriving ultimately from Theophilus, andrandomsources (including, toCaracalla, theOlympiad source described below), guesswork, andcalculation for the others of the middle period. From Caesar to Caracalla he hadanother source that provided him with the correct year of accession for each emperor. With theconclusion of this source his chronology goes hopelessly outof synchronization andas weshall see below heis not able to regain control of it until 306. This source wasprobably the Olympiad chronicle that provided the Olympic victor list that he includes in the Chronographia, the first volume of the two-part work of which the Canones forms volume two.11

9 This would suggest that hewasusing Theophilus’AdAutolycum asa source, since hisemperor

list stops with Marcus Aurelius, butthe figures, though very similar, arenotexactly thesame, andTheophilus gives year, month, anddayfigures foreachemperor; Eusebius doesnot,except in three cases. This discrepancy could, nevertheless, be explained by scribal corruption, especially since the figures in Clement’s Stromata seem to derive from the same source as Theophilus andyet are different in many places as well, in a fewcases matching Eusebius where

10 11

Eusebius differs fromTheophilus. Those deriving from other early lists such as those used by Hippolytus, Tertullian, andthe author of theexactly contemporary Chronica urbis Romae are quite different –notonly intheir figures butalso intheemperors they choose to list –andareso toa greater degree thanmere scribal error could account for. Allclearly derive fromindependent traditions, while Eusebius, Theophilus, andClement are clearly related. In Appendix 3 I have provided theregnal-year figures from all six of these compilations inorder to showhow close Eusebius andTheophilus are in spite of their discrepancies, andto show the pattern of Eusebius’ regnal year information in comparison with other chronological works. Eusebius mayhave hadhisfigures indirectly through another source, however, which would explain the differences from Theophilus andthemissing daytotals. ῖς ο τ υ ια ὶν ἐν ιςτρισ ο ᾽ὅλ ὐ δ Hisknowledge in theHE7.30.22 that Carus andhissons reigned ο (‘notforthree years intotal’) shows thathehada year andmonth figure forthemas well (‘two years andX months’). 53, andKarst, 90–103. The Chronographia provides a compilation of rulers and Cramer, 141– regnal year totals, listed kingdom bykingdom, of which theCanones is thesynthesis, aswell as

32

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

This list provided the names of all Olympic victors in the stadion from 776 BC to AD 217 (though the original list concluded in 212/312). Entered into this list are the

12

chronological discussions andanalysis copied from theworks Eusebius cites. It survives nearly complete inanArmenian translation (Karst) –it is lacking only theoutline of Roman history at theend–andinlongGreek excerpts that represent muchof thework(Cramer). It wasalso used heavily by the original Greek compiler of what is known as the Excerpta Latina barbari or Barbarus Scaligeri –socalled because it hadits editio princeps inScaliger’s Thesaurus tempo70, second part, and 1658: 58– 85, second part) under the title, ‘Exrum(Scaliger 1606: 44– cerpta utilissima ex priore libro chronologico Eusebii, et Africano, et aliis Latine conuersa ab which nowonly survives ina homine barbaro, inepto, Hellenismi etLatinitatis imperitissimo’– poorLatin translation of anearly fifth-century Greek original ina manuscript of theseventh or eighth century (though thedate of thetranslation mustbe earlier thanthat). Themiddle section 225), thesecond of three sections, derives almost entirely of this work, ff. 37a to48b(pp. 213– from the Chronographia andis a valuable witness to it, though Jacoby goes too far when he says, ‘Es ist wirklich nicht zubestreiten, daßderBarbarus mehrfach “ diebeste Überlieferung Eusebs”repräsentiert’(Jacoby 1909: 1570). Jerome only translated thesecond volume of Eusebius’two-volume work andso the Chronographia tends to be muchless well-known than the Canones. At the beginning of the Roman section of the Chronographia Eusebius provided an emperor list fromJulius Caesar, again withtheOlympiads of accession, butalso withthenumber of consulates held by each emperor. This list is announced at the very endof the Armenian 7), butunfortunately theonly witness toit is thereworked andextended translation (Karst, 143.3– list intheExcerpt. Lat. barb., which provides onlytheOlympiad of Caesar’s accession (correctly), substituting regnal years fortherest (not all fromEusebius, however), andwhich continues downtoAnastasius, though theconsulates cease withCarus andhissons withonefurther notice 5). Eusebius musthave copied this listing of forJulian (Excerpt. Lat. barb. 48a andb, pp.224– consulates from another source, forif hehimself hadcorrelated Olympiads andaccession dates witha consular list, hewould havequite quickly discovered hischronological errors inthethird century (see Chapter 3) andbeen able to fix them. Since mostemperors took uptheconsulship on the first of January after their accession Eusebius would have found that according to his chronology each emperor after Caracalla wasconsistently already consul in the year of his accession (to Philip) or consul a full year before his accession (after Decius). Decius would havebeenconsul twoyears before hewasemperor. Furthermore, Decius wasconsul in250 and 251, indicating a reign of morethanoneyear(heis, however, onlycredited withoneconsulship in theExcerpta, 48b, p. 224.1). It is also impossible to know howfar this list originally went, since Eusebius’Olympiads only wentas far as Caracalla. This Olympic victor list –which Mosshammer unnecessarily believes Eusebius mayhave had through an intermediary such as Porphyry –hadprobably been excerpted from an Olympiad 58, 167. This conclusion chronicle that Eusebius usedfirst hand: see Mosshammer 1979: 137– is supported bytheevidence adduced just below. Thepreface tothelist saysthatit goes downto Olymp. 247 whenAntoninus thesonof Severus (i.e. Caracalla) wasemperor (Cramer, 141.30– 3), yetthestadion victors of Olymp. 248 and249 areincluded in thelist. 1, andKarst, 90.32– Since Caracalla became sole emperor only upon the death of Geta in Dec. 211 andthe two hundred and forty-eighth Olympiad was celebrated in c. July of 213, the Olympiad chronicle fromwhich thevictor list wascopied mustoriginally havebeenwritten in212orthefirst half of 213. Thevictor list wascopied fromthat worksoonafter, later circulating asa document in its ownright, andatsomepoint between July 217 andJuly 221thevictors of thetwohundred and forty-eighth andtwohundred andforty-ninth Olympiads were added to thelist bya continuator whofailed tomake anyhistorical additions. This simple yetobvious explanation for thenature 8. If the 5, 157– of the victor list hasnever before been realized: see Mosshammer 1979: 144– Olympiad chronicle hadbeen written muchlater (in250, forexample), buthadsimply stopped with the accession of Caracalla in 211, it is difficult to explain whya continuator of thevictor

2. Regnal Years andOther Chronological

Systems

33

accessions of theRoman emperors fromJulius Caesar toCaracalla, exactly theperiodof accurate imperial chronology in the Canones. Furthermore, thelist of emperorsis identical toEusebius’, omitting Galba, Otho, Vitellius, andDidius Julianus as legitimate emperors, andin spite of including the victor of thestadion in 217 does not include the accession of Macrinus.13 The list as it stands nownotes only the Olympiad of accession, nottheexact year within thefour-year sequence, butwhere emperors were proclaimed inthefirst year of anOlympiad theCanones agrees with this list, evenwhenbothareapparently incorrect (seebelow). Alloftheabove makes a strong case forconcluding that Eusebius must have derived his imperial chronologyfortheemperors between Caesar andCaracalla inclusive fromthesource of this Olympic victor list, anunknown Olympiad chronicler, perhaps tobeidentified with a Cassius Longinus cited byEusebius intheChronographia (see n. 12,above). This would account for Eusebius’ ability to date the relevant emperor’s accessions according to thecorrect sub-divisions of Olympiads, even whenthis evidence is lacking in theexisting victor list. Unfortunately the section onRoman history from the Chronographia that would have told usmore about his sources is nolonger extant, in Greek, Latin, orArmenian. In this list, andtherefore in the original Olympiad chronicle, each Olympiad was equated with a Syro-Macedonian year –which ran from the autumn of each

year, as noted above –but in which city precisely it wascomposed, andconsequently what calendar its author used, wecannot determine since wehave so little evidence forcontemporary calendars andsuchcalendars varied considerably throughouttheEast.14 It wasthis source thatprovided Eusebius withthecorrelation of SyroMacedonian years andOlympiads noted above, namely thattheOlympiad year was equated with the Syro-Macedonian year within which the games themselves or the annual anniversary of the games fell, not the closest correlation of Olympiad and Macedonian year. The above twoconclusions are proved, in reverse order, by empirical analysis of thevictor list andthe Canones. Claudius’accession is assigned to Olymp. 205 in 13), yet the Olympiad began inc. the victor list (Cramer, 151.13–14; Karst, 1012.12– July 41 andClaudius was proclaimed emperor on 24 January 41. M. Aurelius is 1; Karst, 1031.13– 15), which began in c. assigned to Olymp. 235 (Cramer, 152.30–

13

list, a number of years again after thecompilation of thechronicle itself (in 275, forexample), would have included the victors of Olympiads 248 and 249 but no others between that time (217) andthetime of thecontinuation of thevictor list (e.g. in275 = Olymp. 263.3). Since this is so, if thelist does indeed derive fromCassius Longinus’Olympiad chronicle asMosshammer believes, hecannot bethewell-known third-century Longinus whowastheteacher of Porphyry andadvisor toZenobia, since hewasbornc. 213, thedate of thecompilation of theOlympiad 5, s.v. Cassius Longinus 2). chronicle (PLRE I: 514– Allother writers inAppendix 3 include Galba, Otho, andVitellius intheir lists, andHippolytus andthe Chron. urb. Rom. include Didius Julianus. Thegames of 217 took place inc. July, but Caracalla hadbeen murdered on 8 April of the same year. His successor (Macrinus) should therefore have been noted in the list bythecontinuator, butwasnot. Because of this missing accession notice Eusebius misdates theaccession of Macrinus (and hence thedeath of Caracal-

la) by a year (see below). 87. 14 See Bickerman 1980: 48 andSamuel 1972: 174–

34

1.The Chronici canones of Eusebius

July 161, yetAurelius wasproclaimed on7 March 161. Eusebius follows this chronology in the Canones (pp. 179 and203– 4). This might seem to indicate a correspondence with the consular year,15 butNero, whowasproclaimed augustus on 13 October 54 is assigned to Olymp. 208.3 (began c. July 55) in the Canones (p. 181). Nerva, whowasproclaimed on 18Sept. 96 is listed under Olymp. 219 inthevictor 7; Karst, 1022.1– list (Cramer, 152.6– 2) andunder 219.1 in the Canones, yet this Olympiad did not begin until c. July of the next year, 97.16 On the other hand, Domitian, whowasproclaimed on 14 September 81 is inthecorrect Olymp. 215.1 (c. July 81), both in the victor list (Cramer, 151.31– 4) andin the 2; Karst, 1021.23– Canones (p. 189). Noother emperor in thevictor list wasproclaimed later than 19 August (Tiberius). If wecanaccept thattheauthor of thevictor list knewthecorrect dates of accession forNerva andDomitian (this is notcertain), this suggests that a Syro-Macedonian calendar that hadits NewYear between 14 and 18 September wasbeing used here.17 Wethus have theinteresting situation of Domitian’s coming to the throne (14 Sept. 81) only days or a few weeks before the endof the calendar year that wasassigned tohimas ‘Year 1’. So although it seems thatEusebius’source used a calendar that began in September, Eusebius, obviously, didnotknow this and heequated allhisevidence withhisowncalendar. Ofcourse, thediscrepancy makes nopractical difference forthechronology of the Canones. In addition tothese sources Eusebius mustalso have usedsome kindof erathat kept an accurate account of the number of calendar years from the late Republic (andearlier, of course) to hisownperiod, probably theyears of Antioch orEdessa – both of which he specifically notes in the Canones, Antioch: 156b and 223k, and Edessa: 126hand223k, the latter being the well-known Seleucid era18 –or some 15 That is the conclusion of Samuel 1972: 194 n. 2. 16 Pertinax, whowasproclaimed on31December of 192, isplaced inOlymp. 243 inthevictor list (Cramer, 153.9– 10; Karst, 1032.7– 9) and 243.1 (c. July 193) by Eusebius (Helm, 210). His accession wassoclose totheendof theyear, however, that itcannot beusedtodemonstrate that theOlympiads were notbased ontheconsular year. 17 The date for Nerva could, however, be anerror on the part of the Olympiad chronicler. Von 5) suggests thattheLatin XIIII kal. Oct.’for 18Sept. inthecompiler’s Gutschmid (1868: 454– a unique fundamental misinterpretation source could have been misread as 14 October, though ‘ of this type is highly unlikely. However, if so, it would make thecalendar closer to theAntiochene andCaesarean calendars (NewYear on 1 and3 October), aswell asthose of Asia minor 20; Bickerman 1980: 48; thatbegan on23 September, Augustus’birthday; seeGinzel 1914: 19– 5. Forsuggestions thatEusebius’regnal years began inmid-September, andSamuel 1972: 174– 192, whois basing his argument on the imperial dates just dis1900: 187– see Turner 1899– cussed withreference toEusebius’Olympiad source. For 1October (also noted byTurner) and other possible regnal yearcalculations, seeSchwartz 1909: ccxvii-ccxx. Tomyknowledge this observation onEusebius’calendar wasfirst madebyAlfred vonGutschmid, whose above-cited workremains theonlycomprehensive analysis of Eusebius’chronology, though it is marred by thebelief that theArmenian translation represents a ‘pure’version of thechronicle, superior to

Jerome’s translation. 4, 245– 3; Gru 18 FortheSeleucid era, seeGinzel 1914: 40– mel 1958: 209–10;Samuel 1972: 142– 9, andStudy 2, Chapter 3, n. 55. Eusebius also 2; Meimaris 1992: 53– 6; Bickerman 1980: 71– mentions the eras of Tyre, Laodicea, andAscalon at 223k(on the first andlast of which, see 71), anyoneof which mayhave beena popular chronological system inthe Meimaris 1992: 60– East or inCaesarea andtherefore usedbyEusebius.

2. Regnal Years andOther Chronological

Systems

35

local era whose beginning hecould accurately fix at a specific date in the past and whose contemporary dates he knew. This allowed himto keep track of the overall number of calendar years covered bytheimperial chronology. There is noevidence that heusedor consulted consular fasti (see n. 11, above).

3. Errors and Corrections Taking the results of the previous chapter into consideration, within the first 260 years of imperial history Eusebius errs inhischronology onlyonce, butit is deliberate andit makes nodifference to the overall sumof regnal years.1 This accuracy is completely the result of the accuracy of his regnal-length source (Theophilus) and his Olympiad chronicle. However, once headvanced his chronology into thethird century, andleft hisaccurate sources behind, hemadethree errors that disrupted his entire chronological sequence: heassigned Caracalla seven regnal years instead of six, Philip seven instead of five, andDecius oneinstead of two, thefirst twoprobably as a result of a lack of sources, thelatter probably theresult of a mistake onhis part.2 The error of Decius luckily offset by onethe three-year error caused by the sourceless reigns of Caracalla andPhilip, but it still left two extra regnal years that Eusebius carried onthroughout most of therest of thethird century, with theresult that his chronology for most of the third century is off by oneor twoyears.3

1

2

3

Thefollowing emperors have their first regnal yearplaced intheyearof their accession: Caesar, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero,* Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva,* Trajan, Hadrian, Pius, Marcus Aurelius andVerus, Commodus, Pertinax,* Septimius Severus, Caracalla, andConstantine. The asterisked names have been explained in Chapter 2. The only error is Augustus, whose first yearwasshifted ahead oneyearsothatthefamous murder ofCaesar could appear in thecorrect 44 BC. This means thatCaesar mustbegiven a reign of fouryears andseven months between August 48 andMarch 44 tocorrespond withhisfive regnal years, instead of thecorrect three years andseven months (which Eusebius noted in the Chronographia, Cramer, 159.23; see also Appendix 3, below). The same figures for Caracalla andPhilip appear in HE6.21.1 (actually seven years andsix months!) and39.1. Botherrors appear intheperiod between theendof theOlympiad chronicle andthebeginning of thesource thatprovided years andmonths fromDecius toCarus. IntheHE (7.1.1) Eusebius says that Decius reigned ο ν , yet he gives hima ο υ ε ῖν ἐτ ο ῖνχρόν ... δ ν ᾽ὅ ο ὐ λ δ reign of one year andthree months in the Canones. This expression should imply tworegnal years (see n.9, below). Since Decius actually reigned foroneyearandeight ornine months (see Kienast 1990: 202 andPeachin 1990: 32), I suspect that thethree months is a misreading fora forH).Compare theerror inEusebius noted above for higher number inhissource (probably Γ Antoninus Pius inChapter 2, whoreigned fortwenty-two years andeight months, yetwasstated tohavereigned fortwenty-two years andthree months byEusebius (though inClement’s Stroappears asanerror forZ; seeAppendix 3). Malalas, forexample, assigns Decius one mata theΓ year andeight months (Laterculus Malalianus, 436.16) andTheodorus Skouteriotes gives him one year andnine months (37.23). Zonaras, relying probably on the HE, butperhaps on the ύ ς(12.20, p. 589.2). The ο τ υ υ ο ςἐνια οὅλ ύ ὐ δ ὲδ Anonymus post Dionem, also gives Decius ο Chronica urbis Romae assigns himoneyear, eleven months, andeighteen days (147.34). The other sources (with theexception of theLatin Orosius [7.21.1] andtheEpitome decaesaribus [29.1], whogive himthree andtwoandhalf years respectively) either round downtooneyear, uptotwo,orcopyEusebius. Asnoted above inChapter 2, byassuming anerror of three months foreight, Eusebius’chronology from Decius toProbus is almost exact. Theaccessions of thefollowing emperors arelate: byoneyear, Macrinus, Elagabalus, Severus Alexander, Maximinus, Gordian III, Philip, Carus andhissons (counting theloss of 1Carus and

3. Errors andCorrections

37

Eusebius was probably completing the first edition of the Canones in 311 and

heknewthatit wasthesixth yearof Constantine, thattheeighth yearof thepersecu-

tion hadjust concluded around the previous Easter (see MPal. 13.11 [short recension]; HE 8.15.1; 16.1), andthat the persecution hadbegun in 19 Diocletian (see below).4 Since he was undoubtedly using some sort of local calendar to keep track of total overall years, he simply counted back six years knowing what the present year wasandprobably inwhatyear Constantine hadbecome emperor (25 July 306). Healso knewthatConstantine hadbecome emperor inthefourth yearof thepersecution (i.e. between Easter 306 andEaster 307; reconstruction, no. 15).5 1Constantine was thus set at his equivalent of 306, whatever that was in the era Eusebius was using. Healso knewthat Constantius hadbeen emperor for a year before Constantine’s accession (May 305 toJuly 306), which would make 1Constantius theequivalent of 305. Eusebius was undoubtedly aware that Diocletian had reigned for approximately twenty years, andif nothecould havecalculated it fromtheoutbreak of persecution in 303 in Diocletian’s nineteenth year, a fact that mayhave actually been a part of theedict since Eusebius explicitly quotes theregnal year in the Canones (reconstruction, no. 15), theHE(8.2.4), andtheMPal (pref. 1, short rec.). He also seems to have known that Diocletian fell ill just before the end of the second year of the persecution and retired shortly afterwards. This is partially correct, for Diocletian fell ill at the endof 304 andretired on 1 May305.6 However, Eusebius consistently claims that Diocletian andMaximian retired within the second year of persecution, thatisbefore Easter of 305 (1 April), andsoantedates theabdication by a month at least.7 This confusion would have made nodifference for the chronol-

4 5 6 7

2 Carus; seebelow), Diocletian; bytwoyears, Gallus andVolusianus, 3 Carus to 1– change of 2– Valerian andGallienus, Claudius, Aurelian, Tacitus, Probus; andbythree years, Decius. Fortheassumptions underlying these dates andthefollowing reconstruction, seeBurgess 1997: 82. esp. 476–

TheYears of Persecution (from onetoeight) provide thesole annual chronological structure of Eusebius’MPal, also composed in 311: see MPal 3.1, 4.8, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, (13.1, and 13.11, short rec. only). Fortheappearance of these Years of Persecution in theCanones, see below. Barnes 1981: 25. MPal 3.5 (cf. 3.1 [second year] and4.8 [third year]); HE8.13.10 and8.App.2; VConst. 1.18.1. 5, where Eusebius dates theabdication close to 24 Dystros (= This is madeexplicit atMPal 3.4–

28 March).

Eusebius states intheCanones, theHE,andthelong recension of theMPal thatthepersecution began inDystros of 303 (began 5 March), butintheshort recension of theMPal hesays it was Xanthicos (began 4 April); forthedates, seeRey-Coquais 1978: 62. Inall these texts hesays it wasduring Easter. Easter wason 18 April in 303, which confirms the short recension of the MPal (which is theearliest witness of these texts, dating to313/4) sothelater backdating must have beenundertaken toaccount forevidence hehaddiscovered between 313/4 andc. 316 (the date of thelong recension of theMPal andthesecond edition of theHE)that thepersecution 3). He edict hadappeared earlier than Easter of 303 (for the dates, see Burgess 1997: 501– changed the month but forgot to remove the reference to Easter. Nevertheless, in the MPal Eusebius considers each year of persecution asstarting fromEaster, nottheactual anniversary (see MPal 7.1, Richardson 1925, andRey-Coquais 1978: 61, whostarts hiscalendar withXanthicos/April andbases his analyses onthe short recension), andthat is probably howthey are perceived in the Canones as well, as is demonstrated by the reference to Diocletian’s abdication. If Eusebius hadequated eachYear of Persecution withthecalendar of Caesarea, i.e. start-

38

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

ogy, though, since according to Eusebius’rules concerning thedates of deaths, accessions, andfirst regnal years (see Chapter 2) Diocletian’s abdication should have been listed in 20 Diocletian (304), so that 1 Constantius and1 Constantine could occupy their correct years (305 and306). Hecould thusaccurately workhiscontemporary chronology backwards to 285, 1 Diocletian (counting from Diocletian’s defeat of Carinus in the spring/summer of 285). Eusebius’third-century chronology, ontheother hand, wasmoving forwards. After the errors of Caracalla, Philip, andDecius noted above, he would have assigned twoyears toGallus andVolusianus, fifteen toValerian andGallienus, twoto Claudius, five to Aurelian, onetoTacitus, six toProbus, andthree to Carus andhis sons, Carinus andNumerian, for a total of thirty-four years. Since 1 Decius was pegged at theequivalent of 252, instead of thecorrect 249, Eusebius’regnal years for the remainder of the third century brought him down to the equivalent of 286, thusleaving 287 for 1Diocl. Unfortunately, aswehavealready seen, working backwards from311hewould haveassigned year285 as 1Diocl. Thetwoextra years he hadaccumulated in thereigns of Caracalla, Philip, andDecius nowwere overlapping with hiscontemporary chronology. Thetwoextra regnal years canbeseen quite vividly in2 Probus (=277), where Eusebius notes the equivalent year of the regnal year 2 Probus in five local eras: year 325 of Antioch, 402 of Tyre, 324 of Laodicea, 588 of Edessa, and 380 of Ascalon (223k). Inthecase of twoof these, Antioch andEdessa, hehasinfact noted the date of the beginning of each era in its correct place. The beginning of the era of Antioch is noted at 156bin 1969 Abr. (= 48 BC). Eusebius states that 2 Probus (2295 Abr.) is year 325 of theeraof Antioch (as it is, 277+48), butthere are327 years of 1968), since 2 Probus is theequivalent of Abraham between the twonotices (2295– 279, not277 asit should be. Healso notes thebeginning of theeraof Edessa at 126h in 1706 Abr. (= 311 BC, i.e. the well-known Seleucid era), stating that 2 Probus is Year 588 of theeraof Edessa (asit is, 277+311), butthere are590 years of Abraham 1705).8 between thetwonotices (2295– If welook at Eusebius’entire imperial chronology from 1Caesar (= 48 BC) to 20 Constantine (= AD 325) we can see that he assigns 373 regnal years to 373 calendar years. This synchronization is valid back to 1 Const. (= 306, thus 354 regnalyears over 354 calendar years). Anyfurther back andthesequence is disrupted, byoneyear for Diocletian andCarus andhis sons (20 Diocl. = 304 instead of 303), andby one or twoyears for much of therest of the third century. Only in 6 Caracalla (= 216) does it come back into synchronization. Eusebius could notjust cut twoyears from Diocletian’s reign or tamper with Constantine’s regnal years, yet he obviously did not know where the errors lay. Such washiscommitment to a correct total imperial chronology –359 regnal years over 359calendar years from48 BCtoAD311inthefirst edition –andhisinability

8

ing 1 Persecution from 3 Oct. 302 instead of Easter of 303, Diocletian’s abdication inMay305 would have taken place inthethird year ofpersecution, notthesecond, asEusebius states. The first persecution edict wasactually issued inNicomedia on23 February; seeBarnes 1981: 150. These showthat thecorrelation of these five local eras with 2 Probus wascopied byEusebius from another workthat accurately equated theregnal year andthecalendar year.

3. Errors andCorrections

39

to discover anyobvious error that hewasforced to cuttworegnal years andspread the cuts over different reigns at the end of his chronology: he omitted a regnal year fromthereigns of Carus, Numerian, andCarinus, Diocletian’s predecessors, aswell as the sole regnal year of Constantius I, Diocletian’s immediate successor. I shall deal with the two cuts in that order. Eusebius cuta single regnal year from thereigns of Cams, Numerian, andCarinus, assigning themonly twoyears instead of three, a peculiar choice for a recent reign thatEusebius andhiscontemporaries should haveknown well.9 ForCarus and his sons Eusebius should have placed 1Camsin282, thedeath of Carus in2 Carus (=283), andthe deaths of Numerian (284, but285 according to most Syro-Macedonian calendars in the East) andCarinus (285) in 3 Carus (=284), leaving the equi-

valent of 285 for 1 Diocl. Instead heremoved theequivalent of 1 Carus andrenumbered 2 Carus as 1 Carus and3 Carus as2 Carus (reconstruction, no.2). This alteration probably explains Eusebius’useof thegenitive absolute forCarus’death, and (‘at this time’) for Numerian’s death, ῳ ν the vague (if authentic) expression ἐ τ ο ύ τ since Carus actually diedinthesecond year, notthefirst, andNumerian diedin the third year, notthe second. This meant that for the reigns of Cams andhis sons andDiocletian Eusebius’ chronology wasoutbyonly a single year. Theclearest waytoseetheextra yearis to observe thatthepersecution, which began in 303, is dated to304 (2320 Abr.), ascan be seen in Helm’s edition opposite entry 227k. In the HE (7.32.32) he states that there were 305 years between the birth of Christ and the inception of the Great Persecution (= March/April 303), a calculation that he probably derived from the Canones. But since he places the incarnation in 42 Augustus, which is 2015 Abr. (=2 B.C., 2320 –2015 = 305), this is oneyear toomany(302 years + 2 years = 304 years).10 Eusebius’other alteration wastheremoval of thesingle regnal yearof Constantius I (1 May 305 to 25 July 306). This gave him at last a correct count of regnal years from Caesar to Constantine, twoexcisions in the late third andearly fourth centuries for thetwoyears added in theearly third century. Theexcision of Constantius’regnal yearunfortunately threw outEusebius’calculations forhissubsidiary persecution chronology. The Y ears of Persecution’was ‘ 9 Since Carus became emperor in 282 andDiocletian sole emperor in 285 (a period of exactly three years), Carus andhis sons should have beenallotted three regnal years (for 282, 283, and 284). That he knew they didindeed reign ‘notfor three years in total’is demonstrated by HE 8, 7.30.22. On the evidence of Gaius andGallus (cf. HE 2.8.1, 7.10.1 with Jerome, pp. 177– 19, though for the latter he states that he reigned for twoyears andfour months in the 218– Canones but ‘not twoyears in total’in the HE), this formula should imply three regnal years (see also n. 2 forDecius). Thelengths of thereigns of all theemperors inboth theCanones and theHEarethesame (allowing forrounding anda surprising sloppiness intheHE), except for Augustus andTiberius (where fifty-six years andtwenty-three years in the Canones were rebalanced tofifty-seven years andtwenty-two years), Caracalla (who is mistakenly given seven years andsix months in the HE instead of seven years), Decius, andCarus andhis sons. The alterations involving Augustus, Tiberius, andCaracalla would makenodifference to theoverall count of regnal years in the Canones. 10 I count twoyears because Eusebius would have dated the Nativity to 6 January 2 BC not 25 December, which

is a Western tradition.

40

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

a local

chronology that numbered each year of the ten-year persecution, starting with 19 Diocl. (Easter 303) and ending in the summer of 313 with the death of Maximinus (actually atthebeginning of theeleventh yearof persecution). Byomittingtheregnal yearofConstantius I (=305) tocorrect hisoverall regnal yearchronology, he hadnowomitted 3 Persecution andthus hadonly nine years for his local persecution chronology. This omission of 3 Persecution would confuse anyone comparing the chronology of the Canones with that of the MPal, which also used these Years of Persecution as their sole annual chronology (see n. 5, above). Indeed, I believe that Eusebius originally intended readers to read the twoworks together, which is onereason whyheincluded the Years of Persecution in the Canones (see Chapter 6, n. 14). Toaccount forthis excised Year of Persecution Eusebius divided thepreceding 20 Diocl. into twoseparate Years of Persecution (2 and3). Through a later error ofcompilation (see below), thisyearcametohavetwoYears of Abraham (2321 and2322) andtwo Olympiads (271.1 and2) as well. Though Constantius’ death appears in the second half of this split regnal year (3 Persecution, 2322 Abr., andOlymp. 271.2), his regnal year total, twelve years, only counts 20 Diocl. once (his accession is dated to 9 Diocl.; reconstruction no. 6).11 This doubling upof 20 Diocl. appears in Jerome (228d- g) andis confirmed by the Years of Abraham in Ps17, Dionysius, whoassigns 2321 Abr. (p. 112.27/150.11) to reconstruction nos. 16– theretirement of Diocletian andproclamation of Maximinus andSeverus, and2322 2) to no. 18, thedeath of Constantius, both in 20 Diocl.12 The Abr. (p. 113.1/150.21– Years of Persecution consequently runcorrectly in spite of theexcised regnal year, there being ten Years of Persecution between 19 Diocl. (= events of 303) and 7 Const. (=312), even though there are only nine regnal years involved (2 + 7).

11 Somewitnesses totheCanones, aware ofthesplit regnal year, assign Constantius thirteen years.

For these witnesses, see below. 12 Jerome’s years of Abraham elsewhere generally agree with those in Ps-Dionysius, except in places where scribal corruption or simple copying errors are involved, or where Jerome has deliberately altered thechronology of anentry. Socrates (HE 1.2.1) mentions thedeath of Constantius (in Eusebius = 202Diocl.), butdoes notrealize that there aretwoOlympiads intheone regnal year (they areonly marked every fouryears), andsoquotes theOlympiad for201Diocl., 271.1. This Olympiad agrees with that for 201Diocl. in Jerome. Chron. Pasch. (518.11, with 514.18 and519.3; and524.17, with524.9) assigns 1Constantine toOlymp. 271.3 and20 Const. to 276.2, just as inJerome (though the Olympiads are off by one for the reign of Diocletian because the Chron. Pasch. assigns a correct three years to Carus andhis sons). These agreements showthat theArmenian translation is notanaccurate account of thechronological relationship among theregnal years, Years ofAbraham, andOlympiads inEusebius: e.g. 201Diocl. inJerome is 2321 Abr. andOlymp. 271.1; inPs-Dionysius it is 2321 Abr. (112.27/150.11); in Socrates it is Olymp. 271.1; inSamuel Aniensis (which is based onanArmenian translation) it is Olymp. 271.4 (41/663); andin the Armenian translation it would be 2323 Abr. andOlymp. 271.4, if it wentthat far. Other chronological displacements of entries showthat theArmenian translation is of little independent value fordetailed chronological comparison forthisperiod. It should also benoted that sucherrors could arise intheGreek texts of Eusebius aswell. Jacob of Edessa states that hiscopy of Eusebius placed 1 Constantine inOlymp. 271.4 and20 Const. in 8, restored from Michael the Syrian, Chron. 7.2, p. 245/ 3/277.24– Olymp. 276.3 (209.1– 10fb, whousedJacob asa source), which is oneyear toohigh, because Diocletian was 125a. 13– assigned twenty-one years in his version (208.31/277.21). Removing theextra year of Diocletian reduces theOlympiads to thesame figures as those above.

3. Errors andCorrections

41

Unfortunately, inhiszeal tomaintain thecorrect subordinate chronology forthe emperors andtheir accessions, Eusebius made a larger chronological error that affected the conclusions of the entire work. As noted above, Eusebius counted two Years of Abraham andtwoOlympiads in the single regnal year of 20 Diocl. By assigning twoYears of Abraham to20 Diocl. heincreased hisoverall accounting of Years of Abraham by one, andthe Years of Abraham wasthe system he used to correlate his entire chronology. Thus, in his supputatio at the endof the Canones, where helaidoutthechronology of theentire workfrom20 Constantine (=325) –as preserved in the Chron. 724 (from the final edition of 325): 298 years from the beginning of Christ’s ministry, 846 years from therebuilding of theTemple, 1,102 years fromthefirst Olympiad, 1,358 years from thefirst Temple, 1,508 years from the Trojan War, 1,837 years from Moses, and2,342 years from Abraham (reconstruction, no.35) –every number is onetoohigh, because theextra regnal year that Eusebius hadcutbyremoving theregnal year of Constantius wasreplaced whenthe Years of Abraham were added attheend. This error wasprobably created during the final compilation of the chronicle. AswecanseefromtheChronographia andaswehaveseenabove, Eusebius worked on individual chronologies one at a time, then integrated them within certain set time frames. Whenhewascompiling hischronology fortheimperial period hewas interested solely in the relationship of regnal years andcalendar years. After the death of Caracalla the Olympiads andYears of Abraham were subsidiary chronologies thatcould only beadded after all themajor regnal year chronologies hadbeen compiled, fully andaccurately. The last stage of theprocess of compiling the Canones would have beentheaddition of these Olympiads andYears of Abraham tothe completed regnal yearchronology of theemperors, thelast part of thework. Unfortunately Eusebius seems to have mistakenly counted 3 Persecution asa regnal year, assigning it its ownYear of Abraham andOlympiad. Theresult is that inspite of all hiscareful andmeticulous attention tochronological detail hisoverall final chronological reckonings are still one year too high even though the primary regnal year chronology is correct. It is impossible toknowhowEusebius justified thecutting of these regnal years to himself, butit is probably just another example of Eusebius’sacrificing thespecific details to get the overall chronology correct. Wecansee other examples in the Canones of these sorts of chronological fiddles. For instance, Eusebius says that he dates the first Olympiad to the second year of Aeschylus of Athens (86ab) andtothetime of Ioatham (86bk). Unfortunately the second year of Aeschylus andthe first year of Ioatham are five years apart in the Canones; nosingle Olympiad could encompass themboth. In fact, it is obvious that although the notice announcing the first Olympiad falls under the second year of Aeschylus (777 BC), the marker for the first Olympiad correctly corresponds with the third year of Aeschylus (776 BC).13 Syncellus, whocopied Eusebius, rational-

13 It wasthis error thatprompted thecompiler of theArmenian translation to back-date all Eusebius’Olympiads byoneyear so thatthefirst Olympiad didcorrespond with thesecond yearof Aeschylus. But that, of course, left Ioatham inthesecond Olympiad.

42

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

ized theerror by stating that thefirst Olympiad occurred Α ἰσ ʹἔτ χ β ύ λ ῷ ο υτ ε ιπ η λ ρ ο υ μ έ ν ῳ κ α ὶἀ ρ γ χ ῷ μ ο έ ν ῳ τ ᾽α ὐ τ ο ῦἔτ ε ι, ‘at the endof Aeschylus’ second year and the beginning of his third’ (231.1). It would seem that Eusebius did this to reconcile twoconflicting sources, Castor of Rhodes, thesource of hisAthenian king list (FGrHist 250 F 4: 1142 = Cramer, 139.12–14 andKarst, 88.12–14), andAfricanus (86bh, k). Strangely enough, both direct witnesses to Eusebius’ excerpts from Castor in the Chronographia, Greek andArmenian, date the first Olympiad to the twelfth year of Aeschylus, which shows that both ultimately descend from a commonearly exemplar that contained this error. Theauthenticity of thesecond year in the original Chronographia is provided by the Athenian king list preserved in the Excerpt. Lat. barb. 41a.15–16, p. 217. Eusebius, unfortunately, fiddled the chronology here even more than it at first seems. He states in the Canones that Africanus dated the first Olympiad to the time 9). Andhe quotes Africanus, of Ioatham, king of Juda (86bh = Chron. Pasch. 193.8– ή η ʹ, ἐφ ν α σ ξ Α ἰσ β ρ ίω τ ο ε θ μ Ἀ χ ν ίο ν ύ ο δ λ ιὰ γ ᾽ο α ο ςἦρ γ υ η ςὁἈ κ ἔ τ ὗἸω α θ μ ὰ ἐβ α (‘Aeschylus the son of Agamestor ruled the Athenians μ ή σ ίλ ευ σ νἐνἹερουσα ε λ for life for twenty-three years, at which time Ioatham wasking in Jerusalem’). He then adds, κ α ο ὶὁἡμ η έτ ερ νἐπ ςδ ν ρ μ ὼ ῆ ὲκα ὶτ ώ τ ςὈ λ π ςπ υ ιά δ ο ςτ ὸ νἸω μ α θ ὰ β α σ ιλ έ α Ἰο ύ δ α σ φ υ ε ν(‘O ur canon, too, has included Ioatham, the king of ν η είλ Juda, in thetime of thefirst Olympiad’; 86bk= Chron. Pasch. 193.13– 14). Unfortunately forEusebius, other historians andchroniclers hadreadAfricanus as well and

his dishonest attempt at reconciling chronologies wascaught by Syncellus:

Eusebius puts thefirst Olympiad inthetime of Ioatham ... andcites Africanus as agreeing with himin this. But Africanus rather contradicts Eusebius, saying distinctly inthe third andfourth book of his histories that the first Olympiad took place in the first year of Achaz.14 In this work he writes that ‘the fourteenth Olympiad, whenCoroebus wonthestadion, wasrecorded as the first. At that time Achas wasin the first year of his reign in Jerusalem.’Andthen in his fourth book he says, T his was the first year of the reign of Achas, with which, as we pointed out, the 17) first Olympiad‘coincided.’(233.9–

Eusebius accepted Castor’s chronology that the first Olympiad fell at the time of Aeschylus; healso accepted Africanus’statement that Aeschylus ruled at thesame time as Ioatham. He then made the demonstrably incorrect claim that Africanus dated the first Olympiad to the time of Ioatham.15 The most important implication of the divided regnal year 20 Diocl. involves Jerome’s regnal years for Constantine. As noted above, Eusebius placed each em-

14

According later.

toEusebius’chronology, Achaz’s first yearfell inOlymp. 5.4 (87a.26), twenty years

15 This is notanisolated incident. Eusebius does thesame thing withPorphyry, claiming that he dated Moses 850 years before the Trojan war, long before any pagan, Christian, or Jewish chronographer haddone. Porphyry made Moses the predecessor of Queen Semiramis of Assyria, whom he dated tojust before or about the same time as the war(FGrHist 260 F 34). Eusebius, however, dated thebeginning of Semiramis’reign 825 years before theTrojan war. Eusebius took Porphyry’s relationship between Semiramis andMoses, applied it to his own date of Semiramis, andclaimed that theresult wasPorphyry’s date for Moses. In reality Porphyry andEusebius probably roughly agreed on the dating of Moses. . Note also thedouble 2 Darius at 105a.2 and106.1, with 105aα

Onthis, see Goulet 1977.

3. Errors andCorrections

43

peror’s first regnal year in the year of his accession anddated his final year and death to the year before they actually occurred. This wasprobably because he had thenotices of theemperors’accessions under thecorrect Olympiads inhisOlympiadchronicle, butnospecific reference to their deaths. Jerome, like mostother later chronographers, adopted theopposite system. Heplaced anemperor’s last year and death inthecorrect yearanddated thefirst yearofeachemperor totheyearafter his actual accession. All other continuators of Eusebius made this change at theendof the reign of Constantine, consequently giving himanextra regnal year (thirty-two years [ormore] instead of thirty-one), since bothhisfirst year andlast year were in their correct years (306 and337). Jerome wasable to make thechange at thebeginning of the reign of Constantine by counting thedivided 20 Diocl. as twoseparate years, our305 and306. Hewasthus able to count 1 Const. as 307, the year after Constantine’s accession on25 July 306. Constantine’s death then correctly falls in 31 Const., theequivalent of 337, theactual yearof hisdeath. Themodern years AD thatRudolf Helmhasadded inthemargins of hisedition follow Jerome’s system for dating regnal years at this point, notEusebius’. Jerome realized that this adjustment would alter thechronology of every entry for Constantine’s reign andso whenever he accepted Eusebius’chronology for an entry he shifted that entry back oneyear from its position in Eusebius’Greek original. Thus thebattle of theMilvian Bridge against Maxentius wasdated to 7 Const. by Eusebius (see reconstruction, no. 26), which is 312, since for Eusebius 1 Const. is theequivalent of 306. Jerome places it in 6 Const., which is also 312, since heset 1 Const. at 307. This causes a problem at the endof the Canones, however, for Constantine’s uicennalia hastofall inConstantine’s twentieth year, soJerome could not shift it back one year like the rest of the entries, butbecause of Jerome’s new starting point forthereign, 20 Const. wasnowtheequivalent of 326 (ascanbe seen in Helm’s edition), rather than thecorrect 325, as it wasinEusebius. Consequently Constantine’s uicennalia is dated oneyear toolate. Intheanalysis below inChapter 5 andinAppendix 1, Itherefore list Jerome’s equivalent regnal years (i.e. increased by one), nothis actual regnal years (except in this last instance).

4. The Episcopal Lists In both the Canones and the HE, Eusebius provides lists of the bishops of the four apostolic sees: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, andJerusalem. IntheCanones henotes theposition ofeachbishop intheepiscopal succession andhisname; forthebishops of Rome, Alexandria, andAntioch, heplaces each notice in the year of ordination (for the chronological problems with Jerusalem, see 208l); andfor those of Rome andAlexandria healso notes thelength ofeachone’s tenure of thesee. IntheHEhe didnotinclude thenumber of succession ortheexact chronologies. It is anobservable fact that intheHEEusebius didnotcontinue hisepiscopal lists pasttheendof Book Seven. Marcellinus is thelast enumerated bishop of Rome (7.32.1), Tyrannus is the last of Antioch (7.32.4), Hermon ‘the last of the bishops [of Jerusalem] up to thepersecution inourday’(7.32.29), andPeter is thelast-mentioned bishop of Alexandria (7.32.31; 8.13.7; 9.6.2). Attheendof Book Seven Eusebius says, ‘In these ὴ ντ ῶ νδια ιρ δ ο χ ε ῶ νπ books having concluded the subject of the successions (τ γ ρ ά ψ α ν τ εςὑπ θ ό εσ ), from the birth of our Saviour to the destruction of the places ιν of prayer ... come, let usnext leave in writing, for theinformation of those also that come after us, whattheextent andnature have beenof theconflicts inourownday of those who manfully contended for piety’ (7.32.32). At the beginning of Book ὴ ντ ο ῶ π νἀ Eight he says, ‘Having concluded the succession from the apostles (τ ρ ά ψ α ν τ ιγ ερ ε ) in seven entire books, in this eighth treatise ς ...π ν ὴ χ ο δ νδια ω λ τ ό σ we regard it as one of ourmost urgent duties to hand down, for the knowledge of those thatcome after us,theevents of ourownday’(8 pref.).1 After this preface, no further bishop of these sees is named with theexception of Miltiades, whois mentioned in a letter of Constantine (10.5.18). It is clear that in the HE Eusebius considered thetopic of apostolic succession as important only upto thebeginning of the persecution. After that it wasof noconcern forhispurposes. Thequestion therefore arises, Did Eusebius continue his episcopal lists in the Canones to 325 or did they terminate atthesame point atwhich thelists intheHEconcluded? Theevidence is conclusive that they concluded at thesame point. 283 definitely menAnexamination of a group ofbishops during theyears 282– tioned byEusebius in the Canones shows a great deal of homogeneity amongst all the witnesses: Cyril of Antioch, Eutychianus andGaius of Rome, andTheonas of Alexandria, for instance, arefor themost part consistently recorded with regard to d,f), Chron. 724(99.13–15, succession number andlength of tenure inJerome (224b, 5), Chron. 23), Syncellus (472.1 – 8), 6/147.18– 6, 7– Ps-Dionysius (110.23– 17/127.4– p. 199/ 16, (6.9, 20), Michael 14, Syrian the 15 – 846 (146.31, 33 and 147.3/190.13– Samuel Agaand 4), Aniensis Chron. (40/661), 10), Se ‛ e 234/234.3 – 118c.3– rt (7, p. 11 and537.10). Inspite of someerrors anddifferences, thetext pius (536– 7/536.9– of the common source is clear. After thebishops Marcellinus, Hermon, Tyrannus, 1

All translations from Oulton, pp.243, 245, and251.

4. TheEpiscopal Lists

45

and Peter (the last-mentioned bishops in the HE), however, the lists provided by these sources diverge wildly.2 Even for Marcellinus, the last Roman bishop, there arediscrepancies inthelists. Theophanes/Nicephorus/Zonaras/Chron. syn.give him a tenure oftwoyears overtheseeof Rome, Michael theSyrian andSamuel Aniensis saytenyears, Chron. Se‛ert says sixteen years, Chron. 846 says seventeen years and four months, andAgapius says fifteen years. Hewasactually bishop for eight years 303.3 The key to this discrepancy is found in Jerome, the Chron. 724, and from 295– Ps-Dionysius, the most direct witnesses,4 whogive him no years of tenure at all, which suggests that nofigure wasincluded in the Canones; Eusebius didnotknow when Marcellinus’ successor wasordained, or if he did it was no longer of any importance. This gap was filled by the other witnesses from differing sources. The figures forlater bishops differ inthesamedegree. Evenmoreconclusive is thelack of certain evidence in thetwoSyriac epitomes of the Canones: the Chron. 724 lists nobishops of Rome after Marcellinus5 andPs-Dionysius lists nobishops at all after Marcellinus, Hermon, Tyrannus, andPeter. It is clear thatasintheHEtheepiscopal lists in theCanones didnotextend beyond thebeginning of thepersecution. Apparently, apostolic succession ceased to be an important issue for Eusebius after the beginning of thepersecution andtheacceptance of Christianity byConstantine, and whenhecame towrite thefinal bookof theHEandtoupdate theCanones in325, he sawnoneed to continue the account of apostolic succession beyond thebeginning of thepersecution. Whythis should besois a mystery.

2

3 4

5

v, 10, For thebishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, andAlexandria, see thecommentary to entries i– 11, 12A, 13A, 15, 28, 31, and38, andAppendix 2 to Chapter 3 in Study 2. For thecitations, see Appendix 1, no.7, below. Forthedates of Marcellinus, seeDavis 1997: 2, 465. This is animportant revisionist study of thedates of the popes between 258 and 461– 314.

to Karst’s translation (p.227), Marcellinus does notappear intheArmenian translation; Karst’s entry is imported fromSamuel Aniensis (see his p. 238 n. 12). The bishop lists for Antioch, Jerusalem, andAlexandria at theendof theepitome of theCanones andthroughout its continuation wereadded bytheauthor of thecontinuation presented in Study 2.

Contrary

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325 There nowremains thedifficult process of trying to reconstruct Eusebius’text and chronology from the surviving witnesses. This is prefaced by a statement of my methods forevaluating thesources andis followed bythereconstruction andtranslation of theGreek text of the Canones between 282 and325. Appendix 1 provides a list of all thewitnesses foreachentry andexact citations foreach. These citations will notberepeated below. Notall these citations refer tomaterial thatderives completely from Eusebius. Sometimes only certain elements appear to be Eusebian, such as a phrase orthechronology.

5.1. Methodology There arefourprimary witnesses tothetext of theCanones: theLatin translation of Jerome, the Armenian translation, andthe Syriac epitomes in the Chron. 724 and Ps-Dionysius. Jerome usedother Latin sources to modify andaugment histranslations from Eusebius andso forhimonemustfirst compare histext withthese Latin sources, namely theDescriptio consulum andthesurviving witnesses to theKaisergeschichte (KG), chiefly Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, andthe Epitome de caesaribus.1 Specific references to these texts areprovided in Chapter 6.2, below. What is left after this comparison (if anything) canwith some degree of certainty be treated as Eusebian, though Jerome does alter the text of Eusebius andmake additions of his ownto it. An overview of his methodology can be found in Chapter 6.2, below. The Armenian translation is the least reliable of the four primary witnesses for chronology and so I have accorded more weight to the chronological evidence of Jerome andPs-Dionysius (the Chron. 724 rarely includes chronological material). The Armenian translation andthe twoSyriac epitomes are generally reliable with respect to content andwording, though the Syriac witnesses, being epitomes, do abbreviate their material. In theory, theGreek sources canonly bebrought in when someconsensus emerges among these fourprimary witnesses. However, inpractice not all four of them are witnesses to the same entries andso agreements of other Greek, Syriac, Armenian, orArabic sources with oneof thefour often must suffice, tenuous though such comparisons maybe. Sometimes part of one Greek witness will mirror part of one of the primary witnesses, andanother Greek witness will

1

TheKGwasa short collection of imperial biographies covering thereigns of Augustus toConstantius, concluding with the Battle of Strasbourg in 357. It is nowlost but wasused by a number of later writers whose work does survive, including Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, the author of the Epitome de caesaribus, Jerome, the author of the Historia Augusta, andAmmianusMarcellinus. FortheKG,seeBurgess 1993b and1995a andtheimportant references cited there. For Jerome andthe KG, see Helm 1927 andBurgess 1995b. For the Descriptio, see Chapter 1, n. 14, above.

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

47

mirror another part. Insuchcases I havecombined theGreek witnesses to achieve a Greek version of theevidence of theprimary witness. Sometimes different sources will agree, butthe ultimate common source will notbe Eusebius. Sometimes this canbediscerned; there maybecases where it hasnotbeen. I have tried tosignal all situations where this maybe thecase. In reconstructing theGreek itself I have always tried to rely onexisting Greek texts, either where I thought that a particular text derived from the entry in question or where I thought that it wasa parallel passage that usedthesame orsimilar vocabulary. Wherever possible parallels were sought inthewritings of Eusebius himself, butsometimes they derive from other Greek works that usedEusebius as a source. Onoccasion I have hadtoresort tocomposition, supplying Greek versions of words orphrases found inthenon-Greek witnesses, butineachcase where possible I have sought out vocabulary that harmonized with Eusebius’ usage in the HE, a roughly contemporary historical work. For text that is not enclosed by brackets (see below) I amcompletely confident that the content mirrors that of Eusebius though I am rarely as confident that the exact wording or grammatical structures are Eusebian. WhatI have reported is probably asclose aswecancometotheoriginal, seeing that it is wholly lost. Indeed there are only a fewentries where I would claim a high probability that the Greek wording of myreconstruction is very close to Eusebius’ original: the formulaic accession rubrics andordinations of bishops (1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 19), the accession of Maximian (4), the destruction of Busiris andCoptos (5), the revolt of Alexandria (8), Veturius’persecution (10), andLicinius’persecution (29). Ontheother hand, entry no.35, forinstance, is completely composed of parallels found in Eusebius’ownwritings andearlier passages of works that were copyingEusebius inthose places. Thereconstruction hasbeen guided by theagreement between Jerome andthe Chron. 724. I amcertain that the result is very close to Eusebius’ original, but some uncertainties remain, such as whether Eusebius here ή , since he (or, rather, as is often the μ ήor οἰκοδο υ κ ε ισ α ό used ν ςor νεώ , or ἐπ ς case, the witnesses to his text) uses both forms in different places in similar contexts. For therest, theGreek evidence isjust too slim orcontaminated foroneto be certain howmuchrelies immediately uponEusebius. In such instances where I am uncertain of the content, wording, or chronology I have provided a system of brackets andquestion marks toindicate mydegrees of scepticism astotheauthenticity of thecontent, wording, andchronology (see thekeytoChapter 5.3, below). Where the content is certain buttheexact wording of theGreek is notclear from thewitnesses orparallels, I have putthetext inLatin rather thanresort to wholesale composition, which would be misleading.

5.2. Establishing the Text Entry no. 1. The wording of the rubric can be recovered almost exactly from most ίνandυ ισ α ἱὁ , andπ ν ύ andσ α μ .I ῖς sources, though there is variation between ἅ have accepted the former in each case, following HE 7.30.22, which is also the version reported byNicephorus andtheAnonymus Matritensis, buttheHEmaybe the source of the variants in the Greek witnesses. To adda further difficulty a paral-

48

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

lelpassage fromSyncellus noting theaccession of Antoninus Pius(202.1– 3 = Sync. 15)provides σ 428.14– ὺ ν τ ο ῖςπ α ισ ίν . There is nowaytobecertain. 2. The content can be recovered exactly from the Armenian translation, the Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, andSamuel Aniensis, andthe chronology can be obtained from these sources along with Jerome.2 The wording is rather more tricky. The Chron. 724 andPs-Dionysius indicate that the death of Cams wasexpressed witha separate clause. ThetwoArmenian versions, however, render this asa subordinate clause. This dichotomy suggests anoriginal genitive absolute construction. Thegrammatical structure of Syriac andits very simple participial formations tend-

edto force authors to render Greek participial constructions asfinite clauses.3 See, for instance, theexamples in no. 8, where Jerome, theArmenian, Theophanes, and Cedrenus accurately report a participial construction that is rendered as an independent clause intheSyriac Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, andChron. Mar., andinno. 10where theabsolute construction ofTheophanes andJerome is rendered asa clause with a finite verb bythe Chron. 724 andPs-Dionysius.

Both Syriac translations, the Chron. 724 andPs-Dionysius, state that Numerianus waskilled by Carus after Carus’death: that Numerianus ‘waskilled byhim’ appears inbothSyriac texts, the ‘byhim’translating theSyriac mnh,meaning ‘from him/it; by him/it’.4This is obviously impossible andsome other Greek expression mustlie beneath this shared mistranslation. Thesameword, it would seem, appears

in the Armenian translation, rendered as unterdessen’ by Karst and ‘interea’ by ‘ Moses Khorenats‛i it is rendered as ‘in Petermann (‘meanwhile’). In the history of those days’ (see quotation below, Chapter 6.1.4.2). The mystery phrase would appeartobe ἐ ῳ , which is a regular Classical phrase for meanwhile’(e.g. Heroν τ ο ύ τ dotus 1.126, Thucydides 3.72, and Xenophon, Memorabilia‘ 2.1.27), but which can also mean ‘atthat/this time’(it is sousedbyEusebius overtwenty times intheHE). The Syriac translators both seem to have been confused over theexpression in this /δ ιὰ π τ ὸ ο ύ τ context andinterpreted it as if it meant ὑ ο υ , which is a reasonable, if rather Biblical, interpretation for a personal agent in later Greek.5 Eusebius probably meant it in his usual way, ‘at this time’. 2

3

4

5

Jerome completely replaces Eusebius’text with material from theKG,as does Syncellus from Eutropius (who also usedtheKG). FortheKGandJerome’s useof it, seen. 1, above. 2, ‘Syriac prefers parataxis to hypotaxis, andthis has led to the See Brock 1977: 83 and91– frequent restructuring of entire sentences [in the NewTestament]. ... The frequent hypotactic useof theparticiple inGreek cannot berepresented exactly inSyriac; [the] S[inaitic translation of theNT], C[uretonian], andto a lesser extent P[eshitta] normally substitute theparataxis of twofinite verbs.’ Syriac: Chron. 724 127.12 andPs-Dionysius 147.26. ῃ ή τ ρ οφ ν π Thiscanbeseenasearly astheSeptuagint andNewTestament: e.g.LXXHo12:14: ἐ / ‘bya prophet theLordbrought Israel outof Egypt’; ο υ τ γ π γ ύ εκ α ή ρ ύ ιο λ ἐ η ἰγ ν ἀ ξΑ ρ ςτ α Ισ ν ὸ / ‘hewilljudge ρ ὥ ισ ν ε ρ ὶᾧ ,ἐ δ ῃ ν ἀ ν η ν ν ἐ ν δ ικ α ιο σ ύ Acts 17:31: μ μ έν υ ο έλ ἰκ ο ν λ ὴ ρ εικ τ ίν ε ιν ρ ίν ετ α κ ι μ ῖν ἰἐ ν ὑ theworld inrighteousness bythatmanwhomhehathordained’; 1Cor.6:2: ε λ ώ γ σ ο σ ιςκ ν α ο ὶ ἑτ ερ μ ο ὁκόσ ς .../ ‘if theworld shall bejudged byyou...’; and1 Cor. 14:21: ἐ / ‘With menof other tongues andother lips will I ῳ τ ῷ ο τ ύ α λ ῷ ή ω τ σ εσ νλαλ ω είλ ινἑτερ χ ν ἐ speak unto this people’. There arealso, forexample, thecommentaries ofJohnChrysostom on νanda person in the the epistles of Paul, where heoften comments that expressions with ἐ andthe genitive. For instance, in one ιά dative should be considered as if they were with δ

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

49

The independent traditions of Samuel Aniensis, the Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius (who, in confusion, renders it as a plural, Qrnqs), andMichael the Syrian (who replaces thephrase with ‘against the Germans’), as well as Moses Khorenats‛i (see below) agree that Carinus wasfighting against/with Cornacus’. Ps-Dionysius says, ‘[C]arinus in the same way was killed‘ in the battle which (was) with Carnaces’ (110.30–1/147.27– 8), treating thenameasa plural, andtheChron. 724 says, ‘And Carinus in the same way in the battle which (was) with Corininus’ (127.12– 13/ 1). However, Cornacum wasa place (see Chapter 6.1.4.2), nota person, and 99.20– so the Armenian translation, which says that Carinus died ‘in the battle of Cornacum’, is correct. Unfortunately, theoriginal wording of this latter phrase is difficult toassess. WhenEusebius lists theplace of anemperor’s death, healmost universalν ly uses ἐ + dative, andthe Armenian translation andtheSyriac epitomes have no problem withsuchphrases. Butclearly thebattle wasnot‘in’Cornacum, soa different construction wasused. Eusebius uses twoother expressions for ‘in/at/near’in the Canones andHE, ἐ ί+ genitive andκ π α τ ά + accusative, the latter usually in attributive position. Instances of these phrases aretranslated correctly intheArmenian and Syriac traditions, probably because they involve well-known places (e.g. α τ ὰ τ ὰ κ Ἀ , 205c= Sync. 430.17; κ α τ ν σ ία ὰ τ ὴ ν ςΓα λ λ ία ς , 205e= Sync. 430.18; and ὶῬ ἐ π , 186a= Chron. Pasch 459.17 and202c = Sync. 429.2). I have accepted η ς μ ώ κ α τ ά ί), which would then + accus. (since it conveys less of thesense of ‘in’thanἐπ α τ ά have been mistakenly interpreted by most translators as κ + gen. since they did notrecognize Cornacum as a place. 3. The wording andtheregnal year total of twenty years for Diocletian canbe verified fromvirtually every witness to thechronicle. 4. Although Jerome dates theaccession of Maximian to2 Diocl., Theophanes to 4 Diocl., andZonaras to either year twoor year four, Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, Chron. Pasch., Malalas, andChron. 1234 all agree on 3 Diocl., which must therefore becorrect. This entry doesnotappear intheArmenian translation. Thewording depends upon the Chron. Pasch., Theophanes, andMalalas, which nearly exactly parallel thethree Syriac chronicles andJerome. 5. The destruction of these twocities of Egypt, Busiris andCoptos, cannot be 9 Diocl., Theophanes to6 Diocl., dated withcertainty. Jerome assigns theentry to8– 9 Diocl., butalso andCedrenus to 7 Diocl. The Armenian translation dates it to 7– 8, which Eusebius dated to 9 dates theaccessions of Constantius andGalerius to 7– Diocl. (see below). However, I think that the entry onConstantius andGalerius in the Armenian translation has been pushed back because of the length of the next entry on Alexandria, which makes the right-hand column rather crowded. There is λ ιν ο ά ιὰ ὺ π asδ τ ο Υ ῦ ἱο ῦ , andhemakes comments suchasἸδ Υ ἱῷ ν herenders Paul’s ἐ ί; (e.g. Horn. 2 in Epistolam I ad Corinthios, PG τ ιὰ ἐσ δ ν ὸἐ α ὶτ τ ικ ὸἐ τ ᾷ ιά ν δ ςὅ ἐσ ιandὉ τ ρ 7; Horn. 3 in Ep. ad Colossenses, PG 41; Horn. 6 in Ep. ad Ephesios, PG 62: 43.35– 61: 17.37– 8; and Hom. 1 in Ep. ad 5; Horn. 3 in Ep. II ad Thessalonicenses, PG 62: 480.7– 62: 319.44– Hebraeos, PG63: 15.6 and8). Thenecessity of making suchcomments means, of course, that in thelate fourth century at least theconstruction wasnotcommonly understood among Chry, , A.III.2; Lampe 1961: 460, s.v. ἐν ν sostom’s audience. See also, forexample, LSJ9: 552, s.v. ἐ . , I.5.d.γ F; andThayer 1901: 210, s.v. ἐν example

50

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

plenty of room in the left-hand column, where the entry on Busiris andCoptos is placed. Because entry 6 dates to 9 Diocl. it is unlikely that this entry extended beyond 8 Diocl. Jerome removed no. 6 to an earlier date in a long narrative so he probably hadto move this entry downa year to fill in the space andto allow more roomabove forthis longentry (see Chapter 6.2, below). These considerations, along with the agreement of Cedrenus, suggests that 7– 8 Diocl. is correct (following the twoyears allotted by Jerome). All witnesses roughly agree onthe wording; I have accepted thepassive structure of Jerome andtheArmenian over theactive form of Theophanes, Cedrenus, andZonaras, which make either Diocletian or Diocletian andMaximian thesubject of theverbs, a variation that suggests independent alteration. Other witnesses show that Theophanes has shifted the participial phrase to the endof theentry. I have rendered C optos’astheoxytone of Cedrenus andZonaras, ‘ rather than theparoxytone of Theophanes. 6. Jerome dates the accession of Constantius andGalerius as caesars to 5– 7 Diocl. (though he actually counts their accession from 6, following the erroneous date in the Descriptio, s.a. 291.2), andthe Armenian translation to 7– 8 Diocl., but the Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, Chron. Pasch., Theophanes, Cedrenus, andthe Chron. 1234 all agree on9 Diocl.6 This date corresponds to theregnal year length (twelve years) given for Constantius I at his death (see below). The wording of this entry derives fromtheChron. 724 andtheChron. Pasch., though Jerome andtheArmenianare very similar as well. 7. Jerome andPs-Dionysius date theepiscopate ofMarcellinus to 12Diocl., and 14 Diocl. 12Diocl. is fifteen years fromthe ordinaSamuel Aniensis dates it to 13– tion of Gaius, Marcellinus’predecessor, who,Eusebius says, wasbishop for fifteen years (see, e.g., Jerome 224d; Armenian 227; Chron. 724 99.15/127.5– 6; Ps-Dionysius 110.25/147.21– 2; Syncellus 472.2; Chron. Se‛ert 7,p. 234/234.4; Agapius 536/ 536.10; andEusebius, HE 7.32.1), so 12 Diocl. must be correct. This entry was omitted bytheArmenian translation (though Karst hassupplied it in histranslation from Samuel Aniensis7). Theformat of theentry is based onthestandard episcopal structure used by Eusebius: city (in the genitive), succession number, ἐπ κ ίσ ο π ο , ς andname. Usually the length of theepiscopate is also included, butsince Eusebius didnotknowhowlong Marcellinus wasbishop (or didnotcare), this information was not included (see above, Chapter 4). 12 Diocl., Ps8. The Armenian translation dates therevolt in Alexandria to 9– Dionysius to 12 Diocl., andTheophanes andCedrenus to 10 Diocl. Jerome andthe Chron. 724, however, agree on 13Diocl., andPs-Dionysius canbe seen as anerror for 13aswell. Once again, thecrowded right-hand column intheArmenian translation seems to have forced theentry back further than it should go. The wording is clear from Theophanes andCedrenus, together with the Armenian andthe Chron. 724, in comparison with Jerome andPs-Dionysius. 9. Although the Armenian translation dates the ordination of Zabdas to 14 Diocl., Jerome, Ps-Dionysius, andSamuel Aniensis agree on 15Diocl. TheArmenian lists Zabdas as the thirty-eighth bishop (rather than the thirty-seventh) since it counts

6 7

Cedrenus gives 9 and10Diocl. See Chapter 4, n. 4, above.

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

51

Narcissus twice, asthirty-fourth andthirty-fifth (223 and224; cf. Jerome, 2081, 211b,

and213c).

10. The persecution of Veturius is dated to 14 Diocl. by the Armenian, and 13 Diocl. byTheophanes andCedrenus, butonce again Jerome andPs-Dionysius agree, placing the entry in 16 Diocl., which I have accepted. The wording is clear from Jerome, the Armenian, Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, andTheophanes. 14. Jerome dates theordinations of Hermon andTyrannus to 18Diocl., and 11– theordination of Peter andtheearthquake inTyre andSidon to 19Diocl., while PsDionysius dates thethree ordinations to thesame year, which wasthree years after 2316 Abr. (= 15Diocl.), andtheearthquake to 2319 Abr. (= 18Diocl.). Three years after 15Diocl. iseither 17or 18Diocl., depending uponwhether thecompiler counted inclusively or not. Since the earthquake is given its ownyear of Abraham, 17 Diocl. seems the most likely date for the ordinations. Eusebius says that Hermon succeeded Zabdas μ ε το ύ(HE 7.32.29), which does not help. Both the Armeλ ο ὐπ nian andSamuel Aniensis date theordination of Hermon to 16 Diocl., andSamuel Tyrannus to 17Diocl. andtheordination of Peter to 19Diocl. dates theordination of᾽ It would seem that the original Armenian translation spread the three ordinations over three separate years. Eusebius states in theHEthat Peter wasbishop forunder three years before thepersecution andwasmartyred intheninth year of thepersecution, fortwelve years intotal (HE7.32.31; see also Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, Chron. Pasch., Chron. 846, and Michael the Syrian). Since the persecution begins in 19 Diocl. (see below), Peter’s ordination could thushave appeared in 16or 17Diocl. In the Canones Eusebius placed the ordination of Peter’s predecessor, Theonas, in 6 Probus andgave himnineteen years (see Jerome 224f; Armenian 227 [wrong year]; 3; Syncellus 472.5; and 6/147.22– 8; Ps-Dionysius 110.25– Chron. 724 99.17/127.7– 10; aswell asEusebius, HE7.32.31). NineMich. Syr., Chron. 6.9, p. 199/118c.9– teenyears from 6 Probus is 17Diocl., which agrees withPs-Dionysius. Michael the Syrian says that thepersecution started inPeter’s third year; this indicates 17Diocl. as Peter’s first year. Since hegives Peter eleven years, notthetwelve of theHE,he is probably relying on the Canones, not the HE. Counting from 17 Diocl. to the ninth year of thepersecution yields only eleven regnal years (2 + 9), since 19Diocl. is 1 Persecution, andso Peter’s tenure of eleven years in Theophanes/Nicephorus/ Zonaras, Michael, Chron. 846, andAgapius would seem to derive from a count of regnal years inthe Canones, notthestated twelve years of theHE(which wesee in the Chron. Pasch. andanearlier passage of theChron. 846).8 All of theabove indicates that this entry belongs in 17 Diocl. I have therefore followed Ps-Dionysius in 8

Eusebius haserred incalculating Peter’s total tenure. Since Peter wasmartyred on25 November311 (see thecommentary toentry iii of Study 2), someeight months after thebeginning of 9 Persecution (i.e. eight andthree quarter years from thebeginning of thepersecution), twelve years would puthis ordination in Nov. 299 (16 Diocl.), but Eusebius says he hadnot been bishop for three years in total whenthepersecution broke outat Easter of 303. This comment would place his ordination sometime after Easter of 300. In reality, Eusebius hasjust added three years andnine years to gettwelve years. Peter wasprobably ordained inmidto late 300, andwasonly just into the twelfth year of his episcopate when he wasmartyred (see Chapter 6.1.4.13, below).

52

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

dating the three ordinations to 17Diocl. andtheearthquake to 18 Diocl. For some unknown reason, then, perhaps simply by mistake, Jerome shifted this block of material ahead, misdating the entries onHermon, Tyrannus, andtheearthquake by oneyear, andthat onPeter bytwo(see Chapter 6.2). Hermon, Tyrannus, andPeter were thelast bishops listed byEusebius (see above, Chapter 4). Thewording of 11and12is certain, asis thatof 13;it is supplied byJerome, the Chron. 724, and Ps-Dionysius. Unfortunately we have no Greek witness for the second half of 13 and it has therefore been reconstructed from different parallel passages. Thesamethree witnesses agree forthemostpartonthewording of 14,the earthquake, though Jerome differs fromtheother two(Chron. 724 andPs-Dionysius)intheplacing ofthenames ofTyre andSidon: T erraemotu horribile aputTyrum ‘ et Sidonem multa opera conciderunt et populus innumerabilis oppressus’ (Jerome, 228a), ‘Whenthere wasa mighty earthquake, most of Tyre andSidon collapsed and 5/128.4– 5) and T here was a mighty many people perished’ (Chron. 724 100.4– ‘ people perished in earthquake andmost of Tyre andSidon collapsed init andmany 6). ThetwoSyriac texts arealmost identical, even it’(Ps-Dionysius 111.30–1/149.4– though independent, but Jerome seems to mirror a number of earthquake notices found in the Continuatio Antiochiensis that seem to have been modelled on this ῳ ,Σ α μ μ λ έν ίν υ ο α α γ ἐ Κ π ρ εν ο ν ύ ό π λ τ ο ιςκα υ μ entry: σ εισ ο ύλαβροτά τ έπ ε σ α εκ ὶ ῷ μ τ ο εν ῆ ῦγ εισ μ ά λ έν ο ε ν(18), σ ο ς υ υἐ εγ η ο θ τ θ ειρ υμ ύ νΒηρ νδιέφ λ ὴ νπ ν α ἱκ ά γ εν μ η ο μ ῦ Φ ο έ ν ο (46), andσ ς εισ ιν ,τ ο ίκ κ ν υμεγ ε ω ὸπ τ έπ εω ῆ λ ςπ λ ό εῖσ τ ςπ ν τ ο η ῳ ςτ ῆ ,Σ μ λ εω ό ίν α ςπ ςτ ὰ λ π α λ ε ῖσ ν(35).9 However, κ ε λ ρ τ ω τ ο ια α δ π έπ υἐ ύ π νΚ phrase is a province and ν in twoof these sentences the location mentioned in the ἐ ὸ thecity is then named inthe mainclause, unlike Jerome, andinboth instances theτ ὰ /τ π hasa dependent genitive, as in the Syriac epitomes. Furtherλ ε α ῖσ τ ν ο τ λ εῖσ π ὸ π λ ε ῖσ τ ο rather thanJerome’s ‘multa ν more theSyriac wordswg clearly mirrors τ opera’. Jerome, the Armenian translation, Ps-Dionysius, andChron. Pasch (476.1– 2) suggest that theoriginal of 198e, anearlier earthquake notice, wassomething like ή ικ α δ α ία ὶΝ κ ν η εια /κ ςτ α τεπ μ ὰ α τ π κ θ έπ ο λ εσ τ λ ὰ ώ εν ο ικ μ έν γ εν ο υΝ ο μ ῦ ο σ εισ (Sync. 426.17 is rather different), which also supports the Syriac epitomes. I have therefore used these examples to reconstruct the Greek following the version provided bythe Syriac epitomes, though there is nocertainty. 15. Every witness to the Canones, except Samuel Aniensis, mentions that the Great Persecution began in 19Diocl. Thecontent is quite certain, andtheGreek has been reconstructed fromtheChron. Pasch. with additional details fromtheMPal. The notice on Constantine’s accession in the fourth year of the persecution is provided byJerome andtheAnon. Matr., andthecorrelation also appears ina chronological table in Michael the Syrian (p. 238 n. 10). It is therefore original. Jerome’s ‘regnare orsus’isjust making explicit theinceptive present of β α σ ιλ ε ύ ε ι. 16. Jerome andthe Chron. 724 both explicitly label the year of Diocletian and Maximian’s abdication as the second year of the persecution, which is consistent with Eusebius’chronology in the MPal 3.5, HE 8.13.10 and8.App.2, and VConst 1.18.1, and corresponds to Ps-Dionysius’ date of 2321 Abr. The wording seems

9

See Chapter 6.2 below andthecommentary toentry no. 18 inStudy 2.

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

53

clear fromJerome, the Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, Cedrenus, LeoGrammaticus, and Chron. Mar., once the additions have been removed. The Greek hasbeen restored from Cedrenus andLeo Grammaticus, along with the Chron. Pasch. andSocrates. 17.The accessions of Maximinus andSeverus are dated to the first half of 20 Diocl. by Ps-Dionysius (2321 Abr. = 2 Persecution) andto the second half by Jerome(2322 Abr. = 3 Pers.). Ps-Dionysius moreaccurately reflects Eusebius here, for Jerome seems to have modified his chronology in accordance with the KG (see Chapter 6.2). The sources other than Jerome indicate that this entry wasoriginally active in form. Jerome probably changed it to suit Latin idiom, which preferred to putsuch accession entries into the passive. This will be seen in later accession entries aswell. Thelack of anuncontaminated Greek witness makes thedetermination of the verb difficult; I have followed the Chron. Pasch.’s ἐπ ο σ ίη ε ν because it mirrors Jerome’s ‘facti’. It also appears in no.23. 18. Allwitnesses place Constantius’death just before theaccession of Constantine, though only Jerome andPs-Dionysius explicitly place it in the second half of 20 Diocl. (2322 Abr.). Eusebius originally gave Constantius twelve years, counting from 9 Diocl. andtreating 20 Diocl. as a single regnal year, as is indicated bymost witnesses (Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, Excerpt. Lat. barb., Chron. Mar., Chron. 846, Michael the Syrian, andChron. Se‛ert). Theophanes andZonaras give himeleven years, andChron. Pasch., Cedrenus, andLeo Grammaticus give himthirteen, almost certainly as a result of counting thedouble 20 Diocl. as twoyears. Since Jeromeshifted Constantius’accession back to 6 Diocl., he ‘corrected’his regnal year total to sixteen (counting 20 Diocl. as twoyears). A large number of witnesses state that Constantine ruled with Constantius for two years (Chron. Pasch., Cedrenus, andLeo Grammaticus) or three years (Chron. Mar., Chron. 846, Michael the Syrian, andthe Chron. Se‛ert), butthestructure of the Canones as it canbe reconstructed from the best witnesses does not allow for such chronologies. I do not know whence they derive. The wording of the reconstruction derives from Jerome, the Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, the Chron. Pasch., and the Anon. Matr., the latter of which supplies ἐν δ ό ιδό ω ξ ς , though Eusebius elsewhere uses ἐπ ω ξ ςtwice to describe the death of Constantius (in anoriginal anda rewritten passage, HE8.App.4 and8.13.13, respectively). However, ἐνδό ξ ω ςappears in entry 25 of the Continuatio Antiochiensis, which seems to have been copied from this entry (see Study 2). There is no Greek evidence for the second half of theentry, so I have have simply rendered the notices from the Chron. 724 andPs-Dionysius into Greek. 19. The wording of the rubric is based on all earlier rubrics. It is difficult to knowwhether Eusebius included a regnal year total (twenty years) ornot. I have not included such a figure. There appears tohave beenvery little information onthereign of Constantine in the Canones apart from events during the persecution (see Chapter 6.1, below). Eusebius mentioned thedeaths of Severus, Maximian, Galerius, Maxentius, Maximinus, andLicinius; theaccessions ofMaxentius, Licinius, Constantine II, andConstantius II; theendof thepersecution; thepersecution of Licinius; thedeath of Basileus of Amaseia; the first appearance of Arius; andthe uicennalia of Constantine. Mostof these canbedated withconfidence, buta number canonlybesurmised. The

54

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

wording of most entries is also very difficult to evaluate since Eusebius’ original entries were changed so radically bythewitnesses, often withreference to theHE. 20. The death of Severus would seem to belong to 1 Const. ontheevidence of Jerome, Theophanes, Cedrenus, Chron. Mar., Michael the Syrian, Chron. Se‛ert, andAgapius (these latter four are all related), which all either give hima reign of one year (which counts 20 Diocl. as a single year) or place his death in 1 Const. Chron. Pasch. putshisdeath in2 Const., thesameyear inwhich it putsthedeath of Constantius, andPs-Dionysius puts it in the equivalent of 3 Const. (2325 Abr.), which I have taken tobea result of confusion withthedeath of Galerius (see below). Eusebius’original entry seems simply tohavesaidthatSeverus waskilled, butthere is nocertainty. 21. Ps-Dionysius indicates that Maxentius’ accession occurred after Maximian’s death and dates both to 2 Const. This is supported by the HE, which, while narrating events intheWest, describes Maximian’s death before Maxentius’procla14.1). Chron. 846 states that Maximian diedtwoyears mation asemperor (8.13.15– after Constantine’s accession, which is also 2 Const. It also says that hehadreigned for nine years, which is clearly incorrect, butif the nine is anerror for nineteen, it would indicate 2 Const. as well (since his accession wasin 3 Diocl.).10 Jerome also dates it to 2 Const., butthat is theequivalent of 3 Const. in Eusebius’original (see Chapters 3 and6.2). Thecontent andwording arebased onthecommon aspects of the different witnesses butthere is nowayto determine if the source for this commondescription wasEusebius or not. 22. Theophanes places Maxentius’accession in 1 Const., butJerome, Ps-Dionysius, andthe Chron. Pasch. putit intheequivalent of 2 Const. 2 Const. is supported by the fact that Chron. Pasch., Ps-Dionysius, andMichael the Syrian give Maxentius a reign of six years (counting inclusively), andEusebius placed his death in7 Const. (see below). Jerome has put his accession before the death of Severus because of theKG,which narrated Maxentius’accession before thedeath of Severus. Thewording derives from Cedrenus (the first passage cited inAppendix 1; the secondis copied from Theophanes) with reference to Socrates andJerome, which are all virtually identical, except that in Cedrenus the verb is active instead of passive, as is usually the case in Eusebius’ accession notices, andthat Cedrenus does not name the soldiers as ‘praetorians’; they are ‘the soldiers in Rome’. Socrates and Jerome maybemore accurate innaming them, butthis is probably notthecase. The problem is that Socrates’sentence probably derives from Eutropius, not Eusebius, which would account for its similarity to Jerome (both Eutropius and Jerome used theKG). I have followed Cedrenus. 23. The proclamation of Licinius belongs in 3 Const. This is indicated by Jerome,Ps-Dionysius, andtheChron. Pasch. It is also supported bythecommon source of Chron. 846 andMichael the Syrian, which placed Licinius’death in the seventeenth year of his reign. This source, like Theophanes, seems to have conflated his death in20 Const. withhisdefeat theprevious yearthrough theuseof another source.

10 There is nowayto tell whether a particular author counted regnal years inclusively ornot. This figure works if counted (correctly) from4 Diocl., though inanexample cited below, Maxentius, the compilers appear to have counted inclusively (first andlast years).

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

55

As above, the original wasprobably active rather than passive, as in Jerome. The Greek is based onJerome andthe Chron. Pasch., omitting ‘Carnunti’, which Jer-

ome has added from the Descriptio (s.a. 308). 24. There is nogoodevidence foreither thewording of theentry onthedeath of Galerius or its date. From the HE andMPal (the first version/edition of the latter having been written at the same time as the Canones) wecan tell that Eusebius knew that Galerius’death signalled the endof the eighth year of persecution (see MPal 13.11 + HE 8.App.1, HE 8.16–17), therefore it should appear in 6 Const., as the last entry of thefirst edition. However, whatmeagre evidence wehave, except forJerome (= 4 Const.), points to 3 Const.: Ps-Dionysius (rather confused11), Chron. Pasch., andMichael the Syrian. Aswell, the Chron. Pasch., in its summary before Constantine’s accession (which generally seems to derive from Eusebius), gives Galerius a reign of sixteen years which would also indicate 3 Const., if calculated on thesame basis asConstantius’regnal years (13 + 3; seeabove). However, under 3 Const. itself the Chron. Pasch. only gives Galerius a reign of fourteen years. It also describes his death under 7 Const. and11Const., andelsewhere dates it to 9 Const. If 3 Const. is correct, then Jerome mayhave forgotten to shift this entry back one year, as is hisregular practice. The Chron. Pasch. explicitly dates entries 23 and24 α σ ιλ εύ σ α ηις ςἔτ to the same year: β ιο έρ ςτελ λ ευ α τ ῶ σ νἐπ ε νβ σ ιλ ίη ο ᾽Γα έ α λ ῇ(517.13–14), but the source is unknown; it cannot be Euseνἀνατο νἐ Λ ικ ίν ιο bius. Under 3 Const. it also dates both entries to the same year, butin reverse order 7). Even theKGdated Galerius’death shortly after Licinius’accession (see (519.5– 2), even though they occurred three years apart. The evidence Eutropius 10.2.1– makes nosense andI cannot suggest a plausible explanation for themassive confusion in the sources, especially in Jerome, whoalso hadtheDescriptio, which cor-

rectly dated Galerius’death to311(= 6 Const.). I cannot believe thatEusebius would have knowingly antedated theentry bythree years, even in his final edition of 325, andI cannot accept that 3 Const. is a result of textual corruption inwhatwould have beenquite independent manuscript traditions oftheCanones. I havetherefore placed theentry under 6 Const. onthebasis of theHE, andhave followed thewording of Jerome. 25. There is nodoubt thatthedeath of Maxentius belongs to7 Const. It is dated to this year by Jerome, Socrates, Chron. Pasch. (p. 518), Cedrenus, Elias (from Socrates?), Chron. Se‛ert, andAgapius (aconfused notice). Theophanes dates it to 6 1), perhaps a confusion based on the Const. (as does Chron. Pasch. on pp. 520– length of his reign (six years). The Greek hasbeen reconstructed on the basis of Jerome’s entry, excluding the reference to the Milvian Bridge, which he derived from theDescriptio (s.a. 312) ortheKG.There arenoother complete witnesses. 26. IntheHEEusebius indicates that thedeath of Maximinus brought anendto ten years of persecution (8.15.1, 16.1; 9.11.1), therefore the death of Maximinus should appear in 8 Const. He also knows that Maximinus died after Maxentius (9.9.1). Jerome dates hisdeath to6 Const. (i.e. before Maxentius’death); Theophanes and Cedrenus to 9 Const., and Chron. Pasch. to 6 Const. (which also dates it to 9

11 I amassuming that he haswritten tain.

‘Severus’for ‘Galerius’at this point, which

is far from cer-

56

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

Const. in an earlier passage), while claiming that he hadbeen emperor for nine years, which indicates 8 Const., if onecounts 20 Diocl. as a single year. In spite of the stated regnal year, the Chron. Pasch. dates Maximinus’death after thedeath of Maxentius (which he also mistakenly dates to 6 Const.), so it must belong in 7 Const. or later. If Theophanes (on whomCedrenus maydepend here) erroneously usedthe length of Maximinus’reign as a regnal year (as suggested above for Maxentius), this would support 8 Const. as well. Consequently we have another date, solidly documented in the HE, that appears ambiguous in the witnesses to the Canones. In the reconstruction I have followed the HE andthe hints in the witnesses to the Canones that agree with it. The wording is based onCedrenus andtheHE, andto a lesser extent Theophanes andthe Chron. Pasch., guided by theLatin of Jerome. Thefirst participial phrase is derived fromanearlier parallel preserved inSyncellus (414.4 = 185c), which Jerome translated inmuchthesame wayashetranslated this phrase (see Chapter 6.2, below). Forμ έλ (though witha different meaning), see λ ω ν 223c(= Sync. 470.11 and25). 27. Theendof thepersecution is dated to 8 Const. (313) byJerome, Chron. 724 (p. 115, which is notpartof theSyriac epitome of the Canones, buta later witness to Eusebius12), andPs-Dionysius, which is supported byMichael theSyrian, whoplaces the tenth year of persecution in 7 Const. (as does Jerome). Jerome uses the word ‘peace’, but the other three witnesses use the word ‘freedom’, which is probably μ what Eusebius said (cf. HE 10.10.6: ν ο ντ ό ὸ ία νὑ π θ ὲρἐλ ευ ερ ςα ὐ τ ῶ ν[i.e. ρ ισ τα Χ ]... δια ν ια ῶ μ τ ν εν ξ ο ά ς , with reference to Maximinus). There are no Greek witnesses or parallels, so the text has been left in a Latin version based on Chron. 724 andPs-Dionysius. 28. The Chron. Pasch. includes anentry marking Constantine II’s accession as caesar in 11Const. It also correctly mentions the accessions of Crispus, Constantine II, andLicinius II under 12 Const. (=317), a note that derives from the Descriptio. Jerome, too, dates the accessions of Crispus, Constantine II, andLicinius II to 12 Const., which is the correct date, also obtained from the Descriptio, notEusebius. Elias mentions the accession of Constantine II alone under 626 Sel., which is the equivalent of 10 Const. (since 617 Sel. is 1 Const. and623 is 7 Const.). Theentry is ascribed to Socrates’HE,butSocrates does notmention it. The Chron. 724 includes anentry onthe accession of ‘Constantius’butplaces it between the ordinations of Alexander (312) andPhilogonius (319/320). It must, therefore, bereferring to Constantine II, not Constantius II, whowasnot proclaimed caesar until November of 324 (see below).13 In the entry on the death of Constantine II, the Continuatio Antiochiensis states that he hadbeen emperor for twenty-five years. Since Constantine II’s death wasdated to 3 Constantius (=340) andConstantine I wasgiven a reign of thirty-two years, a reign of twenty-five years would putConstantine II’s accession 12 Although the date is given as 626 of the Seleucid era (Sel.), which is 315 andtherefore 10 Const. 3), 1Const. is assigned to619 Sel. (115.21/149.19), which makes 626 8 Const. (115.24/149.22– 13 Note 2 onpage 101of thetranslation of the Chron. 724 states: ‘Notanda permutatio nominum

Constantini et Constantii; quae etiam infra pluries occurrit.’ Another example occurs on p. 102.18, where the city of Constantia is called ‘Constantina’. On this, see the commentary to entry no.48 in Study 2.

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

57

in 11 Const.14 This entry therefore probably originally appeared in the Canones 11Const. It must be, therefore, that Crispus’name wasexpunged from the Canones at some point after his death in May 326, just as it was from the HE, a result of hisdamnatio memoriae.15 Licinius II wasprobably notmentioned originally since this portion of thework wascomposed after theexecutions of Licinius and his father in the spring of 325 (Barnes 1982: 44 and45). The wording of the entry under

depends upon the Chron. Pasch. andChron. 724. 29 and30. Jerome andTheophanes agree ondating Licinius’persecution and the martyrdom of Basileus to 15 Const. Ps-Dionysius dates the persecution to 13 15 Const. The Greek of no. 29 derives from Const. andCedrenus dates it to 14– Theophanes; Ps-Dionysius is identical, ‘Licinius persecuted the Christians who 14). This reading is supported byentry 35 of theCon(were) inthepalace’(159.13– tinuatio Antiochiensis (see Study 2), which seems to be imitating this entry: ρ ισ τ ια ν ο ὺ Χ α ρ ις ςἐδίω ο ... τ ύ Σ ά π ω εῖρ κ ςὑ π ὸχ ε ν . Jerome’s entry is different and is analysed below (Chapter 6.2). The entry on Basileus depends solely onJerome andthewording hasbeenreconstructed fromparallels inTheophanes andEusebius’ HE. Jerome uses ‘sub’+ abl. to represent Eusebius’original ἐ π ί+ gen., e.g. 179f =

Sync. 404.9, 181d= Sync. 407.7, 183i = Sync. 410.11, and203e = Sync. 430.1. 31. It is difficult to determine whether the Canones made mention of Arius. I aminclined to believe that it didbecause of the chronological agreement among Jerome, Theophanes, andSamuel Aniensis (16 Const. = 321; though Brosset in her 15Const., Zohrab’s translation is based onmore translation of Samuel dates it to 14– andbetter manuscripts). Though Arius does in fact seem to have been expelled in this year, the chronology even today is so complicated andcontroversial that I cannot believe that three chroniclers, so removed in time from the event, could have independently stumbled upon the correct date.16 The appearance of this entry in Samuel is particularly telling. First of all, it appears in the left-hand column, which is chiefly (though not exclusively) devoted to material from Eusebius. Second, one would not have expected so late an author with so obviously few sources for the period to have mentioned such a minor event in the lead upto Nicaea (which is mentioned later). Anentry on Arius has therefore tentatively been included in the reconstruction, but the wording is unknown, though there is a general similarity between Samuel’s, ‘Arii cum Alexandro contentio’ andJerome’s, ‘a [Alexandro] Arrius presbyter deecclesia eiectus’. I have left Jerome’s Latin asa place-holder, as

it were. Both entries mention Alexander, butif Eusebius mentioned himintheCanones hewasnotaccorded a succession number. Theophanes replaces theentire entry with something from another source. 18 32. The accession of Constantius II is dated to 17Const. byTheophanes, 16– Const. by Cedrenus, and 18 Const. by Jerome. Elias dates it to 636 Sel., which is 20 Const. (heclaims hissource is Socrates, butitdoesnotappear there), andtheChron.

14 See thecommentary to entry no.29 inStudy 2. 8. For this, seeChapter 6.1.1, below. 15 See Barnes 1980: 197– 16 For the date, which I believe is correct, see Williams 1987: 56. Williams arrives at this date without reference to anyof these sources. Fortheproblems, ingeneral, see Hanson 1988: 129– 38, andfor myacceptance of Williams, see thecommentary toentries ii, iv, andv in Study 2.

58

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

Pasch. agrees with the regnal year. Although the Chron. Pasch. copied thedayof this event from the Descriptio, the Descriptio dated it to the consular year 324, which is 19Const., sotheregnal yearintheChron. Pasch. does notderive fromthis source; it therefore probably derives from Eusebius. The wording is reconstructed on the basis of the Chron. 846, Michael the Syrian, and Jerome. As reconstructed here, years 17 to 19 Const. areblank andthere is anOlympiad marker that would have hada blank space opposite it in the original, making four blank lines in all in the original. Three entries aredated to 20 Const. It seems that what has happened here in the original copies of Eusebius used by Jerome andTheophanes (whence Cedrenus) is that the three entries under 20 Const. were shifted upinto the blank space above, either in error or in anattempt to save space by a scribe.17 Only Cedrenus, the least authoritative of the texts employed, places any of these entries earlier than 17 Const., thebeginning of theblank space in thetext. Jerome hadtwo entries ina single yearperhaps because ofthelarger space allowed bytheOlympiad under 18 Const. The wording is reconstructed onthebasis of Jerome, Elias, Theophanes, andthe Chron. Pasch. 33. Licinius’death belongs under 20 Const., asis stated byPs-Dionysius. Most other sources date it to 19Const., which is actually thedate of hisdefeat: Cedrenus, Theophanes, andChron. Pasch., aswell astheChron. 846 andMichael theSyrian, whogive hima reign of seventeen years (i.e. counting from3 Const.). Jerome indicates that his death took place in 18 Const., twoyears early. 34. Jerome, the Chron. Pasch., andTheophanes all date Constantine’s uicennalia to 20 Const., as one would expect. The wording is based on the two Greek sources. Neither of these, however, mentions Nicomedia, but it does not appear in anyknown source usedbyJerome atthis point (i.e. theDescriptio andtheKG) and soought toderive fromtheCanones. Itsstatus mustremain doubtful. Theverb is the normal verb Eusebius uses for such episodes, andhas been supplied from earlier such examples in other witnesses andfromtheparallel at entry no.21 of the Continuatio (Study 2). 35. The final supputatio is easily reconstructed from the Chron. 724, Jerome, andPs-Dionysius. The Greek derives from the Chron. Pasch.; Syncellus; Eusebius’ Praeparatio Euangelica 10.9, HE, andMPal; andtheGreek fragments of Eusebius’ Chronographia, preserved by Cramer. The Latin is the CSCO translation of the Chron. 724. There are noGreek witnesses or even close parallels for this material andso I have notventured to render it into Greek. Theresult oftheabove researches ispresented below. Muchof it is bynecessity tentative, in content, wording, andchronology, but given the loss of the original and thecontamination of thewitnesses it is probably thebest wecanhope for.

sorts of problems with manuscript texts of chronicles, with regard script tradition used byJerome andTheophanes for their text of Eusebius, Study 2.

17 Onthese

to thesame manusee Chapter 1.7 of

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

59

5.3. Reconstruction andTranslation Key:

Plain Greek text: there is a highdegree ofprobability thatthisprovides theexact content of the original entry andthat it accurately reflects the wording of Eusebius oris atleast veryclose toit.Thewording either derives directly froma Greek source or involves some reconstruction from more thanoneGreek source. Latin text: thecontent is certain, butthere is nowaytobecertain of theoriginal Greek wording since there arenowitnesses or close parallels. [ ]: there is less of a probability that this is close to the content and/or wording of Eusebius, usually because theGreek hasbeenreconstructed either without a clear guide orfromcontaminated sources. [? ?]: there is a very highdegree of uncertainty astoEusebius’original content and wording, andwhat appears can be regarded as little better than an educated guess. ?[ ]?: there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the chronology of Eusebius’ original entry. < >: it is uncertain whether the enclosed text belongs to the Canones or not. (285/284): Dates (translation only). The first figure is Eusebius’absolute date; the second is theactual date. Bold indicates original rubrication.

60

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

ʹἐβ α σ β ίλ νλ ευ μ ίω α σ εΚ ω Ῥ ρ ᾶ ο ςἅ μ α τ ο ῖςπ α ισ ὶνα ὐ τ ο ῦ ῳ κ ʹ (1) α ῷ ὶΝ ρ Κ ίν ο ἔτ α μ ηβ υ ερ ια ν ʹ ʹ α τ ͵β ʹ ὀ λ .σ ξ ς σ Τ α ελ τή ν ευ τ ο ρ ο ςΚ υἐ ν Μ ά εσ μ ο π ο τ α ια ν ίᾳ μ ὸ ερ ο υ ,Ν ς ʹ β [ἐ ᾴ ] ἐσφ ῷ ντου κ ῃκ ηἐ γ τ ά ρ νΘ α ὶΚ ρ α ῖν ο ςὡ σ α ύ τ ω ς [τ ῇ κ α τ ὰ ρ Κ ό ν ῃ α μ ά .] (2) χ κ ο ν ʹἐβ α σ ίλ γ ευ νλ ίω α σ μ εΔ Ῥ ω ʹ (3) ιο η τ κ ια λ ν ὸ ηκ ςἔτ ʹ α

ʹ β ʹ γ

ʹ ὀ λ .σ ξ ζ ʹ δ εʹ ʹ ς ʹ ζ ʹ η ὀλ .σ ξ ʹ η

ʹ ιʹ θ τ ͵β

ʹ ὀ λ .σ ξθ ʹ ιβ ʹ ιγ ʹ ιδ ιεʹ

ὀ λ .σ ο ᾽ ιςʹ

ʹ ιζ

ʹ ιη

η Δ τ ια ιο ν κ λ ὸ ςτ ῆ α σ ιλ ῦβ ςα τ ο ὐ εία ςκοινω ν ὸ νἀ ν έδ ειξ ε ια ν ὸ κ ο ύ α ρ ντ Μ λ ιο ιμ ξ ν ὸ . (4) νἙ

Β ιςκ β ο ύ σ α ιρ α ιςτ ὶΚ ή ο π ύ τ ό π ῆ ό λ ε ιςἐ τ ,π ςΑ ἰγ ο ς υ νΘ , ῆ ςε σ α ρ σ α ιτ ῆ μ α χ ἰςἔδα ίω φ ν ἀ ἀ π ο ο σ τ α τή ςτ νῬ ῶ ω ς η σ α κ ν α φ . (5) τ εσ κ ά Κ ω ν σ τ ά ν τ ιο ν ια ὸ ςκ α α ὶΜ ςἸόβ ο ιμ ι τ ξ α τ έσ ν α ιφ ιο ςἐπ η σ α ὴ ν θ ν . (6) εἰσ ρ επ κ ε α ίσ ο ιή χ α ςε ἰςτ ὴ νἀρ

λ ῖν ο . (7) ελ κ ς ρ α ο ςΜ π ο κ ίσ ʹἐπ η ςκ η μ Ῥ ώ ῳ ε ἰςἀ π Ἀ λ εξ ύ ο τ π ρ σ ὑ ια τ ν ε π α ία σ ὸ σ ά ν τ ἰγ δ ὺ ν Α ῇ Ἀ χ ιλ λ έω θ τ ν εῖσ έσ ν χ ςἀ χ ίω κἀ ο α μ ντ ιο ὐ α ῇ Ῥ ω η η ν σ ρ α β ᾽ἣ ν , δίκ έθ ο λ ν ῃ θ ῇ ,κ π α λ εῖσ τ ν ο ιἀ σ ο ρ π π ο σ τ ςα ςἀ α ῆ ία σ ῶ ἰτ . (8) τ ν ν κ τ ίω ό ν τ ω δ εδω ʹἐπ ο Ἱερ β μ ίσ κ δ ω ο π α σ νλ ο ο λ ύ ά ς ςΖ . (9) ζ

ρ η ιο ςτ Ο ὐ ρ χ ο ετή ςστρα ὺ τ ο π ά ςἐ εδ α τ είᾳ ν σ τρ ρ ίω ετ ρ ισ ς , ἔκτο τ Χ ὰ ια ν εμ ν υ α τ ο τ ὺ ετ ο ῦκ ςἤλα μ (10) ο ῦ . γ φ ι ω ο ο ν τ δ ς ύ τ ν π ὑ ο ω τ ν ά π ʹἐπ μ ίσ κ ώ ο ο Ἱερ ν π ρ η . (11) ο σ μ ο ςἙ ω ν λ λ ύ ʹἐπ ν ν ίσ ο κ ο π ο . (12) ς ςΤύρα Ἀ ν τ ιο χ εία ςιθ ο ρ , ς ʹἐπ ε έτ τ ὰ Θ κ ο π ο εω ίσ Ἀ ν λ ςμ ᾶ νΠ εξ ρ εία ςις α ν δ [ὃ ςὕσ ῳ ἔ μ τ ο ῦἐνδό τ ε ιτ γ ο ο ερ ν ω ῦδιω ξ ἐν ς ά τ η σ ε ν .] (13) ρ ρ τύ α ἐμ [Σ εισ ν ο ῶ μ ιδ ς ρ μ ο έν ῦλαβροτά γ ο υκ α εν ο ὶΣ υ , Τύ ο τ ο υ ν θ ὺ η ὴ ν π λ ν α ὶἱκα εκ κ ω τ π έπ νκατα τ ῖσ τ ο ὸπ ε λ .] (14) ε ν θ ειρ δ ιέφ

α ʹ ʹ

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

61

Translation

2300

Romans: the thirty-second to rule were Carus with his sons Carinus and Numerian, for twoyears (1)

Olymp. 266

1

Atthis time, after Carus’death in Mesopotamia, Numerian waskilled in Thrace andCarinus was likewise killed in a battle at Cornacum. (2) Romans: the thirty-third to rule wasDiocletian, for twenty years. (3) (286/285) 1 (287/286) 2 (288/287) 3 Diocletian proclaimed Maximianus Herculius his (285/284)

Olymp. 267 (289/288) (290/289) (291/290) (292/291)

Olymp. 268

2

imperial partner. (4)

4 5 6 7

(293/292)

8

2310

9

(295/294) (296/295)

10 11

Olymp. 269 (297/296) (298/297)

12 13

(299/298)

14

(300/299)

15

Olymp. 270 (301/300)

16

(302/301)

17

(303/302)

18

Busiris andCoptos, cities of Thebaïs inEgypt, rebelled against Roman rule andwere razed to the ground. (5) Constantius andMaximianus Jovius were adopted into theimperial college asnobilissimi caesares. (6)

Rome: the twenty-ninth bishop wasMarcellinus. (7) Alexandria andEgypt were ledinto rebellion by Achilleus, butthey were unable to withstand the Roman assault, during which many were killed, and those who hadinitiated the rebellion were punished. (8) Jerusalem: thethirty-seventh bishop wasZabdas. (9) Veturius, a military commander, launched a minor persecution against theChristians in thearmy, and from that moment a persecution against all Christians smouldered. (10) Jerusalem: the thirty-eighth bishop was Hermon. (11) Antioch: thenineteenth bishop wasTyrannus. (12) Alexandria: after Theonas the sixteenth bishop was Peter, whoafterwards suffered a glorious martyrdom in theninth year of thepersecution. (13) Because there wasa terrible earthquake, most of Tyre and Sidon collapsed anda great number of people perished. (14)

62

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

ʹ ʹ ιθ κ τ ͵β

ʹ ὀ λ .σ ο α ʹ κ

ʹ α ʹ β

ʹ β ὀ λ .σ ο ʹ γ

ʹ δ εʹ ʹ ς ʹ γ ὀ λ .σ ο

ʹ ζ

ʹ ʹ η λ τ ͵β

ʹ θ ιʹ ʹ δ ὀ λ .σ ο

ʹ ια

ʹἔτ ε η ιτ ῆ τ ια α ν ςΔ ιο κ ο ιθ λ ῦβ σ η ιλ μ ν ῳ εία ί, ς ,Δ ρ ύ τ σ ᾳ τ ῆ ςἑορ ῆ τ ρ ςτ μ έ ο ῦπ ἡ ά σ ν χ τ ἐ α ῶ ,ἡ ν η ἐκ κ σ λ ιῶ ν ῦ κ α θ α ε ίρ σ έν ιςἐγ ρ . τετά ετ ο τ ῳ δ ὲ τ ο ῦδιω μ γ ο β α σ ι λ ε ύ μ ο ῦ ε ι γ Κ ω ν σ ω τ ι α δ ν ῦ τ ν ῖ ο ο (15) . ιτ ς ε τ ἔ ὶ ῳ ἔ τ μ ε ιτ ο ῦΔ ο γ Δ ρ ῦδιω ευ ιο τ έ η τ κ ια λ ν ὸ α ςκ α β ιλ σ εία ν ἀ ια ὴ ν π ν Μ α ὸ ςτ έθ εν ιμ ξ τ ο . (16) Γ ιο α λ ια έρ ςΜ α ν ὸ α ιμ ῖν ςΜ ξ ρ ξ ιμ ο ο ν ν κ α ῆ ὶΣ ευ ]. (17) σ ε ν ρ κ α ιή α ίσ π ο α ς[ἐ Κ ω ν α ά ετ τ σ ν τ λ ιο λ ά ςἐνδό ω τ τ ξ , ςμ ε ίο ν ιτ ὸ νβ β ’ὃ α σ εθ ιλ νΚ εύ ω ν σ σ α τ η ςἔτ ιβ [μ α ν τ ῖν ο ςὁυ ἱὸ ς ʹν (18) ευ .] α ίλ σ σ ε ῦ ἐβ τ ο α ὐ · α σ ίλ ʹἐβ ευ σ εΚ ω ν νλ μ σ ο α δ τα ίω ῖν ν τ ς(19) Ῥ ω [?Σ ρ η ῆ .?] (20) ο ρ ευ έθ ῃ ςἀ ν [?Μ α ια ξ ιμ ν κ ὸ ρ ο ύ λ ιο ςὁἙ ςἐτελ η σ εν .?] (21) εύ τ [Ο ἱἐ ν γ ρ ό ευ η σ α ν Μ ν ιἀ α α τ ιο ν ιῶ τ τ α ξ έν ρ Ῥ τ σ ῃ μ ώ .] (22) α σ ιλ έα ρ κ ο υ λ ο ίο ῦἙ ῦτ ν ια ο υβ τ α ν υ Μ ὸ ιμ ἱὸ ν ξ [Γ α λ έρ ιο α σ ιλ ίν ςΛ ικ ν ιο έ νβ α σ ε ἐπ .] (23) ν ο ίη

ʹ δ

ʹ ζ

ʹ η η ιο σ ςΜ ια α εν ν ὸ .?]? (24) ςἐτελ α λ έρ ?[?Γ ξ ιμ εύ τ [Μ α ξ έν τ ιο ςὑ π ὸΚ ω ν σ θ τ α ν τ ίν ε ὶς ο υἡττη .] (25) η ρ έθ ῃ ν ἀ ρ ισ ια τ ο ῖν Χ α α τ ν ὰ ςκ ?[?Μ ῶ ιμ ν ξ έλ μ libertatem λ ὸ α νκ ὶμ ή ω σ α γ ν ςδιω κ ιν omnibus Christianis ῆ ν α θ ιὑ ιν ίο ικ ν π υἐ ὸΛ ρ α τη ν κ ᾷ .?]? (26) τ ελ dedit] (27) ευ τ ίᾳ Κ ιλ ικ

[Constantinus

Κ ω ν τ ν τ ὐ σ τ α ο ῖν ο ν α ῦΚω ῖν υ ο τ ἱὸ ν ν ν α ν τ ςτ ὸ σ . (28) ρ ρ α ε υ σ γ εκα ίσ ό α η ἀ ν

ʹ ιβ ιγ ʹ ιʹ δ

ʹ ὀ λ .σ ο ε ʹ ιε

ʹ ις γ β ς ʹ ι ε α ζ θ

ʹ

ʹ ʹ ʹ

ρ ισ Χ τ ια ν ο ὺ . (29) ν ςἐδίω ε ξ ίῳ τ α λ ῷ α π Λ ικ ίν ιο ν ςτ ο ὺ ςἐ ν τ [Β α σ ιλ ε ὺ ὶ ςὁἐπ ο υἐπ ν τ ό ῦΠ α ία ο μ σ ε ςτ ίσ κ ο π ο ςἈ .] (30) τ α ο ή σ ν α ο νἀ ν εδ ρ ίο υστέφ ρ τυ α ίο ιν υτ ν Λ ικ ὸ ν τ ο ῦμ (31)

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

2320

Olymp. 271 (305/304)

(306) (307)

63

19

In thenineteenth year of thereign of Diocletian, inthe month of Dystros, onEaster day, there wasa demolition of thechurches. Year of the persecution: In the fourth year of thepersecution Constantine began to reign. (15)

20

In thesecond year of thepersecution Diocletian

andMaximianus abdicated. (16) Galerius Maximianus madeMaximinus andSeverus caesars. (17) Constantius passed ongloriously after a reign of twelve years andhis sonConstantine ruled after

him. (18) Romans: the thirty-fourth to rule wasConstantine. (19) 1 Severus waskilled. (20) 2 Maximianus Herculius died. (21) Thesoldiers inRome proclaimed Maxentius, the sonof Maximianus Herculius, emperor. (22)

Olymp. 272 (308) (309) (310) (311)

Olymp. 273 (312)

2330

3 4 5 6

7 8

Galerius madeLicinius emperor. (23)

Galerius Maximianus died. (24) Maxentius wasdefeated andkilled byConstantine. (25) Constantine granted Maximinus launched a persecution against the freedom to all Christians andwasabout to be (27) captured by Licinius whenhe died

Christians.

(314) (315)

Olymp. 274 (316) (317) (318) (319)

Olymp. 275

9 10 11

12 13 14

(320)

15

(321)

16

(322)

917 34 65 110 2

7 8

in Cilicia. (26)

Constantine proclaimed

hisson, Constantine,

caesar. (28)

Licinius persecuted theChristians wholived in the palace. (29) Basileus, thebishop of Amaseia in Pontus, wasgranted thecrown of martyrdom under Licinius. (30) Thepriest Arius wasexpelled fromthechurch by Alexander. (31)

64

ʹ ʹ ιη μ τ ͵β ʹ ὀ λ .σ ο ς ʹ ιθ ʹ κ

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ςτ ὸ νυ ἱὸ να ὐ τ ο ῦΚ ω ν σ τ ά ν τ ιο ν ρ γ ό ευ η σ εκα ρ ίσ α . (32) ἀ ν α [Λ ικ ίν ν ιο η .] (33) γ ςἐσφ ά Ε ρ ἰκ ο σ ὶςτ η α ετ ῆ ςΚ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ίν α σ ιλ ο υβ εία ς ἤ Ν μ δ ικ ε η ο . (34) ίᾳ χ θ

γ Σ υ ετ ηἕω ν ά α ιτ τ ν α ὰ ά π ἔτ ρ ῆ ίδ ςτ η ο ςεἰκ ο σ ςΚ ω α ν ετ σ τ α ν τ ίν ο υ : ʹ ἀ π ὸιεἔτο ρ μ φ α ί ν ο υ ο ῶ ρ κ α ῆ ε ν ὶ τ ῆ ί η ἐ ω τ ι ση ο Σ ς ἡ π ς τ α ῦ ε β ς τ ἔ ι υ ςΤ ʹτ α σ ιλ υἔτο έω ο π ρ ἀ ὸδ ε ίο ᾽ὃ υτ ο σ ῦΠ νβ υ ερ ῶ ς ὲ ,κ ο α θ ν ῦδευτέρ α ςΔ ʹ μ ηω ς μ η ο ιςν ἔτ α ύ ὸ θ λ ςἀ ν ο εν εώ νἹεροσ ὁἐ ᾽ ή τ η ε ρ μ υ ἀ π π ο ὸδ φ ιά π ςὈ ν ᾽ὃ α λ ρ ὲτ ῆ δ υ ρ ώ νἐπ ο τ ο θ ςπ ς α ,κ ʹ ρ ῳ γ β ο σ χ ύ η͵α ν ρ ρ α ο ίο β ιςἩ ι ἔτ ΐα σ α Ἑ ςκ α ὶο ἱτο τ ύ ἀ π ῆ ὸδ η μ ν ῶ ο ςἐπ ὲΣ ισ ο μ α κ ςτ λ ο ο ρ ώ ευ ο νἹεροσ ςκ ῆ τ ῦἐ ο ὶτ ις λ ύ ςπ ʹ η η͵α τ ν ν α ο ῦ ἔτ ʹ ρ α η ίο ιςἦ β ἀ π ᾽Ἑ ὸδ μ ν ἔ τη͵αφ ρ ὲτ ψ ὼ ῆ ν ᾽ὃ Σ α ώ π α ν λ ίο σ υἁ ςἸλ εω θ α ς ,κ ρ ο π η ν α ίω νΚ έκ ο α έω ιλ σ ς ςἈθ υβ τ ο ρ ώ ἀ π ὸδ ο α ὶτ ῦπ ὲΜ ω σ έω ςκ ʹ ω η͵α λ ζ ο ῦ υ ἔτ ς τ ο ῦδιφ ʹ β μ τ η͵β μ ε ω ά ς ἔτ ιρ α α ο σ υκ εμ ῆ ιλ ίν ὶΣ κ α ὶτ εία μ ςΝ ςβ ρ α ὰ β π ἀ ὸδ ὲἈ

ρ ίδ μ ο ἕω η ὰ ς ρ α ῆ ο σ ςτ ςεἰκ α ετ β ιέχ ειὁὅ Π ερ ὸἈ π ὼ νἀ ν λ ο ςκα ʹ β μ τ η͵β ἔτ υ ο ίν τ ν ν Κ ω σ τ α

μ α ὰ μ ο ῦἕω υ σ ςἈβρ λ ἀ π κ α ὸδ τ ὲτ ο ῦκα ῦ μ ο υ λ σ κ τ α μ ἕω ο ῦκα ἀ π ὸδ ςτ δ ὰ ὲἈ

ʹ β μ η Ϡ ἔτ ʹ β μ σ η͵β ἔτ

ρ υ ίδ ο ίν ο τ ςΚ ω ν ν σ τ α η ῆ μ μ ἔω ςεἰκ ο σ α ετ ο π ὸἈ ἀ ςτ ῦτ Ὁ α δ ὰ ὰ τ π ν ά κςʹ ἔτη͵εφ

Secundum autem supputationem Hebraeorum sunt Iubilaea LXXXVI, quae sunt quinquageni anni, hisque continentur anni 4300.

Ex inde pax plurima. (35)

5. Text andChronology, 282– 325

2340

65

18

Olymp. 276 (324) (325)

19 20

Constantine proclaimed hisson, Constantius, caesar. (32) Licinius wasmurdered. (33) Thetwentieth anniversary of Constantine’s reign was celebrated in Nicomedia. (34)

Here collected are all the years to the twentieth year of Constantine: From thefifteenth year of Tiberius andthecoming of ourSaviour 298 years From thesecond year of Darius, the king of thePersians, at which time theTemple inJerusalem wasrebuilt 846 years From the first Olympiad, at which time Isaiah andhiscontemporaries prophesied amongst theHebrews 1,102 years 1,358 years From Solomon andthe first building of theTemple in Jerusalem From thedestruction of Troy, at which time Sampson wasamong the Hebrews

1,508 years

Athenians

1,837 years 2,342 years

From Moses andthedouble-formed Cecrops, the first king of the From Abraham andthe reigns of Ninus andSemiramis

This entire canon, from Abraham to the twentieth year of Constantine, contains

From the flood to Abraham From Adamto theflood

2,342 years

942 years 2,242 years

Altogether from Adam to the twentieth year of Constantine there are

5,526 years Moreover, according to thecalculation of theHebrews there areeighty-six Jubilees, which areperiods of fifty years, andthese encompass 4,300 years.

From this time there wasmuchpeace. (35)

6. Commentary 6.1. Eusebius There wereprobably three major editions of theCanones, thefirst completed inlate 311, which concluded with thedeath of Galerius inthespring of thatyear; a second completed in late 313 or early 314 updated to include the death of Maximinus and the final endof persecution andintended to coincide with the publication of the HE thenorshortly afterwards; anda final version completed inthelate summer of 325, updated to Constantine’s uicennalia on25 July 325. Ashasbeen noted above, another ‘corrected’version of the325edition that removed Crispus wasissued inmid326.1Allthesurviving witnesses tothe Canones copied their text fromexemplars of either the 325 or the 325 ‘corrected’edition, themost important from the latter.

6.1.1. Eusebius, Apologetic, andRecent History

That Eusebius would have included events of the very recent past in the Canones appears at first to be unusual. In the past, narrative historians normally wished to avoid describing theactions of theliving andsoavoided contemporary events. Those who did not do so tended to write panegyric; histories that appeared immediately

after thedeath of anemperor orpolitical leader tended toward invective anddenunciation. Tacitus’descriptions of the histories written about Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, andNero are generally taken to be true of histories written under the Roman empire as a whole: T iberii Gaique et Claudii ac Neronis res florentibus ipsis ob ‘ occiderant recentibus odiis compositae sunt’(Annals 1.2). metum falsae, postquam Chronicles andstrictly chronographic works seem to have avoided this problem, so far as the surviving evidence allows us to judge, chiefly because their focus was time, notbiography. Events andindividuals were included as a wayof calculating, structuring, andremembering chronology, though as thegenre matured both in the Hellenistic period andinthelater Roman andByzantine periods, chronography took on the narrative andbiographical aspects of more ‘traditional’classicizing history. Early Christian chronography also took its calculations downalmost to the time of writing, usually to the death of theprevious emperor. This is thepattern wesee in later biography as well, though the author of the KG was not afraid to describe contemporary emperors. Nevertheless, evenJerome avoided taking hiscontinuation of Eusebius downinto thereign of Theodosius, andbydismissing anyidea that his avoidance of writing about a reigning emperor wasdueto fear heshows howproblematic the writing of contemporary history still was, even for a chronicler: ‘non quodeuiuentibus timuerim libere et uere scribere –timor enim Domini hominum

1

See Chapter 5.2.28. Onthedifferent editions of the Canones, seeBurgess 1997.

6. Commentary

67

7). Howdoes Eusebius handle what hadbeen one of the timorem expellit’ (7.5– central problems of Roman historiography? Doesheshowanyfear of writing ‘libere et uere’? Eusebius concluded the Canones attheendof 325, just months orperhaps even weeks after the last event narrated, the uicennalia of Constantine. This caused him numerous problems, as weshall see, butto have concluded at anearlier point with thedeath of Constantius ortheabdication of Diocletian andMaximian hardly suited Eusebius’purposes as he wasfinishing the Canones in 311 andthen 313, andcertainly not in 325. For the first edition he was interested in the persecution andits failure, andforthefinal edition intherise tomonarchy of Constantine theChristian emperor, histwentieth anniversary coming shortly after thedeath of Licinius, himself a persecutor. Theuicennalia werethusclearly presented asa victorious triumph for Christianity anda fitting coda to the failure of the earlier persecution in 313. These events were important apologetic aspects of his work andso he concluded each edition at a point mere months fromthetime of writing. Nevertheless, events could catch upwiththose whodiddescribe contemporary history, even as briefly as Eusebius did. Sometimes it wasnot the praise or blame that created problems, it wasthevery existence of facts orevenparticular individuals. Under anauthoritarian monarchy like theRoman empire history could bedictatedandaltered to suit theneeds of theemperor, chiefly through hisexercise of damnatio memoriae. Constantine usedhisability torewrite history ona number of occasions anddid so to cover upevents that were politically embarrassing andeven dangerous for himandhis regime. What is most interesting here is that Eusebius followed each of Constantine’s modifications of history to the letter. Let us begin with the clearest example. MSS ATER of Eusebius’HEreflect a pre-316 edition of theworkthat included Licinius as Constantine’s pro-Christian andanti-persecution ally andequal. MSS BDM represent the 325 edition, after the civil warbetween Constantine andLicinius, Licinius’persecution, andLicinius’defeat, death, anddamnatio memoriae. In these manuscripts the narrative is brought upto date butin theearlier pre-existing passages Licinius is nowvilified where hehasnotbeenexpunged. TheSyriac translation of theHEpreserves what I call the 325 ‘corrected’edition, issued after the execution inMayof 326 of Crispus, Constantine’s eldest son, ontheorders of Constantine himself. Crispus, presented as Constantine’s associate andsecond in command in the 325 edition, was completely expunged from this edition of 326.2 Nodoubt theearlier editions of the Canones included Licinius as ananti-persecution ally of Constantine, just asthefirst editions of Books Nine andTenof theHE had. In thetext of the Canones asit canbereconstructed, only Constantine restored freedom to theChristians after thetenth year of persecution (no. 27); nodoubt any edition of 313 would have included Licinius. Thereference toLicinius inno.26, the defeat of Maximinus, is probably left over unchanged from the313/4 edition. Crispushadcertainly been mentioned with his brother Constantine when their proclamations ascaesar were described in 11Const. (no. 28) intheedition of 325. Wecan 2

9. See Barnes 1980: 196–

68

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

nowsee forthefirst time, however, that after Crispus’execution byhisfather in the of 326 andhis subsequent damnatio memoriae, he wasexpurgated from the Canones, just as he was from the HE.3 Only his brother remained. His presence elsewhere, if any, wasremoved aswell. Theresulting text of the Canones is theone I have labelled, like the HE, as the 325 ‘corrected’edition. As I noted above (Chapter 5.2.28), Licinius’son, whohadbeenelevated atthesame time asConstantine II andCrispus to the same rank,4 never even stood a chance of being included since both he andhis father hadalready been defeated, assassinated, andofficially eradicated from memory by the time Eusebius came to compose this part of the text (Barnes 1982: 44 and45; Kienast 1990: 292). Hewasalready a ‘non-person’. Andit wasnotonly the Canones andHEthat suffered from this type of expurgation. Crispus andFausta, Constantine’s second wife, forced to suicide by Constantine (it would seem) just after Crispus’execution, are also missing from Eusebius’Tricennial Oration delivered at the endof Constantine’s thirtieth anniversary celebrations on 25 July 336 andfrom the Life of Constantine (VConst), composed shortly after Constantine’s death. Constantine II, notCrispus, is nowConstantine’s eldest son. The Tric. Or. is a panegyric delivered in Constantine’s presence, so the omission of Crispus andFausta is tobeexpected, given thetragic andhighly embarrassing circumstances of their demise, butthelatter waswritten after Constantine’s death andpurported tobea serious history. TheHEandtheCanones tooweremeant to be scholarly histories andnotpanegyrics. The reader of Tacitus might expect a more negative approach towards a dead emperor in a work like the VConst, especially since it maynothave been published until after Eusebius’death as well. Yet the VConst is more panegyrical thantheearlier works, somuchso in fact, that it has recently been described ashagiographical in nature (see below). Andthis is despite the fact that Eusebius wasin nowayan official historian’or ‘court propagandist’ and could have had nothing to fear from ‘ Constantine if he had not changed his presentation of Licinius from thefirst edition of the HEorhadmentioned theexistence of Crispus orFausta inthe Canones. AsBarnes states, for all Eusebius’claims of intimacy with Constantine, hewascertainly notaninsider and spring

wasnohabitué of Constantine’s court, which hevisited only four times, always onecclesiastical business in thecompany of bishops. Hewasa provincial bishop whoresided at Caesarea in Palestine, far from thecentre of political events (1989b: 114; see also Barnes 1981: 266).

A similar, yet more egregious, example appears at theendof the VConst. Dalmatius, Constantine’s half-nephew, hadbeenproclaimed caesar on 18Sept. 335 and intheTric. Or.tenmonths later Eusebius hadreferred tohimasa newcaesar andas oneof four caesars drawing Constantine’s quadriga, though hedidnotmention him 2 and4) are by name (Tric. Or. 3.2 and4). Twopassages from these sections (3.1– repeated in the VConst, at 4.40 and4.51, oneconcerning Constantine’s promotion of his sons at the endof each decade of his reign (actually untrue) andthe other concerning the division of theempire amongst his caesars. In the VConst only the three sons of Constantine appear; Dalmatius asthefourth caesar atthebeginning of 3 4

8. Asnoted above, only theSyriac translation represents this edition. See Barnes 1980: 197– Barnes 1982: 7.

6. Commentary

69

the fourth decade, as he was in Tric. Or. 3.2 and4, has vanished. Like Crispus, Fausta, andthe Licinii Dalmatius hadsuffered damnatio memoriae, as is demonstrated by contemporary inscriptions (e.g. Tituli Asiae minoris 3.1 (Vienna, 1941), no. 944; AE 1934.158, 1948.50, andCIL 6.40776; see also Kienast 1990: 303). He andeight of his male relatives, the descendants of Theodora, second wife of Constantius I, hadbeen massacred at the instigation of Constantius II in early June of 337 before the accession of Constantine’s three sons on9 September (see Burgess forthcoming b). In other works requiring an official imprimatur, such as Libanius andJulian’s panegyrics to Constantius (Or. 59 andOrr. 1 and2) in the mid-340s andmid-350s respectively, Dalmatius, the fourth caesar andheir to one quarter of theempire, does notexist either. A similar, later example appears in the same panegyric of Libanius. Shortly after thedeath of their father in337 Constantius hadmetwithhisbrothers Constantine andConstans in Pannonia. However, whenLibanius delivered his panegyric to Constantius only a few years after Constantine II hadbeen killed in a civil war against Constans and had suffered damnatio memoriae (spring 340), Libanius claimed that Constantius hadmetwith only onebrother, Constans (Or. 59.75). Between 326 and340 Constantius hadthus seen the number of his official’brothers dwindle from three to one. ‘ As I noted above, these are thesorts of things that weexpect from panegyrics, so no shame accrues to Libanius or Julian for their omissions in these instances, however repulsive wemaynowfind them. Barnes tries to position the VConst within this context: It should occasion nosurprise thatEusebius makes noallusion whatever toCrispus ortoFausta

and even implicitly denies their existence; any imperial panegyrist would observe a similar silence, anddynastic politics fell outside thescope of the revised plan of theLife. (1981: 270)

The problem here is that although Eusebius incorporated panegyrical aspects into theVConst – φ ιο if hedidnotcannibalize apreexisting funerary panegyric orἐπ ς ιτά γ ο ςin the work, then he certainly utilized andadopted the genre’s style andtopoi λ ό –it was not, in its final format, a panegyric in any usual sense. Furthermore the implicit denial of Crispus andFausta, as well as of Licinius II, andthe retroactive vilification and/or expunction of Licinius, appear in the Canones andthe final version of the HE as well, andthese are in no waypanegyrics. This does occasion surprise. Farfrombeing theexpected panegyrical tendency of a single work it is, in fact, a view that clearly must lie at the heart of Eusebius’interpretation of history. This canonly impair ourestimation of Eusebius as a serious historian andmustput usonourguard whenusing himas a source. Andyetthat is notall. The Council of Nicaea, for usthemost important andnoteworthy event of the period, is most conspicuous inits absence fromthe Canones, aswecannowsee for the first time (it ought to appear as no. 34 just before Constantine’s uicennalia). Eusebius andmany of his colleagues were onthe losing side of that battle andthere was consequently the difficulty of exactly what to say. As well, Eusebius would not have wanted to marthe triumphant conclusion of the Canones with a notice that only demonstrated internal Christian discord anddisaffection. Anambiguous reference to Arius, in a position during the persecution of Licinius, was all that was

70

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

needed. Hehadto think of theeffect of suchinformation onthenon-Christian readers for whom much of the work of the Canones wasintended. I believe that the notice on Arius –presented, it would seem, in a typically neutral way(see below 6.1.3) –appears asa shorthand fortheentire affair (limited asit would have seemed inlate 325) andallowed those of anyTrinitarian persuasion tofill inthewell-known facts for themselves, without Eusebius’having to tip his handor fill in the details. For similar reasons Eusebius omitted all references to heresies andinternal dissensionanddifficulties within thechurch during theentire last portion of thechronicle. This gave the distinct impression that such problems hadbeen conquered andthat all enemies of theChurch were external persecutors (see HE4.7.13–14). Later, whenhecould notavoid narrating theevents of Nicaea intheVConst, he produced a tendentious, selective, andself-serving account.5 In fact the VConst is full of such narratives. As weshall see in Study 2, in the VConst Eusebius grossly distorts theevents surrounding thedeposition of Eustathius of Antioch andthetwo

local councils of Antioch that followed it (no. ii, iv, and v.III), and distorts then omits Constantine’s planned Persian expedition at thetime of his death (no. 25). Eusebius’shortcomings asa historian, especially inthe VConst, have long been known. The first response of scholars was to deny Eusebian authorship; but this approach ultimately failed. Recently attempts have been made at rehabilitation, though in different directions. T. D. Barnes has tried to establish Eusebius’ solid historical credentials andexplain the origin of the work as a combination of a continuation of theHEanda funerary panegyric.6 Averil Cameron hastried toexplicate Eusebius’motives andapologetic purposes in a rather different way, concentrating especially on questions of genre, andAnna Wilson has pursued these latter ideas andpresented the VConst as the first stage in the development of hagiography or ‘hagiobiography’, part of thegrowing trend in Christian biography toward mimesis of OldandNewTestament figures, particularly of Moses andChrist.7 Inthis analysis I believe that Cameron andWilson areinsome wayscloser to thetruth, though in this instance at least the difference is at heart minimal since Barnes admits that the VConst is partproto-hagiography (Barnes 1989b: 110and116) andis fully aware of 71).8 Though these Eusebius’ omissions and his tendentiousness (1981: 267, 268– 5

6 7

8

70; Cameron 1983: 86; Barnes 1989b: 105 (‘hopelessly lacunose, tenSee Barnes 1981: 269– 7, and 169 (‘[T]he Council of Nicaea dentious andself serving’); Cameron 1997: 148, 164, 166– wasparticularly hardfor himto deal with’andhisaccount is ‘a masterpiece of disingenuous5. ness’that involved omission andthemanipulation of the narrative); andWilson 1998: 114– Barnes 1981: 113 andBarnes 1989b: 114, ‘Hewasa scholar whose earlier historical works evince anhonest desire to write a reliable history of hisownday–anaspiration which theLife reiterates’. Fora response, see Burgess 1997 andCameron 1997. Cameron 1983 and 1997, andWilson 1998. Cameron states that one must avoid ‘terms like “ lies” or“frauds” , which prejudge theissue of Eusebius’intentions ina particularly crude way’ (1997: 148). Arnaldo Momigliano’s famous andinfluential paper of 1963 on Eusebius and fourth-century historiography should still be consulted, but only with great care: it is a rare instance of a scholar’s getting the general picture roughly correct even when virtually all the facts uponwhich it is founded arewrong. Still valuable, too, inthis regard areSirinelli 1961and 166, though neither discusses thesorts of problems thatI amdiscussing here. Chesnut 1977: 91– Nevertheless, Barnes ‘is primarily anxious todefend thehistorical reliability of hisauthor, and

6. Commentary

71

scholars maydisagree onsuch matters as the genesis of thework, the attention the VConst hasreceived asa result of these studies hasbeenmostbeneficial inhelping to clear away the prejudices of previous scholarship, andthus to understand and explicate Eusebius andhis aims. As we can see by taking the Canones, the HE, andthe VConst together, history forEusebius wasanapologetic tool topromote andvindicate thetruth of Christianity andtheperson andpolicies of Constantine andhis sons, whowere theagents of the Church’s success.9 They hadclearly triumphed over pagan persecutors because Godsupported their cause. Howelse could theamazing events of 311, 313, and324 be explained? In the Church’s darkest hour amidst savage persecution a saviour emerged intheform of a Christian emperor andthepersecutors hadtheneither died or been defeated andkilled. Even a trusted ally hadturned out to be a traitor, yet Constantine andhiscause hadtriumphed. If Godsupported their cause, should not Eusebius dosoaswell? Inthis context, theimpact of Constantine’s conversion and his pro-Christian policies on deeply committed Christians who had survived the persecution cannot be overestimated. Eusebius was one of these Christians andtherefore remodelled history to vindicate whathesawasthetruth. Licinius hadturned onConstantine andhadinitiated a persecution. He hadbeen seized by a madness andout of jealousy andenvy had turned against Constantine in spite of everything Constantine hadgiven him and 9). He therefore deserved to have the positive done for him (HE 9.9.1, 12; 10. 8– accounts of his early reign updated in view of his later deception andtreason. To retain theearlier accounts unaltered would be topraise Licinius to posterity in spite of hislater betrayal of Constantine; that would makeEusebius a collaborator forhis cause. The execution of Crispus andFausta were tragic events that pagans andno doubt other opponents usedtoattack Constantine, just asanyscandal is usedagainst politicians today. For the good of the cause, Constantine’s, Eusebius’, and the Church’s –they were all the same –it was simply better to ignore them. Clearly everyone knew something about these events, butto argue against the negative interpretations that were circulating simply admitted the fact andthat wasnotin anyone’s interest. Hecould only hope that future generations knewless about thetragedy. The same was true for the murder of Dalmatius andmost of the other male descendants of Theodora. Constantine’s successors hadto be protected andothers hadtobeenlisted into thecause, orelse everything thatConstantine hadestablished could be lost. Wemust notforget thetrepidation that manyChristians must have faced upon the death of Constantine, for everything that he had established could have been

9

unwilling to pursue the hagiographical reading in the direction in which it would necessarily lead’(Cameron 1997: 147). 95, withreferences there, and Fortheapologetic nature of theCanones, seeBurgess 1997: 488– 9, 172, 173: there is a 1, 164, 165– 4, 160– for the VConst, see especially Cameron 1997: 152– ‘clear andsingle thread running through every part [ofthe VConst], namely thedesire todefend Constantine, [to] present all his actions andmotives in the best possible light from Eusebius’ point of view, andto claim andcommend the continuation of his policies’, for ‘Eusebius passionately believed intherightness of hisownvision’(pp. 152and154).

72

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

swept away by a weak successor or a pagan usurper whofounded a newdynasty. Indeed, if Eusebius believed thattheremoval ofTheodora’s descendants would preserve the harmony of the succession andmaintain Constantine’s policies, he no doubt would have agreed with their removal, since hecertainly collaborated in the covering-up of the fact. Hehimself hadbeen involved incertain unsavoury events, like thedeposition of Eustathius, butcertainly Eusebius sawhispart in these events asnecessary forthegreater goodof theChurch. Tofill a history like theVConst with such episodes –Nicaea, aswehave seen, is a similar example –only layChristians open to charges of discord, uncertainty, andconfusion. That was not the way to convince others of therightness andjustice of thecause or to winconverts. That is whysuchepisodes disappear attheendof theCanones aswell. It wasprobably only Eusebius’penchant for self aggrandizement that ledhimto include the Eustathius episode in the VConst at all, for through it he was able to show his popularity in Antioch andhis close connections with Constantine –another of the distortions of the VConst, butin hisview certainly necessary in order to imbue thework with the proper auctoritas to make it successful in its goals. Eusebius thus sawhistory andchronology as apologetic andpanegyrical tools for the defence of Christianity, not specifically the defence of Constantine or his family; hisdistortions of history didnot, then, arise from fear asTacitus believed of his predecessors, they arose from a partisanship andcommon feeling of the most fundamental kind, notfor Constantine, butfor hisreligious policies andhis position as sole ‘Christian emperor’. Constantine wasGod’s vehicle, the specific embodimentof a general principle; hewasnotanendinhimself. Here is another fundamental difference between Eusebius andhispagan predecessors. Wemustsee the Canones andtheHE,intheir corrected’editions of 326, as the twin trunks that support the final Christian vision ‘of the VConst. They must therefore be taken together withEusebius’other quasi-historical works, thePreparation for theGospel andtheDemonstration of theGospel, since all five areinterrelated, in both their historical basis andtheir apologetic aims. In a sense the Canones andthe HE are the ‘preparation’just as the VConst is the ‘demonstration’. The twoearlier works laythehistorical foundations fortheRoman Empire andConstantine’s reign, the Canones providing from thetime of theAbraham, the first Christian, thebroad historical context that made the Church possible; the HE providing the more detailed development of the Church itself within the context of the growth of the RomanEmpire. Originally theCanones hadbeenwritten toshow(among other things) howpersecution hadonce again failed andthe historical background that demonstrated whythis wasso,butafter thevictory of Constantine attheMilvian Bridge in 312 andthedefeat of Maximinus byLicinius in313 it became clear toEusebius that he hadwitnessed much more than the mere survival of the Church. The HE was revised a fewyears later andthenagain inearly 325. The Canones wasrevised atthe endof that summer. Both revisions were undertaken in aftermath of the complete victory of Constantine over thepersecutors andjust before andjust after histwentiethanniversary, a rare achievement for anyemperor. Constantine wasnowseen as the end to which all Christian history had been evolving. The scene was set at the endof both works for what comes in the VConst: the victorious Constantine, Chris-

6. Commentary

73

tian monarch.10 Just as Eusebius allowed the narrative of theMPal to provide the details of the persecution that he omitted from the Canones (see below), so he allowed the VConst to provide themissing details of hisearlier narratives andthen to bring history upto date. Similarly he included in the VConst revised versions of his earlier narratives (especially theHE), which henolonger bothered to ‘correct’and reissue (Hall 1993a andHall 1993b). That is whyhe sawno need to continue the Canones or the HE at the endof his life. They hadfulfilled andwould continue to fulfill their original purposes as they stood. In the changed circumstances of the 330s theHEinparticular wasnowsimply toobackward-looking to serve Eusebius’ newrequirements: ‘Restoration of the Church wasnotthe issue anymore. Rather, the relationship between Christian Church andChristian emperor provided a new focus’(Wilson 1998: 113).

But although hewastendentious, tended to distort reality, andcovered upand omitted material Eusebius knew howto research andwrite history as well as any Classical historian. His willingness to use andcite documentary evidence was in advance of anypagan historian. I donotbelieve that Eusebius ever wrote anything that hedidnotbelieve waseither true orwasnotgrounded inwhatheconsidered to be the truth or could bejustified as generally truthful as hesawit, in the same way thatClassical historians wrote speeches thatwerenottheactual speeches spoken but were truthful within thecontext andknown character of thespeakers andwhatwas known of what was actually said (if anything). Barnes is right to emphasize his scholarship and the many important details and facts that he relates (e.g. Barnes 25, fortheBible andtheCanones, andBarnes 1989b: 115forthe VConst). 1981: 106– Eusebius’faults lie chiefly withdistortion andomission inthepursuit of putting ‘the best possible light onConstantine’s actions from theChristian point of view’(Cameron 1983: 87). Although Cameron is discussing the VConst, the following commentapplies to all three of Eusebius’historical works, the Canones, theHE,andthe VConst: Eusebius wasnotcomposing a scientific history; he waswriting as a committed believer, with the avowed aimof revealing to theworld therelation of Constantine’s actions to themarch of Christian providence. (Cameron 1983: 86)

Eusebius should not be condemned for this. What he waswriting was ‘something new’, anexpression thatappears sooften inrecent analyses of Eusebius’works. Hewasaninnovator whoexpanded theclassical repertoire of genres andembarked upon newandbold directions. The Canones, the HE, andthe VConst were unlike anything that hadgone before. That onemanwasresponsible for so much innovation is a testament to Eusebius’genius. Just as Christian thinkers reinterpreted philosophy and science, for instance, in terms of their owntheological andcosmological views, so they remodelled history. The problem is that their history is not our history, and it does not easily submit to the uses that we wish to make of written parallel that serves to link the Canones andthe VConst is Eusebius’deepand abiding interest in Moses andhis importance for Christianity. For the importance of Moses in 9; for his importance inthe VConst (andother apologetic the Canones, seeBurgess 1997: 488– 21, and 61 andespecially Wilson 1998: 109–11, 113– works of his), see Cameron 1997: 158–

10 Oneinteresting

Rapp 1998.

74

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

history. Noris it thesort of history that would have appealed tomostserious classical historians: though it waswritten in very much the same way, it wasdone so within a set of quite different parameters, goals, andexpectations. Nevertheless, in spite of the differences, Tacitus, I think, would perhaps have understood what Eusebius wastrying to dobetter than other ancient historians, since both were historiographical innovators inmanyof thesame ways. This putsmodern historians whomustreconstruct thelife andtimes of Constantine in a difficult position. Eusebius’ accounts are invaluable as evidence for the period andareunique for theevidence they provide, buthowdoweusethem in an positivist manner? Howdowereconstruct facts andnotfactoids? Historians of the reign of Constantine mustwalk a knife edge, aware of thedeficiencies of Eusebius’ approach andcontent, histendency todistortion andomission, butneeding toaccept his narrative for its valuable data.11

6.1.2. TheOmissions of Recent History Another surprising aspect of thereconstructed text of the Canones is thesparseness of its final years. From 12 to 20 Diocletian the text is quite full, buttherest of it is very bare. Fromthe sporadic entries after no.27 (313), it is clear that theedition of 325 wasproduced very quickly, andthat mustbeaccounted oneof thechief reasons for its spartan appearance. It would have taken less than half anhour to addentries 28 to 34 intheir proper years andthentorecopy no.35 withthetotals brought upto date. There were a fewplaces inthe Chronographia andthepreface totheCanones

where Eusebius would have had to change his figures as well, but that would not have taken him long to correct, once he knew where those passages were. Such entries ashedidaddinvolved politics almost completely withthree clustered entries on religion (29, 30, and31), though to Eusebius’mind religion andpolitics were almost one. The recovery of thechurch after thepersecution is overlooked, includingthededication of thechurch inTyre that wastheoccasion forEusebius’oration that takes up more than half of Book Ten of the HE. The omissions of Licinius (chiefly thecivil war) andNicaea have been discussed above. Eusebius even fails to mention the refounding of Byzantium as Constantinople (its original founding is noted at 94bh), though the founding of cities is an important subject in the earlier part of thechronicle. In hisdefence, however, it could be noted that whenEusebius

11 See Hall 1998. Rebecca Krawiec hasstated theproblem mostclearly ina recent issue of Bryn Mawr Classical Review (98.6.1): Like other fields, late antique scholarship hasbeenenriched byincreased familiarity with such methodologies as literary criticism, cultural studies, andanthropology. Thegrowth of theoretical reflection hasraised epistemological uncertainties: to whatextent cantheusual sources of late antiquity (treatises, letters andhagiographies), which are often propagandistic in their intent, be relied onto supply historical evidence? To whatextent does therhetorical construction of these texts limit their usefulness as historical sources? Newwaysof defining history, andof understanding both the limitations of oursources andthe newquestions that can be asked of them, provide excitement inthis growing field.

6. Commentary

75

waswriting, barely a year after therefoundation, thesignificance of theevent was probably unknown to mostpeople. It wasonly later inretrospect that therefoundation wasseentobesucha noteworthy andimportant event. Intheend,it would seem that Eusebius waseager to bring theworkuptodate asa testament to Constantine, nowsole ruler of theRoman Empire, ontheoccasion of histwentieth anniversary (which wasthefinal historical event noted inthework), andhewassimply interestedinadding a fewobvious anduncontroversial items tofill intheblank spaces. Too many facts or details of a certain kind would have given thework a tooobviously partisan nature orcaused too many problems later if circumstances changed. Strangely enough, Eusebius’ account of what would have been immediately contemporary history at the time of the first edition of 311 is surprisingly narrow in its scope as well. Enumerated bishops provide thesole religious content apart from twonotes onthebeginnings of persecution (10 and15); there is a note onanearthquake, and the rest is solely political, including the events involving Busiris, Coptos, andAlexandria, which arefailed attempts atrebellion andusurpation. Eusebius fails to mention anycontemporary writers orworks of literature, orthodox orheretical, an important topic for the earlier portions of the work. Anatolius is the last famous author hementions, in 2 Probus (279; 2231). Noteven Pamphilus makes an appearance, Eusebius’teacher andmentor whois mentioned, along withEusebius’ biography of him, three times in the HE (6.32.3; 7.32.25; 8.13.6). No mention is made of heresies orof other internal church affairs. A reason forthelatter hasbeen suggested above. To a certain extent, thedifference between theearlier portions of the Canones andthis penultimate section from 282 to 311 must be a result of the circumstances under which Eusebius first wrote the Canones, in the final years of theGreat Persecution andits aftermath, whenhewould havebeen faced with a lack of written sources, both historical andecclesiastical, after thereference to theManichees at2231(280), which is thelast reference to a heresy inthe Canones (the last before that is to Paul of Samosata at 221f [=267]). This same gapcan be seen most clearly in Book Seven of the HE. After the 26), Eusebius hasa dossier relat11, 20– 264) runout(7.1, 3– letters of Dionysius († 30.19), a written source for Anatolius andEusebius in ingto Paul of Samosata (27– 21). The rest of the 12), and the writings of Anatolius (32.13– Alexandria (32.5– ecclesiastical material is his own, basically lists of bishops andstories of local eccle4, 22–32.12 The only other material he re23, 31, 32.1– 19, 30.20– siastics: 7.2, 12– lates involves thedeaths andaccessions of theemperors andthat is epitomized from the Canones. The Canones carries reflections of this earlier material, butafter Anatolius none of the individuals in the HE is mentioned apart from the bishops of apostolic sees. Eusebius seems not to have wanted to crowd the final pages of a universal chronicle withthenames of manyecclesiastics whomight endupbeing of minor importance inthegrand scheme of things. This would also include their writings. Perhaps Eusebius seems to have felt that hecould notjudge theimportance of recent events andtheir fitness tobeplaced inthecompany of events andindividuals of universal import. Consequently, nothing local ortrivial appears inthecontempo6. 21 andBarnes 1981: 143– 12 See Grant 1980: 9, 14, 20–

76

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

rary accounts of the Canones, a very great difference from most later chroniclers, including Jerome, whoadded notes onfriends, teachers, andthose whomhegenerally admired ordetested.13 Because theentire chronological structure of theCanones waspolitical, relying on the regnal years of rulers, Eusebius hadto be able to provide at the very least information about the deaths andaccessions of the emperors. This he does, with varying degrees of accuracy (see 6.1.4, below). Butapart fromtheemperors’acces-

sions anddeaths, Eusebius mentions nothing about their campaigns against theexternal enemies of theempire, thebarbarians whoarefrequently mentioned earlier in theimperial section, andhe says almost nothing about thecivil wars of theperiod, with the exception of the deaths of Maxentius andMaximinus. Of Constantine’s campaigns against Licinius there is not a word; only Licinius’death is mentioned, nothisdefeat. Ingeneral, though, it is imperial accessions anddeaths thatareimportant forbasic chronology, notimperial deeds. Asnoted above, hetwice mentions the result of rebellion against theempire intheexamples of Busiris, Coptos, andAlexandria, which were destroyed for their attempts (nos. 5 and 8). Slightly earlier he also mentions the usurper Julius Saturninus (224c = Sync. 471.11–13), in the reign of Probus. Rebellion andusurpation were obviously important aspects of contemporary politics thatEusebius felt merited mention inhischronicle, along withthecomings andgoings of those on whom he failed to bestow an accession rubric anda number as a l egitimate’emperor: Galerius, Severus, Maxentius, Maximinus, and ‘ edition of 325 there wasalso the implicit contrast with the lack of Licinius. In the similar usurpation attempts against Constantine. The manyomissions regarding the history of theemperors wecanalso attribute toa lack of contemporary written sources, which is not at all surprising, Eusebius’ situation being what it was. That he knew as much as he did, especially about the many emperors during thetetrarchic period, inboth East andWest, is a testament to hisdiligence under difficult circumstances. ButEusebius hasalmost nothing tosayabout theGreat Persecution either. This is most unusual, since hisemotional connection to that event wasenormous, ascan be seen intheHE,inwhich it is presented astheclimax of hisecclesiastical history, andin theMPal, which recounts in detail the individual sufferings of a great many of the persecuted andmartyred during the first eight years, andwhich wasclearly compiled during thepersecution. In theCanones there is recorded buta single martyr, Peter, bishop of Alexandria, whodied when Maximinus renewed the persecution after the death of Galerius in the ninth year, though his death is mentioned earlier, atthetime of hisaccession (before thepersecution) andnothing is saidatthe μ ό γ , only appears inthechronς time of hisdeath. Infact, theword‘persecution’, διω ological accounting of thelength of thepersecution andwithreference to Veturius, Peter, andMaximinus, nowhere else. The persecution itself is introduced in a most ιςἐ εσ ίρ θ α η σ ιῶ νκα ῶ νἐκκλ laconic, impersonal, and unemotional manner: ἡτ γ έν ε τ ο , ‘there wasa demolition of the churches’. There is no mention of torture, 13 For example, in the former category 239e, 247d, e,f, 248e, g; in the latter 246b, f,g, 247c. Later developments in providentialist history allowed the appearance of the apparently trivial and regional.

6. Commentary

77

persecution, ormartyrdom. I have suggested elsewhere that Eusebius originally envisioned theCanones andtheMPal asalmost companion works, that hehadintended the first edition of the MPal to supply the narrative of the persecution, butthat that workgrew into theHEandwaseventually subsumed into it.14 Theemotion that one might feel properly belongs to the Canones found its home in the HE and the MPal. Possible reasons for this will be discussed below (6.1.3). Onthe other handEusebius names twoindividuals in the Canones whogo unnamed in theHE (and elsewhere), Veturius (no. 10) andBasileus of Amaseia (no. 30), whodied in Licinius’persecution. The persecution in the army by Veturius is 4), butEusebius refuses to name Veturius related in some detail in the HE (8.4.3– there, asis often thecase intheHEwithsuchindividuals: ὁ α τ σ τρ η ο π ρ εδ χ ς ά , ὅσ τ ις ν ἐκ εῖν ο . AtHE 10.8.14–16Amaseia is mentioned with ‘theother cities of ς τ ὲἦ π ο Pontus’, butEusebius talks only of the destruction andclosing of churches, nothing about the bishop of that city, whomhe names here. While the former omission is explainable within thecontext of theHE,theomission of Basileus, indeed the failureto mention themartyrdom of anyspecific bishop atall during Licinius’persecution, is most unusual.15 Eusebius also closely links the fate of Amaseia with the persecution of Licinius in VConst 2.1.2, but he does not mention Basileus there, either. This cannot be explained. In325, hewasnotinterested inadding anything to whathehadalready written; he wasjust interested in bringing the work up to date andkeeping it ‘accurate’. Indeed, wehaveevidence thathechanged hismindona number of important chronological synchronisms after the first edition, yet he didnotrevise the Canones. A work as complicated as the Canones could not have been revised without great effort andthemeagre entries headded to theendof the325 edition showthat hewas not interested in undertaking such revisions or devoting a great amount of time to detailing recent history.16 Only twoentries show anysigns of being later additions:

14 Burgess 1997: 487. Mysuggestion arises fromthe fact that Eusebius seems to have beencomposing both works at the same time andthat the absence of detail in the Canones could be explained bya reluctance toduplicate material inthetwoworks. This viewis strengthen bythe generally objective tone that Eusebius tries to maintain throughout the Canones (see section

6.1.3, below). This could only be maintained by relegating the detailed narrative of the persecution to another work. ιas victims of Licinius ο τ α τ ώ ἱδοκιμ ]...ο ν π ω κ ό ισ τ ω ν[i.e. ἐπ 15 He vaguely mentions only τού towards theendof thepersecution (HE 10.8.14). 16 Three examples demonstrate this lackofrevision. 1.Asnoted above inChapter 3, n.9, Eusebius changed theregnal years forAugustus andTiberius inHE,butdidnotfollow upthose changes inthe Canones. 2. IntheCanones Eusebius states that there were406 years between thecapture of Troy andthe first Olympiad, butinthePraeparatio Evangelica (PE), written c. 314/318, he twice gives the figure as 408 years while quoting from thepreface to the Canones (10.9.6 and 3. If, ashasoften beenclaimed, Eusebius made 7); forthedetails of this, seeBurgess 1997: 482– revisions to anedition of the Canones later than thedate of the PE (i.e. theedition of 325), he obviously would have changed the figure of 406 to 408 at the same time, to accord with his new calculations. 3. Aneven more fundamental change involves hischronology of Hebrew judges 8 and andkings fromthedeath of Moses until theendof theBabylonian Captivity (PE 10.14.3– 104a). First of all, Eusebius quotes theBook of Judges from theOldTestament rather Can. 46a– than his ownchronology (for the substantial differences, see his lists in the Chronographia,

78

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

the subordinate clause in 13, describing Peter’s death in the ninth year of persecution (added to the second edition of 313/4), andthe second half of 15, which announces Constantine’s accession inthefourth yearof thepersecution (added in313/ 4 or325). Aswasnoted above (Chapter 3, n.7), healso changed thedate of thefirst persecution edict from April to March (no. 15). For what wewould consider apologetically important events like thecivil wars against Licinius Eusebius carefully played downtheconflict in thechronicle, obviously believing it enough to mention that Licinius was a persecutor andthat he met hisend. Hisexistence is therefore hardly evendignified with a mention, though the reference to his intended capture of Maximinus (no. 26) is, I believe, a mistake, a holdover from a more favorable presentation of Licinius intheoriginal edition. One cannot help but wonder if Licinius’ downfall wasalso lessened for the benefit of certain types of readers, who, in 325, would have been offended or alienated by a detailed account of Licinius’downfall. This will be discussed below, in 6.1.3. Thus wecanto a great extent account for themajor differences between Eusebius’contemporary accounts andhisearlier accounts of theempire: thedifficulty of acquiring information during the persecution, which wasexacerbated by a lack of written source material forthemostrecent contemporary period; a hesitancy to add 9 [Judges] and52, 56– 7 [his ownchronology]). Even so, there are still significant Karst, 48– differences in theregnal years, greater thancould be accounted for byscribal error. Forexample, Jesus (Joshua) is given twenty-seven years inthe Canones andChronographia (Karst, 48) butthirty in thePE, andGothoniel is given forty intheformer two, butfifty inthelatter. Amon is given twelve years in the Canones, andEusebius adds a note that Amonhas twelve years in theSeptuagint, buttwointheHebrew scriptures. In thePE Eusebius gives Amontwoyears (as hedoes inhis ownchronology in the Chronographia as well [Karst, 57]). Second, there are six instances where foreigners ruled over Israel. In the Canones and Chronographia (Karst, 52) these periods of eight, eighteen, twenty, seven, eighteen, andforty years are made concurrent with the periods of the accepted Hebrew judges. In the PE they rule consecutively (which is actually correct), so that (including the above andother minor differences in regnal years) the symbolically important period from theExodus totherebuilding of theTemple is 480 years in theChronographia (Karst, 52) andCanones (70aa) but601years according toScripture (Chronographia [Karst, 48– 9]) and614 years according to thePE. Evenmore fundamental andimportant, however, is thefact thatEusebius putsthree keyevents atcompletely different dates inthe twoworks. In thePE heputs thefall of Troy atthetime of Heli (10.14.3), while intheCanones it appears under 3 Labdon (Jerome: 60a; Arm.: Karst, 171). Theregnal years foreachareLabdon, 8; foreigners, 40; Sampson, 20; andHeli, 40. Strangely enough, thefall of Troyappears at the time of Sampson in the Chronographia (Karst, 52) andthesupputatio to the Canones (no. 35, above), which does not leave sufficient time (c. 406 years; see above) between the fall of Troy andthefirst Olympiad, since thefirst Olympiad is dated to thetime of Ozias bytheCanones (Jerome: 86a; Arm.: Karst, 181) andtheChronographia (Karst, 57). Ontheother hand, the first Olympiad is putin thetime of Achaz according to thePE (10.14.5), as inAfricanus (this does leave space for 408 years between the fall of Troy andthe first Olympiad). The regnal years areOzias, 52; Ioatham, 16;andAchaz, 16.Andthefounding ofRomeisplaced inthetime of Ezekias in the PE (10.14.6), but in 6 Achaz in the Canones (Jerome: 88a-b; Arm.: Karst, 182). Theregnal years areAchaz, 16, andEzekias, 29. It is notmentioned inthesurviving part of the Chronographia. The chronology of the 325 edition thus clearly remained unrevised in spite of fundamental changes of opinion madebyEusebius in the310s. ThePE thus provides conclusive empirical evidence thatEusebius didnotalter theexisting chronological structure of the Canones after its first edition.

6. Commentary

79

what might onedaybejudged trivial orunimportant material for a universal chronicle intended for future generations as well as those of thepresent; for thepersecution, anoriginal belief (that wasnever actually fulfilled) that thefirst edition of the MPal would provide thenarrative; from 314 to 325, simple haste andanunwillingness to make any great changes to the work; andfinally, an attempt to present a narrative that would have a wider appeal in the immediate aftermath of civil war.

6.1.3. The Origins andIntended Audience of the Canones

It is notjust thecontent andsubject matter of these entries, buttheir entire tone, that calls forcomment. Asnoted above, theindividual entries themselves aresurprising-

ly free of comment, epithet, andemotion. There arenonegative comments ornegative vocabulary, andonly onepositive word(noted below). Noneof thepersecutors, Diocletian, Galerius, Maximinus, or Licinius, is branded with a negative epithet. Nothing is said of Galerius’famously horrible death or Licinius’ ‘madness’. Nothing is made of their deaths or what Eusebius clearly sawas Licinius’ betrayal of

Constantine. Maximinus andLicinius started persecutions andthere arefactual statements concerning these actions, but nothing is said about Diocletian or his rôle in theGreat Persecution. Hedidnotpersecute ormartyr Christians ortear their churches down; there was a ‘demolition of churches’, that is all. No agent is expressed. There is a positive attitude towards Constantine, butit is implicit. There is narration butthere is noemotion. The only explicitly positive comment in this entire section is reserved for Constantine’s father, Constantius: hedied ἐνδόξ ω , ‘gloriously’. ς This lack of emotion or air of objectivity is quite unusual whenonecompares theCanones withthecontemporary accounts contained intheMPal andHE,andthe later VConst. Why should this be so? Whydoes Eusebius take a decidedly objective stance inthe Canones, butnotinhisother historical works? Wefind thesame thing in the earlier sections of the Canones: there is almost no trace of what we might call ‘editorial’ comment. Time and again the subjective’ comments are additions by ‘ Helm).17 Thefirst part of ananswer to Jerome (and they areoften notso marked by this problem concerns genre, the second concerns theanticipated audience. Eusebius was a pioneer; of that there can be no question.18 Before Eusebius there weretwoquite separate genres of Greek chronography, Hellenistic chronography and Christian chronography. Christian chronography derived directly from the Christian andJewish apologetic tradition. Herechronography wasusedasa weapon todefend theantiquity of Christian orJewish culture andbeliefs against theengulfing tide of Greco-Roman culture that claimed superiority andgreat antiquity for itself. Jewish writers andthen Christian in their turn usedchronography to demonstrate that their culture wasolder than Greco-Roman culture andtherefore wasnot only worthy of respect but waseven of greater value. It wasalso used to demonstrate the accuracy of OldTestament chronology for a period whentheGreeks and (185c = Sync. α ἰσ ία η ε α χ ὴ κ σ ιλ ίσ α τ ὶβ ζ ω 17 Eusebius does allow himself a reference toNero’s ἡ 5). 414.4– 18 See Croke 1982 and 1983.

80

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

Romans had nothing but conflicting mythological tales. Theophilus of Antioch summed up Christian apologetic goals well in his AdAutolycum: Fromthecompilation of theperiods of time andfromall thathasbeensaid, theantiquity of the prophetic writings andthedivine nature of ourmessage areobvious. This message is notrecent in origin, norare ourwritings, as some suppose, mythical andfalse. They are actually more ancient andmore trustworthy. (3.29, p. 145; trans. Grant)

Eusebius hadreadandabsorbed muchfromtheearly Jewish andChristian apologists like Josephus, Justus, Theophilus, Tatian, andClement. A comparison, for instance, of the supputatio of Theophilus’ AdAutolycum (3.28, pp. 142 and 144) shows parallel structures andvocabulary with Eusebius’ownfinal supputatio (no. 35). Thedebt is clear. Andalthough thechronological periods aresomewhat different the basic structure of dividing history into blocks of time defined by important andidentifiable Biblical events hasbeenretained. Because of its apologetic forebears the Canones was, almost by definition, apologetic itself, andmany aspects of its structure andcontent are apologetic in nature, as hasbeen noted above.19 Forthemostpart Christian chronography hadbeen used bytheapologists as a tool; it wassubordinate to theoverall apologetic argument. In theearly apologists chronographic arguments therefore make upbuta small part of the works as a whole. But Christian chronography hadbegun to grow as a genre in its ownright by the time Eusebius came to produce the Canones and it was no longer necessarily solely employed asjust a part of overtly apologetic arguments. In the early third century chronography hadbegun to separate itself from its apologetic superstructure andascalculations became morecomplicated anddetailed entire works were devoted to working outthechronology of thepast, especially of the Old Testament. At about the same time the attention of chronographers was turned to eschatological concerns, that is thecalculation anddetermination of when theworld would endandChrist would return, ashehadpromised. Indeed, these two changes, the interest in chronology per se andeschatology, maybe closely linked. The two most famous early Christian chronographers andthe two whose works survive in some fashion are Sextus Julius Africanus, whowrote in Alexandria in c. 221, andHippolytus, whowrote in Rome in c. 234. Africanus’ work in particular wasdriven byeschatological concerns involving thecalculation of the date of the creation of the world, the date of Christ’s birth, andthe date of the Second Coming (Parousia). It hadbeenbelieved since theearly second century that theworld would last for6,000 years, a thousand years foreachdayof Creation, andHippolytus and Africanus were important early proponents of theviewthat Christ hadbeenborn in the year 5500 since the Creation of the world, halfway through the sixth day, as it were.20 This left but 500 years between the birth of Christ andthe end of the world. Butthese works of Hippolytus andAfricanus wereessentially genealogies andking

19 See n.9, above. 20 For the general background andthe chiliastic eschatology of Hippolytus, see Landes 1988: 50, andMosshammer 1979: 146– 7. In 6, 46– 49, andforAfricanus, seeGelzer 1885, 1: 24– 137–

9. Theophilus and 21, 235– 5, 209–13, 219– 5, 93– general, see also Luneau 1964: 35– 45, 81– Clement of Alexandria, though earlier thanHippolytus, also seemtobeaware of these calculations.

6. Commentary

81

lists, though Africanus’ work, in five books, had long descriptive and analytical sections andHippolytus’work included a large geographical description.21 Neither of these works looked anything like the Canones. They are more like the Chronographia, thefirst volume ofEusebius’two-part chronological compendium. Noother Christian chronographer is known between Hippolytus andEusebius. Wemustlook elsewhere forEusebius’greatest influences, forthey arenottobefound inChristian chronography.

It wasin fact from his reading of pagan chronographic writing –historians like Diodorus; Olympiad chroniclers like Cassius Longinus, Castor of Rhodes, Phlegon of Tralles, andThallus; andscholars like Porphyry, ananti-Christian writer of great historical acumen, whose Against the Christians had played such a fundamental 9) rôle in first sparking Eusebius’interest in chronography (see Burgess 1997: 488– –that Eusebius learned that history hadpurposes greater thanjust theapologetic or eschatological argument, andthat all history wassomehow interrelated ina waythat could not be explained with the individual regnal lists andblocks of analysis that haddominated theChristian chronographic tradition. It wasPorphyry’s influence in particular that madeEusebius morethanjust anapologist andit wasfromtheOlympiad chronicles that Eusebius learned thesuccinct neutral or factual description, the importance of the existence of the person or deed rather thanjust the chronology, the synthesis of historical narratives, theuniversal synoptic view, andtheannalistic structure thathadnotbeenseeninearlier Christian chronography. Under thespell of pagan chronography Eusebius adopted the concept of parallel nations (though no one had produced such a tabular synchronism like his before) andstripped the Canones of its overtly apologetic andeschatological narrative, butleft theimplicit apologetic and anti-eschatological substructure intact. It is here that wesee the origin of providentialist history (that in the tracing of thehistory of mankind onecansee the fulfillment of God’s plan for mankind), that history is linear and teleological (that it is headed towards a single, preordained conclusion), andthat all menare part of God’s plan whether they are (or were) Christian or not. As was noted by Chesnut in his study of the first ecclesiastical historians, inthegradually reducing numbers of columns intheCanones, fromnine ona double page spread to twoona single page, theRomans andtheHebrews, and then to thesingle all-encompassing column fortheRomans, onecanseequite literally the progress of Mediterranean civilization from the polyarchy and polytheism of the past to the monarchy andmonotheism of the present.22 It also serves to link the Romans andthe Hebrews during the lifetime of Christ, just before the Roman column of regnal years (the Roman filum) becomes thesingle remaining column. It is a sophisticated strategy that shows the maturity of Eusebius’historical thought. It is a sophistication andscholarship thatcannot, however, befound inhislater histor21 22

Fragg. 12, 13,22, 49, and50 (Routh 1846) ofAfricanus arequite longanalyses ofchronological points. Hippolytus survives in a nearly complete Greek version andinmore complete, butstill imperfect Latin translations, in which it is known as theLiber generationis. 100, where hesays that there 102, esp. 101, though heis incorrect onpp.99– Chesnut 1977: 98– are twocolumns under the Empire, onefor thehistory of theEmpire andone forChristianity. Thedouble columns at thetime of Christ represent the ‘Romans’andthe ‘Hebrews’.

82

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

ical works, which arerather cruder in their approach. Twodistinct strands of Greek chronography were madeoneinthe Canones, andfromthis point onwards Western historiography would never be the same. Eusebius’ knowledge of the Hellenistic background freed Christian historiography from its apologetic andeschatological roots, andset it on its wayto attaining the universal, providentialist, andteleological characteristics thatareitslater hallmarks. This waspartly a result of theinnate scholarship that Eusebius brought to bear onhis subject, butit also hadto dowith the fact that the Canones was written at a time when Christianity had shown that it could withstand anything the emperors could enact against it andyet continue to thrive. Constantine hadnot yet been revealed as a Christian at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge whenthe first edition wascompleted, butit wasclear to all Christians that Constantius, Constantine, Licinius, andeven Maxentius were not persecutors. It wasthis survival that shaped Eusebius’historical approach. Thefuture of ChristianityandtheRoman Empire could nowbeseenastheculmination of thehistory of the development of theentire Mediterranean fromthebirth of Abraham. Thevictories of Constantine over Maxentius andLicinius over Maximinus were thefinal confirmations of Eusebius’vision. Thus the Canones both retains aspects of its apologetic forebears –the removal of Licinius andCrispus being one of the more obvious examples –but it also points the way to the future, when history could be turned to different religious purposes andto other more scholarly purposes. The factual accounting of the past that wesee in the Canones can be observed in a fragment of anOlympiad chronicle that survives onpapyrus, POxyI12 (FGrHist 255), as well as in a fragment of the Olympiad chronicle of Phlegon of Tralles preserved in Photius (FGrHist 257 F 12 = Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 97). POxy XVII 2082 (FGrHist 257a), anOlympiad chronicle that is clearly nota fragment of Phlegon of Tralles in spite of the editor’s claims, is too fragmentary for any general comments tobe madehere. Chronicles of this type were fundamental ininfluencing Eusebius’approach, content, andstyle, both in their brief accounting of events but also in their universal approach to history. POxy I 12, for instance, covering the 316/5 BC, includes the history of Greece, Rome, Syracuse, Persia, years 355/4– Alexander, andthediadochoi, aswell as theOlympic games, literature, and Philip, philosophy (Plato, Speusippus, and Isocrates). The author of POxy I12 was also interested in the rise andfall of empires, as wasEusebius, marking the endof the Persian empire andnoting its duration (unfortunately the figure is corrupt, butit is 14). Phlegon recounts theexpected narrative of milprobably 233 years; col. V.10– 69 BC, but also includes a itary events of the Olympiad that covers the years 72– census report, anearthquake in Rome, Epicurean philosophers, thebirth of Vergil, thesuccession of Parthian kings, andthededication of theCapitolium. Similar content and stylistic approaches can also be found in two examples of non-Olympiad chronicles preserved as inscriptions, the Parian Marble andthe so-called Chronicon Romanum (FGrHist 239 and252), though the chronological framework for both of these is a countdown, enumerating thenumber ofyears before thedateof writing, c. 263 BC for the former andc. AD 15 for the latter, though the former also includes archons. Eusebius’ final supputatio, which calculates the length of time from the eight chronological linchpins to the time of writing, follows this tradition. These

6. Commentary

83

chronicles again contain exactly thesamesorts of material thatEusebius included in the Canones: the political andmilitary history of the major city-states andempires of theMediterranean including Persians andParthians, literary figures, philosophers, thefoundations ofcities, eclipses, earthquakes, andmythological tales presented as history. Nothing proves the tralatitious link between the Hellenistic chronography of the third century BC andEusebius’ new Christian chronography of the early fourth century ADbetter than a common entry onthe famous meteorite that fell at Aegospotomi in c. 465 BC: Parian Marble: ἐ νΑ ἰγ ὸ ςπ μ ο τ ο α ῖςὁλίθ ο ςἔπ ε σ ε(A 72) andEusebius: Λ ίθ ο ςἐ κ τ ο ρ ῦ α ο ν ο ὐ ῦ ἔπ εσ ε ν ἐ ν Π μ ο τ ο α ῖςΑ ό ἰγ ς(110f = Sync. 305.3). It is fromsuch chronicles, preserved incodices, onpapyrus, andonmarble, that wecan also see the origin of Eusebius’formulaic andrepetitive structures and phraseology. Three such examples with reference to the Parian Marble andPhlegonof Tralles canbe found inthecommentary to Study 2, nos. 4, 13, and18.Eusebius took the content, structure, style, and historical approach of the Hellenistic chronicle, separated outthehistories of thevarious nations into different columns in order to combine them with the genealogical and regnal-year tables of Christian apologetic chronography. No one before Eusebius had combined the genealogical and king lists of the Christian tradition with the historical accounts that were to be found in the Hellenistic, pagan tradition of Olympiad chronicles. Andno one had ever presented all these lists in synchronous columns, sothat each event orindividual of one kingdom could be compared chronologically on a single page with the events andindividuals of all other contemporary kingdoms. In essence what Eusebius haddone wasChristianize theexisting Olympiad chronicle tradition. Such a massive sweep of history required a unifying chronological system. No such system existed inpagan chronology (which wasvery muchgrist forEusebius’ apologetic wheel), since Olympiads only started in 776 BC andthe Canones began in 2016 BC. Works like the Parian Marble, which extended back earlier than the first Olympiad, hadtorely onthereverse chronology counted back fromthetime of writing. Christian chronology could only offer years since theCreation of theworld. This system, however, wastainted forEusebius byitsuseineschatological calculations, which hewasin part reacting against. Hetherefore tried as muchas possible to avoid dealing with chronology before Abraham. Instead he invented a system of his own, a relative system that unfortunately wasvalid only in the Canones: an accounting of years since the birth of Abraham. It counted forward from a point in the past, rather than counting backwards, like the Parian Marble, the Chronicon Romanum, andourownBC system. Since Abraham wasconsidered thefirst Christian, the chronology was more thanjust an accounting of years, it was a chronology of theacceptance of Christ among men,a system with a clear apologetic value fora group striving to convince thepagan world of its antiquity. Thus the influence of concise, scholarly, universal, andprofessedly objective ‘Hellenist’chronography andthe usually dry regnal lists andchronological analysis of recent Christian chronography were the chief factors in Eusebius’ less overtly subjective approach inthe Canones. TheHEandtheMPal were different genres, of which the first hadno traditions to follow or expectations to be maintained and the second of which was firmly within a genre that expected emotion andsubjective involvement.

84

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

Another reason for Eusebius’objectivity is that the work seems to have been aimed at non-Christians as well as Christians. Much of the non-Christian history andparallelism makes little sense unless Eusebius envisioned a non-Christian audience: after all mostof the Canones concerns non-Christian material. Hewaswriting ata timewhenhebelieved thatChristian andHellene could co-exist, asthey seemto have done before the Great Persecution. This wasa work designed to show nonChristians thetruth aswell, butwithin a context andframework that wasfamiliar to them, onethey could understand andaccept. They too needed to be shown that the Empire andConstantine were theculmination of 2,300 years of Mediterranean history. Christians andChristianity were included as a ‘normal’ andancient part of Mediterranean civilization. History was laid out in such a waythat no one could object to thecontent since everyone, nomatter whathis faith or origin –Easterner, Westerner, Christian, pagan, Jew, Greek, Roman –could see his history faithfully and accurately represented, a microcosm within a previously unrealized macrocosm.23 It all fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle and the Canones was the key. Again weseethematurity of Eusebius’vision: tohimthepast wasnotspecifically Greek orRoman, orJewish orChristian, asvirtually all histories before himhad been, butit wasa combination of all four, andof evenmore: all thekingdoms of the Mediterranean were a part of God’s plan. Noonekingdom could be left out, for all had some rôle to play. This universalist vision, in the aftermath of the Great Persecution, is truly a quantum leap beyond anything that anyother historian hadpreviously written, both in geographical andchronological coverage. Christians had indeed included Egyptian andPersian regnal years intheir calculations, butthis was only because of the intersections of Biblical history with the histories of Egypt and Persia. It wasa wayof linking the history of the OldTestament with better understood andmore familiar chronologies. Such chronologies were simply place keepers to mark more accurately thepassage of centuries between AdamandAbraham, Abraham andMoses, Moses andSolomon, andSolomon andChrist. Nowfor the first time the known histories of these peoples were included with the regnal years as important kingdoms in their ownright. Andsince Jewish history extended back into Greece’s mythical past, famous personages fromtheBible could consort onthe same pages withEuhemerized figures from Greek mythology. That Sampson could have fought alongside Agamemnon at Troy (see no. 35) must have been as novel andsurprising forChristian andnon-Christian readers thenasit is forreaders today.

6.1.4. Eusebius as Historian

The final question to be addressed here concerns Eusebius’factual andchronological accuracy, i.e. howgood a historian washe? For the purposes of this chapter, it will be necessary to consider Eusebius’intended relative chronology, nothis inac23 This ‘strange neutrality’canalso be found in the Tric. Or. andAveril Cameron attributes it to the same cause: it was ‘aimed at least partly at pagans’ and was ‘designed to persuade [them] ... not only of the truth of Christianity butof the specific place of Constantine in God’s 82, esp. 81). plan forhuman history’(Cameron 1983: 78–

6. Commentary

85

curate absolute chronology (which is outby one year until 1 Constantine). I shall proceed by entry number. Entry no. 2. The reigns of Carus andhis sons are compressed, as noted above (Chapter 3), soexact dates aredifficult toestablish. Carus died in283 atCtesiphon, so Eusebius is correct in place anddate, though it should have been in his second year, nothisfirst (the original first yearwascutandtheremaining years renumbered downoneyear). Numerian wasmurdered in November of 284, which wasalready thenext year in all Eastern calendars, andcertainly inEusebius’(from 3 Oct.). One would expect his death to have appeared in 285, not 284 as it does, along with the death of Carinus, whodiedinspring/summer 285. However, asnoted above inChapter 2, an emperor’s death appears the year before it actually occurred, so that his successor’s first year can be associated with the year of his accession. As far as Eusebius was concerned Diocletian became emperor in spring/summer 285 upon thedeath of Carinus, therefore Diocletian’s first year mustbe 285 andso thedeaths of neither Numerian norCarinus canappear in 285 andmustbe shifted back to 284. Both deaths should have been recorded under 3 Carus, not2 Carus. Eusebius says that Carinus waskilled in a battle atCornacum (mod. Š otin, TIR 7; see also RE Suppl. 9: 651), which is in Pannonia InfeL 34, 49, andRE 4: 1246– rior, dueeast of Cibalae. However, the location of his death is given as Margus 8, orperhaps theRiver Morava, right next to it), about (mod. Oraš je; TIRL 34, 77– 164 Roman miles S-E of Cornacum by road, by Victor (39.11), Eutropius (9.20.2), Jerome (225b), andtheHA(Carus 18.2), which all derive from theKG; by theDescriptio, s.a. 285, which ultimately derives from the official proclamation of the event; andby the so-called Chronica urbis Romae (p. 148), which says hewaskilled ‘campo Margense’. The Itinerarium Burdigalense (564.8– 9), written in 333, says he waskilled at Viminacium (mod. Kostolac; TIR L 34, 119), which is about ten Roman miles east of Margus. In view of these sources (there are noothers), Eusebius’location is probably erroneous. Furthermore, Cornacum is off the main road, which lies between Viminacium andCibalae, soit is anunlikely location forthetwo armies tomeet, Carinus’arriving fromItaly viaSiscia orPoetovio andSirmium and Diocletian’s from the east via Serdica andNaissus. What one would like to know, however, is where Eusebius got the name of this rather obscure Danubian military town andwhy he thought that the battle took place here. In theArmenian traditions, Cornacus became thegeneral of theArmenian king Chosroes. Moses Khorenats‛i, whoused an Armenian translation of the Canones, says the following, Carus thenreigned withhissonsCarinus andNumerian. Gathering anarmyhegavebattle tothe Persian king, andafter gaining the victory hereturned to Rome. Therefore Artashir, bringing many nations to his support andhaving thedesert [peoples] of Tachikastan [i.e. the Arabs of Mesopotamia] on his side, gave battle a second time to the Roman army on both sides of the Euphrates. Inthebattle Camswaskilled atRinon. Similarly Carinus, whohadmarched into the desert against Kornak inthecompany of Trdat, wasslaughtered with hisarmy; those whosurvived turned inflight ... In those days Numerian waskilled inThrace andDiocletian succeeded to the throne.’(2.79)24

4. 24 Thomson 1978: 227. For Moses’useof the Canones, see pp. 32–

86

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

Samuel Aniensis says,

Thesupreme leader of thetroops of Chosroes theGreat, thefather of Tiridates, wasCornacus, whois said to have prolonged his life to his onehundred andsixtieth year, yetright upto his death heretained unimpaired hissight, hishearing, hishair, histeeth, andlikewise theyouthful strength of his body. This is the manwhofought against the Caesar Carus, whofell in battle with his son. (40/661– 2).25

This account is a complete fiction, not least because Carinus wasfighting against Diocletian when he was killed, not the Persians. Moses’ debt to the Canones is obvious. 4. Maximian wasmadecaesar at some point in 285, probably in theearly summer after Diocletian’s defeat of Carinus (21 July is most likely his birthday), and augustus on 1 April 286 (Barnes 1982: 4, 57; Kienast 1990: 268; PLRE I. 573– 4; 48 [with earlier bibliography]; andBarnes 1996: 537– Nixon andRodgers 1994: 44– 9). Eusebius’date (287) is therefore late by a year. 5. Thedestruction of Busiris andCoptos seems to date to theperiod of late 293 toearly 294 whenGalerius wasinEgypt; seeBarnes 1982: 62, Bowman 1984: 33, 6 n. 16. Coptos is just down-river from Thebes andNixon andRodgers 1994: 115– (modern Luxor) in Upper Egypt, andtherefore inThebaïs, butBusiris is intheNile delta andtherefore in Aegyptus proper. However, it seems very likely that the city ο ύ ις that actually rebelled wasnotthewell-known Β σ ιρ , buttheobscure Βόρησ ις ,a city north-west of Coptos between the latter andTentyra, andthat neither Boresis norCoptos wasrazed to theground, since Boresis wasstill paying taxes in 314 and 6). TheGreek, Latin, andArCoptos became anepiscopal see (Bowman 1984: 33– menian witnesses agree onthemistaken name, sotheerror mustbeEusebius’orhis source’s. Eusebius dates these destructions to 291or292, which is a year ortwotoo early. Theinformation is clearly fromoral sources andhewasprobably just estimatingthedate. 6. Thedateoftheaccessions ofConstantius andGalerius (293) iscorrect (Barnes 1982: 4 andKienast 1990: 276 and279). 7. Eusebius assigns the ordination of Marcellinus to 296, the same year as is preserved in the independent Liber pontificalis (41) andits source, the Liberian catalogue found in the Chronographus ad an. 354 (75.34). Raymond Davis has argued convincingly in favour of shifting this date andthose of all thepopes of the 59, 461). The second half of the third century back one year (Davis 1997: esp. 448– correlation between theWestern tradition andEusebius inthis case must, therefore, be coincidental. 8) arecorrect (Barnes 1982: 8. Eusebius’dates forthesiege of Alexandria (297– 54; Kienast 1990: 263; andNixon andRodgers 1994: 115 n. 16).

25 I haveprovided here a translation ofZohrab’s Latin translation. TheFrench translation of Brosset is rather different: ‘Cornac, the general of Chosroes theGreat, king of Armenia, is said to have prolonged hislife tohisonehundred andsixtieth year. Whenhediedhissight, hishearing, hishair, histeeth, andhisbodily strength were those of a young man.Hedefeated andkilled in combat the emperor Carus andhis son’(Brosset, p. 365). For Tiridates, see Moses 2.82 and 6, s.v. Tiridates. PLRE I: 915–

6. Commentary

87

9. Zabdas. Modern scholars accept Eusebius’dates, offering 298– 300 forZabdas, if heis mentioned atall.26 However, there aretwovariant traditions thatcontradict Eusebius. Agapius (538/538.1), whocalls him Wnd, andChron. Mar. (48.37/ 60.25) give himeight years. Eutychius (998/116.1), whocalls himZbds (‘Zabdas’),

which is mistransliterated as ‘Zebedaeus’inPocock’s Latin translation; Theophanes (8.22); Nicephorus (125.9); Chron. syn. (78.10); andZonaras (2: 625.20) give him ten years.27 Eutychius also dates his ordination to 18 Diocl. (302), which is clearly too late, though hedates theordination of Hermon, Zabdas’successor, to 1 Const., implying a term of only three or four years, which is closer to Eusebius than the other examples, which are clearly too long. Eusebius wasa contemporary of Zabdas, a near neighbour of Jerusalem, andbelieved that Zabdas hadonly survived for a short time (HE 7.32.29). Eusebius’ information should therefore be accepted as the most reliable (whether it is accurate or not is another question), andtherefore Zabdas’dates should be 299 to 301. 10. Eusebius is the only source to mention Veturius, buthis date (300) should probably be accepted; see Burgess 1996 andBarnes 1982: 136. 11. Hermon. Modern scholars, whenthey mention Hermon atall, place hisordination in300 or302 andhisdeath somewhere between 311to 314.28 Eusebius places hisordination in 301 andinthecommentary to entry i in Chapter 3 of Study 2, it canbe seen that theordination of Macarius is to be dated to c. 313, thus implying a termof twelve orthirteen years forHermon. Agapius (538/538.1) assigns himtwenty-four years. Most other sources, however, agree in assigning Hermon a term of nine years –Eutychius 1004/124.1, whocalls him wnanddates himto 1 Const. = 6; Theophanes 13.20; Chron. syn.78.11; andNice306/7; Chron. Mar. 48.37/60.25– anagreement that suggests, butdoes notguarantee, accuracy. Such phorus 125.10 – a term implies ordination in 304 or 305, an unlikely event since Eusebius clearly implies that Hermon wasordained before the persecution began, both here andin theHE (7.32.29). Either the episcopal lists are incorrect or Hermon diedbefore the endof thepersecution andthere wasa vacancy inthechurch of Jerusalem from 309/ 10until theendof thepersecution in313. 12.Tyrannus. Modern scholars, if they mention him, dateTyrannus’ordination between 300 and304 andhis death between 312 and314.29 Agapius assigns him a termof tenyears (537/537.11); Eutychius (998/116.14; calls him Wrys [Euris, Auris, Auaris, etc] anddates hisordination to 10Diocl. = 294) andChron. 846 (148.3/

26 DCB4: 1206 andGrumel 1958: 451. Heis listed without dates byFedalto 1988: 1000. Lequien (1740, 3: 153– 4) gives himfour years from 298 to 302. 27 The lists of the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, andAntioch preserved in Theophanes, Nicephorus, andthe Chron. syn. andthose of Rome andAntioch preserved inZonaras all derive froma common exemplar originally compiled in thelast quarter of thesixth century, andupdated inparts at thebeginning of theseventh, that contained Roman emperors, Persian kings, Arab caliphs, popes, andthepatriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, 7 andMango andScott 9: 366– Alexandria, andAntioch. Onthis compilation, seeMango 1988– 1997: lxvii-lxxiii andlxxiv-lxxv, which overlook the evidence of Zonaras. 28 Lequien 1740, 3: 154; DCB 3: 4; Grumel 1958: 451; andFedalto 1988: 1000. 29 Lequien 1740, 2: 707; Boschius 1868: 29; Neale 1873: 60; DCB 4: 1058; Grumel 1958: 446; andFedalto 1988: 682.

88

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

4) assign himeleven years, while the bishop list that underlies Theophanes 192.3– 12), Nicephorus (130.14), Zonaras (625.17), andthe Chron. syn. (75.9), and (6.9– the unknown ‘Catalogus Harlemiensis’ cited by Boschius all agree on thirteen years.30 Thirteen years from301 (17 Diocl., asestablished inChapter 5.2.12, above) brings us down to 313/314, which fits exactly with the other evidence for Vitalis (see Study 2, Commentary to ii, iv, andv). Tyrannus’dates are, therefore, 301 to

313. 13. Peter. Eusebius’ information here andin the HE (cited above in Chapter 5.2.13) is thebest wepossess forPeter’s ordination. Theepiscopal list contained in Theophanes (7.8), Nicephorus (127.13), Chron. syn. (72.45), andZonaras (625.22– 626.1), as well as Michael, Chron. 846, andAgapius, give him eleven years, as Eusebius did(see Chapter 5, n. 8, above). Anapparently independent tradition from Arabic Egyptian sources in the Hist. patr. Alex. 400/400.2, Synax. Alex. 1: 164.20/ 11, andSynax. Aethiop. (29 edā r, 397.29/396.32) also gives Peter eleven 127.10– years. Peter’s dates will therefore be mid-300 to 25 Nov. 311. 14. This earthquake is otherwise unknown. Wemust accept Eusebius’date of 4, no. 124, dated to 303/4 (on the basis of Jerome 302. See Guidoboni 1989: 673– [from Eusebius] andOrosius [from Jerome]). 15. As wasnoted above in Chapter 3, n. 7, the persecution edict wasissued in Nicomedia on 23 February 303. Eusebius is referring to the time at which he first received notice of it in Caesarea, originally at Easter in April 303, a date he later

to March. 16 and 17. Diocletian andMaximian

changed

abdicated on 1 May 305, the day that 5 andKienast Severus andMaximinus were proclaimed caesars (Barnes 1982: 4– 1990: 263, 269, 284, 286). Eusebius hascorrectly backdated these events to 304. 18. Constantius died on 25 July 306 (Barnes 1982: 4 and Kienast 1990: 276); hisdeath istherefore correctly dated tothesecond half of20 Diocl. Eusebius’chronological problems here have been explained in Chapter 3, above. 20. In early 307 Severus, with thebacking of Galerius, launched anassault on Rome against Maxentius, butwasbeaten back. Hefled to Ravenna, where heabdicated in the spring of 307 andwaseither executed or forced to commit suicide in Rome later that year, either before or during Galerius’invasion of Italy (not on 16 Sept., a date manufactured by modern scholars from one of the inaccurate regnal terms contained in the Chron. urbis Romae; Barnes 1982: 39, 65; Kienast 1990: 17; PLRE I: 838). Euse8 n. 16– 286; Nixon andRodgers 1994: 179 n. 3, 181, 297– bius hastherefore antedated his death by a year. As wecan see here andshall see below, Eusebius’general knowledge of Western events is quite poor, with the exception of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (though his account in the HE can hardly be taken as completely historical). 21. Maximian wasforced to commit suicide in c. July 310 (Barnes 1982: 13; 4), so Eusebius’ Kienast 1990: 269; PLRE I: 574; Nixon andRodgers 1994: 212– date is three years early. It is clear fromHE8.13.15 and14.1 that this is thecorrect 30 The ‘Catalogus’ is an unpublished list of Antiochene bishops that ends with Vitalis; on which, 30. see Boschius 1868: 29–

6. Commentary

89

chronology for the Canones (note that Eusebius begins this section of the HE with ν thevague ἐ τ ο ). ύ τ ῳ 22. Maxentius wasproclaimed emperor on 28 October 306 (Barnes 1982: 12 andKienast 1990: 287), which Eusebius would have treated as 307, so his date is correct, though he is probably just noting thedate atwhich news arrived of Maxentius’usurpation. 23. Thedate of Licinius’accession (308) is correct (Barnes 1982: 6 andKienast

1990: 290).

24 and26. The dates of the deaths of Galerius andMaximinus in the Canones bedetermined with accuracy; seeChapter 5.2.24 and26, above. 25. Thedate of Maxentius’defeat byConstantine (28 Oct. 312; Barnes 1982: 12 andKienast 1990: 287) ought to be 8 Const., not 7 Const.. since by most Eastern calendars it was already the next year. However, Maxentius was defeated within 24 July 313) andthis may Constantine’s actual seventh regnal year (25 July 312– have been of contemporary significance andthus reported at thetime. Onthe other hand, theevent is Western andanyWestern source of information would probably cannot

have been using theJulian calendar. 27. The tenth andfinal year of persecution (312–13) ended with Maximinus’ death late in the summer of 313 (9 Const.; Barnes 1982: 7 andKienast 1990: 284). The note on the endof the persecution therefore comes in thecorrect year. This is the last entry from the second edition. The following entries were all added in 325. 28.Theaccession ofConstantine II ascaesar tookplace on 1March 317 (Barnes 1982: 7 andKienast 1990: 305). Eusebius’date (316) is therefore a year early. 2 and 29. The date of Licinius’persecution is uncertain; see Barnes 1981: 70– 38. Eusebius’ date here (320), should probably be accepted as Hanson 1988: 129– roughly accurate in the absence of other detailed evidence. 30. Eusebius is the only source for the martyrdom of Basileus, which seems to have been dated inrelation to theprevious entry (i.e. after theoutbreak of persecution under Licinius) andtherefore undatable. In the HE Eusebius dates Licinius’ ῆ α ν ία τ ῷ ςμ ς(10.8.14), suggesting a date ὸτέλ τ ο ὐ ςα attack on the bishops to τ

closer to 323 or 324.

31. The entry on Arius seems to have been dated correctly, though we know nothing about its content (see Chapter 5.2.31, above). 32. Constantius II wasproclaimed caesar on 8 November 324 (Barnes 1982: 8 and Kienast 1990: 309), which was already 20 Const. in Eusebius’ calendar and therefore his date is correct. 33. Licinius waskilled inthespring of 325 (Barnes 1982: 44 andKienast 1990: 290). Eusebius’date is correct. 34. Constantine celebrated hisuicennalia atNicomedia on25 July 325 (Barnes 1981: 76 andKienast 1990: 296). Eusebius’date is correct. Overall, the results are rather mixed. Eusebius scores well with regard to description andcontent, so far aswecantell, buthischronology is often wrong, sometimes quite wrong. This is to a great extent understandable since he waswriting without written sources about events thathadhappened ten, twenty, andthirty years before the time of writing. There is no sign that he kept notes on important events

90

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

when they happened or that he consulted any official proclamations of events. More often thannothissources wereprobably oral andthechronological information that wascontained in such accounts wasprobably often weak. In manycases hewasno doubt relying

onhisownmemory.

6.2. Jerome Withrespect toJerome theresults of this reconstruction areevenmore startling than they were in the case of Eusebius. It has always been assumed that Jerome is a reliable witness toEusebius’text andthat apart froma fewadditions here andthere, signalled by Helm, what Jerome reported wasessentially Eusebius. In the absence oftheArmenian translation there waslittle tochallenge this assumption. Forthelast partof Eusebius’text, atleast, this cannownolonger beaccepted. Faced withpages that contained huge open spaces, which he abhorred,31 Jerome set about filling in the gaps. His chief source was the KG, though the Descriptio was used for more thanjust chronology onmanyoccasions. Fourother written sources canbe detected aswell: a list orcollection of biographies of well-known literary figures of thereign of Constantine; twoepiscopal lists, onefor Rome andtheother for Alexandria; and the episcopal lists of Antioch andJerusalem found in the Continuatio, a continuation of Jerome’s copy of Eusebius (see Study 2). While translating Eusebius Jerome wasoften guided in his choice of words by parallel passages in the KGor Descriptio, maintaining Eusebius’basic meaning but substituting words that reflected the vocabulary of hisLatin sources. Heboth added newentries andextended theinformation in existing entries, providing a much more detailed account of the period than Eusebius didandincluding some of the categories of material that Eusebius missed, such asauthors andevents inthewestern empire. Thecomplex combination of his sources suggests strongly that Jerome compiled his material first andwrote most of his entries outbefore dictating thefinal copy to his scribe. Theonly aspect of his composition that cannot be readily explained is his chronological confusion.

Aswasnoted above inChapter 5.2, forthefirst seven years of thereign of Constantine there seems to be nothing that will explain the often bizarre chronology that Jerome presents. I canonly suggest thathisnotes became confused during dictation. Luckily, suchconfusion does notappear elsewhere inthechronicle. We can see in these final pages of Eusebius’chronicle Jerome’s preparations for his continuation. Eusebius’entries were so sparse, so short, andso dedicated to

the matters of emperors and religion (though the two were really inseparable) that Jerome could compile his material as if Eusebius had already finished, in many 31 Jerome made a determined effort to fill upblank spaces inhis translation. Although Eusebius’ text wasfilled withempty spaces, from213BCtotheendof thechronicle Jerome left almost no 3 BC (p. 139), 149 BC (p. 143), 115–13 BC (p. blank regnal years, with the exception of 174– 8 (p.203), thelatter a reign towhich hemadenoadditions except concerning 147), andAD147– Pius’death (204a), probably because hehadnouseful information inhissources (cf. Eutr. 8.8; Aur. Victor 15; andEpit. decaes. 15, which arewitnesses to this section of theKG). Jerome’s additions all tendto cluster inareas left blank byEusebius (for this, seeBurgess forthcoming).

6. Commentary

91

places simply using Eusebius as a topic guide (e.g. the death of Carus or the death of Maximianus). OnlywhenEusebius contained material hecould notfindrecorded in another source didhetranslate theentry as it stood in Eusebius. The following analysis, in combination with the reconstruction of Eusebius above, is intended to make clear Jerome’s impact onEusebius’text andthewayhe translated Eusebius’entries. Eachparagraph is prefaced withJerome’s entry number followed by a slash andthen Eusebius’entry number, where there areparallels. Rubric / 1. This is anaccurate translation of Eusebius. 224g / 2. Death of Carus. Nothing survives of Eusebius’ original. The entire entry derives fromtheKG(Eutr. 9.18.1; Festus 24.2; Aur. Victor 38.3, 39.12; Epit. 2). See Burgess 1995b: 365, no. 33. Chronology: de caes. 38.1, 3; HACarus 8.1– unchanged. 225a/ 2. Death of Numerian. Nothing survives of Eusebius’original. Theentire 39.1; Epit. decaes. 38.4– entry derives fromtheKG(Eutr. 9.18.2; Aur. Victor 38.6– 2). Chronology: unchanged. 5; HACarus 12.1– 225b/ 2. Death of Carinus. Nothing survives of Eusebius’ original. The entry derives entirely from the KG (Eutr. 9.20.2; Victor 39.11; HACarus 18.2) andthe Descriptio (s.a. 285). Chronology: unchanged. Rubric / 3. This is anaccurate translation of Eusebius. 225c. Diocletian’s origin andthe murder of Aper. Although this entry has no asterisk in Helm’s edition (p. 225; it is marked with a (*) on p. 440), it derives 20.1; Aur. Vict. 39.13; HACarus 12.2, 13.2). It entirely from the KG (Eutr. 9.19.2– of course belongs in theprevious regnal year following Numerian’s death. 225d/ 4. Accession of Maximianus andhisdefeat of theBagaudae inGaul. The first sentence is anexact translation of Eusebius. Therest, from ‘Quirusticorum ...’, derives fromtheKG(Eutr. 9.20.3; Aur. Vict. 39.17, 19). Chronology: thedate could bea result of Eusebius’entry’s being pushed back from3 Diocl. into 2 Diocl. bythe additions to it from the KG, but the Descriptio (s.a. 286) clearly dated it to the second year after Diocletian’s accession, so Jerome maybe following theDescriptio here. f,g / 6. Usurpation of Carausius; invasion of Quinquegentiani in Africa; 225e, Achilleus rebels inEgypt; accession of Constantius andGalerius, their origins, and their dynastic marriages. All these entries derive from the KG (Eutr. 9.22.1; Aur. 3; 40.12) –onwhich, see Burgess 1995b: 365, 5; Epit. de caes. 39.2– Victor 39.20– no. 34 –with the exception of C onstantius et Galerius Maximianus Caesares ad‘ is a close translation of Eusebius. Chronology: sumuntur in regnum’(225g), which though thenotice of Constantius andGalerius’accession is opposite 4 and5 Diocl. 90), Constantius’ regnal year total in 228g indicates that Jerome is actually (289– counting from 6 Diocl. (=291). The date, therefore, derives from theDescriptio (s.a. 291. 2), notEusebius. 226a/ 5. Busiris andCoptos. This is anexact translation ofEusebius, butJerome . Chronology: theentry hasbeenshifted down υ ο τ π ύ β α ιςτ ῆ ἰγ ςΑ ή ό λ Θ ε ιςἐ ν omits π 9 Diocl. as a result of theadditions from theKGjust 8 Diocl. to 8– oneyear from7– above andtheremoval of no. 6 just below.

92

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

226b. Carpi andBastarni settled. This entry derives from theKG (Eutr. 9.25.2; Aur. Victor 39.43) andthe date derives from the Descriptio (s.a. 295). See Burgess 6, no. 35. 1995b: 365– 226c. Obeisance to Diocletian, his dress, etc. This entry derives from the KG (Eutr. 9.26; Aur. Victor 39.2– 4; Ammianus 15.5.18). SeeBurgess 1995b: 366, no. 36. It has been added in a blank space. 226d/ 7. Marcellinus. This entry is anexact translation from Eusebius, except that Jerome calls him ‘Marcellianus’. Chronology: unchanged. 226e/ 8. Rebellion of Alexandria under Achilleus. This entry is a combination of Eusebius and the KG (Eutr. 9.23; Aur. Victor 39.38). Chronology: unchanged. Jerome’s changes to this entry aretoocomplex to be described andsoI shall quote the entry with the following diacritical marks: Eusebius, {alteration of Eusebius}, [KG], [{alteration of KG}], and{Jerome’s ownadditions}. Alexandria cum{omni} Aegypto perAchilleum {ducem} {a Romana potestate desciscens} [octauo obsidionis mense a Diocletiano] {capta est. Itaque} plurimi {per} [totam Aegyptum grauibus proscriptionibus {exiliis} que] {uexati} interfectis his, {qui auctores perduellionis extiterant}. The ducem’mayderive fromtheKG.

226f‘/ 9. Zabdas. This is an accurate translation of Eusebius. Chronology: unchanged. 227a. Recovery of Britain. This entry derives from the KG (Eutr. 9.22.2; Aur. Victor 39.42). Theentry saysthatBritain wasrecovered after tenyears, butisplaced eleven years after Carausius’usurpation (4 Diocl. to 15Diocl.; 225e). Thereason for this obvious chronological blunder is unknown. 227b. Victory of Constantius over Alamanni. This entry derives from the KG (Eutr. 9.23). Theentry is placed here because it appears right after theevents of 227a

in the KG.

227c. Galerius’ defeat and dishonour. This entry derives from the KG (Eutr. 9.24; Festus 25.1; Ammianus 14.11.10). See Burgess 1995b: 366, no.37. Chronology: according to the chronology of theKGthis entry should have appeared right after the siege of Alexandria (226e). However, Jerome hasretained Eusebius’date for the siege andplaced this entry the year after the victory over the Alamanni, which wasnarrated just before the Alexandrian events in theKG. All three entries are designed to fill blank spaces in the Canones. 227d/ 10. Veturius. This entry derives from Eusebius, except that Jerome has ρ ίω ς(‘moderately’) as ‘paulatim’ (‘gradually’/ little by little’) and ετ translated μ ‘ ’; this is a common κ α τ ὰ π ά (‘against everyone’) as ‘aduersum nos’(‘against us ν τ ω ν τ ο π ύ change; cf. his translation of no. 27, below), andchanged the metaphorical ὑ φ ο ν τ ο ς(‘smouldering’) to themoreprosaic ‘incipiente’(‘beginning’). Chronology: unchanged. 227e. Tenth persecution. It is difficult to work out Helm’s position on the persecution markers, of which this is the last. Those for the first to fourth and ninth and tenth he notes as being the work of Eusebius; the fifth through eighth he marks as being additions by Jerome (185c1, 192b, 194g, 205d, 212d, 216f, 218d1, 220e, 223d, 227e). There is no evidence in anywitness to suggest that these were the work of

6. Commentary

93

Eusebius, andhedoes notnumber thepersecutions intheHE.These aremost probably, therefore, the work of Jerome. 227f. Galerius’victory over Narseh, king of Persia. This entry derives from the KG(Eutr. 9.25.1; Festus 25.3; Aur.Victor 39.35). Thechronology is hardtoexplain since the Descriptio dated it to 297 not 302. Again it may simply be based on the relative position oftheevents narrated intheKG(following events reported in227c). 227g. Baths inRome andCarthage. This entry derives fromtheKG(Aur. Victor 39.45). See Burgess 1995b: 366, no. 38. The dating is again probably relative, derived from the order of theentries in theKG.Thebaths in Carthage were probably started byMaximian in297/8; forthedate, seeBarnes 1982: 59. Thebaths inRome were started byMaximian after hisreturn toRome in298/9 andcompleted between 1 May 305 and25 July 306 (Richardson 1992: 391). Jerome’s chronology is therefore of no value in determining the date of the building of these baths; on this, see Burgess forthcoming. 227h, i,k/11, 12, 13. Hermon. Tyrannus. Peter. These three entries aretranslated accurately from Eusebius. Chronology: these entries, and228a, below, have been shifted from their proper regnal years, Hermon andTyrannus byoneyear, Peter by two years, and the earthquake by one year (see Chapter 5.2.11–13, above). This would seemto have been a result of theaddition of thevarious entries fromtheKG. 227m. Diocletian’s triumph. This entry derives entirely fromtheKG(Eutr. 9.27.2 andFestus 25.1). Jerome includes ‘et omnipraeda quaParthos spoliauerant’, which was not included by Eutropius or Festus. Although it has no asterisk in Helm’s edition, there is noevidence that this entry appeared in Eusebius. The only Greek 18), butthis andthesurrounding narrative clearparallel is Zonaras 12.32 (p.618.14– ly depend uponEutropius, whose source wasalso theKG.However, this passage of α ὶτ ὸ ν π λ ο Zonaras also contains a Greek translation of Jerome’s extra line (κ ν ῦ ο τ ), which suggests thepossibility thatZonaras’narrative τ ο ν α ΐσ η ἐλ ν ῶ σ Π ερ κ ἐ ν ο σ ὅ is somehow related to theKG.Chronology: again thedating is perplexing since the KG implies that the triumph took place immediately before the emperors’ abdication. The triumph actually occurred in November 303 (Barnes 1982: 56, 59 and Kienast 1990: 263, 269). It should therefore have followed thenotice of thepersecution. 228a/ 14. Earthquake. This derives from Eusebius andseems to be anaccurate μ ρ έν εν ο α υκ ὶ υ ο ο τ , Τύ ο υγ μ ο ῦλαβροτά εισ translation of the Greek except that Σ κ ε(‘T herehaving beenaterrible earthquake, most Σ ιδ ῶ ν ο τ ω π έπ ςτ τα α κ ὸ π λ ν εῖσ τ ο ο ῦ μ εισ of Tyre andSidon collapsed’) seems to have been translated as if it read Σ ῳ κ α κ ω α π τ ε(‘T here ὶΣ τ έπ ιδ α κ ῶ ν α εῖσ τ ι, τ λ π ὰ ρ ύ υἐ νΤ ρ έ ν ο ο τ ά τ β ο υγενομ α λ having beena terrible earthquake inTyre andSidon, verymanybuildings collapsed’). However, the small number of witnesses to this entry (Jerome andthe twoSyriac epitomes) make certainty impossible (see Chapter 5.2.14, above). Chronology: one year late; see 227h, above. 228b/ 15. Persecution. This is anaccurate translation of the entry in Eusebius except for the plural ‘diebus’. Chronology: unchanged. 228c. ‘350 years according to the Antiochenes’. The author of this entry, which is dating thestart of thepersecution according totheeraof Antioch, is very difficult

94

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

to determine. Helm included it in his text, but Fotheringham did not. It does not appear inMSS OM,themostimportant andaccurate witnesses to thetext (Helm is incorrect in marking its omission in MSP), though other authentic marginalia does not appear in these manuscripts as well, so the absence of this note is not as important as it at first seems. It appears in all other manuscripts used by Fotheringham (who consulted more manuscripts than Helm), except FXC (S is missing its left margin, where this should appear, so itsomission here means nothing). However, it does appear inMSST andD,which areclosely related toXC andF respectively, so itsomission is probably just a result ofitshaving beenmissed bythescribes (see pp. xx-xxi of Fotheringham’s edition). In MS P the figure is ‘CCC’, which is clearly wrong. In ALNthe figure is ‘CCCL’andin BQTD it is ‘CCCLI’ (Helm is wrong in citing ‘CCCLII’ forB). Thefigure of 350 is simply counted fromtheprevious note of theAntiochene era, 325 at2 Probus, discussed above (Chapter 3; 223k). Thelatter count of 351, however, is anaccurate dating of thebeginning of thepersecution (era 351 = 1 Oct. 302 to 30 Sept. 303).32 Since a count from the last-mentioned era produces theincorrect figure of 350, Ibelieve that it is probably theresult of readers whocounted and‘corrected’thetext. Noonewould havebothered tocount fromthe notice of the inception of the era in 48 BC (156b); that no one didso is proved by the facts that theincorrect Antiochene erain 223kis unchanged in themanuscripts and that such a count would have produced a total of 352 years because of Eusebius’ extra regnal year at this point. Since later Western scribes could nothave known of theeraof Antioch andthere is noreason fordifferent scribes orreaders to adda I to thefigure, while it is easy to seehowa I c ouldhave beenremoved, thenumber ‘ ’ 351 mustbetheoriginal number. It wastherefore added bysomeone whohadexact ‘’ knowledge of theAntiochene eraof thebeginning of thepersecution. Consequently the original entry must belong to Eusebius, the Antiochene continuator (see Study 2), or Jerome, since all would have been familiar with the era. Since it appears no where else inthetradition of theCanones (this is nota decisive argument) andthere seems no reason whyJerome would have added it, I aminclined to believe that it wasadded by the Antiochene continuator (see Study 2), while acknowledging that perhaps Eusebius or possibly Jerome could have added it. 228d/ 16. Abdication of Diocletian andMaximianus. This is anaccurate translation of Eusebius with theaddition of ‘Nicomediae’and‘Mediolanii’fromtheKG (Eutr. 9.27.2; Epit. de caes. 39.5) andwith the wording ‘purpuram deposuerunt’ taken from theDescriptio (s.a. 304), though having thesame meaning as Eusebius’ Greek. Chronology: unchanged. 228e. Eusebius andMiltiades, bishops of Rome. Even though it hasnoasterisk in Helm’s edition, this entry derives from anepiscopal list usedbyJerome to sup-

32 The Antiochene era is actually a Caesarian era that takes its inception from Caesar’s victory overPompey atthebattle of Pharsalus inJune of 48 BC(Samuel 1972: 247 n.2 andBickerman 1980: 73). InAntioch this erawasshifted backtothenewyearof theyearof thebattle, accord6 n. 8). Thefirst year of theAntiingto theSyro-Macedonian calendar (see Samuel 1972: 245– ochene Era wasthus reckoned to have begun on 1 October 49 BC (see Grumel 1958: 215, 240 andSamuel 1972: 174 n. 1). This back-dating from anevent to the beginning of the year in which it occurred wehave seen above inChapter 2 withrespect toOlympiads andregnal years.

6. Commentary

95

plement Eusebius when the latter’s list ceased with Marcellinus. Jerome’s list has omitted Marcellus, Marcellinus’successor, butassigned theordination of Eusebius to 305, theprobable date of Marcellus’ordination; see Davis 1997: 463– 5. 228f / 17. Accession of Maximinus andSeverus. This entry is anaccurate translation of Eusebius, except that it hasbeen putin thepassive. Jerome seems to have modified thechronology inaccordance withtheKG(cf. Eutropius 9.27.2 and10.2.1), even though Eusebius andtheDescriptio (s.a. 304) both place the abdications and accessions atthesame time. Ontheother hand, theplacing of 3 Persecution against this entry rather than thenext maysimply have been a result of scribal inexactitude in Jerome’s copy of the Canones or sloppiness onJerome’s part while reading the text. 228g 18.Death of Constantius andaccession of Constantine. Jerome hasmade changes andadditions to a generally accurate translation of Eusebius. Heomitted ό δ ω ξ ς(‘gloriously’) andhaschanged theregnal year figure from ‘twelve’to ‘sixἐν teen’to match his changes to the dating of 225gandhis counting of 20 Diocl. as two regnal years. Hehas added ‘in Brittania Eboraci’from the KG (Eutr. 10.1.3). The source of ‘ex concubina Helena procreatus’ is uncertain. Eutropius (10.2.2) says thatConstantine was‘ex obscuriore matrimonio [Constantii] filius’andtheEpitome decaesaribus (41.2) actually names Helena in the same context. There is noother obvious source for this remark andit hardly seems likely that Jerome would have added it himself without a written source. It would seem that Jerome has copied something from the KG that Eutropius modified (i.e. obscurus’ in the sense of d oubtful’, rather than ‘undistinguished’ as translated by‘Bird 1993: 64) andthat the ‘author of theEpitome omitted. Theexpression ‘regnum inuadere’is also harsh and indicative of usurpation: cf. ‘Saturninus ... imperium molitus inuadere’(224c), where a similar phrase is used of a usurper. Rubric / 19. Jerome has added the length of Constantine’s reign, which could obviously not have appeared in the Canones, though Eusebius may have included ‘for twenty years’at theend; wecannot know. Helmputanasterisk beside the IIII’ at the top of the page, but it would seem only to refer to the Persecutionis ann. ’, ‘ ‘ column of figures which hasbeenadded atthetopasa reminder of whatthesecond represents, as is thecase with thenormal regnal year columns. Eusebius’text probably hada similar note at whatever point his figures crossed over to thetopof a new page, so the asterisk is unwarranted. 229a / 22. Accession of Maxentius. Jerome has made several changes to this entry (what follows assumes that the Greek of no. 22 is roughly correct; otherwise his version is identical to Socrates with the exception of the last item). First of all, the entry is rendered in the passive instead of the active. This is normal for such entries in consularia (see, e.g., theDescriptio, passim). Hehasmade explicit what kind of soldiers proclaimed Maxentius (‘praetorianis’), a fact he derived from the KG (Eutr. 10.2.3; Aur. Victor 40.5); made the adjective phrase ‘in Rome’, which α σ ιλ έ α modifies ‘soldiers’, anadverbial phrase modifying the verb; andchanged β (‘imperator’inLatin) to augustus’. Asnoted inChapter 3, above, Jerome hasshiftedEusebius’entries back‘oneyeartoaccommodate theextra regnal yearhecounted within 20 Diocl. Thus events inyears 1 and2 Const. inEusebius endupin thesame

96

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

year in Jerome. This entry has been shifted back one year andplaced before the 4; Aur. Victor 40.5– death of Severus as in the KG (Eutr. 10.2.3– 7; Epit. de caes. 3). The entry should be followed by a (*). 40.2– 229b/ 20. Death of Severus. Nothing remains of Eusebius here; everything derives fromtheKG(Eutr. 10.2.4; Aur.Victor 40.6– 7), though ‘Severus ... interficitur’ mirrors Eusebius’original. Jerome’s chronological changes (see previous entry) result in the agreement of the date of this entry with the date of Severus’death in the Descriptio (s.a. 307), but this could just be coincidence. 229c / 23. Accession of Licinius. Jerome hasagain turned the structure into the passive andhas added ‘Carnunti’from theDescriptio (s.a. 308). Hischoice of vocabulary wasprobably influenced by the KG (Eutr. 10.4.1: ‘a Galerio Licinius imperator est factus’). He has correctly shifted the entry back one year to maintain Eusebius’ chronology, which agrees with the Descriptio. The entry should be followed by a (*).

229d / 21. Death of Maximian. Nothing remains of Eusebius’ original. This 2; Epit. decaes. entry derives entirely fromtheKG(Eutr. 10.3.2; Aur. Victor 40.21– 40.5). Theentry should be followed bya (*). Jerome’s date is a puzzle. Hehasdated it to 308; if hehadfollowed Eusebius heshould have dated it to 307 (1 Const.); and if he hadfollowed theKGit should have been placed before the accession of Licinius (cf. Eutr. 10.3.2 and4.1). It is dated correctly in the Descriptio (s.a. 310). 229e. Quirinus. This entry is Jerome’s ownaddition, from personal knowledge or anunknown source. It should therefore be followed by a *. 229f / 24. Death of Galerius. This is probably an accurate translation of Eusebius. Nothing definite canbe said about thechronology because the chronology of Eusebius is so uncertain at this point, though whatever Eusebius’date was, Jerome does not follow it. The date may derive from the KG, which says that after the accession of Licinius ‘mors Galerii confestim secuta’(Eutr. 10.4.2). Aurelius Victor says, ‘paulo post... consumptus est’(40.9), in reference to other actions undertaken byGalerius. Jerome hasplaced Galerius’death theyear after Licinius’accession. 229g. Silvester, bishop of Rome. This does notderive from Eusebius; see 228e, above. It should, therefore, befollowed bya *. Like Eusebius, Silvester’s ordination has been assigned to the year of his predecessor’s ordination, in this case Miltiades in 310; see 228e, above, andDavis 1997: 462, 465. 229h/ 25. Death of Maximinus. This seems to be a generally accurate translation of Eusebius (though wecannot sayforcertain since Jerome is thechief witness with ν Κ ιλ ικ tothis passage), butwecansaythatJerome hasreplaced Eusebius’ἐ ίᾳ ‘aput Tarsum’from the KG (Eutr. 10.4.4; Aur. Victor 41.1; Epit. de caes. 40.8). He hashadto render thefirst participle asa passive ablative absolute since Latin hasno equivalent to the Greek aorist active, apart from a clause. Punio’(‘punish’) is not ‘), butwecannot be cer(‘prevail over’, ‘capture’ τ έ ω an accurate rendering of κρα tain what Eusebius actually wrote here. Again the chronology is peculiar, since it does not follow any known source, unless Jerome misread the death of Galerius (‘Maximianus iun.’) intheDescriptio (s.a. 311) asthat of Maximinus. TheKGcorrectly put the death of Maximinus after the death of Maxentius (Eutr. 10.4.4: ‘non multo deinceps ...’).

6. Commentary

97

229i. Achillas of Alexandria. Jerome hasadded this from anAlexandrian episcopal list. Although the Antiochene continuation of Eusebius (see Study 2, below) included Alexandrian bishops andJerome seems to have followed it forthebishops of Antioch andJerusalem, it missed Achillas, so this mustderive fromanindependent source. This entry should be followed by a *. 229k/ 26. Defeat of Maxentius. This is anaccurate translation of Eusebius, but Jerome has added ‘iuxta pontem Miluium’from theKG (Eutr. 10.4.3; Aur. Victor 40.23; Epit. de caes. 40.7) or the Descriptio (s.a. 312). Chronology: unchanged. 230a. Battle of Cibalae. This derives from the Descriptio (s.a. 314) andthe KG (Eutr. 10.5; Epit. de caes. 41.5). It should therefore be followed by a *. Jerome has antedated this entry by a year (313 instead of 314). 230b. Macarius of Jerusalem. This derives from the Continuatio Antiochiensis (see Study 2, entry i). It should be followed by a *. The chronology appears to be accurate. 230c/ 27. Constantine restores peace. Jerome hasaltered histranslation, changing Eusebius’ ‘freedom’ to ‘peace’(‘pax’), ‘all Christians’ to ‘us’(‘nostris’), and theentire structure from theactive to thepassive. Chronology: unchanged. 230d. Diocletian’s death. This derives from the KG (Eutr. 9.28; Epit. de caes. 39.5). The chronology derives from theDescriptio (s.a. 316). The text should read ‘in uilla suaSpalato’as in Fotheringham’s edition, not ‘in uillae suae Palatio’as in Helm’s, as is clear fromFotheringham’s apparatus andtheparallel inEutropius, ‘in uilla’. Scaliger noticed this, andalthough he printed the text as it appears in Helm, he realized that it should have been as it is in Fotheringham’s edition: ‘Videtur Spalatus esse nomen uillae illius [sc. Diocletiani] ... Egonondubito esse nomen uillae, in quoobiit Diocletianus’ (Scaliger 1606: 228, fourth part; Scaliger 1658: 249, third part). It is themodern Split (see Burgess 1999). 230e / 28. Three caesars andLactantius. Nothing remains of Eusebius’entry. Thefirst sentence derives fromtheKG(Aur. Victor 41.6; Epit. decaes. 41.4) andits chronology from the Descriptio (s.a. 317). The second half derives from an unknown source that provided Jerome with biographical notices on a number of men well-known fortheir literary endeavours during thereign of Constantine. Lactantius is the first and Ablabius (234c = 337) is the last. This entry should have a (*). 230f / 29. Licinius’persecution. Jerome at first appears to have mistranslated this entry, but what he says (‘Licinius Christianos de palatio suo pellit’) closely ικ ίν ν ιο ]τ ῆ ς ῆ ςοἰκ ία ςα ςτ ὐ τ ο ῦ mirrors whatEusebius says in theHE (10.8.10): [Λ νἀ ὸ π ισ ν ρ ελ ια τ α ν ι. Jerome would seem have replaced the reading of ε ύ Χ π ά ν τ α the Canones with that from the HE, butthere is no evidence that he hadread the latter andthe twosentences are notexactly the same. It cannot have come from a variant manuscript tradition of the Canones, since Jerome’s text was the same as that used by the author the Continuatio Antiochiensis (see Study 2), whose author, as noted above (Chapter 5.2.29), seems to have modelled oneof his entries onthe version of this entry that appears in the two other witnesses to this entry, not the version that appears in Jerome. That would therefore have to be the version that appeared in Jerome’s copy of Eusebius as well. The simple explanation is that it is simple coincidence after conscious change on Jerome’s part. Chronology: unchanged.

98

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

230g/ 30. Basileus martyred. Jerome is the only source for the wording of this entry. Chronology: unchanged. 230h/ 31. Arius. Probably nothing of Eusebius remains, though we cannot tell whatEusebius’original entry actually said. Thereference toAlexander derives from the same episcopal list as Achillas (229i). Therest is Jerome’s owncomposition. It should therefore be followed by a (*). Chronology: unchanged. 231a/ 32. Accession of Constantius II. This is anaccurate translation of Eusebius, though, once again, it hasbeenputinto thepassive. Asnoted above inChapter 5.2.32, two of the entries that belong under 20 Const. seem to have slipped back to 18 Const. in Jerome’s text of Eusebius. The accession is correctly dated to 324 (Julian calendar) bytheDescriptio (s.a. 324.3). 231b/ 33. Death of Licinius. Nothing remains of Eusebius’entry, though his original is reflected by ‘Licinius ... occiditur’. The entry derives entirely from the KG (Eutr. 10.6.1; Epit. de caes. 41.7–8) andthe Descriptio (s.a. 325). Since Eusebius did have an entry on the death of Licinius, this entry should be followed by a (*). Licinius’death is correctly dated bytheDescriptio (s.a. 325). 231c. Nazarius. This derives fromthebiographical collection noted above (230e). 231d. Deaths of Crispus andLicinius II. This derives fromtheKG(Eutr. 10.6.3; Victor 41.11; Epit. decaes. 41.11) andthough thedeath of Crispus is correctly dated in theDescriptio (s.a. 326) it appears a year early here. Licinius II probably died at the same time as his father inearly 325 (Barnes 1982: 44 and45). 231e/ 34. Constantine’s uicennalia. Jerome has modified his translation slightῆ α σ ςβ ιλ ), inconformity with ly,deleting thereference toConstantine’s reign (τ εία ς Latin usage. Hehasalso added thereference to Constantine’s celebrations inRome from the Descriptio (s.a. 326). Although he has been forced to date Constantine’s uicennalia to 326 instead of 325 (see Chapter 3), he knew that they belonged in 325, not 326, since the celebrations in Rome of 326 are said to have taken place in the year following those in Nicomedia, notin thesame year (i.e. 326). 249d. Summary of Roman chronology. Although Helmdoes notplace anasterisk after this entry, it is almost certainly theworkof Jerome. There is noevidence in anyGreek source for this summary andits Romano-centric character is completely foreign to Eusebius’ universalist approach in the Canones, as exemplified by his ownsupputatio (no. 35). The only peculiarity of this note is that it assigns 240 years to the regnal period, even though Jerome modified his text to make it 243 years (88aa, 88b.13, and106c; see Burgess forthcoming). 250 / 35. Supputatio. Jerome has updated all Eusebius’calculations to 378. It is an otherwise accurate translation, except that he has omitted the reference to the contemporaries of Isaiah, the second reference to Jerusalem as the location of the υ ο ῦ δ ιφ ῦ ο ), thesummary of Jewish chronologς Temple, Cecrops’‘double-form’(τ ical calculations based onJubilees, andthefinal reference topeace, which ill-suited 9). his owntimes (see hispreface, 7.8–

Appendix

1: The Witnesses

For the abbreviations, see the bibliography. Citations areinthefollowing order: Jerome, Armenian translation, Chron. 724, PsDionysius; Greek witnesses; Syriac witnesses; Armenian witnesses; Arabic witnesses; comparisons with other works byEusebius. 1. Rubric: Carus, Carinus, and Numerian for two years: Jerome 224.19– 20 (32nd); Armenian 227 (32nd); Chron. 724 99.18/127.18– 19 (32nd); Ps-Dion. 5; Syncellus 471.14–15(32nd); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 282, p.509.14– 8/147.23– 110.27– 15 (3 years; 32nd); Cedrenus 464.6; Nicephorus, Chron. syn. 95.10 (=Anon. Matr. 4); Syn. chron. 223.20; Leo Gramm. 81.6; Chron. 846 146.2– 55.3– 3, 8/189.15–16, 21; Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.9, p. 197/118a.2–7, andChron. tabl., p. 238/116; Sam. An.,

Sum. temp. 40/662.

2. Death of Carus: Jerome 224g(Year 1); Armenian 227 (Year 1); Chron. 724 9/147.26; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 284, p. 510.7 (Year 3); Ps-Dion. 110.28– 12; Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.9, p. 197/118a.7– Nicephorus, Chron. syn. 95.11– 8; Sam. 2 (Year 2). An., Sum. temp. 40/661– 2. Death of Numerian: Jerome 225a(Year 2); Armenian 227 (Year 2); Chron. 30/147.26– 12; Ps-Dion. 110.29– 20/127.11– 7; Nicephorus, Chron. syn. 724 99.19– 13;Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.9, p. 197/118a.9– 95.12– 11; Sam.An.,Sum.temp. 40/661– 2 (Year 2); Moses Khorenats‛i 2.79. 2. Death of Carinus: Jerome 225b(Year 2); Armenian 227 (Year 2); Chron. 724 1/127.12– 8; Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.9, p. 198/ 99.20– 13; Ps-Dion. 110.30– 1/147.27– 2 (Year 2); Moses Khorenats‛i 2.79. 118a.11– 14; Sam. An., Sum. temp. 40/661– 3. Rubric: Diocletian for twenty years: Jerome 225.7– 8 (33rd); Armenian 227; 9 (23rd); Syncellus Chron. 724 99.22/127.14 (33rd); Ps-Dion. 110.31/147.28– 7; Nicephorus, 472.26; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 284, p. 510.18 (33rd); Theophanes 6.4– Chron. syn. 95.14 (=Anon. Matr. 55.8); Syn. chron. 223.21; Leo Gramm. 81.15; 9; Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 202/120a.10–18, and 10/137.8– Chron. 1234 109.9– 7; Sam. An., Sum. temp. 40/661–2; Chron. Se‛ert 9, p. 241; Chron. tabl., p. 238/11 Agapius, Kitab al-‛Unvan 537. 4/127.15– 4. Accession of Maximian: Jerome 225d(Year 2); Chron. 724 99.23– 148.1 (Year 3); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 287, p. 3/147.29– 16 (Year 3); Ps-Dion. 110.32– 511.11–12 (Year 3); Theophanes 6.18–19 (Year 4); Malalas, Chron. 12.38, p. 6 (Year 2 or 4); Chron. 1234 109.10– 306.15–16 (Year 3); Zonaras 12.31, p. 614.3– 11/137.9– 10(Year 3). 9); Armenian 227 5. Destruction of Busiris andCoptos: Jerome 226a(Years 8– 21 (Year 7); Zonaras (Year 5 Cedrenus 6); 9); Theophanes 6.23– 467.19– (Years 7– 18. 12.31, p. 614.16– 7); Armenian 6. Accession of Constantius andGalerius: Jerome 225g(Years 5– 2/148.1– 19 (Year 6/127.17 – Ps-Dion. 9); 111.1 – 724 99.25 – 8); Chron. 227 (Years 7– Theo9); (Year 5 s.a. Pasch. p. 512.4 – 293, Chron. 3 (=Year 9; Constantius only); 99.19/127.11;

100 phanes 7.1– 2 (Year

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

9); Cedrenus 469.20– 2 (Years 9–10); Chron. 1234 109.16–17/

16 (Year 9). 137.14–

7. Marcellinus, 28thbishop of Rome: Jerome 226d(Year 12; 28th); Chron. 724 99.27/127.20 (25th, but comes after 27th); Ps-Dion. 111.3– 5 (=Year 12); 4/148.3– Theophanes 7.7(Year 10); Chron 846 146.31– 2, 147.36– 7/190.13– 15,197.28– 192.1 (=29th); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 204/120c.34– 5 (28th); Sam. An., Sum. temp. 40/661 (Years 13–14; 28th); Chron. Se‛ert 9, p. 244; Agapius, Kitab al- Unvan 537. 8. Capture of Alexandria andits punishment: Jerome 226e (Years ‛13– 14); Ar12); Chron. 724 99.28– 31/127.20– 5 (Year 13); Ps-Dion. 111.5, menian 227 (Years 9– 4 (=Year 12); Theophanes 7.10–13 (Year 10); Cedrenus 470.3– 6, 22– 2/148.5– 20– 5 (Year 10); Zonaras 12.31, p. 614.18– 23; Chron. Mar. 49.7– 7=Mich. Syr., 8/61.5– Chron. 6.10, p. 201/119a.11–8 fb=Chron. Se‛ert 15, p. 257=Agapius, Kitab al-‛ Unvan 538. 9. Zabdas, 37th bishop of Jerusalem: Jerome 226f (Year 15; 37th); Armenian 5 4/148.24– 227 (Year 14; 38th); Chron. 724 99.32/127.26 (37th); Ps-Dion. 111.23– (=Year 15; forthree years); Theophanes 8.22 (Year 13; 29th; fortenyears); Zonaras 12.31, p. 613.7 (‘not long’); Chron. Mar. 48.37/60.25 (for eight years); Chron. 846 11(‘fora short time’); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p.204/120c.36– 7 146.27– 8/190.10– 16; 38th); cf. Eus., HE 7.32.29: died (39th); Sam. An., Sum. temp. 41/663 (Years 15– ‘after not a long time’. 10. Persecution by Veturius: Jerome 227d(Year 16); Armenian 227 (Year 14); 8; Ps-Dion. 111.27– 149.3 (=Year 16);Theo5/127.26– 9/148.28– Chron. 72499.33– 6 (Year 13); Cedrenus 470.14 (Year 13). phanes 8.24– 11. Hermon, 38th bishop of Jerusalem: Jerome 227h(Year 18; 38th); Armenian 227 (Year 16; 39th); Chron. 724 99.36/127.29 (38th); Ps-Dion. 111.24/148.25–6 6; Chron. 846 (=Year 17); Theophanes 13.20 (2 Const.); Chron. Mar. 48.37/60.25– 11/138.15– 12; Chron. 1234 110.10– 16 (39th); Mich. Syr., Chron. 146.28/190.11– 6.10, p. 204/120c.37 (40th); Sam. An., Sum. temp. 41/663 (Year 16; 39th). 12.Tyrannus, 19thbishop of Antioch: Jerome 227i (Year 18; 19th); Chron. 724 5/148.26; Theophanes 6.9–12(=2 Carus; 19th); 100.1/128.1 (19th); Ps-Dion. 111.24– 17; Chron. 1234 109.19/137.17–18 (after Year 9; 4/190.16– Chron. 846 146.33– 20th); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 204/120c.36 (19th); Sam. An., Sum. temp. 41/663 (Year 17; 19th). 13. Peter, 16th bishop of Alexandria: Jerome 227k(Year 19; 16th); Chron. 724 8; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 300, p. 6/148.27– 3 (16th); Ps-Dion. 111.25– 3/128.2– 100.2– 12 514.7– (16th; Year 16; 12 years); Theophanes 7.8 (Year 10; 11 years); Zonaras 3/ 21 (12 years), 31– 5/190.19– 626.1 (11 years); Chron. 846 147.3– 12.34, p. 625.22– 5/137.23– 7 (11years); Chron. 1234 109.24– 191.24– 4; Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 6 (11 years; 16th); Sam. An., Sum. temp. 41/663 (Year 19; 10 years; 202/119c.4– 16th); Agapius, Kitab al-‛Unvan 537 (11 years); cf. Eus., HE 7.32.31 (twelve years intotal = notthree years intotal + ninth year of persecution). 5; Ps-Dion. 5/128.4– 14. Earthquake: Jerome 228a(Year 19); Chron. 724 100.4– 6 (=Year 18). 1/149.3– 111.30– 7/128.6–7 (Year 15. Persecution: Jerome 228b (Year 19); Chron. 724 100.6– 4 (Year 8 (Year 19); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 303, p. 515.1– 3/149.6– 19); Ps-Dion. 111.32– 1(Year 19); Zonaras 12.32, p.617.18 (Year 19); Chron. Mar. 19); Cedrenus 471.20–

Appendix

1:TheWitnesses

101

8/61.26– 62.1 (Year 19); Chron. 1234 109.22– 49.24– 4/137.20– 3 (Year 19); Elias, 17 (Year 19); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 202/119a.4– 8/97.16– Op.chron. 1: 47.27– 2fb (Year 19); Chron. Se‛ert 15, p. 257 (Year 19; lasts eight years)=Agapius, Kitab al-‛Unvan 538 (Year 19; lasts eight years); cf. Eus., HE 8.2.4 (Year 19); Eus., MPal pref. (short recension; Year 19). 15.Beginning of Constantine’s reign: Jerome 228b(Year 19);Anon. Matr. 56.9–

10.

16. Abdication of Diocletian and Maximian: Jerome 228d (Year 201; ‘in the second yearofthepersecution’); Chron. 724 100.7– 10(‘after twoyears of 8/128.8– persecution’); Ps-Dion. 112.27– 5/150.11– 13, 20– 8, 34– 1 (=Year 201); Chron. Pasch. 5 (Year 20); Cedrenus 472.1– 2 (Year 20); Leo Gramm. 82.15–16 s.a. 304, p. 517.1– (Year 20); Socrates, HE 1.2.1; Chron. Mar. 50.7–10/62.19– 22; Mich. Syr., Chron. 5 (Year 20); cf. Eus., HE 8.13.10, 6.10, pp. 202 and203/120a.16–18 and 120b.3– 8.App.2 (after a total of under twoyears of persecution); MPal 3.5; VConst. 1.18.1 (the year after thepersecution begins). 17.Maximinus andSeverus proclaimed caesars byGalerius: Jerome 228f(Year 14 (=Year 201); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 304, p. 517.8– 202); Ps-Dion. 112.28– 9/150.13– 13; Chron. Mar. 50.10– 3=Chron. Se‛ert 12/62.22– 10 (Year 20); Cedrenus 473.9– 15, p. 258=Agapius, Kitab al-‛Unvan 539. 18. Death of Constantius: Jerome 228g(Year 202; 16years); Chron. 724 100.9– 11 (12 years); Ps-Dion. 111.2 and 113.1– 3 (=Year 2/148.3 and 150.21– 10/128.10– 202; 12 years); Excerpt. Lat. barb. 48b.14, p. 224 (12 years); Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 6 (Year 20; 13years); 305, p. 518.16–17(Year 2); and306, pp.518.22– 304, p. 517.5– 7 (Year 20; 11 years); Anon. Matr. 519.1 (Year 2; 13 years); Theophanes 10.26– 56.10–11; Cedrenus 472.13–14 (13 years as caesar, 2 years as augustus); Leo Gramm. 83.10 (13 years as caesar, 2 years as augustus); Zonaras 12.33, p. 622.16– 63.4 (12 years, 3 years withConstan20/62.29– 18 (11 years); Chron. Mar. 50.17– 7 (12 years, 3 years with Constantine); Mich. 13/191.4– tine); Chron. 846 147.11– 3 (12 years, 7 years alone [p. 202/ 4; 121b. 2– Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 205/121c.3– 6 (3 years with Constantine [from eighth year, p. 31]), 7.1, p. 239/121a.4– 120a.22– 31]); Chron. Se‛ert 15, p. 258 (12 years, 3 years with Constantine). 202/120a.28– 229.1 (34th); Chron. 724 19.Rubric: Accession of Constantine: Jerome 228.26– 5; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 304, 12 (34th); Ps-Dion. 113.2– 3/150.23– 100.11–12/128.11– 7; Sam. An., Sum. temp. 41/663– 4. p. 517.6– 20. Death of Severus: Jerome 229b(Year 1= Year 1); Chron. 724 100.13/128.13; 9/154.9– 10 (=Year 3); Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 304, p. 517.13, and Ps-Dion. 115.28– 305, p. 518.16–17 (Year 2); Theophanes 12.12–13 (Year 1); Cedrenus 474.3 (Year 6 (‘whenhehadreigned foroneyear’)=Mich. Syr., 1); Chron. Mar. 50.13–14/62.25– 8 (‘for one year’)=Chron. Seen 15, p. 258 (‘after a Chron. 6.10, p. 202/120a.7– reign of oneyear’)=Agapius, Kitab al-‛Unvan 539 (‘after a reign of oneyear’). 21. Death of Maximian: Jerome 229d(Year 2 = Year 3); Ps-Dion. 115.26/154.7– 8 (= Year 2); cf. Eusebius, HE 8.13.15. 8 (=Year 2); Chron. 846 147.14–15/191.7– 22. Proclamation of Maxentius: Jerome 229a (Year 1 = Year 2); Ps-Dion. 11,and306,p.519.1– 115.26– 7/154.8 (=Year 2); Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 304,p.517.10– 4 (Year 1)andCedrenus 473.13– 2 (Year 2); Socrates, HE 1.2.1=Theophanes 12.3– 14 (20–21=Theophanes) (Year 1 or before); cf. Eusebius, HE 8.14.1.

102

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

23. Proclamation of Licinius: Jerome 229c (Year 2 = Year 3); Ps-Dion. 115.31– 13 (= Year 3); Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 304, p. 517.14 (=Year 3), and307, p. 2/154.12– 7 (Year 3); cf. Eusebius, HE 8.13.14. 519.6– 24. Death of Galerius: Jerome 229f (Year 3 = Year 4); ?Ps-Dion. 115.28– 9/ 10 (‘Severus’; =Year 3)?; Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 304, p. 517.13–14 (16 years; = 154.9– Year 3); 305, p. 518.18–19 (Year 9); 307, p. 519.5 (14 years; Year 3); 312, p. 522.8– 6 (Year 11); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p.202/120a.4– 12(Year 7);and316, p. 523.5– 5 (‘after having reigned for three years’); cf. Eusebius, HE 8.16–17 (after eighth year of persecution). 25. Maximinus’persecution of Christians andhisdeath: Jerome 229h(Year 5 = Year 6); Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 305, p. 518.18–19 (Year 9), and [311], p. 521.2– 4 (Year 6; ‘having ruled for nine years’); Theophanes 14.33– 4 (Year 9); Cedrenus 11); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 202/120a.19– 477.3–13 (Years 9– 20; cf. Eus. HE 9.10. 26. Maxentius’ defeat at the Milvian Bridge: Jerome 229k (Year 6 = Year 7); Chron. 724 100.13/128.13; Ps-Dion. 115.27/154.8 (emperor for six years’); Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 304, p. 517.17–19; 305, p. 518.17–18 (Year 7); and‘[311], pp.520.21– 4 (Year 7); Socrates, HE 521.2 (Year 6; emperor for six years); Cedrenus 475.3– 16 (Year 7); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6/98.13– 1.2.7 (Year 7); Elias, Op. chron. 1: 48.4– 6 (‘after six years’) and7.1, pp.239 and240/122a.12–14 and 6.10, p. 202/120a.5– 6 (Year 7); Agapius, Kitab al122a.10–6 fb; Chron. Se‛ert 15, pp. 262 (?), 265– Unvan 540 (Year 7); cf. Eusebius, HE 9.9. ‛ 27. Constantine grants peace to Christians: Jerome 230c (Year 8); Chron. 724 3 (=Year 8); Ps-Dion. 117.25– 100.14 and 115.24/128.14 and 149.22– 7/156.29– 157.1 (Year 8); Mich. Syr., Chron. Chron. tabl., p. 238/121 (10 Persecution = 7 Const.: see note 10); cf. Eusebius, HE 8.15.1, 16.1. 28. Proclamation of Constantine II: Jerome 230e (Year 11 = Year 12); Chron. 4 (Year 11); Elias, Op. Chron. 724 100.18/128.18; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 316, p. 523.3– 4 (=Year 10). 1:48.11–12/99.3– 29. Licinius launches persecution of Christians: Jerome 230f (Year 14 = Year 1 (Year 15); 14 (=Year 13); Theophanes 16.30– 15); Ps-Dion. 119.23– 4/159.12– Cedrenus 495.12–13 (Years 14 and 15); cf. Eus., HE 10.8.10. 30. Martyrdom ofBasileus ofAmaseia: Jerome 230g(Year 14= Year 15); Theophanes 17.2– 3 (Year 15); cf. Eus., HE 10.8.15; VConst. 2.1.2, 2. 11 (Year 16); 31. Arius: Jerome 230h (Year 15 = Year 16); Theophanes 17.8– 18); ?Chron. 846 148.10– 11/192.11– 17(Years 16– Cedrenus 495.16– 13?; Sam.An., 15). 16/ Brosset: Years 14– Sum. temp. 42/665 (Years 15– 32. Accession of Constantius: Jerome 231a(Year 17= Year 18); Chron. Pasch. 2 (Year 17); Cedrenus 495.21– 10 (Year 20); Theophanes 17.21– s.a. 325, p. 525.9– 16/99.11– 18); Elias, Op.chron. 1:48.15– 2 (Years 16– 12 (=Year 20). 7/ 33. Death of Licinius: Jerome 231b (Year 17 = Year 18); Ps-Dion. 119.26– 159.15–17 (=Year 20); Chron. Pasch. s.aa. 304, p. 517.20–1, and324, p. 524.13–16 20); (Year 19); Theophanes 20.5– 11 (Year 19); Cedrenus 497.3–13 (Years 19– 9 (seventeen years); Mich. Syr., Chron. 6.10, p. 202/ 6/191.8– Chron. 846 147.15– 9 (seventeen years). 120a.8–

Appendix

1: The Witnesses

103

34. Vicennalia of Constantine in Nicomedia: Jerome 231e (Year 20); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 325, p. 525.11 (Year 20); Theophanes 21.11–12 (Year 20). 101.3/128.22– 35.Supputatio: Jerome 250; Chron. 724 100.22– 129.13; Ps-Dion. 172.11 (cf. Chron. Pasch. s.a. 3 and 127.33–128.7/159.20–6 and 171.20– 119.30– 527.5). 325, pp.526.5–

Appendix

2: The Calendars of Josephus

Oneof the most vexed problems of historiographical chronography is the question of the calendar or calendars used by Josephus in his Jewish War. This is not the place torehearse all thearguments andcite chapter andverse, butI dowishto adda fewobservations in defence of theposition that I have taken above in Chapter 2, n. 4, namely that the Syro-Macedonian calendar used by Josephus wasthat of Tyre. This viewwasfirst propounded byNiese (1893: 197– 208, esp. 202– 203), butmany have denied it infavour of oneof twoother possibilities. Twoexamples will suffice. 9) state that Josephus for the most part Schürer, Vermes, and Millar (1973: 596– used the Jewish lunar calendar, which hadmonths of twenty-nine andthirty days 4, 595– 6), but that he used the names of the more familiar Macedonian (pp. 590– months whenreferring to their Jewish counterparts, for instance, writing Xanthicos for Nisan. They also admit that Josephus usedtheRoman calendar forcertain matters (p.597), though thesole example they give doesnotindicate theuseof a Roman 7), following a long tradition calendar. Onthe other hand, John Nicols (1978: 44– going back to Joseph Scaliger, claims that Josephus usedtheRoman (Julian) calendar but simply substituted the Macedonian names for those of the Julian months, e.g. writing Xanthicos for April. The calendar of Antioch was an unaltered Julian calendar, only withMacedonian month names, andNicols later claims that Josephus actually consciously converted Julian month dates into thecalendar of Antioch, ‘the administrative capital of the area’(p. 55). Nicols presents the reader with a table showing that Josephus’ dates when equated with the Julian calendar differ less in comparison with an unnamed ‘lunisolar’ calendar than do his dates when equated with the Tyrian calendar.1 Such a conclusion obviously proves nothing as to which system Josephus actually used. The chief problem for scholars would appear to be that Josephus used all three systems, Macedonian, Jewish, andRoman, butfor the latter twosimply substituted the names of the Macedonian months that were most familiar to him and to his readers, instead of going through the tedious andcomplicated process of working outtheexact equivalents for all hisdates in a single system. First of all, there canbe nodoubt that heusedJewish months withMacedonian names; seeNiese 1893: 199– 6. A list of certain synchronisms is given bySchürer, Vermes, andMillar 201, 205– (1973: 596), e.g., BJ 5.99, where 14Xanthicos is equated with 14Nisan for thedate of Passover, andBJ 6.220 and250, where Josephus’date of the firing of the gates of the Temple, late on 8 Loös, is recorded in Rabbinic tradition as 9 Ab(which began at sunset ontheeighth; forthis, seeSchürer, Vermes, andMillar 1973: 506 n. 115).

1

5 is that this lunisolar calendar is the original Seleucid calendar (on The implication of pp.44– 45; Schürer, Vermes, andMillar 1973: 5; Samuel 1972: 139– which, see Bickerman 1980: 24– 2.), andmathematical calculations on 9 andStudy 2, App.2, 1.1.1– 90; Meimaris 1992: 38– 588– thephases of themoonshowthat it is, though Nicols admits that ‘itcannot bedemonstrated that anyonedate wasbased onthis system’(p.45).

Appendix

2: TheCalendars of Josephus

105

As well, in AJ 8.61 he indicates that Xanthicos/Nisan wasthe first month of the year, as it wasin theJewish calendar. That heusedJulian dates derived from his Roman sources andsimply equated themwithMacedonian months is demonstrated, forinstance, bytheaccount of Cestius Gallus’assault onandflight fromJerusalem inBook Twoof theBJ. Cestius led his forces into Jerusalem on 30 Hyperberetaios (2.528). Heassaulted the city for five days andretreated onthesixth day(535, 540). Hewasin retreat for four more days (he spent onenight at Scopus, twoat Gabao, andoneat Beth-horon) until he wasdefeated on8 Dios (542, 545, 547, 550, 552– 5). This chronology only works if Hyperberetaios hasthirty-one days. It hadthirty intheTyrian calendar andnomonth in the Jewish calendar hadmore than thirty days. The Julian equivalent of Hyperberetaios is October, which does have thirty-one days. The account of Cestius is told completely fromtheRoman perspective andprobably derived froma Roman source. Schürer, Vermes, andMillar (1973: 599 n. 29) try to claim that Josephus counted one day twice with the result that Hyperberetaios has only thirty days andcan therefore be a Jewish month (but then, of course, it could beTyrian aswell), butthedays canonly be counted as I have indicated above. That Josephus also useda Macedonian calendar andthat that calendar wasTyrian is also simple to demonstrate. Above it wasnoted that Josephus indicated that Xanthicos wasthe first month of the year, but in AJ 1.80 he indicates that Hyperberetaios wasthefirst month of theyear, asit is in manyMacedonian calendars (see Chapter 2, n. 4, above). At BJ 4.654 he says that Vitellius, whowe know died on 20 December, died on 3 Apellaios. This synchronism occurs only in the Tyrian calendar. AtBJ 6.374 and392 he says that work that extended from 20 Loös to 7 Gorpiaios took eighteen days. This is only possible if Loös hasthirty days, as it has in the Tyrian calendar. Since Loös is theequivalent of August, thedate cannot beJulian (it could be Jewish). A more complicated example appears in Book Three andrelates tothesiege of Jotapata. Vespasian andthearmyarrived andspent fourdaysimproving the road into the city. On the fifth day, which was 21 Artemisios, Josephus arrived in the city. Vespasian sent some troops ahead that dayto surround the city andprevent Josephus from escaping. HeandtheRoman army arrived late the next day and attacked on the following day (3.142, 144, 145, 150). The Romans finally took the city on 1 Panemos after a siege of forty-seven days (3.316 and339). Assuming months of a minimum of twenty-nine daysinlength (toaccount forpossible Jewish months) we get nine days from the twenty-first to the endof Artemisios; twenty-nine days for Daisios, thenext month; andonedayfor Panemos, for a total of thirty-nine days. Even extending Artemisios andDaisios to thirty-one days each weonly get a siege of forty-three days. Something seems to be wrong andyet the manuscript readings arecertain (see thepuzzled notes ofPelletier, p.233, andThackeray, p. 619, intheBudé andLoeb editions, respectively). Thefigure of forty-seven days, however, is very important forJosephus, as helater informs us(3.406). After his capture he wasbrought before Vespasian, whomheimpressed with his gift of prophecy, claiming that he hadforetold that the siege would last forty-seven days. 408). Josephus was Vespasian checks anddiscovers that heis telling thetruth (399– notso foolish as to claim in print that he wasa prophet andthen include the proof that hewaslying in the same book. Thefigures hegives in Book Three mustaddup

106

1. The Chronici canones of Eusebius

to forty-seven. Nowif Josephus really did prophesy that the siege would last fortyseven days hemayhave needed to massage thetruth slightly if it turned outthat he waswrong. This is whyI believe that he includes the details of the four days of road building andtroop movement before the actual siege. Four days of road building, then eleven days in a thirty-one day Artemisios (from the twenty-first), a thirty-one day Daisios, andthe first day of Panemos provide the requisite forty-seven days. This must be what Josephus hadin mind. It cannot be fortuitous that the figures workoutexactly inthis manner. Artemisios andDaisios areMayandJune, months of thirty-one andthirty days in the Julian calendar, butboth hadthirty-one days in the Tyrian calendar. Since Josephus himself wasinvolved in this siege he uses the dates that were most familiar to him, those of the Macedonian calendar. This conclusion, that Josephus used a random mix of calendars is what one would expect, given themixof three different cultures inPalestine atthetime, butit makes the task for the modern historian of determining accurate chronology very difficult if not impossible.

Appendix

3:

Imperial Reigns in Eusebius, Theophilus, Clement, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and the Chronica urbis Romae Emperor

Eusebius

Theophilus

Clement

Hippolytus

Tertullian

Chron. urbis Romae

Caesar

4(3)* y, 7 m

3 y, 4(7)** m, 6 d

3 y, 4 m, 6 d

xx

xx

3 y, 7 m, 6 d

Augustus

56 y, 6 m

56 y, 4 m, 1 d

46 y, 4 m, 1 d

57 y

56 y

56 y, 4 m, 1 d

Tiberius

23 y

22 y (6 m,26 d)

26 y, 6 m, 19 d

22 y, 7 m,22 d

22 y, 7 m, 28 d

22 y, 7 m, 28 d

Gaius

3 y, 10 m

3 y, 8(10) m

3 y, 10 m, 8 d

3 y, 9 m

3 y, 8 m, 13 d

3 y, 8 m, 12 d

Claudius

13 y, 8 m, 28 d

23(13) y, 8 m, 20(24) d

13 y, 8 m, 28 d

13 y, 1 m, 28 d

13 y, 7 m, 20 d

13 y, 8 m, 27 d

Nero

13 y, 7 m, 28 d

13 y, 6(7) m, 28(27) d

13 y, 8 m, 28 d

13 y, 8 m, 28 d

11 y, 9 m, 13 d

14 y, 5 m, 28 d

Galba

7 m†

7 m, 6 d

7 m, 6 d

5 m, 26 d

7 m, 6 d

8 m, 12 d

Otho

3 m†

3 m, 5 d

5 m, 1 d

8 m, 12 d

3 m, 5 d

90 d

Vitellius

6 m†

8 m, 2 d

7 m, 1 d

9 m, 15 d

8 m, 27 d

8 m, 11 d

Vespasian

9 y, 11 m, 22 d

9 y, 11 m,22 d

11y, 11 m,22 d

xx

12 y

12 y, 8 m, 28 d

2 y, 2 m

3 y, 2 m, 2 d

Titus

2 y, 2 m

2 y, 22 d (2 m,20 d)

Domitian

15 y, 5 m

15y, 5 m, 6 d (0 m, 5 d)

15y, 8 m,5 d

xx

17 y, 5 m, 5 d

Nerva

1 y, 4 m

1 y, 4 m, 10 d

xx

5 y, 4 m, 1 d

Trajan

19 y, 6 m

19 y, 6 m, 16(14) d

1 y, 4 m, 10 d 19 y, 7 m, 15d

17 y, 8 m, 6 d

19 y, 4 m, 27 d

Hadrian

21 y

20 y, 10 m,28 d

20 y, 10 m, 28 d

20 y, 10 m,28 d

20 y, 10 m, 14 d

Antoninus

22 y, 3 m

22 y, 7 m,6(26) d

22 y, 3 m, 7 d

--, 8 m,22 d

22 y, 8 m, 28 d

L. Verus

9y

M. Aurelius

19 y, 1 m

7 y, 8 m, 12 d 19 y, 10 d

19 y, 11 d

19 y, 5 m, 12 d

xx ----- -

18 y, 11 m, 14 d

Emperor

Eusebius

Commodus

13 y

Theophilus

Tertullian

Chron. urbis Romae of1.Eusebius nicicanones The Chro 108

Clement

Hippolytus

12 y, 9 m, 14 d

12 y, 8 m, 24 d

16 y, 8 m, 12 d

Pertinax

6m

7m

75 d

Julianus

x

2 m,7 d

65 d

Severus

18 y

14 y

17 y, 11 m, 28 d

Geta

x

xx

10 m, 12 d

Caracalla

7y

6 y, 9 m, 2 d

6 y, 2 m, 15 d

Macrinus

1y

1 y, 2 m, 6 d

1 y, 4 m, 2 d

Elagabalus

4y

3 y, 8 m, 28 d

6 y, 8 m, 18d

Alexander

13 y

13 y, 9 d

13 y, 8 m, 9 d

Eusebius

Chron. urb. Romae

Maximinus

3y

3 y, 4 m, 2 d

TwoGordiani

xx

20 d

xx

99 d

Gordianus

6y

5 y, 5 m, 5 d

Philip

7y

5 y, 5 m,29 d

Decius

1 y, 3 m

1 y, 11 m, 18 d

Pupienus

andBalbinus

2 y, 4 m

2 y, 4 m, 9 d

Aemilianus

xx

88 d

Valerian andGallienus

15 y

14 y, 4 m,28 d

Claudius

1 y, 9 m

1 y, 4 m, 14 d

Quintillus

xx

77 d

Gallus

andVolusianus

Eusebius

Chron. urb. Romae

Aurelian

5 y, 6 m

5 y, 4 m, 20 d

Tacitus

6m

8 m, 12 d

Florianus

88 d †

88 d

Probus

6 y, 4 m

6 y, 2 m, 12 d

10 m, 5 d

Carus Carinus

2 y, 11 m, 2 d

andNumerian

Carus, Carinus, Numerian

2y

Diocletian (and Maximian)

20 y

21 y, 11 m, 12 d

Constantius (and Galerius)

12 y

16 y, 8 m, 12 d

Severus

x

3 y, 4 m, 15 d

Maxentius

x

6y

Maximinus

x

9 y, 8 m, 6 d

Licinius

x

15 y, 4 m, 16 d

109 Imperial Reigns 3:

KEY Theophilus, AdAutolycum 3.27

* see Chapter 3, n. 1.

Clement, Stromata 1.21.144.4

**

40 78, pp. 139– Hippolytus, Chron. §§757– 8, Mommsen) 98, pp. 137– (= §§378–

† Eusebius does nottreat these emperors aslegitimate, i.e. they donothave marginal regnal years andare notenumerated (see Chapter 2).

Tertullian, Aduersus ludaeos 8.10,

8 Chronica urbis Romae, pp. 145–

16

figures

in brackets areemendations byGrant, which produce thecorrect figures.

f igure is missing from text

-- emperor notmentioned xx

x

regnal years

notgiven

Appendix

STUDY 2

The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii: A Chronicle of Antioch andtheRoman Near East during the Reigns of Constantine andConstantius II, 350 AD 325–

1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction Although chronographic writing of the Classical period wasa Greek invention and Eusebius of Caesarea’s Chronici canones wasa workthat served to inspire thelater andprolific Latin andSyriac traditions, it is indeed a strange quirk of fate that, while manyearly examples of these Latin andSyriac chronicles still exist –indeed chronicles wentontobecome thedominant formof historiography inthewestern Middle Ages –the same cannot be said for their Greek counterparts, including, andespecially, the Canones itself. Jerome translated andcontinued the Canones in 380– 1, andover the next one hundred andtwenty-five years or so his chronicle inspired manyimmediate continuators, of which theworks of Prosper, theanonymous Gallic chroniclers of 452 and511, Hydatius, Cassiodorus, andMarcellinus comes survive complete, along withJerome’s owntranslation andcontinuation.1 IntheLevant and the Syriac-speaking areas of theempire andbeyond, the Canones waswell-known andprompted many compilations andcontinuations that still survive, that of Jacob of Edessa being perhaps the best known, though nocomplete Syriac translation of the Canones survives, only epitomes of the original.2 By contrast, nothing original survives of the Canones itself, or of the works of the two famous early fifth-century continuators andmodifiers of Eusebius, Panodorus andAnnianus.3 In fact, nothing even remotely similar to Eusebius’pioneering work survives in Greek earlier than the Chronicon Paschale, which waswritten inc. 630, andit washeavily influenced by consularia, a Latin historical genre that came to prominence in the late fourth century, inspired by early imperial fasti andcalendars.4 After that, it is the ninth century before weagain can find similar chronicle-type works in Greek, andeven they are really quite different from Eusebius’ pioneering compilation.5 For Eusebius, all that we are left with is a variety of witnesses who utilized the Canones

1

2

3 4

5

For Jerome andthese later chroniclers, see, for example, Holder-Egger 1875; Schöne 1900; 5; Croke 1978 and 1995; Markus 1986; Burgess 1989; Muhlberger 1990; BurKelly 1975: 71– 33, 95, 623– gess 1993a: 3– 10; Donalson 1996: 1– 38; Humphries 1996; Inglebert 1996: 205– 5; andBurgess forthcoming. 644– xxxv. For Eusebius in For a brief description of Syriac chronography, see Palmer 1993: xxiv– Syriac, see vonGutschmid 1886 andKeseling 1927. 1. For Panodorus, the better known For Panodorus andAnnianus, see Krumbacher 1897: 340– 35. 204; Adler 1989: 72–105; andRE 18.3: 632– of the two, see Gelzer 1885, 2: 189– The Greek Fasti Berolinenses, Fasti Goleniščevenses, andBarbarus Scaligeri are more consularia thanchronicles andsoI donotconsider themhere. Onthedifferences between consularia 9, andfor consularia in general, see Burgess 1993a: andchronicles, see Burgess 1993a: 178– 86 andCroke 1990a. 179– That is, theworks of Syncellus andTheophanes. Forearly Byzantine historiography, see Mango 1988/89; Croke 1990b; Scott 1990: 38– 43; Whitby 1992; and, with special reference to Theophanes, Mango andScott 1997: lii-lv.

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

114 either

in its original

format

or in a modified version, twoSyriac epitomes, andtwo

more orless complete translations, that of Jerome inLatin andoneinArmenian.6 Of the imitators andcontinuators of Eusebius, apart from the above-mentioned Panodorus andAnnianus, we know almost nothing.7 There must have been many other

chronicle writers in the first centuries after the appearance of Eusebius’ Canones, buttheir names andtheir works have been lost to us. But perhaps notcompletely. From the surviving texts of Jerome, Theophanes, Michael the Syrian, andthe anonymous authors of the Chronicon miscellaneum ad annum Domini 724 pertinens andthe Chronicon Paschale, as well as other Greek, Syriac, andArabic chroniclers, anotherwise unattested chronicle canberecognized andreconstructed. The discovery andidentification of this lost work, first suspected by J. J. Scaliger in 1606, first analysed by Pierre Batiffol in 1895, and partially reconstructed by Joseph Bidez in 1913 (see n. 24, below), sheds new light on the almost one-hundred-year gapinthehistory of Eusebius’Chronici canones between its composition in the early fourth century andthe early-fifth-century chroniclers Panodorus andAnnianus, andit provides uswith animportant andvaluable source for thehistory of theeastern empire in thesecond quarter of thefourth century, the years immediately before thebeginning of the surviving books of Ammianus Marcellinus. This chronicle does notsurvive inanymanuscript orpapyrus, however; the keythat unlocks theabove-mentioned sources andallows thereconstruction of this lost work is Quellenforschung.

1.2. Quellenforschung and the Recovery of the Text Source criticism, ortousethemore common German term for it, Quellenforschung, is anoften neglected andsomewhat mistrusted tool of theancient historian. Developed by the Germans during the nineteenth century, most notably andsuccessfully asa means of uncovering thesources usedbythecompiler of thePentateuch andthe authors of the Synoptic Gospels, it never established a solid groundwork of rules andparameters that kept it outof thehands of historians andanalysts whomadetoo many fabulous claims for it andits results, often on very thin evidence. Detailed attention is rarely devoted to it today as a discipline andhistorians are sometimes

6 7

See Chapter 1 of Study 1. TheSyriac chronicle attributed toDionysius of Tel-Mahre (Ps-Dion.) is a witness toananonymous continuation of the Canones to the twenty-eighth year of Constantine (=AD 333; pp. 3 and 127.33–128.7/159.20–6 and171.20–172.11). See Witakowski 1987: 131andhis 119.30– 6 and191. FromElias of Nisibis (Op. chron. 1: 8– puzzled comments inWitakowski 1996: 185– 17/99.12– 99.23 and2: 111.13– 17), Chron. 846 (124.35 and148.27/159.22 48 passim/17.17– 4 and18.3/ 4), andChron. 1234 (17.23– 9/741– and193.5), Michael the Syrian (Chron. 427– 26.25 and27.8), among others (on all of whom, see below, n. 18), weknow of a Justinianic continuator named Andronicus, whoreworked Eusebius andhischronology andcontinued his work apparently to 337 (a most peculiar date for a supposed Justinianic continuator). Diodorus 390) also composed a chronicle inwhich herevealed andcorrected thechronoofTarsus (c. 375– 12; 12/99.6– 20 and2: 111.7– 18/14.16– logical errors of Eusebius (Elias, Op.chron. 1: 6.15– ιό ρ δ ο ω ). Suda, Δ 1149, s.v. Δ ς

1.Introduction

115

openly contemptuous of it. Without it, however, someof themostimportant discoveries in Late Roman history would never have been made, mostnotably theKaisergeschichte, and analysis of so complicated a work as the Historia Augusta, for example, could never have been undertaken. Its importance in other areas of ancient history, mostnotably thesources forthestudy of Alexander theGreat andthehistory of Livy, cannot be overlooked either. Quellenforschung is one of the most valuabletools theancient historian andhistoriographer possess, andit mustbeemployed if weare to advance ourunderstanding of the past, but it must be employed with precision andcare.8 Jerome’s Latin translation of the Chronici canones offers an interesting test case for thevalue of Quellenforschung. Jerome says in his preface that henotonly translated Eusebius’Greek text butalso added muchextra material toit from T ranquillus’andcertain other Latin historians (Helm, 6.8– 7.3; text andtranslation ‘above in Study 1,Chapter 1.1). Using theexisting epitomes andwitnesses, andtheArmenian translation, it is usually a difficult andlaborious task to work out exactly what parts of Jerome’s work derive from Eusebius, though it canbe accomplished.9 Just as Jerome indicates, however, there is indeed much in his chronicle that does not derive fromEusebius andsince somuchof it is unique (either incontent orchronology) anyhistorian whouses Jerome is faced with the necessity of determining his sources. T ranquillus’ is a reference to Suetonius, andthe content of the chronicle ‘ he is referring to thedeuiris illustribus, notthede uita caesarum. It is the shows that identity of the ‘ceteri inlustres historici’, however, that tantalizes, especially for the later parts of hischronicle.10 Oneof thehistorians that hasbeen identified bymodernhistorians as a major source for Jerome is Eutropius, butthis has proved to be incorrect andit hasbeenconclusively demonstrated that this source wasnotEutropius, butEutropius’source, the Kaisergeschichte.11 As is so often the case, it is the

8 The editor of a recent book states, T he word Quellenforschung tends nowto be used pejora‘ of searching forsources ... there is nothing wrong with tively torefer to themechanical method 9 n. 20). The source-analysis per se, provided that it is done intelligently ...’(Powell 1995: 8– implication, of course, is that it usually is not, which is sadly true. Theworst modern examples of Quellenforschung are to found amongst the recent French andGerman scholars whohave claimed thehistory of Nicomachus Flavianus asthesource forvirtually every secular history of the second half of the fourth century in both Latin andGreek (e.g. Ammianus, theEpitome de caesaribus, theHistoria Augusta, Peter thepatrician, theAnonymus post Dionem, Eunapius (= Zosimus), andZonaras, andanearlier first edition hasbeenpostulated toaccomodate Eutropius andJerome as well), even though this history is lost andweknowlittle more about it than its 8 for anearly attempt to correct this mistaken hypothesis). Onthe title (see Barnes 1976: 267– other hand, seetheremarks andmethod of probably themostcareful practitioner of Quellenforschung today, T. D. Barnes 1978b. 9 See Study 1, Chapter 6.2 for anexample. Anexample of the difficulty in separating Jerome from Eusebius is Brugnoli 1995, whomakes enough errors in his attempt to isolate Jerome’s contributions thathisworkcannot beusedwithanyconfidence. Fora short review of this work, seeBurgess 1998. 10 For Jerome’s use of Suetonius andfor the other authors that Jerome excerpted for the earlier parts of the chronicle, see Helm 1929; Brugnoli 1989; Brugnoli 1995: xxii-xl; andBurgess forthcoming.

11 See Helm 1927 andBurgess 1995b.

116

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

common selection andordering of material, thecommon wording andphrasing, and the common errors that Jerome shares with other existing sources that reveal the presence of this lost source. Such is thecase, too, after theconclusion of Eusebius’text in 325, for a search for Jerome’s sources soon reveals that Jerome shares many common entries with Theophanes, theearly ninth-century chronicler whowrote a chronographic history inGreek incontinuation of Georgius Syncellus fromthereign of Diocletian to813.12 For the first part of his chronicle Theophanes used a variety of sources, many of which donotsurvive today, chiefly a compendium that wasbased upontheHistoria tripartita andHistoria ecclesiastica of Theodorus Lector –the first of which combined epitomes of theecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, andTheodoret –andtheHistoria ecclesiastica of Gelasius of Caesarea.13 For thereigns of Diocletian and Constantine other important sources include a list of Roman emperors, popes, patriarchs, Persian kings, andArab caliphs; a short work by Alexander the monk on the discovery of the true cross; Eusebius’ Chronici canones; andEutropius.14 The first place where Jerome andTheophanes agree in content andchronology after the conclusion of Eusebius’ Canones in 325 is Constantine’s refounding 4). Their common material of Drepana andhisrenaming it Helenopolis (231h; 28.3– ceases with the notice of a solar eclipse that appeared in 346, twenty years later (236k; 38.12–13).15 Apart from these shared entries there is no indication that Theophanes was copying Jerome, andin the shared entries Theophanes usually provides more information thanJerome, sohecannot havecopied Jerome. Bothauthors must therefore be sharing a common now-lost source. Comparison of the common material in Jerome and Theophanes with other sources soonreveals a most interesting andimportant parallel intheso-called Chronicon miscellaneum ad annum Domini 724 pertinens (often referred to as the Liber Calipharum), an anonymous Syriac chronicle that wasoriginally compiled in 640, apparently by a priest named Thomas, from a variety of earlier chronicles, chiefly

47; Hunger 1978: 334– 5, see Krumbacher 1897: 342– 12 ForTheophanes, whowaswriting 813– 2; andMango andScott 1997: xliii-lxiii. Jerome also parallels 39; QGBno.203; Scott 1990: 41– 24, butCedrenus is simply copying Theophanes. Cedrenus, pp.517– 6; and 2, 255– 13 See, for example, Krumbacher 1897: 343; Hunger 1978: 337; Jeffreys 1990: 41– lxxvi (however, their item (d) didnotexist, as weshall see). For Mango andScott 1997: lxxv– xvii andNautin 1994. Theodorus’Historia tripartita, see Hansen 1995: xi– 13, 14 Theophanes’useof Eutropius strangely ceases with theparallel to 10.3 (= AD310; p. 11.9– lxxxi, s.a. 305). For Theophanes’ sources for this period, see Mango and Scott 1997: lxxiv– lxxxvii, andthecommentary for theearly part of thechronicle. lxxxiv– 15 Scaliger noted andcommented onthefollowing parallels between Jerome andCedrenus (see n. 12) in his Thesaurus temporum: the construction of the Golden Church, Constantine’s edict ordering thedestruction of thetemples, Calocaerus, theearthquakes inNeocaesarea andDyrrachium, the rebuilding of the port in Seleucia, andthe eclipse (on all these, see below). He believed that a Greek source laybehind Jerome’s entries andeven attempted to reconstruct it. Healso commented ontheparallel between Jerome andthe Chron. Pasch. with regard to the siege of Nisibis (see below). Therefoundation ofDrepana hebelieved tohavebeencopied from Jerome bySocrates andfrom Socrates byTheophanes, whence Cedrenus (Scaliger 1606: 229– 2, third part). 31, fourth part; Scaliger 1658: 250–

1.Introduction

117

the Chronici canones.16 Among the many abbreviated chronicles in this historical compendium there is a short epitome of a work that directly follows theepitome of the Canones. It covers manyof thesameitems asthecommon source of Jerome and Theophanes, butis fuller, andincludes extra entries at thebeginning andtheend.17 It also contains material that appears in Theophanes butdoes notappear inJerome. A comparison of the Chron. 724 andthecommon text of Jerome andTheophanes with other later works reveals extensive evidence of this common source in many Greek, Syriac, andArabic histories, especially in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian andthe Chronicon Paschale.18 Since neither Jerome, Theophanes, the Chron. 724, theChron. Pasch., norMichael is copying anyof theothers, a common source must be posited to account for the frequent andoften exact coincidence of content andwording. Thefollowing is a list of entries thatprobably derive fromthis common source, established chiefly upontheparallels inJerome, Theophanes, andtheChron. 724, to 16 See PSyr no. 146.IV, QGB no. 173, andmost especially Palmer 1992 andPalmer 1993: xxix12.This chronicle contains thefamous Syriac epitome of theChronici canones. Neither xxx, 5– Chron. 724 normost of the sources noted below are mentioned by Helm in his list of sources andparallels in theback of hisedition of Jerome’s chronicle. 17 BothWitakowski 1987: 81andPalmer 1992: 31– 2 and1993: 10fail tonotice thatthebeginning of what Palmer calls ‘Rubric 5’, a chronicle to 30 Heraclius, is in fact twoseparate continuations of theCanones. This ‘Rubric 5a’, asonecould call it, is theepitome of thecommon source under discussion, though it properly belongs with ‘Rubric 4’, theepitome of the Canones. 18 Theworks that contain material deriving directly or indirectly from this common source areas follows: Socrates Scholasticus, HE,completed 439/443 (see Barnes 1993: 205 andUrbainczyk 20); Chronicon Edessenum, extends to the year AD540, butis probably midto late 1997: 19– 6, PSyr no. 146.I, andQGB no. 93); Chronicon sixth century (Hallier 1892, Witakowski 1984– Paschale, written c. 630 (QGB no. 134); Chronicon Maroniticum, written c. 664 (PSyr no. 146.III and Palmer 1993: xxx, 29); Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa, written c. 692 (PSyr no. 146.VII, QGBno. 143, andPalmer 1993: 36); Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius, written c. 775 (PSyr no. 149, QGBno. 172, Witakowski 1987, andPalmer 1993: xxxi, 53); Chronicon anonymumadannum Domini 819pertinens andChronicon adannum Domini 846pertinens (PSyr no. 4); Agapius Hierapolitanus (of 1, 83– 146.V, QGB no. 209, and Palmer 1993: xxxi, 75, 80– Menbidj), Kitab al-‛Unvan, anArabic history written c. 942 (QGB no. 278 andGraf 1947: 39– 40); Elias, Opus Chronologicum, written c. 1018 (PSyr no. 157 andQGB no. 348); Chronicle of Se‛ert, an Arabic translation of c. 1036 of a lost Syriac history (QGB no. 351 andGraf 1947: 6); Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, written c. 1195 (PSyr no. 162, QGB no. 402, and 195– 4); andChronicon adannum Christi 1234 pertinens (PSyr no.150, QGBno. Palmer 1993: 103– 458, andPalmer 1993: xxxi-xxxii, 103). Forthebackground to most of these works, including 90 andespecially Wright 1894, Duval the Chron. 724 (see n. 16), see Witakowski 1987: 76– 1899, Baumstark 1922, Chabot 1934, Brock 1979/80, andNagel 1990. For the Chron. Pasch., see Whitby andWhitby 1989: ix-xxviii. Foranattempt to identify thesources of Ps-Dionysius, seeWitakowski 1996, esp., withrelation totheextracts discussed below, pp. 185, 186, 190, and 25) of his accounts of nos. 35, 36, 192. Michael the Syrian’s attribution (7.4, p. 271/135b.18– 585; onwhich, and40, below, to thenow-lost ecclesiastical history of Johnof Ephesus (c. 507– 7, Duval 1899: 310, Wright 1894: 102– see PSyr no. 112, QGBno. 102, Witakowski 1990: 299– 6), shows that the 6, andBrock 1979/80: 5– 2, Chabot 1934: 74– 5, Baumstark 1922: 181– 191– latter had direct access to a complete version of this common source as well. Some of this 23rb.3), 60/22vb.12– material also appears in the Chronicon Syriacum of Bar Hebraeus (pp. 59– written c. 1286 (PSyr no. 163, QGBno.457), butit all derives from Michael the Syrian.

118

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

a lesser extent intheChronicon Paschale andMichael theSyrian, andonanyof the other Greek, Syriac, or Arabic sources that seemto be ultimately related to the ma-

terial in these five. As described above, the foundation of this list is the parallel entries in Jerome andTheophanes. These parallels are themselves paralleled so oftenandsoexactly incontent andwording bythe Chron. 724 that, given its nature, structure, andconsistency of style andcontent, it canbe nothing other than anepitome of this common source. Consequently, I have included theentire relevant por102.20/129.14– 131.8). Thecommon tion of theChron. 724 inthelist below (101.4– material in Jerome, Theophanes, andthe Chron. 724 therefore provides the basic framework for reconstructing the common source andestablishing its nature and content. The Chron. Pasch. andMichael the Syrian offer a number of very close similarities to this common material andalso share a fewother parallels withmaterial that appears inTheophanes alone of thethree major sources (nos. 9, 251, 35,49); they must derive from this common source as well. I have also included a number of entries for which Theophanes is thesole witness (nos. 3, 4, 16, 18, 22, 33, 37, 39, 45, 46). This is justifiable on a number of grounds. First, we can be fairly confident of the content and style of Theophanes’ major narrative source between 325 and350,19 which makes extraneous material easily identifiable, and, second, the content, style, wording, andstructure of these unique entries are consistent with what is seen in the parallels among the major witnesses, especially their interest inearthquakes andthePersians, which accounts forsix of thetenentries deriving solely fromTheophanes, andtheir stylistic dependence uponthe Canones (to bediscussed below). There is also theunlikelihood of the use of major additional sources by Theophanes at this point, since once we have taken into account the material known or suspected to derive from theTheodorus compendium, this common source, andother known sources, weareleft withbuta few entries here andthere, most of which can be assigned to one or other source fairly easily onthebasis of content andstyle. I amvery confident of the authenticity of virtually all of theentries that I have included, and where there is any doubt on my part, I have noted the entry with square brackets (nos. 4 and16,anda large portion of 13). Helpful orillustrative, but independent, parallels in other sources are noted for comparison at theendof each series of citations within square brackets following ‘cf. also’. The list of witnesses in Chapter 2 provides in full the complete text of only the sources that appear to mirror most closely thewording of theoriginal entries. Thereconstruction that follows is based upon the quoted witnesses. The entry numbers assigned below are repeated for the list of witnesses andthereconstruction andtranslation. Thereader is therefore referred to thefirst part of Chapter 2 for comparisons of theimportant parallels among the surviving witnesses.

19 See n. 13, above. The parallels to andsurviving fragments from the compendium based on Theodorus’Historia tripartita arenoted inthemargin of deBoor’s edition ofTheophanes and inthecommentary of Mango/Scott 1997. For a manuscript of anepitome of this compendium, seedeBoor 1884. A summary of anunpublished manuscript of thefirst twobooks of theHist. trip. as well as anancient epitome of theentire workarepublished byHansen inhisedition of 95. A Latin translation of Theodorus appears as theHistoria tri55 and56– Theodorus, pp.2– partita of Cassiodorus. None of thematerial cited below is paralleled inthese texts.

1. Introduction

119

1.3. TheEntries andthe Witnesses i-v. Macarius of Jerusalem; Vitalis of Antioch; Alexander of Alexandria; Philogonius, Paulinus, and Eustathius of Antioch: Chron. 724 100.15– 17, 19– 21/ 21; Jerome 230b, 232c. 17, 19– 128.15– 1. Constantine makes waragainst those whoattack the Christian religion and obtains victory through hisprayers: Chron. 724 101.4– 6/129.14– 16; Theoph. 18 (= 324); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 325, p. 526.1– 20.17– 2. 2. Constantine founds churches everywhere: Chron. 724 101.6– 7/129.16– 18; 19 (= 324); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 325, p. 526.3– Theoph. 20.18– 4. 3. Invasion of Mesopotamia by Narseh: Theoph. 20.22– 26 (=324). [4. Thedeath of Crispus andtherefoundation of Byzantium: Theoph. 22.12– 3 (= 325)]. 5. Constantine defeats andenslaves Germans, Sarmatians, andGoths: Chron. 28.2 (= 327); Socrates, HE 1.18.4 8/129.18– 19; Theoph. 27.31– 724 101.7– (whence Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.3, p. 259/133a.25– 7). 20. 6. Council of Nicaea: Chron. 724 101.9/129.19– 2; The12/129.20– 7. Refounding andrenaming of Drepana: Chron. 724 101.9– 4 (=327); Jer. 231h (=327); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 327, p. 527.9–11; oph. 28.3– 9, 9/159.7– Socrates, HE 1.17.1 and 18.3 (whence Ps-Dion., Chron. 119.17– 6) [cf. also Philostorgius 2.12 andMalalas 2/144.24– andChron. 1234 115.1– 23]. 13.12, p. 323.19– 8. Construction of the Great Church in Antioch begins: Chron. 724 101.12/ 3; Theoph. 28.16–17(=328); Jer. 231i (=327); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.3, 129.22– p. 259/133b.7–6 fb. 9. Constantine crosses theDanube, builds a stone bridge over it, andsubjugates 20 (= 329); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 328, p. 527.16– the Scythians: Theoph. 28.19– 4 fb [cf. also Aurelius Victor 41.18; 17; Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.3, p. 259/133b.5– Epitome de caesaribus 41.13]. 10 and11.Athanasius of Alexandria; Eulalius andEusebius of Antioch: Chron. 724

8; Jerome 232c. 18/129.26– 101.16– 20/ 12. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea andwriter, wasfamous: Chron. 724 101.19– 129.29– 130.2. 12A. Euphronius: Jerome 232c. 5; Chron. Pasch. 3/130.3– 13. Dedication of Constantinople: Chron. 724 101.21– 5 (=330); Socrates, HE 1.16.1; [Thes.a. 330, p. 529.12–17; Theoph. 28.23– 9 withJer. 232g(=330)] [cf. also Origo Const. 6.30; Philostorgius oph. 28.25– 2/ 30; Ps-Dion., Chron. 119.20– 2.9; Chron. Pasch s.aa. 328 and330, pp.528– 144.24]. 14/142.23– 159.10– 12; Chron. 1234 113– 13A. Flacillus: Jerome 232c. 14. Constantine orders destruction of pagan temples: Chron. 724 101.12–14/ 4 (=331); Jer. 233b(=331) [cf. also Chron. Pasch. 129.23– 4;20 Theoph. 28.32– 30; Ps-Dion., Chron. 6/131.29– 22; Chron. 724 103.5– s.a. 325, p. 525.19– 17(615 Sel. = 312)]. 4/161.15– 121.3–

20 In Chron. 724 entries 14and15areerroneously

placed between nos. 8 and 10, above.

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

120

15. Maximus of Jerusalem: Chron. 724 101.15/129.25. [16. Basilica in Nicomedia burned to the ground by divine fire: Theoph. 29.11 (=332)]. 17. Famine in Syria (Antioch and Cyrrhus): Theoph. 29.13– 23 (=333); Jer. 233e (=333); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.3, p. 259/133b.3 fb –133c.15 fb. 5 (=333). 18. Earthquake in Cyprus: Theoph. 29.24– 19. Accession of Dalmatius as caesar: Theoph. 29.28 (=334); Jer. 233i (=335); 532.1. Chron. Pasch. s.a. 335, pp. 531.17– 20. Usurpation of Calocaerus in Cyprus: Theoph. 29.28– 31 (=334); Jer. 233g (=334) [cf. also Aurelius Victor 41.11–12]. 7 (=335); Jer. 233i (=335); Chron. 21. Constantine’s tricennalia: Theoph. 29.36– Pasch. s.a. 335, p. 531.14–15. 30.2 (=335) [cf. also Eu22. Appearance of a comet in Antioch: Theoph. 29.37– tropius 10.8.3; Aurelius Victor 41.16; Passio Artemii 7 = Philostorgius, HE 2.16a, p. 26]. 23. Eustathius, presbyter of Constantinople, andthe construction of a martyrium 9/130.9– 12; Theoph. 33.11–14 inJerusalem byZenobius: Chron. 724 101.27– (=337); Jer. 233n(=336). 1/130.12– 24. Sale of Assyrians by Saracens: Chron. 724 101.30– 13; Theoph. 33.15–16 (=337). 251. Declaration of waronRome by thePersians: Theoph. 33.16–17 (=337); Chron. 72]. Pasch. s.a. 337, p. 532.7 [cf. also Libanius, Or. 59.60– 20, 23 (=337); 252. Constantine’s last days, baptism, and death: Theoph. 33.17– 7 (death only); Chron. Pasch. s.a. 337, p. 532.7–13; Chron. 724 101.24/130.6– baptism only: Jer. 234a (=337); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.3, p. 260/133c.3 fb134b.6.

6/ 26. Accession of Constantine, Constantius, andConstans: Chron. 724 101.25– 3; Theoph. 34.16–18 (=338); 9;21 Chron. Pasch. s.a. 337, p. 533.21– 130.8– Jer. 234.13–15. 271. Persian invasion of Mesopotamia andfirst siege of Nisibis: Chron. 724 101.32– 23 and 103.13–15/132.9–11, year 649 24/96.18– 6/130.14–18 (see also 77.20– 7 (=338); Jer. 234d(=338); Chron. Pasch. 35.1, 4– Sel. = 338); Theoph. 34.32– 20; Jacob Edess., Chron. 216/289.5–1fb (=338); Agapius, s.a. 337, p. 533.18– 2; Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.3, 4, pp. 259–260 and Kitab al-‛Unvan 565/565.1– 8 and 36; Chronicle of Seen 23, 27, pp.288/288.5– 3fb, 134a.25– 266/133c.7– 8 (year 649) [cf. also Philostor8; Chron. 1234 121.23– 7/153.23– 297/297.3– gius, HE 3.23]. 16; Theoph. 35.1– 4/130.15– 272. Prayers of Jacob of Nisibis: Chron. 724 101.33– 4 (=338); Jer. 234f (=338); Jacob Edess., Chron. 216/289.4–3 fb; Mich. Syr., 4 fb and 135a.13–15; Chronicle of Se‛ert Chron. 7.3, p. 260 and266/133c.5– 6 [cf. also Philostorgius, HE3.23]. 9 and297/297.5– 23 and27, pp.288/288.8– 28. Gregory of Alexandria: Chron. 724 102.1/130.19. 3 (=340); 29. Death of Constantine II: Chron. 724 102.2/130.20; Theoph. 35.30–

Jer. 235a (=340).

21 In Chron. 724 entries 25 and26 areerroneously

placed before

no.23, above.

1. Introduction

121

30. Theconsecration of theGreat Church inAntioch: Chron. 724 102.3– 5/130.21– 31 (=342); Jer. 235g(=342); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.4, p. 270/ 4; Theoph. 36.29– 135b.10–13 [cf. also Theoph. 36.26– 7]. 5; Jerome 232c. 31. Stephen of Antioch: Chron. 724 102.6/130.24– 8/130.25– 32. The East is struck by earthquakes: Chron. 724 102.7– 6; Theoph. 9 (=342); Jer. 235c (=341); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.4, p. 270/135b.16–18 36.28– [cf. Descriptio consulum s.a. 341.2 = Socr., HE2.10.22 = Jacob Edess., Chron., 1 fb (=345) = Ps-Dion., Chron. 126.14–16/169.12–14 = 218/292, left col. 4–

2)(=343)]. Agapius, Kitab al-‛Unvan 569/569.1–

33. Constantius defeats the Assyrians andcelebrates a triumph: Theoph. 37.11 (=343) [cf. also Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 16.2; Libanius, Or. 59.83– 7; Julian, Or. 1.22A-C].

34. Shapur persecutes the Christians: Chron. 724 102.9/130.27; Theoph. 37.12– 13 (=343); Jer. 236b (=344) [cf. also Jacob Edess., Chron., 216/289, centre 6 fb (=338); Chron. Se‛ert 23 and27, pp. 288/288.6–7) (=339) and col., 8– 305 (=339); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.3, pp.257 and259/130a.1 fb –131a.3 296– and 133c.14–11 fb]. 35. Earthquake in Cyprus: Theoph. 37.14–15 (=343); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.4, p. 2. 271/135b.21– 36. Neocaesarea of Pontus struck by an earthquake: Chron. 724 102.10–11/ 9; Theoph. 37.18–20 (=344); Jer 236c (=344); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.4, 130.28– 5. p. 271/135b.22– 1 (=344). 37. Waragainst thePersians, manyof whomarekilled: Theoph. 37.20– 30; Jerome 232c. 38. Leontius of Antioch: Chron. 724 102.12/130.29– 7 (=345). 39. Earthquake onRhodes: Theoph. 37.26– 4 40. Dyrrachium, Rome, andCampania struck by earthquakes: Theoph. 37.32– 31 (=346). (=346); Jer. 236f (=346); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.4, p. 271/135b.26– 14/131.1– 2; The41. Port built for Seleucia Pieria in Syria: Chron. 724 102.13– 7 (=347); Jer. 236g(=346); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.4, p. 267/137a.10– oph. 38.6– 4 (of 360), Julian Or. 1.40D (c. 355), and 13 [cf. also Libanius, Or. 11.263– Expositio totius mundi 28]. 42. Constantius refounds Antaradus in Phoenice as Constantia: Chron. 724 9 (=347); Mich. Syr., Chron. 7.4, p. 267/ 4; Theoph. 38.8– 16/131.2– 102.15– 13. 137a.10– 43. Shapur invades Mesopotamia; second siege of Nisibis: Theoph. 38.9–11 7. 32/155.3– (=347); Jer. 236h(=346); Chron. 1234 122.28– 44. Total solar eclipse: Theoph. 38.12–13 (= 347); Jer. 236k(=347). 2 (=348). 45. Partial solar eclipse: Theoph. 39.1– 11(=349). 46. Earthquake in Berytus of Phoenice: Theoph. 39.4– 47 and48. Constantius fortifies andrenames Amida, andfounds Constantia (Tella 8; The20/131.4– de-Mauzelat), the oldAntoninopolis: Chron. 724 102.17– 21 (Years 660–1 = AD oph. 36.10–13 (=341); Chron. Edess. 5.14–17/4.17– 2; Jacob Edess., Chron. 218/293, left col., 3/68.1– 50); Chron. Mar. 53.22– 349– 9, andYear 660 [293, right col., 3 (Years 9–12 of Constantius = AD 346– 1–

122

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

5: ‘Some say that the city of Amida wasbuilt in year 658’= 34722] [Ami3– 15= 350– 2 [Constantia]); Ps-Dion., Chron. 126.25– da]; Year 13– 7/169.24– 1/174.22 – 6, 129.30– 4 (Year 660); Chron. 819 2.9–11/4.17– 19 (Years 660– 6 (Years 660– 1); Chron. 846 150.27– 9/195.24– 1); Elias, Opus chron. 1: 8 (year 660; Amida only; from Jacob Edess.); Mich. Syr., 49.11–12/101.5– 18; Chronicle of Se‛ert 28, p. 307/307.2 (ConChron. 7.4, p. 267/137b.13– 5/155.8– stantia only); Chron. 1234 122.33– 11 (Year 668)23 [cf. also Ammi(= anus 18.9.1 c. 336)]. 49. The third siege of Nisibis: Chron. Pasch. s.a. 350, p. 536.18– 20; Theoph. 39.13– 4 (=350); Jerome 236h [cf. also Jerome 2361; Theodoret HE 2.30; Ju28D, 30A; Or. 2.62B– 67A; Zonaras 13.7.1–14]. lian, Or. 1.27B– 1.4. The Nature of the Work, its Extent, the Theology of its Author, and the Place of Composition 1.4.1. The Nature of the Work

So what sort of document,

then, was this common source? A number of earlier scholars have included much of the material discussed above as part of an Arian continuation of Eusebius’ Chronici canones that extended from 326 to 363 or 378 with a few additions made to the text of Eusebius before 325.24 That the common source outlined above was a continuation of the Canones is without doubt. The material shared by the Chron. 724, Jerome, Theophanes, and the Chron. Pasch. obviously continues Eusebius –it does notbegin until 325, the concluding year of the Canones, andin all four it immediately follows the actual text of or excerpts from the Canones –andit obviously derives from a document that dated its events byregnal years, asa continuation oftheCanones would;25 otherwise theclose chronological accuracy among the latter three could not have existed, and Michael the Syrian, for instance, a narrative historian, could nothave correctly dated the earthquake in Rome andCampania to the ninth year of Constantius. Furthermore, the Chron. 724 shows that this source also continued theepiscopal list andenumeration of the Canones (though named, thebishops were notenumerated inEusebius’HE), andtheshort, compact entries obviously belong toa chronicle, nota narrative history.Finally, aswill bediscussed below, theChron. 724, Theophanes, andtheChron.

22 This seems to beconfused withtherenaming of Antaradus in346; see above. 23 AnArabic note inthemargin of themanuscript also refers totheconstruction of Singara, Azath, andVeranshahr (= Constantia) atthesame time. 24 Hallier 1892: 47 n. 1; Batiffol 1895; Bidez andWinkelmann 1981: cli-clxiii (including earlier

25

24; Brennecke 1988: 93– 4 (who strangely thinks 41; Gwatkin 1900: 219– bibliography), 202– 97 pas8, 58– that it wasa continuation of Eusebius’HE); QGBno. 8; Donalson 1996: 22, 33– lxxxi andlxxxiv– lxxxvii. Batiffol is the basis for 5; andMango andScott 1997: lxxx– sim, 130– 363 on the basis of the Chron. all later reconstructions, buthe only posits a source for 350– 7, Pasch. anddoes notinclude anyof the above-mentioned texts. See also Portmann 1989: 5– Whitby andWhitby 1989: xvi, andBarnes 1993: 8 and256 n. 12. Compare the similar structure of thecontinuation chronicle of Jacob of Edessa.

1. Introduction

123

Pasch. reveal manyclose andexact parallels to thevocabulary andphrasing of earlier entries in the Canones. All of the above factors make it absolutely certain that this wasoriginally a continuation of the Chronici canones. 1.4.2. TheExtent of theWork However, there is much wrong with considering this continuation as anArian history that continued to 363 or later. First of all, just as it is obvious that the material common toJerome, Theophanes, andtheChron. 724doesnotstart until 327 (Helenopolis), so it is obvious that it does notextend beyond 346 (the port in Seleucia). A comparison of all five major sources shows that thecommon material begins in325 andceases in 350. The latter date is first of all indicated by thechange of emphasis in thecontent of Theophanes, whoabandons hisearlier interest in the East andAntioch (see below), thePersians andtheeastern frontier,26 andearthquakes.27 After 350hischronology for the kind of events listed above falls apart and differs almost completely from Jerome’s. It is obvious that he is using a single main narrative source and making additions to it from other sources, chiefly the same source as that used by the Chron. Pasch. The following is a list of the major datable events narrated by Theophanes for therest of Constantius’reign, headed byhis regnal years andtheir ADequivalents on the left, with the correct dates in round brackets andJerome’s dates in square brackets (where applicable) ontheright.

Year 14 (= 351): Year 15 (= 352):

Year 18 (= 355):

Year 19 (= 356): Year 21 (= 358):

Proclamation of Gallus Caesar (351) [351] Jewish Revolt (352) [352] Exile of Liberius (355) [356] Council of Milan (355) [355] Liberius’return (357) [357] Death of Gallus (354) [354] Freedom of Julian (354) Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (348/9) [348] Apparition of theCross (351) Death of Eusebius of Constantinople (341) Murder of Hermogenes (342) [342]

2) is mentioned in 24 25, 31– 26 The Persian capture of Bezabde in 360 (Ammianus 20.7, 11.6– 9). Constantius (=361) immediately before Constantius’fatal march west to meet Julian (46.8– There is norecord of anyother activity onthePersian frontier between 350 and361, including thesiege andcapture of Amida in359, andthecapture of Singara andthesiege of Virta in360. 23. 87 andBlockley 1992: 17– 61, see Blockley 1989: 478– Onthe events of 351– 27 There areeight earthquakes inthetwenty-six years covered bythecommon source between 325 and350 (333 [29.24], 342 [36.28], 344 [37.14, 18], 345 [37.26], 346 [37.32, 33], and349 [39.4]), onlyoneintheforty-one years between 284 (where Theophanes begins) and324(321 [17.11]), andonly five more over the next onehundred years from 351 (358 [45.25], 365 [56.10], 408 [80.5], 437 [93.6], 442 [96.12]). Note that seven of theeight earthquakes between 326 and350 date tothe340s, a fact indicative of contemporary compilation ending inorjust after 349.

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

124

Paul removed by Philip andreplaced by Macedonius (344) [342] Letter from Constans supporting Paul andAthanasius (346) Council of Serdica (343) Athanasius returns to Alexandria (346) [346] Usurpations of Magnentius, Nepotianus, and 353) [350– Vetranio (350– 353] Murder of Paul (350) [342] Usurpation of Silvanus (355) [354] Constantius in Rome (357) [357] Abdication of Vetranio (350) [351] Proclamation of Julian as caesar (355) [355] Death of Pope Julius andordination of Liberius28

Year 22 (= 359): Year 24 (= 361):

(352) [349] Third exile of Athanasius (356) Earthquake in Nicomedia (358) [358] Deposition of Macedonius (359/60) [359] Capture of Bezabde (360)29 Proclamation of Julian as augustus (360) [361] Death of Constantius (361) [361]

As can be seen from the above, Theophanes dates almost nothing accurately andrarely even comes close to Jerome’s chronology. As can be seen from Mango andScott’s source apparatus this material consists almost entirely of parallels to the Chron. Pasch. andTheodorus Lector’s Historia tripartita (1997: 67– 76). This is a complete change from thepre-351 material. The fewentries that docome within a yearof Jerome’s equivalent entries bearnoresemblance whatsoever tothelatter and are the closest verbally to entries in the Chron. Pasch. andTheodorus.30 It is obvious that the post-350 material in Theophanes didnot derive from a chronicle, but from narrative sources that hadonly a few exact instances of dating, for the most partthecompendium based onTheodorus’Historia tripartita. It is important to note thatthough there area number ofclose parallels between Theophanes andtheChron. Pasch. before 350 –mostly deriving from the common source under discussion – the parallels become much more extensive anddistinctly Arian between 350 and 363.31 This Arian source was only one of a number of independent sources that listed as ‘Year 5’of Pope Damasus, since according to Theophanes’ annual papal chronology, which is listed at the beginning of each newregnal year, Julius died andwassucceeded byLiberius in9 Constantius (=346; 38.3). Jerome mentions the capture of Bezabde in anentry covering the entire Persian conflict from

28 This year is, however, 29

337 to 360 (2361=348).

30 The entries onGallus’accession,

31

Constantius in Rome, theearthquake in Nicomedia, andthe 543.2; 359, p. 12; 357, pp.542.19– death of Constantius are paralleled by CP s.aa. 351, p. 540.8– 8; and361, p. 545.8–12. The Jewish revolt, the death of Gallus, andthe deposition of 543.5– 2, and Macedonius derive from Theodorus (Hist. trip. 90, 101, and 107, pp. 43, 47, and51– Cass., Hist. trip. 5.11.1– 3, 31.5–11, and39.1). Noonecould deny that Theophanes andthe Chron. Pasch. share anultimate common source

1.Introduction

125

Theophanes hasrather poorly spliced together. Noneof theArian material common to Theophanes and Chron. Pasch. appears in Jerome or the Syriac traditions. It is obvious that thecopies of Eusebius usedbyTheophanes, Jerome, andtheauthors of the Chron. 724 andChron. Pasch. all contained this continuation to 350. The only major difference among the four is that the author of the Chron. Pasch. did not consult it as frequently as theothers did, especially after 337. The date of 350 is also confirmed twice by the Chron. 724, which relates the refortification andrenaming of Amida andtherefounding of Antoninopolis asCon8) andthen suddenly shifts to another source stantia (see the commentary, nos. 47– that jumps back to the eighteenth year of Constantine andthe defeat of Licinius (=323– 4). This new source is completely different, even, for instance, giving figures different from those offered earlier for the length of Constantine’s reign andthe duration of the first siege of Nisibis,32 butmost noticeably in abandoning the naming andsequential numbering of bishops carried on from Eusebius andpresent in the 325 to 350 material.33 Frequent useof theSeleucid era(it does notappear at all in the earlier text) and a reference to Jacob of Nisibis as mr Y‛qwb (103.14–15/ 132.11; hewasplain Y‛qwbearlier) indicate a shift from a Greek toa Syriac source.34 The date assigned to the rebuilding of Amida andthe refounding of Antoninopolis as Constantia by the sources that preserve the chronology of this continuation of Eusebius is 660 of the Seleucid era (Sel.), which is AD 349.35 The final andmost conclusive indication is thethirteen regnal years assigned to 9); 13 Constantius is 350.36 That all 6/130.8– the three sons of Constantine (101.25– the above factors indicate a date of 350 cannot be merely coincidental. Theconclu-

32 33

34

35 36

91, 93–4, 98, 40 with nn. 87– for theperiod 350 to 363; see Whitby andWhitby 1989: xvi, 26– 8, 123– 5; Batiffol 1895: 68– 3, 117– 90, who analyses Chron. Pasch.; Bidez and 4, 112– 101– 36, which sets outtheGreek texts foreasy comparison; Gwatkin 1900: Winkelmann 1981: 215– 24, who, like Batiffol, includes Theodoret asa witness tothis source; andBrennecke 1988: 219– 57. Butwhatever this source was, it wascertainly nota chronicle like Eusebius’. Neverthe114– less, perhaps it is more thanjust coincidence thatthis Arian historian began hisworkin350 and 4; andon the waswriting in Antioch; on this, see Batiffol 1895: 91– 2 andGwatkin 1900: 223– importance of Antioch, see below. Between 325 and350 there are only a fewfactual parallels between this common source andPhilostorgius, whois agreed to have usedtheArian source as well (2.9, thefoundation of Constantinople; 2.12, thefoundation of Helenopolis; 2.16, thedeath of Constantine; and3.23, the Persian siege of Nisibis andJacob of Nisibis). Philostorgius’ use of the common source between 325 and350 cannot be determined on the basis of such evidence, but it seems unlikely, especially given thedislocation of the entry onJacob. That is, thirty-three years instead of thirty-two, andthirty days instead of sixty-six (103.3 and 14/131.28 and132.10). This is only one of five chronicles that have been compiled into this single work (hence its 4. 1 andPalmer 1993: 5–12, 23– name); see Witakowski 1987: 80– TheSyriac ‘mar’is akin in its usage to the word ‘saint’andmeans literally ‘lord’. This Syriac source is related to the one used on p. 77 of the Chron. 724 for the chronological calculations near the beginning of thechronicle. For theSeleucid era, see Chapter 3, n. 53. There is nohint inanyof thesources that this common source mentioned thedeath of Constans in 350 (who intheSyriac traditions is usually said to have died in 15Constantius); therefore, it must have been concluded before the author knew of it (note that the death of Constantine II does appear; see no.29).

126

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

sion mustbe that this common source continued nofurther than 350 andwasin no wayrelated to the Arian material of Theophanes andthe Chron. Pasch.37 1.4.3. The Theology of the Author

But was it an Arian document? The bishop list in the Chron. 724 might suggest so, since Arian bishops are both listed andenumerated, the last of whom, Leontius, is described as nkp (‘castus’in the Latin translation andἁ γ ν ό ςin myreconstruction; no. 38). However, Leontius hadearlier castrated himself as proof of his chastity (Athanasius, Apol. defuga sua 26.3; Socrates, HE 2.26.9; Theodoret, HE2.24.1– 2), an incident that was so well-known that Athanasius usually calls himΛ εό ν τ ιο ςὁ κ ο π ο π ό , ‘Leontius theeunuch’(e.g. Hist. Ar.4.2, 20.5, 28.1; Ep.adepisc. Aeg. et ἀ ς Lib. 7.3), sothe ‘chaste’remark could infact bea sarcastic swipe atLeontius, much like Athanasius’jibe. Onits own, theremark gives noreal indication of the author’s theology, but it does suggest that he did not approve of Leontius.38 No other comments aremade regarding anyof theother bishops. They areaccepted andenumerated, and their names recorded regardless of their theology. Nothing positive or negative is said about the deposition of Eustathius or Athanasius norindeed about anyaspect of the contemporary theological debates. The author seems notto have known whothe contemporary bishops of Alexandria andJerusalem were: the lastmentioned bishop of Alexandria is Gregory who died in 345 (he was succeeded the next year by the returned Athanasius) andthe last of Jerusalem is Maximus who died in 348. It would seem that he hada written list that went as far as 339 (the ordination of Gregory) andthat hewasunable orunwilling to seek outinformation onhis contemporaries. There is only onereal clue to thetheology of the author andit suggests that he wasorthodox. Constantine is hardly ever mentioned without anaccompanying epiή α έγ ς ,μ η τ ς(in one doubtful place, no. 17), ικ thet: ‘merciful’ (Syriac: mrmn), ν ή ς . Hediedἐνδό ξ ω έσ τ α τ ο α ὶεὐσεβ ςκ ςandεὐσεβ ῶ εβ ς/zdyqyt andespecially εὐσ (‘in a state of righteousness’) (no. 25). Constantius is never given anepithet and indeed is mentioned much less frequently than Constantine.39 The positive epithets 37 I leave ittoothers todetermine whatthisArian historian actually wrote since ithasnorelevance to thepresent subject matter andwould require several more chapters’worth of investigation andanalysis: Cyril Mango recently described the olddebate about thelost “Arian History”as ‘a can of worms’ (Mango 1990). I can say that‘I think that Batiffol andGwatkin come’the closest in their descriptions (see n. 24). 38 In his translation forAnhang VII of theGCSPhilostorgius volume, M.-A. Kugener misses the ή β ς?’as λ α point of thisjibe andis therefore puzzled bythereference. Hetherefore suggests ‘εὐ a translation (215.37), though ‘castus’(the wordused in the CSCO translation) is anaccurate translation of theSyriac. 39 Theentry (no. 25) onConstantine’s baptism byEusebius of Nicomedia, anArian bishop, cannot 60 andthecommentary to count as a negative comment since it is a fact (see Barnes 1981: 259– no.25) andnothing seems tohavebeenmadeof thatfact bytheauthor of theContinuatio, who indeed shows no sign of even having realized that Eusebius wasanArian. If the entry on the destruction of thebasilica of Nicomedia by ‘divine fire’in332 (no. 16)waspartof this common source (we cannot be certain), it would strengthen the impression that this wasnot an Arian

1. Introduction

127

applied to Constantine strongly suggest that theauthor wasnotanArian, though his acceptance of Gregory of Alexandria andtheArian successors of Eustathius of Antioch shows that he was no radical homoousian either.40

1.4.4. The Place of Composition

This Continuatio Eusebii was, therefore, a short continuation of the Chronici canones of Eusebius that carried onhisformat, wording, andstructure based onregnal years. It extended from 325 to 350. Its content followed that of Eusebius, noting major political, military, andreligious matters, andshowed great interest inthePersian wars, the occurrence of earthquakes andother natural phenomena such as a comet andeclipses, andcertain building projects. It continued his listing andenumeration of thebishops of Antioch, Alexandria, andJerusalem (though notof Rome, which its author seems to have known little about; see below). Its theology tended to thehomoousian side butits author wasnota vocal adherent of anyfaction. Its content indicates that it wascertainly written in the East,41 andits use by Jerome, the lack of Seleucid years andthe title ‘mar’in the Chron. 724, andthe extremely close verbal parallelism between the entries preserved in Theophanes and the Chron. Pasch. on the one hand, andbetween many entries andthe witnesses to Eusebius’ Canones itself ontheother handindicate that it waswritten in Greek. The cluster of localities in andaround Antioch and Syria (Seleucia, Cyrrhus, Antaradus, Beirut, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Tarsus, Amida, Constantia, andNisibis), combined with many references to and specific details about Antioch –such as the amount of grain granted by Constantine to thechurch in that city (no. 17) –suggest anauthor living in or near Antioch. This is proved bythecomet of 336 (no. 22), the total eclipse of 346 and its date (no. 44), and the episcopal list in the Chron. 724, which provides the names of twobishops of Jerusalem (Cyril is missed), three of Alexandria (Achillas, thedeath of Gregory, andthereturn ofAthanasius aremissed), and ten of Antioch, including short-lived bishops missed by other sources.42 Of these the only contemporary bishops named are those of Antioch.

40

41

42

document, since Nicomedia wasatthatpoint hometoEusebius, therecognized leader of thesocalled ‘Arian party’. The destruction of his church would have been seen as anact of divine disfavour andis unlikely to have beenrecorded inanArian work. Cf. theArian description of Leontius from Chron. Pasch. (s.a. 350): ‘inall respects faithful and devout andzealous forthetrue faith’(Whitby andWhitby 1989: 26). Notevery Christian wasas radical as Jerome, prepared to ignore Arian bishops or at least notto count them as ‘real’bishops. Furthermore, given Jerome’s viciously anti-Arian stance inthechronicle, I cannot believe that hewould ever have copied anobviously Arian source, nomatter howuseful (though Eusebius wasanArian, it wasnotobvious from the Canones). There is analmost total lack of information concerning theWest, apart from thenotable exampleof theearthquakes inDyrrachium andItaly in346, butthentheauthor wasveryinterested in such matters; see n. 27, above. This includes bishops of Rome, the last of whom in the Chron. 724 is Marcellinus, whoderives fromEusebius. Infact, notevenEusebius listed anybishops of Rome after Marcellinus (onthis, seeStudy 1,Chapter 4). Euphronius is missing fromourtext, buthehasbeencounted intheenumeration (twenty-sixth) andappears inJerome’s list. See thecommentary, nos. ii, iv, andv; 11; and 12A.

128

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

The comet wasprobably seen everywhere since we have notices of observations from thewestern empire andChina (see thecommentary to no.22), yetTheophanes specifically states that it wasseen in Antioch. As is explained in the commentary (no. 44), the eclipse of 346 wastotal only along a very narrow band that passed directly through Antioch on 6 June. The date for this eclipse is given by Theophanes as6 Daisios. Theexact correlation of thedaysof theMacedonian month Daisios andtheRoman month June occurred only inthecalendar of Antioch.43 The appearance of the short-lived Paulinus (seven months) andEulalius, whoare missing from many other lists (see Appendix 1 to Chapter 3), as well as Eusebius of Caesarea, whowaschosen asbishop of Antioch butdeclined (see thecommentary, nos. ii, iv, andv, and 11), also strongly indicate anAntiochene source. Though the appearance of the first person plural in the entry concerning Beirut (no. 46) may suggest that the author wasin thechurch in Beirut at thetime (which is completely possible), it is probably just a distinction between ‘us’, the Christians, and ‘them’, thepagans, a usage paralleled byJerome, for instance.44 The fact that the Continuatio easily made its wayinto the Syriac tradition also suggests a work of Syria, not Constantinople. The author’s interest in the Persian threat to theeast under Shapur II also accords well with Antioch, since that city had been captured by Shapur I in 252, andthe inhabitants of Antioch must have observed the hostilities with some dread, notleast because Constantius andhis army c. 379) spent most of their time in thecity.45 Jerome spent at least twoyears (c. 377– in Antioch before travelling to Constantinople, where he composed his continuation,46 andit was probably in Antioch that he found his copy of Eusebius with its Antiochene continuation, a copy of the same document epitomized by the anonymousSyriac chronicler inc. 640 fortheChron. 724 (orrather, a Syriac translation of it). We also know that Theophanes hadsources from Palestine, including Syriac ones.47 Hiscopy of Eusebius with its continuation (which heobtained from Syncellus) could have derived from there as well. It is interesting to note, however, that there is no hint of this Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii in the history of the Antiochene John Malalas, which quickly skips over the period between thedeath of Con14, pp.317– 24, sole rule of Constantine; stantine andthe accession of Julian (13.2– 26, his sons to 361). 17, pp. 324– 15–

7), inother 43 See Samuel 1972: 174andBickerman 1980: 48. Ascanbeseen inSamuel (pp. 174– Eastern Macedonian calendars Daisios began atverydifferent times of theyear: 23 April (Ephesus, Asia-Pamphylia), 21 May(Arabia), 26 May(Gaza), 19June (Tyre), 25 June (Ascalon), and 1 August (Lycia andSidon). Other cities andterritories, of course, didnoteven usetheSyroMacedonian calendar. It wasonly later thattheAntiochene calendar became thestandard Greek calendar in usein theEast. 44 See Study 1,Chapter 6.2, under 227dand230c, forexample. 6. ForCon340 andBarnes 1978b: 65– 7, 338– 45 ForShapur I andAntioch, seePotter 1990: 290– 72 andBarnes 1993: 219. stantius in Antioch, see Downey 1961: 355– 67. 46 See Kelly 1975: 57– 14, and Mango and Scott 1997: lxxxii– 47 Brooks 1906, Pigulevskaja 1967, Mango 1978: 13– lxxxvii. Mango andScott comment on the fact that Eusebius’ original text wasprobably not available in Constantinople in Theophanes’ time and that Syncellus’ texts of Annianus and Panodorus mayhave come from Palestine as well (p. liv).

1. Introduction

129

1.5. The Relationship of the Witnesses to the Original

It is clear that Jerome, Socrates, andTheophanes derive directly from the Greek original of the Chronici canones-Continuatio. The Chron. Pasch. probably didso as well, butthere is thepossibility that its compiler wasusing anintermediary source that provided an epitomized version of both works. The Chron. 724 probably derives from a Syriac translation of the Canones-Continuatio. The compiler of that work wasjust that: a compiler. I donotbelieve that hewould have translated and then epitomized it himself. Further possible evidence for this conclusion will be discussed below. It cannot be determined, however, whether the compiler simply copied a pre-existing epitome or not; that must be reckoned a distinct possibility. Since thecompiler of the Chron. 724 wasusing a text of the Canones-Continuatio, andPs-Dionysius wasusing a text of the Canones that contained a different Greek continuation that ended in 333 (see above, n. 7), the two Syriac epitomes of the Canones contained in these works must derive from separate Syriac translations. Johnof Ephesus, thesource formostoftheexcerpts fromtheContinuatio inMichael the Syrian (see n. 18, above), also hadaccess to a complete version of the CanonesContinuatio, probably viathe same Syriac translation that provided thecompiler of the Chron. 724 with his text. This translation would notseem to have been anepitome since John wasable to date events by regnal years, usually the first part of a chronicle to bejettisoned when it wasepitomized. Thesources of thelesser witnesses canbedetermined through a careful analysis of the excerpts they report. Clearly none of the other sources depend upon a complete version of the Canones-Continuatio. Apart fromtheentry onthesecond siege of Nisibis (no. 43) thatappears intheChron. 1234, only twoentries appear regularly inthe lesser Syriac andArabic witnesses: thefirst siege of Nisibis, Jacob of Edessa, or their date (no. 27) andthe refounding of Amida andConstantia (nos. 47 and48). In the first case it is often only the date (649 Sel.) that these sources have in common.Ananalysis of thelast twoof these entries, 47 and48, clearly shows thenature of the transmission. A few relationships are easily determined. As can be confirmed from many other passages andfrom statements made by Michael himself, Michael the Syrian wasrelying onJacob of Edessa aswell asJohn of Ephesus. Elias says hewasusing Jacob as well. The Chron. 819 depends upon the Chron. Edess. andthe Chron 846 depends upon the Chron. 819. The erroneous chronology of Jacob of Edessa (see 8, inChapter 3 andthetable below) indicates that hetoo thecommentary to nos.47– was relying partially on the Chron. Edess., partially on other sources (which he mentions). The most interesting conclusion arises from an investigation of the sources of the Chron. Edess. andtheremaining witnesses. Theoriginal entries, aspreserved in the Chron. 724, stated that Amida was in Mesopotamia and that Antoninopolis, which wasin Osrhoene, wasrenamed Constantia. As is explained in thecommentary to nos. 47 and48 both entries appeared inthesame year, 12Constantius (=660 Sel.). Ps-Dionysius (1)48 andJacob of Edessa agree that Amida wasin Mesopota48

There are twoversions

of this entry inPs-Dion., each deriving from a different source.

2. The Continuatio

130

Antiochiensis Eusebii

mia. However, taken as a single group, the Chron. Edess., Chron. Mar., Jacob of Edessa, Ps-Dionysius (1), Chron Se‛ert andChron. 1234 state that Constantius refounded Tella, thatTella wasinMesopotamia, thathecalled itConstantia (ornamed it after himself), andthat it hadpreviously been called Antipolis. They also give the dates of the refoundations as Seleucid dates; they do not give regnal years. The 8, butthetable below represents the sources are given in full in Chapter 3, nos. 47– relevant information inchronological order. Theobviously derivative sources noted above have notbeen included. Sel. Date Chron. Edess.

Amida: Mesopotamia

Sel. Tella Date

661

660

Mesopotamia

Constantia

Antipolis

X

X

Chron. Mar.

Jacob of Ed.

660

X

*

Ps-Dion. (1) Ps-Dion. (2)

660

660

X

Chron. Se‛ert Chron. 1234

X

668

668

X

X X

X

* dated to 13–15 Const. (=661–3)

These sources clearly forma distinct group, separate fromtheChron. 724 andTheophanes. Equally clearly, the Chron. Edess., theearliest source in thegroup, cannot be the source for the later chronicles. Since Ps-Dionysius (2) andthe Chron. 1234 provide thecorrect chronology (that both Amida andConstantia were refounded in the same year) they cannot derive from Jacob, who follows the chronology of the Chron. Edess., which dated therefoundations to 660 and661(orlater, according to Jacob), or the Chron. Edess. itself. Even if all authors and compilers knew that Constantia wascalled Tella andwasinMesopotamia, fewwould havebeenlikely to make suchchanges intheir accounts (the compiler of Chron. 724 certainly didnot). There are a variety of ways to explain the relationships among these sources, but the simplest explanation is to posit anearly Syriac epitome of the CanonesContinuatio that dated events by Seleucid years andwhose compiler reported that Constantia was called Tella andwas in Mesopotamia. It was this compiler who made the error of calling Antoninopolis Antipolis. This epitome wasthe ultimate source for all these texts, though certainly only indirectly in thecases of Ps-Dion., the Chron. Se‛ert, and the Chron. 1234. Only Jacob of Edessa had access to more than oneversion of this entry: that of Chron. Edess., perhaps this common source, and others, which he explicitly mentions. This source also provided the common entry onthe siege of Nisibis andonJacob of Nisibis with theincorrect date of 649 Sel. that appears in Chron. Edess., Jacob of Edessa, another of the chronicle epitomes in the Chron. 724, Ps-Dion., Chron 819, Chron. 846, andChron. 1234 (see Chapter 3, no. 27). X

1. Introduction

131

What this common source was andwhen it wascompiled are unknown. It is probably earlier than the fifth century since the chronicle epitome that follows the epitome of the Continuatio in the Chron. 724 andcontains thedate of 649 Sel. and anaccount of Jacob’s death from a different source, wasoriginally compiled inthe mid-fifth century (it waslater continued to the reign of Heraclius). This common source excerpted from the Continuatio thetwoentries that hadthe most relevance andimportance for Syriac readers of the late fourth andearly fifth century: the date andcircumstances of thedeath of Jacob of Nisibis andtherefoundations of Amida andTella, thelatter animportant Roman legionary base inMesopotamia (see Chapter3, nos.47 and48). Thisexplains whyonlythese twoentries fromtheContinuatio appear in the later Syriac traditions (although one isolated entry does appear in the Chron. 1234, as noted above; it mustderive from another source, perhaps Ignatius ofMelitene; seeChapter 3, no.43), since sucha similar selection bysomanydifferentsources from different periods (from thesixth to thethirteenth centuries) would bevery oddindeed. Further research is required to determine theextent andnature of this common source. Theophanes contains anextra participial phrase in each of the twoentries analysed above, 47 and48 (see Chapter 2 andthe commentary). It seems unlikely that Theophanes would have added suchcomments tothese entries andsothey appear to belong to the Continuatio (I have included theminbrackets inthereconstruction). If this is so, it suggests that all the Syriac sources above, including the Chron. 724, derive ultimately from the same Syriac translation of the Canones-Continuatio that omitted these small details from these twoentries. The results of this analysis arepresented inthefollowing table:

132

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

TABLE: Hypothetical Relationships among the Witnesses to the Continuatio

1.6. Style andStructure Overall, theentries that canberecovered fortheContinuatio areof a simple though overly hypotactic style. Only in the three long entries, nos. 17, 27, and46, does the Greek exhibit anyreal complexity. A study of Jerome’s translation andthe Greek fragments of Eusebius’ Canones shows that this is to be expected, for that is exactly the short, simple style of Eusebius’original (see Study 1, Chapter 5.3). In fact, a close study of the Greek fragments shows that the author of the Continuatio has not only modelled his general style on Eusebius, but in many places has also copied

1. Introduction

133

Eusebius’structure andvocabulary, so that exact parallels canbe seen between the remains of thetwoworks. These similarities andparallels created a strong sense of continuity andcoherence between theCanones anditscontinuation andbound them more closely together as a single work. On the other hand, the author has shown a degree of freedom in his composition as well andhasusedvocabulary andexpressions that Eusebius didnot. An analysis of the witnesses to the Canones shows that there was a high level of formulaic writing in that work, and this has been carried over in the Continuatio. In the Canones the same vocabulary and structures appeared over andover again with little variation, all contained within very short and structurally simple entries. These were characteristics that Eusebius took over from his sources (see Study 1, Chapter 6.1.3). Chronicles were notvehicles for demonstrating one’s literary orrhetorical skills; they were handbooks intended toconvey a large amount of practical anduseful information inassmall a space aspossible, like a farmer’s almanac today. Given theclose parallelism between the wording of the Canones andthe Continuatio, wecanbe quite confident that the Continuatio copied theoverall structure of the Canones as well. The parallelism of wording shows that the author of the Continuatio made a concentrated effort to cast his continuation in the mould of Eusebius; the first andmost obvious wayto dothis wasby maintaining the overall appearance andstructure of the preceding work. As noted above, wecan see from the Chron. 724 that the Continuatio continued Eusebius’enumeration of thebishopsof Antioch, Alexandria, andJerusalem andcopied thestructure andwording of Eusebius’episcopal notices. Jerome, Theophanes, the Chron. Pasch., andMichael the Syrian demonstrate that the author continued Eusebius’ regnal years, andhe must therefore have continued his use of Olympiads and Years of Abraham, the other fundamental chronological systems of Eusebius’ chronicle. As will be seen below, certain chronological errors mayowetheir existence to the presence of Olympiad markers intheoriginal manuscripts of thework. Hemayalso have included the years of the Antiochene era, both in his continuation andin the Canones, as a subsidiary chronological system, just as Hydatius included years of theSpanish era in his copy of Jerome’s chronicle andhis continuation of it every decade (on the Antiochene era, see n. 53, below).49 Many witnesses to the Canones include a notice onthebeginning of theAntiochene era (156b andsee the witnesses for this entry cited by Helm in his edition, p. 388: Chron. Pasch.; Syncellus; andNicephorus, Chron. syn.); this could bethework of Eusebius or the author of the Continuatio. There is also thenote concerning the Antiochene eraof thestart of theGreat Persecution that mayalso betheworkof the author of the Continuatio.50 Thus for the average reader there would be little to indicate that there wasa continuation of Eusebius’Canones apart from theobvious fact that Eusebius’final supputatio appeared notattheend, as it should, buttwentyfive years from theend. It would have looked andsounded just like Eusebius.

5. The parallel with Hydatius is instructive because Hydatius also ex49 See Burgess 1993a: 33– actly paralleled thestructure ofJerome andtried tomirror thewording of manyof hisentries as 5). well, though notasclosely as theauthor of the Continuatio (onthis, see Burgess 1989: 264– 50 See Study 1, Chapter 6.2, under entry 228c.

134

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Thefinal point involving thestructure concerns thequestion of a second supputatio at the endof the Continuatio. There is noevidence for such a chronological reckoning, though there would havebeennoreason foranyofourwitnesses tohave recorded it, since a number, including the Chron. Pasch. andthe Chron. 724, had already reproduced versions of Eusebius’supputatio andwould have hadnoinclination to copy out a newexample only twenty-five years later. That such a final supputatio could have appeared is demonstrated by Ps-Dionysius, whorecords the supputatio that appeared at the end of the continuation of his copy of the Canones (119.30– 3 and 127.33–128.7/159.20–6 and171.20– 172.11). But, like Jerome, this continuator seems to have omitted Eusebius’supputatio andsubstituted hisown, at theendof hisowncontinuation. Theauthor oftheContinuatio left Eusebius’supputatio in place, like Hydatius, who included no final supputatio of his own. This suggests that there wasnoupdated supputatio attheendof theContinuatio andas a result I have notincluded onein myreconstruction. Wherever in thecommentary it is relevant to doso, I quote parallels from the Greek witnesses to the Canones so that the reader maysee for himself or herself howfrequent these parallels are. Such parallels are quoted in the form ‘212a= Sync. 9’, indicating first theentry number fromJerome’s translation, theonlyeasy 234.56– waytorefer toEusebius’entries, andthentheactual source of theGreek text, usually Syncellus. Parallel words in the quotations are underlined. Since the Greek witnesses arejust witnesses, there is the possibility that the text they relate is notthe exact wording of Eusebius. In order to insure that whatI cite is as close aspossible to the original, I have compared each Greek fragment with both the Latin and the Armenian translations, andwith other witnesses, where possible. Where I have had any doubts, I have not quoted the passage. 1.7. Chronology

Aswill be seen, thechronology of the Continuatio is oneof its most valuable features, andtheestablishment of thecorrect chronological order of theentries is therefore of paramount importance. Ofall thesources only Jerome, Theophanes, andthe Chron. Pasch. provide regnal years for each entry. Various individual years are noted bytheother sources. The Chron. 724 unfortunately provides only theapproximate order of the entries with nochronological indicators. Thefirst step inestab-

lishing the chronology, therefore, is simply to follow the three dated sources and slot each entry into its proper year. As one might expect, a number of problems immediately emerge, thechief being that the sources donotalways agree with one another. The first major problem is that during the reign of Constantine Theophanes appears to be a year ahead in comparison with Jerome. For instance, heplaces the refounding of Drepana in 22 Constantine (= AM5818) compared with Jerome’s 21 Const. This problem appears with respect to other Syriac sources andJerome as well. The problem, however, is easily corrected. Eusebius equated the first year of an emperor with the calendar year of his accession. The final regnal year of the

1.Introduction

135

previous emperor andthe notice of his death were thus associated with the year before he actually died.51 All those whofollowed Eusebius, except Jerome, maintained these synchronisms forthereign of Constantine, equating 1Constantine with theyear 306. However, with thenext emperor, Constantius, all followers of Eusebius shifted to a system whereby anemperor’s death is noted intheyear inwhich he diedandthefirst regnal yearofthenextemperor isassociated withthenextcalendar year. These Eusebian continuators, except Jerome, therefore assign Constantine a reign of thirty-two years –even though he only reigned for two months short of thirty-one years –placing 32 Constantine in 337, andassign 1 Constantius (or its equivalent) to 338. This is the case with Theophanes (whose chronology derives from the Continuatio): he assigns Constantine thirty-one years andtenmonths, or a round thirty-two years (11.26 and 33.23; see no. 25 below), instead of the correct thirty years andtenmonths (as in Jerome). Jerome is the exception in all of this because he started this non-Eusebian systemwithConstantine rather thanConstantius andequated 1 Constantine with 307, not 306 as didEusebius andhis followers. Consequently, in order to maintain the correct calendar year equivalent of each event in thereign of Constantine, Jerome hadto reduce each regnal year in Eusebius andthe Continuatio by one. Thus in Eusebius Maxentius wasdefeated in7 Constantine (=312, counting from306), while inJerome it appears in6 Const. (=312, counting from307). Therefounding of Drepanaappeared in 22 Constantine (= 327) inthe Continuatio compared withJerome’s 21 Const. (= 327). Consequently, all Constantine’s regnal years in Jerome (except for his uicennalia, which Jerome hadto keep in 20 Const. to maintain the synchronismwithEusebius, thusmisdating it to326) areoneyear lower thanthose inTheophanes andother continuators of Eusebius. As a result, I always give theADequivalent forConstantine’s regnal years (counting from 306 forTheophanes andother continuators, and307 forJerome), rather thantheactual regnal years themselves. Another potential problem with establishing the chronology is that, as wasnoted above, the compiler of the Continuatio almost certainly used the Syro-Macedonian calendar of Antioch, which began its newyear on 1 Hyperberetaios (1 October).52 Thus events occurring between 1 October and31 December of any given consular year (i.e. the modern Western calendar year) would be dated to the next regnal year. We know, for instance, that Eusebius andhis main Olympiad source used their own local calendars as the chronological basis for their works (see Study 1, Chapter 2), so there seems noreason whysomeone like the author of the Continuatio would nothave done soaswell. Unfortunately, theonly place where wecan actually test this supposition (i.e. anevent thatweknowtookplace late intheyear in a year where there appears to be no other chronological corruption) is the partial eclipse of 9 October 348 (no. 45), which should appear in 12Constantius (= 1 Oct. 30 Sept. 349). Theophanes, however, dates it to 11 Const., which is 348, the 348–

51 All this andwhat follows is explained more fully in Burgess 1997 andStudy 1, Chapter 3. 1; Schürer, 5, and 300– 71, 172– 52 For the Syro-Macedonian calendar, see Grumel 1958: 168– 5; Samuel 1972: 139– 90; Bickerman 1980: 24– Vermes, andMillar 1973: 588– 45; andMeima41. For the calendar of Antioch specifically, see above, n. 43, as well as Downey ris 1992: 38– 5. 1 andHonigmann 1944– 1940–

136

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

consular year for theevent. But, as is noted in thecommentary, thecompiler probably didnot observe this eclipse himself andso probably derived his information from someone else, whomaynot have used the Antiochene calendar or maynot have remembered onexactly what daytheeclipse occurred (it wasonly nine days into thenewAntiochene year andthe Continuatio only notes that it wasa Sunday). That the author of the Continuatio used his local Antiochene calendar andnot the Roman calendar musttherefore remain a mostprobable butunproven hypothesis. Furthermore, each regnal year wasprobably equated with years of the Antiochene era, which began on 1 October 49 BC.53 TheAntiochene erawasthestandard method of dating inAntioch andwassowell-known that it wasnoted (correctly) by Eusebius in his Canones (156b and 223k, though the first may be the work of the compiler of the Continuatio). It therefore probably formed the basis of the compiler’s ownchronological framework, whether ornotheexplicitly usedit inhiscontinuation (no trace of it survives in any of the witnesses, though Chron. can. 156band 228c maybe his work). Consequently 20 Constantine would have been equated in thecompiler’s mindwithYear 373 of theAntiochene era, which ranfrom 1October 324 to 30 September 325, andthe final year of the chronicle with Year 398 (1 Octo30 September 350). Undoubtedly thecompiler knewtheyears of theSeleuber349– cidera as well (see n. 35, above). I believe that most, if notall, theevents that thechronicler reports fromAntioch would therefore have been associated in writing or in the chronicler’s mind with a specific year of Antioch. Since the chronicler hadsuch a simple numerical system for dating theyears, I donotbelieve that hewould have misdated events from Antioch, especially since formanyof these events, suchasthecomet of 336, theDedication Council, ortheeclipse of 346, hehadother detailed chronological information (though in the former case there is clearly some corruption; see entry no. 22). For thelatter, for example, it seems unlikely that heknewthat theeclipse took place at seven o’clock in themorning on6 June, butnotin what year. Therefore, where we have external evidence forevents in Antioch that appear inthe Continuatio andthe source for the information in the Continuatio contradicts the received dates in our other sources, provided thateither date is a possibility andtheerror canbeexplained, I accept the ‘correct’date in the reconstruction. This approach canbe challenged, but I have stated mymethods so that all mayjudge for themselves andknow the basis for myrestoration. Forty-one of fifty-six entries canbe dated to specific regnal years, leaving only i-v, 6, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 13A, 15, 28, 31, and38 –most attested only from the Chron. 724, which hasnochronological framework –tobedated byrelative position rather than regnal year. Specific years canbe assigned to these entries only after theother chronology has been established. Of the forty-one entries with regnal years, four-

53 The Antiochene era is actually a Caesarian era that takes its inception from Caesar’s victory over Pompey atthebattle of Pharsalus inJune of 48 BC (Samuel 1972: 247 n.2 andBickerman 1980: 73). InAntioch this erawasshifted back tothenewyearof theyearof thebattle, accord6 n.8). Thefirst yearof theAntioingtotheSyro-Macedonian calendar (see Samuel 1972: 245– chene Era was thus reckoned to have begun on 1 October 49 BC (see Grumel 1958: 215 and 240, andSamuel 1972: 174 n. 1).

1. Introduction

137

teen aredated byTheophanes alone, andfor these wemust accept hisdating, controlled by the final established chronology andhistorical plausibility (3, 4, 5, 16, 18, 22, 24, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, 45, and46); these are discussed individually below. Jerome, Theophanes, andthe Chron. Pasch. agree onthe dating of fifteen entries (7, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 40, 44, and49) andof these only nos. 30 and44 will be discussed below. The rest must be analysed individually. Chron. Pasch. dates entries nos. 1and2 to325, while Theophanes dates themto 324. Onlythedate of Chron. Pasch. is consistent withtheposition of these entries in the Chron. 724, which is immediately after Eusebius’ supputatio at the end of 20 Constantine (= 325). Theophanes musttherefore be incorrect. Jerome, Theophanes, andthe Chron. Pasch. all agree that the foundation of the octagonal church in Antioch took place the year before Constantine built a bridge across theDanube (nos. 8 and9). Jerome andtheChron. Pasch. date these events to 327 and328, while Theophanes dates themto 328 and329. Thecombined testimonyof Jerome andthe Chron. Pasch. outweighs Theophanes, whomusttherefore be incorrect. To make the analysis of thefollowing chronological problems easier to understand it will be necessary to discuss certain entries outof numerical sequence. The total eclipse of the sunof no. 44 can be dated astronomically to 346 (see the commentary), though Theophanes andJerome agree on the wrong date, 347. As noted above, I findit unlikely that thechronicler could have misdated such a recent event that involved Antioch, onethat certainly would have been remembered in association with a year of the Antiochene era, since thetime, theday, andthemonth of the eclipse were all accurately recorded. But howcould Jerome andTheophanes both be incorrect? If theeclipse wasoriginally dated to 9 Constantius (346), as I believe, this would have left the space opposite the marker for 10 Const. (347) blank, followed bya further blank line opposite theOlympiad marker (see reconstruction). It wasalmost inevitable thatthis gapwould haveeventually beenclosed upbya scribe, analteration thatwould haveplaced themarkers for 10Const., andperhaps eventhe Olympiad marker, next to entry 44, thus dating it to 347 (for a graphic representation of this, see the Appendix to Chapter 2). This process is described more fully in the next paragraph. The simplicity of this error and the probability that the author knew the correct year of the eclipse make it a virtual certainty that this entry belongs in 9 Const. (346). Since chronicle entries inmanuscripts were written outnotasindividual entries asthey appear inmodern editions like this onebutinlarge continuous blocks of text, usually not even breaking off at the ends of individual years, regnal year markers could shift around somewhat along the margins of these blocks.54 Of course most 54

9. Note also the first 43, and Muhlberger 1983: 28– 46, esp. 42– On this, see Burgess 1993a: 39– apparatus criticus at the bottom of each page of Helm’s edition of Jerome, which records the shifts of the regnal year markers in the various manuscripts. All such direct evidence for this phenomenon derives from Latin manuscripts, since wehave no manuscripts of Greek chronicles with regnal years of this type. However, a comparison of theregnal years andYears of Abraham assigned to the entries of the Canones in Jerome, Ps-Dionysius, andthe Armenian translation, andtheformat of theOlympiad chronicle preserved onpapyrus, POxyI 12,confirm thepicture wehave fromearly Latin manuscripts. I haveprovided anexample of a hypothetical

138

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

scribes tried to copy suchtexts carefully, making sure that each regnal year number lined upwiththecorrect section of thetext block, buterrors could easily creep into thetext as it wascopied andthen asthat copy wasrecopied. This is especially true where there were empty regnal years ona page that wasotherwise filled with text: gaps would rarely be left byscribes whocould ill-afford wasted space andsoregnal yearmarkers opposite a blank space (anempty year) could shift either upordownto become associated with the nearest text block. Since there would be no obvious break insucha textblock, a regnal yearmarker would eventually beshifted towards the obvious beginning of a sentence or section higher up(or lower down) in the previous (or following) year since there would be noobvious place to anchor it. As well, there areinstances where a scribe quite obviously thought that suchgapswere errors left by previous scribes andhe set about ‘correcting’ the text before him, often in quite arbitrary andbizarre ways. If Jerome’s translation of Eusebius’Canones is anyguide, onlytheblank lines associated withOlympiad markers continued to serve as breaks between text blocks (but only regularly in the later parts of the text). Text could therefore notnormally stray above orbelow these markers. However, there is evidence that eventhese blank spaces could onoccasion beclosed up by scribes, as can also be seen in Jerome, a fact that seems to have allowed the Olympiad markers to be shifted as well, either with or separately from their associatedregnal year markers. Aswell, certain regnal year markers could be omitted by onescribe andwritten downinthewrong place bya later scribe whowasattempting to correct the defect. In Latin manuscripts this wasmore common than one might expect, chiefly because regnal years were marginal andeasily missed, andthis was probably so in Greek manuscripts as well. The correct date of no. 44 helps us to sort out another, slightly earlier, discrepancy. Jerome, Theophanes, andMichael theSyrian all date no.40, a series of earthquakes, to 346 (9 Constantius). Jerome dates nos. 41 and43 to 346 as well, while Theophanes dates themandno.42 to 347 (10 Const.). If nos. 40 and44 date to 346, thenentries 41, 42, and43 mustdate to 346 aswell (asinJerome), notto 347 (asin Theophanes). Theophanes must therefore be incorrect. This error is a result of the above-described problem with shifting regnal years. In this case the regnal year marker for 10Const. inTheophanes’manuscript oftheContinuatio hasshifted from a position below no.44 upto no.41. Such a large shift suggests that theregnal year marker, inthis case a lone iota, wasatonepoint omitted andthen supplied bya later scribe in the wrong place. Understanding thepossible mechanics of this error allows ustoexplain another instance where Jerome andTheophanes agree in a chronological error. Although Jerome andTheophanes agree on the date of 342 for no. 30 (5 Constantius), the dedication of theGreat Church inAntioch atthetime of theDedication Council, and Theophanes dates no.32, anearthquake inAntioch, tothesameyear, weknowfrom uncial page layout of theContinuatio asanAppendix toChapter 2 to illustrate thepoints that I ammaking here andbelow. Two other examples of hypothetical Greek pages of Eusebius’ chronicle canbe seen in Mosshammer 1979: 27 andHelm’s edition of Jerome’s chronicle, p. xxxi, though Helm’s page is far toolarge forthetype-face andboth arewritten ina minuscule font that is medieval inorigin.

1. Introduction

139

other sources (see commentary) that both must date to 341. This is supported by the fact that no. 30 states that the completion of the octagonal Great Church (no. 8, dated to 327) occurred ‘within fifteen years’ of its foundation, yet from 342 the foundation is sixteen years earlier (reckoned inclusively, asis thelength of Constantine II’s reign inno.29; seecommentary). Thetext is thusself-contradictory, implying a date of 341 but assigning the entries to 342. Indeed, given the widespread damage caused toAntioch bytheearthquake of 341(see thecommentary tono.32), occurring in the same year as the famous Dedication Council in Antioch, I donot think that the author of the Continuatio could have misdated either entry. It also seems unlikely that the compiler would have known that the famous dedication occurred atEpiphany butnotinwhich year (see mycomments, above, onthedating of events in Antioch). Andif nos. 30 and32 date to 341, then no.31, theordination of Stephen, bishop of Antioch, must date to 341 as well. Jerome, it mustbe noted, contradicts Theophanes onthedate of theearthquake, assigning it to thecorrect 341. However, Jerome also usedtheDescriptio consulum as a source andtrusted its chronology; it mentions theearthquake anddates it to the consular year 341 (s.a. 341.2). This explains whyJerome can date the earthquake correctly butnotthededication (another instance where heaccepted theDescriptio in preference to the Continuatio is noted below). Theincorrect date for thededication, therefore, suggests another shift in a regnal year in the copies of the Continuatio used by both Jerome andTheophanes. Thus 2 belong in 4 Const. (341), 5 Const. (342) would have originally been if nos. 30– blank. As we saw above, the closing upof this gapcould have provided the impetus for the shifting of the regnal year marker for 5 Const. upwards, dating everything below it to 342 instead of 341. But this is not all. Jerome andTheophanes agree ondating no. 36 to 344 (7 Const.), butthey split onno.34, thePersian persecution of theChristians, Jerome placing it in344, Theophanes in 343. As we have seen above andwill see below, wherever Jerome and Theophanes disagree, Jerome provides thecorrect date, so 344 must be correct for no. 34. It musttherefore also becorrect forno.35, eventhough Theophanes dates it

to 343. This leaves uswith no. 33, Constantius’victory andtriumph over the Persians. Theophanes also dates this to 343 (6 Const.), a date weknowfrom other sources to be incorrect (see commentary), since thetriumph washeldinJanuary of 344. Therefore the chronicler should have included the triumph under the next regnal year, 7 Const., the same year as the Persian persecution, which started in April of 344, not under 6 Const. (343). Unfortunately, because of theconfusion of theregnal years at 2) andthe following this point –theprevious three entries in Theophanes (nos. 30– 5) are incorrectly dated, a year late anda year early respectively – two (nos. 34– there is no method of determining whether this date is the original one or not; given the current confusion it seems highly unlikely. Since this triumph was probably celebrated in Antioch (for this, see the commentary), I believe that the entry probably originally appeared under 7 Const., even though no subsidiary chronology is included as is usually thecase, andthat is howit appears in thereconstruction. Onthe assumption that what I have outlined above wasthe original format, it would meanthat there were twoblank regnal years atthis point in the Continuatio,

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

140

onefor 342 andonefor 343 (5 and6 Const.), withtheregnal year markers clustered ahead of the Olympiad marker, thus leaving three blank lines in the manuscript. This fact could explain howtheregnal year markers inthemanuscripts usedbyboth Jerome andTheophanes came to be so incorrect at this point. In the only other such instance where bothJerome andTheophanes areincorrect, noted above, there would also appear to have been a blank regnal yearjust below theentry, andthese are the only twoplaces where there would havebeenblank regnal years intheContinuatio. These are also the twolongest sections of erroneous dates in Theophanes –six en4 at thebeginning of the text. tries andfour entries respectively –along with nos. 1– These facts cannot all be a result of coincidence. It would seem that in the manuscripts of Jerome and Theophanes the gap of three lines between the text blocks at 4 and7 Const. was gradually closed up. This caused the displacement of the marker for 5 Const. upwards, probably to a point opposite no. 30, thus post-dating nos. 30 to 32 (to 342 instead of 341). Furthermore, in Theophanes’ text the marker for 7 Const. wasdisplaced downwards (to no. 36) (for the positions of these entries, see the reconstruction in Chapter 2). This latter displacement hadnot occurred in Jerome’s text of the Continuatio andso he was able to date no. 34 accurately. Both errors were probably a result of scribes’ attempts to even outthecluster of regnal years (5, 6, and7 Const.) andlink themarkers with what seemed like newtext blocks in their copies. This of course is entirely hypothetical, butit at least accounts for theerrors in a waythat is consistent within the texts of Jerome andTheophanes andwith similar instances observed in other manuscripts (see n. 54, above) In both places described above, the shift of the regnal year markers has been muchgreater inTheophanes thaninJerome, probably aneffect ofTheophanes’later date andthe consequent fact that his manuscript of the Continuatio wasfurther removed from the original. It mayalso perhaps have derived from a less carefully copied version. Botherrors would have appeared onthefinal folio of themanuscript of the Canones (verso andrecto) andsoeven physical damage andwearcould explain theerror: Theophanes oranearlier copyist maysimply nothave known where

theregnal years actually belonged. The position of nos. 47 and48 in the Chron. 724 corresponds exactly to the explicit date given by other sources (described in the commentary), namely 349, while Theophanes assigns themto 341. Theophanes must therefore again be incorrect, though the confusion must be a result of a compilation error in the putting together of Theophanes’ chronicle either by Theophanes himself; Syncellus, who mayhave set upthematerial forTheophanes; ora contemporary orlater editor.55 I cannot imagine anytextual explanation for so large a shift. In each case above, where Theophanes disagrees with another source his date hasbeen incorrect. This is typical of Theophanes: ‘His dates are not to be trusted without supporting evidence’(Mango andScott 1997: xcv). The same cantherefore probably said for no. 23, concerning Eustathius andZenobius, which Jerome dates to 336 andTheophanes to 337; I have accepted 336 asthecorrect date. It is closer to 55 Ontherôles of Syncellus, Theophanes, anda possible early editor, seeMango andScott 1997: lii-lxiii.

1.Introduction

141

thecorrect date, aswell (Sept. 335; seecommentary), which is soclose totheendof the Antiochene year (30 September 335) that the error is easy to understand. Inno. 19,theproclamation of Dalmatius ascaesar, wehave a different problem. Jerome andthe Chron. Pasch. onthe one hand andTheophanes on the other disagree over the date (335 and 334, respectively) andwe know from independent sources that 335 is correct. This should mean that the date provided by Jerome and the Chron. Pasch. is the correct one. However, wealso know that Jerome andthe Chron. Pasch. hadanother source that gave them thecorrect date for this entry (the Descriptio consulum; seecommentary), sotheyarenosure witnesses tothechronologyof theContinuatio inthis instance. However, no.20, theusurpation anddeath of Calocaerus, which both Theophanes andJerome agree dates to 334, mentions Dalmatius ascaesar. Hecould hardly have been caesar in 334 if hewasnotproclaimed caesar until 335 andso Theophanes must reflect the Continuatio: no. 19 dates to 334, not335. TheContinuatio haserred here byconfusing thetwoDalmatii, father (no. 20, involved with Calocaerus as censor) andson(no. 19, proclaimed caesar), andhasthus antedated the accession of Dalmatius the sonbyoneyear. Jerome and the Chron. Pasch. trusted thetestimony of theDescriptio (as they usually do)over that of the Continuatio. Of the remaining entries dated by Theophanes alone, the date of the invasion anddeath of Narseh in no. 3 is the most difficult. Its position in the Continuatio is determined by two different pieces of evidence. The first is no. 5b in the list of witnesses in Chapter 2 (from the Chron. 724), which says that ‘thekings andpeoples of thebarbarians’weremadesubject toConstantine. The ‘barbarians’is clearly a reference to the text in no. 5a, butthat entry does notmention a king. This entry does. Entry 5b would thus seem to be summarizing nos. 3 and5. Second, the order of entries in Theophanes is 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Entry no. 2, the foundation of the churches, is oneyear tooearly inTheophanes, aswasnoted above. Thenextentry is this one, no.3, andit is placed attheendof 324 inTheophanes, thesameyear asno. 2 (=325). Then comes no.4, which maynotbelong to the Continuatio, andwhich should date to 326 (see below). Then follows no. 5, which dates to 327. This entry onNarseh, then, could either date to 325, thedate of no.2, or326, thedate of no.4. If Theophanes canbe trusted, it belongs with no. 2 in 325. Hisdate forthedeath of Crispus andtherefoundation ofByzantium (325; no.4) is likely tobe wrong, since it is placed intheyear following entries that aredated to 2). This 324 by Theophanes but correctly dated by Chron. Pasch. to 325 (nos. 1– suggests anoriginal date of 326, thecorrect date of thedeath of Crispus, butnotfor the refoundation of Byzantium, which is 324. Entry no. 5 is in the same year as no. 7, which is dated to 327, so it should be 327 21 are correct, the dates of nos. 16 as well. Since the dates of nos. 14, 17, and 19– (332) and 18 (333) are probably correct as well. The comet of no. 22 is dated by Chinese sources to early February of 336, andit wasprobably visible into the summerof that year, butTheophanes dates it to 335. Since this comet is specifically stated tohave beenseeninAntioch andhours of thedayarerecorded, I believe that thecorrect year intheContinuatio should be 31Constantine (336), buttheentry has suffered at least some corruption (see commentary) andit is possible that it was misdated in the Continuatio.

142

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

Apart from thefour blocks of chronological errors inTheophanes noted above 5, 41–4, and47– (nos. 1– 4, 30– 8) Theophanes only appears to err in twoother places, again in blocks: nos. 8 and9 (328 and329 instead of 327 and328, discussed above) andhere, nos. 22 and23 (335 and337 instead of 336). Both errors arelikely caused bythesamemechanism of error ascaused theerror in47– 8, thatTheophanes (or Syncellus; see n. 55, above) has confused his notes andmisplaced them by a year. It is hardto imagine a textual explanation fortheshifts of 9 and23. Other sources confirm the date of 344 for no. 37 (see commentary), so it is probably correct. The date of no. 45 (348) seems to be correct (see above andthe commentary). For nos. 24, 39, and46 wecanonly accept Theophanes’dates. Almost all the forty-one dated entries can nowbe dated with general confidence. The remaining fifteen entries from the Chron. 724 must nowbe slotted in. Entries i-v have just been added where they belong historically (see the commentary) since there is little evidence to indicate where they originally belonged, except thatentries i-iii mustbelong between 8 and11Constantine, andivandv between 11 and20 Const. I haveplaced i-iii under 8 Const. (313), ivunder 14Const. (319), and v under 19Const. (324). This is thecase formostother entries below aswell: within the parameters afforded by the Chron. 724 I have placed the entries where they seem to belong historically. Entry 6, the Council of Nicaea, must belong in 327, since nos. 5, 7, and8 also appear in the Chron. 724 andcanbe dated to 327. This is incorrect bytwoyears (see commentary), which is thesecond largest chronological error intheContinuatio (the largest being theinvasion anddeath of Narseh). No. 10, theordination of Athanasius, which canbe dated independently to 328, andnos. 11, 12, and 12A, the ordinations of Eulalius, Eusebius, andEuphronius, which canbe dated independently to 329 (see the commentary), must come between no. 8, the building of the church in Antioch, dated to 327, andno. 13, the dedication of Constantinople, dated to 11May330 (no. 9 does notappear in the Chron. 724). I have thus placed 10 in 328 and 11, 12, and 12Ain 329 (see commentary). No. 13A, the accession of Flacillus, seems tobelong in330 based onmyhistorical reconstruction, andI have placed it inthis year, though it mustbeemphasized that there is noactual witness to this entry aside from theAntiochene bishop list inJerome (see commentary). No. 14, the destruction of pagan temples, is out of place in the Chron. 724, being placed between nos. 8 and 10, andthus under animplied date of 327 or 328, butJerome andTheophanes agree ondating no. 14 to 331, which musttherefore be correct. No. 15,theordination of Maximus, could beinits correct position, between thefoundation of theGreat Church andtheordination of Athanasius (nos. 8 and10), 8. However, as canbe seen in Chapter 3, no. i, Maximus was thus dating to 327– ordained in 332 or 333, which is exactly where it would appear hadit followed the misplaced no. 14. It could just be a coincidence, but I have accepted that the ordination of Maximus has been shifted along with no. 14. Furthermore, the compiler’s other dates forbishops all seemtoberoughly correct andthere is noreason whythis oneshould besoerroneous (five toseven years tooearly). Nos. 25 and26, thedeath of Constantine andtheaccession of his sons, arealso antedated in the Chron. 724, being placed between no. 13 (which dates to 330) andno.23 (which dates to 336), thespace vacated byentries 14and15. Since these entries aredated byJerome and Theophanes to 337, there is noquestion about their proper positioning. Thedisloca-

1. Introduction

143

tionof these twoblocks of text intheChron. 724 seems tohavebeentheresult of the epitomator’sjumping toofarahead bymistake andthengoing back toinclude material that had been omitted. The ordination of Gregory of Alexandria (no. 28) falls between no.27, thesiege of Nisibis, dated to 337 (see thecommentary) andno.29, thedeath of Constantine II, dated to 340. Hisordination followed theexile of Athanasius, which canbedated fromother sources to339, soI have placed this entry in that year. Theordination of Stephen of Antioch, no.31, appearing between nos. 30 and32, which both mustdate to 341, hasbeen discussed above. Theordination of Leontius, no. 38, appears between no. 36, anearthquake in Neocaesarea, dated to 344, andno.41, thebuilding of theport of Seleucia Pieria, dated to 346. Weknow from independent sources that Leontius wasordained in 344, so I have placed the entry inthis year, though there is nowaytotell whether it belongs before orafter no.

38.

1.8. Preliminary Analysis

So much then for thenature, date, theology, location, structure, style, andchronologyof this Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii. What canwelearn from it? Fifty-six entries or fragments of entries survive, each onerecounting a different episode or fact. The first five entries were interpolated back into the text of Eusebius’Chronici canones, filling in gaps in theepiscopal lists of Antioch, Jerusalem, andAlexandria thatwerecreated whenEusebius failed tocontinue hislists pastthebeginning of the Great Persecution.56 Because of this, I have numbered them i-v. Twenty-seven entries cover the reign of Constantine from 325 to 337 (twelve years), while twentyfourcover thereign of histhree sonsfrom337 to350 (thirteen years). Indescending order of frequency theContinuatio focuses ontheemperor andhisfamily, including Dalmatius, thehalf brother of Constantine, whois confused withhisson, Dalmatius Caesar (in this category I would include the foundation anddedication of Constantinople); the warwith thePersians; earthquakes, comets, famines, andeclipses; the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, andJerusalem (including Eusebius, who is mentioned as a bishop of Antioch); andother religious affairs, especially those of Antioch. The earthquakes, comets, eclipses, andso on mayalso belong in this latter category if they wereconsidered asportents, andthusprovidentialist, butthere is no explicit statement to that effect in the surviving material. This selection tells us muchabout theauthor andhismilieu. As anEasterner, his focus wassolely Eastern. Hementions the West (Dyrrachium, Rome, andCampania) only once, andthat is in relation to earthquakes. He has no information on the bishops of Rome andso they become the only one of Eusebius’ four apostolic successions that he cannot continue to his owntime. He mentions thedeath of Constantine II, a Western emperor (no. 29), butshows nosign of having known anything about himorhisdeath. Henever mentions Constans atall apart from his name at his accession (no. 26). Antioch wason the front line in the 56 Onthis, see Study 1,Chapter 4.

144

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

waragainst the Persians that hadstarted in 337 andbecame animportant imperial andmilitary base for that wareffort. Its previous capture bythePersians in 252 no doubt made inhabitants fearful of Shapur’s constant threats, frequent invasions, and lengthy sieges of Nisibis. This reinforced the author’s eastward perspective. Antiochwasalso oneofthemostimportant Christian centres intheEast, rivalled onlyby Alexandria. It was the location of many important church councils, andwas also home to the aptly named Great Church, anarchitectural wonder in its day. Antioch wasalso subject to frequent disastrous earthquakes, oneof themost violent in 341, just nine years before the endof the Continuatio. Thus the content andoutlook of the Continuatio are exactly what we would have expected from an inhabitant of Antioch atthetime, andits author musttherefore have beenjust that. It is difficult to determine, however, whether this strictly eastern focus is a result of a lack of access to sources, which would tell us something about the author’s social status, or simply just a narrow andparochial mentality that didnot count anything much beyond Oriens as being important. Hewasable to obtain information about earthquakes from distant locations, so the possibility exists that he could have obtained other information if hehadbeeninterested enough todoso.Hisinformation onbishops fromJerusalem andAlexandria seems toderive froma pre-existinglist that ended in339 (see 1.4.3 and4, above) andheprovides noinformation on those cities after that date, in spite of his obvious interest inbishops. In spite of his narrow purview, heavoids thetooobviously regional ortrivial in hiswork, preserving as best as he can the universalizing aspect of Eusebius’ Canones, buthis wasa very blinkered view of theworld. This viewis fixed firmly eastward, except whenit comes to mentioning earthquakes; then hepresents information from such far-flung places as Rome andNeocaesarea inPontus. Whatever theexplanation, hishorizons andtherefore his world were very small, either bynecessity orbychoice. There is noindication that hewasanimportant or well-travelled man, since he mentions nothing that hehimself wasactually involved in andgives nohint that he wasinvolved in anything that he does narrate. Hegives noindication of having been anywhere other than Antioch, though he mayhave been in Beirut in 349; Antioch wasa very cosmopolitan city andeverything he records would have been easy to discover inAntioch itself. Eusebius leaves absolutely nohints about hishome, travels, orstatus inthe Canones either, however, andinthis theauthor of theContinuatio mayjust be following Eusebius’lead. Nevertheless some suppositions can be ventured. Hischoice of material does notseem to reflect anytype of aristocratic or senatorial background. Hisordinary andsometimes clumsy Greek indicates that he hadnot received the highest levels of linguistic andrhetorical training (or if he had he wasa very badstudent), buthis Greek is notthe spoken Koine of the time andso hiseducation wasreasonable butnotadvanced. Beyond this it is probably pointless to speculate. In the chronicle he tells what he thought wasinteresting about what he knew washappening inhisworld. Thepreservation of thechronicle isthusalso thepreservation of something of himandhisworld. Hewasliving a life of narrow horizons, a manfor whomtheemperor, security (both from human andnatural disasters), and religious affairs wereparamount. TheContinuatio thusprovides uswithaninteresting glimpse into the world view of a reasonably well-off andeducated inhabitant of

1. Introduction

145

Antioch in themiddle of thefourth century, a viewunlike that presented inmost of oursources, since he wasnotanemperor, a bishop or a religious leader, a teacher like Libanius, or a member of thesenatorial aristocracy. The method of composition is something that wecan only guess at. As noted above, the author seems to have had a list of the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria that concluded around 339. The reference to Eusebius of Caesarea as bishop of Antioch is certainly a reflection of thecontemporary situation (see commentary). Later bishops of Antioch he added himself. It is probable that he compiled muchof thematerial himself overmanyyears. Theearthquake record is particularly full for the 340s (see Appendix 6 to Chapter 3), which suggests that the author could have been compiling material for at least a decade. I amof the opinion (and that is all that it is) that his was an original work and that the author did not derive his material from a pre-existing historical or chronological work. The interest in Dalmatius seems a product of contemporary compilation in thelate 330s rather than of a later acquisition of information since neither Dalmatius wasof anyimportance or interest after their deaths in337. Thesame seems true of thereferences toEustathius andZenobius in 336 (no. 23), whomtheauthor seems to have met. These observations would suggest that the author had been collecting material for up to fifteen years. Hydatius finished his chronicle, which I have mentioned above, inearly 469, andthere is evidence that hebegan compiling material in themid-450s at least and 6), sothere is nothing unusual perhaps even asearly as the430s (Burgess 1993a: 5– about anindividual’s collecting information over a long period. Ontheother hand, somematerial is nottheresult of contemporary compilation. Entry 3, which seems to combine events from 336 and344 (see the commentary) seems tobe a result of oral stories incirculation around thetime of compilation. The description of the comet in 336 (no. 22), is clearly not the result of eye-witness testimony andhasbeencorrupted viaeither written ororal sources. Thereference to Eusebius as being bishop of Constantinople in no.25 is also a later reference, made after Eusebius wasmore well-known asthebishop of Constantinople thanasthat of Nicomedia. Certain events would have beenpublicly announced andrecorded, such as Constantius’ activities in the East, but there is no evidence that consularia, a standard source of local andimperial information for thenext generation of chroniclers, hadbeen popularized in theEast at this time.57 Hecould have obtained from local records official proclamations andannouncements, imperial, civic, andecclesiastical, andfromeyewitnesses andothers accounts of incidents that they hadseen or heard about, like the earthquake in Beirut. Being in Antioch facilitated his access to imperial information, especially concerning the Persians, Constantius’ battles, andnewfoundations onthe frontier. Whatever his methods, his chronology seems to have been particularly careful andaccurate where wecanjudge it against independent information. A number of other important conclusions andobservations arise fromtheidentification of the Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii as anhistorical work in its own right. Thefirst is thatallthemostimportant witnesses tothetext ofEusebius’Chroni-

57 Onconsularia andmybelief that so-called ‘city chronicles’didnotexist, see Burgess 1993a: 86. 178–

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

146

ci canones in Greek, Latin, andSyriac, that is Syncellus (whose copy wasusedby Theophanes), theChron. Pasch., Jerome, andtheChron. 724, derive notfromEusebius’text alone, but from anaugmented text that dates from twenty-five years later. Even the text used by Ps-Dionysius, another important witness to Eusebius’ text, wasnotan original’text, butonethat hadbeenextended to 333 (see n. 7, above). It is thus clear‘ for the first time that the immediate fate of Eusebius’ chronicle was similar to thefate suffered by many later Latin chronicles: they rarely survived on their ownandwere often attached to later continuations. The question nowarises, WasEusebius’chronicle also interpolated andotherwise tampered with, as its Latin successors were? Wecan never know for certain, butit does seempossible.58 This possibility hasenormous ramifications for ourunderstanding of Eusebius’text, since it canonly be reconstructed from contaminat‘ ed’or incomplete sources. It is also obvious that the Canones-Continuatio was a

very popular version of Eusebius’chronicle, since it wasusedbyJerome in thelate fourth century just thirty years after its composition, Socrates Scholasticus in the second quarter of the fifth century, John of Ephesus in the late sixth (onwhom, see 1.5above andn. 18), theChron. Pasch. andtheChron. 724 intheearly seventh, and Syncellus andTheophanes intheearly ninth. It mayindeed havebeenoneofthefew Greek versions of the chronicle in existence after the early fifth century. It would thusappear that anuninterpolated, intact copyof Eusebius’Chronici canones failed tosurvive evenonehundred years after itscomposition, replaced orsuperseded asit was by augmented texts, like those of the Continuatio andthe continuation used by Ps-Dionysius, andrevised and‘corrected’texts, like those of Diodorus, Panodorus, Annianus, andAndronicus. Noteven the Armenian translation can give us anidea of thetext of theoriginal since it hasbeencompletely reworked andrewritten, andit suffers from manyproblems, notleast incompleteness andchronological error, that make it a particularly problematic witness. The most important conclusion, however, concerning the Continuatio is that it gives us a date and a provenance for much valuable information hitherto spread throughout many later works, and provides a reliable chronology for most of that material. A fact or date from a seventh-century Syriac chronicle concerning the second quarter of the fourth century is useful only to a certain extent, since the ultimate source is unknown andtherefore unverifiable. But once it is established that that particular fact or date derives from a source written in 350 in Antioch, confidence in it rises enormously, especially given that in this case the author was writing about the area in which he lived. Of course, the work of no ancient historian canbe accepted at face value without careful scrutiny, nomatter howclose hewas to the events he wasnarrating (Ammianus is the perfect example of an objective’ I ‘ eye-witness historian whois anything but; see nowBarnes 1998). Consequently 58 This possibility is increased because of thefact that Eusebius’chronology wasmuchcriticized; 105) andJacob his most well-known critics are Panodorus andAnnianus (see Adler 1989: 72– 214), butEusebius’work wasalso attacked andreworked by Diodorus of Edessa (Chron. 199– of Tarsus andAndronicus (see above, n.7). Ouronly controls forsuch aninvestigation would bethechronicle of Ps-Dionysius andtheArmenian translation of theCanones, neither of which is respectively complete enough or faithful enough to theoriginal to admit of definite conclusions.

1.Introduction

147

have chosen to offer ananalysis of the Continuatio in order to evaluate its general accuracy and to investigate in what ways it can throw new light onto the events it narrates.

1.9. Preface to the Following Chapters Whatfollows thetestimony of thewitnesses andmyreconstruction andtranslation of the text with its appendix (Chapter 2), therefore, is a commentary intended to showhowimportant anduseful a document the Continuatio is. It is nota commentary in thetraditional sense; it is what I call a historico-chronological commentary, in which I test thefactual andchronological information of the Continuatio against our other surviving evidence. In this commentary mygoals are four-fold: first, to explain the basis for my reconstruction when it is based upon differing sources; second, tonote andanalyse anyinteresting philological aspects of thereconstructed text; third, to provide a general chronological background for each entry, where such information is known; andfourth, to develop orexplain certain important historical problems raised by the text. Some sections are short; a few are very long. This is indeed anunusual format, but, I believe, a necessary one. The value of the Continuatio cannot be determined until there is a firmly established set of facts against which to evaluate it. It is particularly the purpose of this commentary to establish those ‘facts’where I have found them lacking, controversial, or incorrect. I have let the argument itself in each case dictate the length of each section of this commentary. The heart of this study, the restoration itself, is established as much as possible upontheentries surviving inthetworemaining Greek sources, Theophanes andthe Chron. Pasch. Material notpreserved inthese twosources, either fragments of surviving entries or entire entries, I have rendered into Greek based on the surviving Greek fragments of Eusebius’Canones wherever possible. With theexception of a fewwords, I have been able to findexact or very close parallels forthis material in Syncellus, the Chron. Pasch., andtheAnon. Matr. The reader will easily be able to seethese additions tothesurviving Greek texts whencomparing thequoted witnesses with the reconstructed text. In the end, the entries as they appear in the reconstruction areprobably very close to thewaythey appeared in theoriginal text. The text itself is probably very close to being complete as well; or if it is not, only a few entries orportions of entries aremissing. As anappendix to Chapter 2, I have provided a hypothetical reconstruction of the fourth-century uncial page layout of the text so that again the reader may have a better understanding of what these sorts of documents looked like andhowthe information theycontained could havebeencorrupted ormisinterpreted. It ismeant as a scholarly aid, notas anattempt to fool readers into thinking that it is a transcription of some lost manuscript. Thegoal is a better understanding of chronicles: howthey worked, howthey were used, andhowthey were preserved. The final result of this restorative work of collection, ‘cleaning’, andreassembly is, I believe, one of the most valuable sources wepossess for the secular andreligious history of the East between 325 and350.

2. The Reconstruction Introduction

Part 1: TheWitnesses

In the following collection of quotations I have included only the witnesses that seem to reproduce most closely theoriginal Greek text of the Continuatio ineither wording or content. A complete list of all witnesses for each entry can be found in Chapter 1.3. Thesources forthetexts appear after eachentry: [T]= Theophanes; [C] = Chron. 724; [CP] = Chron. Pasch.; [J] = Jerome; [MS] = Michael theSyrian. The chronology for each entry in its original context (if any) is noted after each indication of source. Entries are listed in approximate order of importance, usually a good Greek witness first, Theophanes or the Chron. Pasch., then the Chron. 724, followed by any other Greek, Latin, or Syriac witnesses. The translations of the Syriac texts were prepared byWitold Witakowski. There area fewinstances where I have printed the reading of MS V of the Chron. Pasch. ([CP]) rather than the text of the edition. This is because a comparison with Theophanes shows the editor’s emendations tobeincorrect. Suchinstances arenoted intheapparatus. Intheapparatus I have not included the accent variants noted by de Boor in his edition of Theophanes.

Part 2: TheReconstruction andTranslation Entry numbers have been included in the left margin for ease of future reference; these arethe same numbers usedin Chapter 1.3. Entries i-v were interpolated back into Eusebius’ Canones andappeared at various dates between 313 and325 (see Chapter 1.7). As a result I have included the relevant text of the Canones at the beginning of thereconstruction in a smaller font to showthe approximate location of these entries. The text derives from Study 1, without diacritical marks andentry numbers. Entries in italics, designated withduplicate entry numbers andan , are ‘A’ additions to the text based on the internal numeration of the Chron. 724 andJerome’s list of Antiochene bishops. Noactual entry as such survives apart from Jerome’s list (see 12Aand13Ain thecommentary). Similarly thelengths of bishops’ terms that donotappear inthesurviving witnesses havebeensupplied andtherefore appear in italics. When I have some doubt concerning the authenticity of a word, phrase, orentry, I enclose thedoubtful material within square brackets. There is no direct evidence for Olympiads orYears of Abraham, butthese were major chronological features of theCanones andwould certainly have beencontinued (see Chapter 1.4.1 and 1.6). The basis for the chronological restoration can also be found in Chapter 1.7.

2. The Reconstruction

149

Onthe pages facing myreconstruction of the text is mytranslation of that reconstructed text. I have added years ADintheleft-hand margins next to theregnal years. Anasterisk indicates that theentry wasdated byexternal evidence notinternal considerations of the surviving texts. Appendix: Uncial Reconstruction

This reconstruction aims to approximate whattheContinuatio (andhence Eusebius’ Canones itself) would have looked like in thefourth century ona manuscript page. I have reconstructed each entry as I believe it would have appeared asbest as I can approximate. Some doubtful material hasbeen omitted. Concordance with Bidez andWinkelmann, Philostorgius, Anhang VII

i-v= --

1= 3 2= 3 3 = 3a 4 = -5 = 4a, 3b

6= --

7=4 8= 5 9= 6 10 = 7b 11

=

7b

12 = 7b 13 = 7 14 = 8

15 = 7b 16 = 9 17 = 10 18 = 10 19 = 11 20 = 11 21 = 12 22 = 12 23 = 13 24 = 13

25 = 26 = 27 = 28 = 29 = 30 = 31 = 32 = 33 = 34 = 35 = 36 = 37 = 38 = 39 = 40 = 41 = 42 = 43 = 44 = 45 = 46 = 47 = 48 = 49 =

13 13 13 14a 14a

16 16a 16 17 17 17 18

18 24b 19

20 21 21 21 21 22 23 15 15 24

150

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Part 1: TheWitnesses Sigla andManuscripts

Jerome: O Oxoniensis; Lat. Auct.

S

ΤII 26; fifth century

(generally regarded

as the best

manuscript) fragmenta Floriacensia

5 + Parisinus Lat. = Vaticanus Reg. Lat. 1709, ff. 34– 90 + Lugduno-Batauus Voss. Lat Q. 110a; fifth/sixth 8, 185– 6400 B, ff 1–

century Amandinus; Valentianensis 495; seventh century Bongarsianus; Bernensis 219; seventh century Petavianus; Lat. Voss. Q. 110; mid-ninth century Turonensis; Phillips 1872; ninth century Lucensis; Bibl. Capit. 490; eighth century M Middlehillensis; Phillips 1829; ninth century F Freherianus; Lugduno-Batauus Scaligeranus 14; early ninth century Q Parisinus Lat4858; mid-ninth century T Oxoniensis; Mertonensis 315; ninth century X Londiniensis; Mus. Brit. Add. 16974; ninth/tenth century D Parisinus Lat. 4861; mid-tenth century C Colbertinus; Parisinus Lat. 4859; ninth/tenth century Onthe manuscripts of Jerome, seeFotheringham, viii-xxi andHelm, ix-xx.

A B P N L

Theophanes: Vaticanus Barberinus 553, sixteenth century a Vaticanus Graecus 154, twelfth century (generally regarded asthebest manub script) Vaticanus Graecus 155, late ninth century c d Parisinus Graecus 1710, tenth century δ Parisinus Graecus 1709, sixteenth century e Vaticanus Palatinus 395, sixteenth century f Parisinus Coislinianus 133, twelfth century g Parisinus Graecus 1711, eleventh century Vaticanus h Graecus 978, eleventh/twelfth andsixteenth centuries m Monacensis Graecus 391, sixteenth century x consensus of c andd y consensus of e, f, andm z consensus of g andh A Latin translation of Anastasius Bibliothecarius Onthemanuscripts of Theophanes, seeMango andScott 1997: xcv-xcviii.

Chronicon Paschale: Vaticanus Graecus 1941; tenth century (the sigla P andR usedinDindorf s edition refer toseventeenth century editions not manuscripts)

V

2. TheReconstruction

151

Chron. 724.:

C

British Library Add. 14,643; eighth century

Michael theSyrian:

M

Undated manuscript al-Suryan, Aleppo.

nowintheSyrian Orthodox church of St George inHayy

Chron. 1234: A now-lost late fourteenth century manuscript that wasinprivate hands time thecited edition wasproduced.

C

atthe

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

152

The Witnesses

The thirty-ninth bishop of Jerusalem, Macarius. [C] 313/315

ii.

a.

b.

The bishop of Antioch, Vitalis (Bylyws). [C] 313/315 Antiochiae post Tyrannum XX ordinatur episcopus Vitalis. [J]

iii.

Theseventeenth bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. [C] 313/5 iv.

a.

b.

The twenty-first bishop of Antioch, Philigonius (Pylygwnyws). [C] 316/25 post quem [ordinatur] XXI Filogonius. [J]

b. i. v.

a.

..

.

The twenty-second bishop of Antioch, Flavianus (Plwynws), for seven months, andafter himthetwenty-third, Eustathius, for four years. [C] b.

1.

a.

c.

2.

a.

316/325 cui successit XXII Paulinus; post quem XXIII Eustathius. [J]

κ α τ ὰ ίω τ ντ ῶ νπ ῆ ο λ εμ ν ςτ ῶ νπ ῶ νΧριστια ίσ τ η τ εύ ω ε σ α ςστρα ςὑ π γ γ ά ε τ οτ ῇ εὐ ῇτ η ν . [CP] 325 ὴ χ νν ίκ

Constantine the merciful prepared himself against those who fought against the religion of the Christians and through his prayer he received victory from God. [C] ] 324 . [Τ ν η γ ε γ τ ά οτ χ ῇ εὐ ὴ ν ν ίκ η ῇ τ ίω νὑπ κ α τ ὰ π ά λ εμ ν ο τ ν π ντ ῶ ω

ὴ ν α τ ὰ ῶ νκ τ ό π ο υ ὴ ν ντ ἰςτιμ ςε νἐθ ῶ φ ο ρ ὸ δ κ ιὸκ ὰ τρ π ισ α ςἐπ ὶκυρια ] 324 . [Τ τ κ ο ε ν ῦθ ε ο ῦ π επ ίη ο

Andtherefore, because of theconversion oftheChristians, inevery place he also built churches in honour of God. [C]

2. TheReconstruction

c.

153

δ ιὸκ α κ ρ ὶκυρια ὰ ὸ π ςἐπ ὴ ν τ φ ισ ῶ ο τρ ν ἐθ ν ῶ νκ α τ ὰ τ ό π ο υ ςε ὴ ἰςτιμ ν τ ο ῦἐ ὶπάν π τ ω ρ νσω ο τ ῆ ςΧρισ τ ο ῦτ ο ῦθ ε μ ο ῶ ῦἡ ν π επ κ ο ίη ε ν . [CP] 325

3.

Ν ρ σ α ῆ ς , ὁυ ἱὸ α σ ῶ σ ιλ νβ ερ έω ῶ νΠ ῦτ ο , κα ς μ τ ςτ έδρ ετ α ὴ νΜ εσ ο π ο ν ε μ ία κ ιπ α ν ὶλαμβά ό τ α λ ιν ῳ Κ ω ν σ μ ιδ α ν . το τ ά ύ Ἄ τ ν τ ιο ςὁκα ῖσ ρ α , Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ίν ο υπ α ῖς ,π ε ο λ ῖκ εμ α ὶπ τ α ίσ α ςὀλ ατέλ ίγ ο ςο ὕ τ ω τ ῆ ς μ ά η χ ςἐκρά η τ σ ε ν ,ὡ ςκ α ὶα ὐ τ ὸ νἀ ν ελ ε ῖντ ρ ὸ σ νΝ ῆ α ν . [T] 324

4.

ρ ίσ [Κ π ο ς , ὁυ ·κ η α ὶτ ή θ έω , Χριστια ν ιλ ἱὸ ς ὸ σ ὸΒυζά α ςἐκοιμ ῦβ ο ν ςτ ρ ἤ ξ α τ οκτίζεσθ τ ιο ν α ι.] [T] 325

5.

a.

τ ὴ Κ ω ν έσ σ ν τ ςεὐσεβ τ α ο τ ῖν μ α τ α ςνικη ο ν μ ῶ Γ ν ςκ α τ κ ὰ ερ α α ρ τ ὶΣ ῶ α ν κ ρ α ἤ α ρ ρ ὶΓότθ τ α ν α ω ο τ κ σ τ τ εύ η α ν σ α ιὰ ςνίκ ν δ ιὰ τ ῆ ςτ ο ρ ῦ ο σ τ ῦ α υ ώ σ μ εω α α ὶτούτ ,κ ς ο υ δ υ ν ά ςε ςἐρημ ἰςἐσχά η να ὐ τ ο ὺ τ γ α ε ςκατήγ . [T] 327 ν υ λ εία δ ο

b.

Thekings andpeoples of thebarbarians

submitted

to him. (C)

6. Andhesummoned a universal synod of bishops. [C]

7.

a.

c. d.

ρ ὴ Λ κ ρ ν ο ια ο τ υ ν ο υ ῦτ ά ς ο ῦἐκ ῖσ ε εμ ίσ τ α ικ νἐπ α ςε ἰςτιμ ν ά α κ ὶΔρεπ κ . [T] 327 ν η ε ρ ὶα η τ ὐ τ λ ο ῦἙ εν ο λ ινκέκλ ό π μ τ ῇ ν μ ο υ ν ώ μ ὁ

Andherestored Drepane in honour of Lucian themartyr, whohadbeen buried there, and called it Helenopolis, by the name of his mother Helena. [C] ὴ ν ε ἰςτιμ ν υ ιθ ο Β ίᾳ ν ῖν τ ςἐ ν α τ ρ ὺ ν σ ε Δ έπ α ιλ σ ίσ ςΚω τ α α ν ικ α ἐπ ν ςὁβ ρ ὶα η τ ὐ τ ο ῦἙ λ ε ο ντ μ ῇμ υ ν ώ ρ ο ρ τ υ κ ια ν ῦὁμ ο ςΛ ο υ ά υμ γ ίο τ ο ῦἁ η κ ε ν . [CP] 327 ινκέκλ ν ο ύ π λ ο Drepanam Bithyniae ciuitatem in honorem martyris Luciani ibi conditi Constantinus instaurans pauit. [J] 327

8.

exuocabulo matris suaeHelenopolim nuncu-

μ θ α ι. [T] 328 ε ῖσ ρ δ ο ο ἤ τ ο ο α ἰκ ξ ρ κ ια ὸ ν γ ω υ τ ν κ ν ο ὸ ὀ κ τά a. ἐ ν Ἀ ν χ ε ίᾳ τ ιο b. In Antiochia dominicum, quoduocatur aureum, aedificari coeptum. [J] 327

c.

In Antioch he built the Great Church. [C]

d. Andhe built the octagonal shrine in Antioch. [MS]

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

154

9.

a.

b.

Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ὴ ο ςὁεὐσεβ ςτ ὸ νΔ α ν ο β ῦ ινπ ερ ά σ α ςγέφ ρ α υ νἐ ῷ να ὐ τ κ η εκ ν π α ίν επ λ ιθ ὶτ ο ίη ο ὺ ςΣ κ ύ θ α ςὑπ έτ α ξ ε ν . [T] 329 Κ ω ὴ ν σ τ ςτ α ν τ ῖν ὸ ο νΔανούβ ςὁεὐσεβ η νπ λ εισ τ ά κ ιςἐπ α έρ σ ε ν ,κ α ὶ γ έφ υ ρ ᾷ α λ ν ιθ α η ίν ὐ τ ν ἐπ ο σ ίη ε ν . [CP] 328

11.

a.

He built a bridge over the river

Danube (Dwnbyws) and his troops crossed it; and he subdued the Scythians and brought (them) to the faith. [MS]

10.

Theeighteenth bishop of Alexandria,

Athanasius.

[C]

The bishop of Antioch, , andafter himthe b.

twenty-fifth, . [C] 9 ...Eulalius, Eusebius... [J] 328–

12.

Eusebius, the sonof Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea of Palestine anda writer, wasfamous; also, manyof hisbooks areextant. [C]

12A.

...Eufronius ...[J]

13. a.

ρ η ά ίσ Κ ν ν τ ,κ εγ ό α ο λ ω π , λαμ ινμ ὶε τ ν ὐ ς...π σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ςὁεὐσεβέστα ή ῳ σ ή τ τ α ετιμ ς , Κω ν σ έ τ α , συγκλ α ν π λ ινκ ιν ο ύ ο ς τ ο ν ακτίσ δ α ίμ η νΒυζά μ έν λ ο νκα υ ο ρ ό τ ερ ὸπ ν τ ιο η κ ν ,Ῥ ε...τ κ λ υ ε νδ ὴ τ ὐ να η μ ώ ρ εύ σ α γ ο ίζ μ τ α ς .... [CP] 330 ν εινἀ α η α νχρ τ έρ

b.

c.

Constantine built a famous andfortunate city; he honoured it with a senate, (this city) which he also named Constantinople (and) which waspreviously called Byzantium. [C] ὴ ςτ ὴ ν Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ιν ο ιν ύ ν π λ ο α ο εβ εὐ σ ςὁ ῖν έ τ ν κ τ ίζ ν ν α η σ τ ν ω ω Κ ν Ῥ μ ώ τ η ν ἐθ ο έσ μ α ισ εκ ν ή π α ὶσύγκλη ,σ τ η ἔχ ν τ σ ευ ίζ τ ε έλ ε ιν ύ ἐκ ρ τα ε ιν χ α κ κ ὶἐπ τ ὸ ρ ίο υ ο ο ν ρ ῦ π ῦ ν ιά α ἀ α ά ν ἑα ω τ α ὐ τ ο ν ῦ ἀ ν δ υ φ ρ σ α ςκ α ο ὶπ

2. TheReconstruction

d.

e.

155

τ ο ῦτόπ ο υ ,ο ὗἤρξ α τ οοἰκοδομ ε ῖντ ὴ νπ ό λ ιν , ἐπ ὶτ ὸδυτικ ὸ νμ έρ ο ς ῆ τ ςἐπ ὶῬ η ν ἐξ η ιο η μ ή ς ςπ , κοσμ ύ ύ λ σ σ ώ α ςτ ὴ ν π ό λ ιν κ α ὶκομ ίσ α ςἐ ν α ὐ τ ῇἀ π η ὸπ ά σ ςἐπ ρ χ α ία ςκ α ὶπ ό λ εω ς ,ε ἴτ γ ο ιἔρ νἦ νεὐκοσμ ία ς κ α ὶἀ ν ιά δρ ν τ ω νκ α ὶχα λ κ ο ῦκ μ ρ α ρ ά ὶμ α ο υ . [T] 330 ... Βυζά ν τ ιο νκα λ ο μ η υ έν ντ ρ ὸπ ό τ ερ ο ν ... χ μ ώ α η τ ρ ίζ ε ινδευτέρ α νῬ η μ ν ... [Socrates, HE 1.16.1]. Dedicatur Constantinopolis omnium paene urbium nuditate.

[J] 330

...Placillus... [J]

13A.

έτ 14. a.ἐ π ε ιν εΚω ν σ τ α ν ὴ τ ῖν ο ςτ ςὁεὐσεβ ὴ νκ α τ ὰ τ ῶ νεἰδώ λ ω νκ α ὶτ ῶ ν ν α ῶ ν α ὐ τ ῶ ν κ α τ ά λ υ σ ιν ,κ α ὶκ α τ ὰ τ ό α π ο ν υ ίζ ·κ α ςἠφ ὶα τ ο ν ο ἱπ ρ ό σ ο δ ο ια τ ὐ τ ῶ ν α η σ ῖςἐκκλ ία ιςτ ο ῦθ ε ο ῦἀ π εδ ίδ ο ν . [T] 331 τ ο b.

of his love of Godhe effaced the memory of the idols and demolished their temples. [C] Edicto Constantini gentilium templa subuersa sunt. [J] 331 Because

c. 15.

Theforti bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus. [C] 16.

β α σ ὴ ρ κ π ιλ ὶθ υ α τ ικ η λ ε η .] [T] 332 εφ έχ δ ίῳ θ ε ίᾳ μ ικ ἐ ο νΝ [ἡ

17. a.

η η μ ελ μ λ ο ςτ ςἰνδικτιῶ ύ ῆ β ὸ σ ά ν ν ςἑβδό ο ιμ εσ ςἐγ θ ι, λ μ α έν ςἐπ ιλ α ε τ ο ρ ή ο σ ό α μ δ α τ τ α ὰ ο ςσφ ν τ ,ὥ ςκ τ ερ σ ρ ν ῇ ὸ τ α τ ἐ ἀ ν α τ εκώ ο λ α ῇ ικ ἐπ ὐ τ ὸ ῷ μ έν α σ γ ο υ ςἐπ ν α ρ λ ὶτ α ο λ ῳ ῆ π ω νὄ χ λ χ έ ςἈ νκ ἐ ςχώ τ ιο α ν ῆ ὶτ ς ρ ο υ Κ ύ χ ἐπ εσ έρ θ λ ω α ν ικ κ ρ α α τ π ά ὶἁ ᾽ἀλλή μ ν ὲ ὡ ν υ ν κ ζ ε ιν τ ςἐ ὶτ α ῖς ᾳ ἐπ εισ ρ ιέ ν μ έ α ιε ν ἡ ἰςτ α ό δ ις ο ο ν ὺ , ἔσχα τ ο ςκ δ α ἐφ ὶ ςσιτοβολῶ ὲἐ ν κ ή α ρ ιςκ α ιδ ά τ α εύ ρ π α ν α ὶπ π ά ο ν τ α ινκ ὶἀ ἐ ντ α ε ῖςἀ α ν ζ θ ςἁ ο π , ὁδ ρ ίω ν γ γ υ ὲμ έ α ρ ρ ʹἀ εν ε ς έσ χ ω ῖν ,γ θ α μ ό ιο δ ιδ ν τ ο ν ῦσίτ ὲτ ὸ ο υυ ρ ίσ η ἐχ σ ία α ιν ρ ιο ν τ α ιςκ α τ Κ ω ν ῖςἐκκλ ο π ό λ ν τ α σ ὰ τ α τ ῖν μ ο έτ ιτ ςσ ο ρ α ὴ ιςκ ν ή ν δ α ίτ ιη εκ σ η εκ α φ ὶξενοδοχ ῶ ὶτ χ ς ο ῖς ο ε είο ἰς ις έν δ ια τρ π η ἐκ β σ κ ία α ν λ ρ εσίτ μ ο η ο ικ ἐλ υμ ά δ ο ῖς ὲἐ ίο κ λ . ἡδ υ νἈ χ ε ιο ίᾳ ν τ ς ρ ίο υ μ υ ρ ισ ςἑξα υ ίο . [T] 333 τ κ ισ ς ιλ χ

Whenthere wasthat severe famine intheregions of theOrient, thevictorious emperor gave orders that provisions from his (possessions) be

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

156

c.

Eusebii

given to the poor and the clerics. And he gave thirty-six thousand modii of wheat to thechurch of Antioch. [MS] Pestilentia et fame innumerabilis multitudo inSyria Ciliciaque perit. [J]

333

ρ ο β τά σ μ ῳ ο εισ ῦ τ γ ,Σ λ α ο μ υ εν έν α ο μ λ ο α υ ίν ρ ἐ Κ ν ύ π α π ό λ ιςκα τ έπ ε σ ε η ὴ θ ν ὺ π νδιέφ λ κ α ν θ ὶἱκα ειρ ε ν . [T] 333

18. 19. a.

μ Δ ά τ α ιο λ γ η ρ . [T] 334 ο εύ ςκα η θ ρἀ ῖσ ν α μ ά ιο τ ντ ὸ νυ λ Δ α ἱὸ ντ μ φ α ῦα ο ο τ ίο ὐ ῦἀδελ τ ο ῦΔ α λ ρ υτ ο ο ῦκήνσω ς ρ γ ευ ό η σ ρ νδ α ἀ ν ε μ ν . ... ἦ ά ιο Κ α ίσ α τ ὲΔ α λ ς[ὁυ ἱὸ υτ ο ίο ῦ τ μ α λ α ςΔ γ ὸ φ η ο ῦΚ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ] στρα ίν ο ῦ ςῬ ο υτ τ μ ἀ δ ελ ο α ς ω ίω ῦεὐσ εβ νκ α ὶ ρ ῆ ν ρ ρ ευθ α ιΚ ὸτ α α ίσ γ ο ὕ π α τ ο . [CP] 335 ο ὐ τ α ῦα ὸ ν ςπ ἀ ν α

20. a.

ῳ τ ρ υ ή α σ ν ῳ ν α τ ή σ ςο ῇ ν ο ὐ κἀ Κ ν ιρ λ κ α ρ τ α ςδ ό ὲἐ έσ ύ νΚ π χ ετ ῇ Ῥ ω μ α ίω ῇκ ν ρ β π οσ ο λ ῷ θ α ηἐ ε ρ ὶἡττη σ ὶςἅ μ α Τ τ ρ α ν ο έθ ῖςα ῃ ιςἀ ίο ἰτ ν ·υθ ρ ο μ α ία τ ίσ υκα ίο ε α . [T] 334 ικ ςκα ς ὶςζ ῆ ιλ λ α τ ςΚ ὸΔ ν ὑ π ῶ Calocerus in Cypro res nouas molitus opprimitur. [J] 334

b.

b.

21. a. b.

ρ η ρ ια τ κ ἤ η ὶς χ θ ο ν τ α ετ ῦ τ ο εσ Κ ίν ω ν ν τ τ α τα ο ά κ σ τ ὶνικη ο υ ῦ τ υ εὐ ο σ εβ ω ς . [T] 335 τ ίμ ο ιλ υφ ν π ά ρ ὶςἐ η ητρια κ ν νΚ τ α ο ν τ τ α ετ ω ν σ ιθ χ ο ῦ ςἤ ίν ο υτ ο ῦεὐσεβ τ ν τα σ ν Κ ω ω . [CP] 335 ς ίμ ειῬ τ λ ο ό ιλ π υ ν ο υφ ν ά ῃπ μ ώ

22.

ᾳἐ ῷ ῷ κ ο ρ α τ ὐ ντ ὰτ α ὸ ν έρ ρἐ ηἀ νἈ ν τ σ ὴ ιο χ τ ε ίᾳἐνἡμ ά ν κ α ὶ ἐφ ρ α ς μ ίν ο ,ἀ ρ υ αὡ ὸὥ π ο ςἀ π ό δ ὸκα έρ ςκα π ν ίζ νσφ ω νμ ὸ ικ λ τ ο α ν ἀ η . [T] 335 ς π τ η ρ α έμ ςἕω ςπ ςὥ ίτ ρ τ

23. a.

ίο ν νβ ιν ο β τ ύ τ ν ὸ ο υ π α ό λ εω ερ ικ ςΚ ω ν τ ,ἀ π ο σ σ τ ο λ ς ρ εσ ιο θ Ε ,π ά ς ὐ τ σ ν ω μ ώ έν η λ α κ ρ ο έπ ω νἐγ η ῆ , διαπ ς ρ ετ ςκ α ρ ςἐλ ὶε ο νἀ ρ ἰςἄ κ ῃ ν α ἐπ ρ ίζ λ ύ ρ β ο ιο ετ ιο η νἐ ρ ν τ ο ύ ,κ νἹεροσ ό ρ α χ ιτ α ςἀ ὶΖ έκ τ ω ν , ὁτ ὸΜ μ ο ιςοἰκοδομ ή σ α ςτ γ ῇ Κ . [T] 337 ω ῇ ν σ τ ιτα α υἐπ ν τ ίν ο

b.

c. 24. a.

Eustathius, a priest of Constantinople, adopted an apostolic life, and Zenobius the archdeacon became famous; hebuilt a shrine in Jerusalem, according to Constantine’s orders. [C] Eustathius Constantinopolitanus presbyter agnoscitur, cuius industria in Hierosolymis martyrium constructum est. [J] 336

ρ α α π ὸΣ μ ίᾳὑ εσ τ α π νΜ ο ο νἐ ίω ρ σ ιςἈ υ α σ σ έρ νΠ νἐ ῶ λ ο ὶτ π ο λ ρ κ ν ,... [T] 337 ά ο σ τ ο ν νἐπ η ῶ ιπ κ

2. TheReconstruction

157

In Mesopotamia many Assyrians who(lived) in Persia were sold by Arabs. [C]

25. a.

b.

c.

Π έρ σ ή α ο ν ιπ λ ἐδ ω ό λ εμ σ α ν ρ π ὸ ςῬ μ α ω ίο υ ς ,κ α ὶἐπ ὰ ιβ ςΚω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ς ῷ τ ῆ ςα ʹἐνια ὐ υ τ τ α ο ῦβ σ ιλ β εία ή λ σ α ς , ὁρμ ςἐπ ὶτ ὴ νἀνατο ὴ νκ α λ τ ὰ θ η ὼ ν σ ῶ ν , ἐλ δ ἕ ω Π μ ερ εία ικ ςΝ ο ς , ἐνδόξ ω ςκ α ὶεὐσεβ ῶ ςμ ετα λ λ ά τ τ α ... κα ν ίο ιω β ξ θ ε ὶςτ ν τ ε ιτ ὸ ρ ο ιώ η ῦ δ ο σ υ τ ω ςβαπ τ ίσ μ α τ ο ςὑ π Ε ὸ ὐ σ ε β ίο υἐπ ισ κ ό π ο υΚ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ιν ο υ π ό λ εω α σ ς ,β ιλ εύ ʹκ σ α α ὶ ςἔτ ηλ α ῆ μ ν α ςιʹ. [CP] 337 Π σ σ έρ α α ν ιδ π ό ὲἐδήλω λ ο εμ ρ ν π ὸ ςῬ μ α ω ίο ·κ υ α ὶἐπ ς ὰ ιβ ςΚ ω ν σ τ α ν ὴ η ς[τ δ μ ῇΝ ικ έ ο ω νπ ό τ ῖν ο λ ςὁεὐσεβ ε ικ α τ ὰ Π ερ σ ῶ νπ ρ α α τα ξ ά μ εν ο ς , ἀσθ ή σ ηἐ α εν ή θ ῃ ςἐκοιμ ]... κα νεἰρή ν τ α ξ ιω θ ε ὶςτ γ ίο ο ῦἁ υ β α π τ ίσ μ α τ ο ςὑ π ὸ Ε ίο ὐ σ υ εβ η τ ο δ Ν μ ῦ εία ικ ο ετ ςμ α τ εθ έν τ ο ςἐ ν ω Κ ν ῆ ʹκ ν α α σ α ιλ εύ ὶμ ςιʹ. [T] 337 σ ι... β α λ ε η ό λ α π ςἔ υ ο τ ιν τ ν σ τ α Constantinus ... abEusebio Nicomedensi episcopo baptizatus ... [J] 337

d. Thereafter he departed this world ruled for thirty-two years. [C]

26.

a. Ῥ

in a state of righteousness,

having

α σ ίλ ʹἐβ ευ μ σ α ε ν τ ὰ θ ά ν α τ ο ν ρ ε τ λ ο ν μ ὸ ίω α ῦ π α τ ω ςα Κ τ ῶ ν ὐ ω ν ν τ α σ ʹ. δ ηκ ν α ω τ α σ ν τ α ῖν ο σ τ ν ν ά τ τ ςκ ὶΚ έ ιο ςὁν ο α ὶΚώ σ ν ςκ ςἔτ ω τ ίν ο υΚ

[CP] 337

b.

c. 27. a.

After himhis sons Constantius, Constantine, andConstans, for thirteen years. [C] Romanorum XXXV regnauit Constantinus Constantius et Constans an. XXIIII mens. V diebus XIII. [J] 337

ή σ ω ν ρ θ π ο α θ ετ μ ῆ λ ῇΜ εσ σ ιλ ίᾳ ο εύ η π σ νβ ῶ ο α , ἐπ τ ς ς ερ , ὁΠ ρ β ώ Σ α ʹ, κ α ὴκα ὶμ τ α χ ύ σ ισ α έρ ς ςξ γ ρ θ ισ ναὐ ά εκ ε α τ ὴ νἡμ ιν ,κ α Ν ὶπ ισ ίβ η ῶ νἐπ ίσ π ο ν κ ,ἐ ο β ο ς η ιβ ισ ςδ σ ,Ν ὲ ε . Ἰά ν κ ω ρ ώ εχ ν νἀ ὴ τ β ε ῖναὐ λ α δ ίω ς νῥᾳ η μ έν ω νεὐχ θ ε ιδιαμ ώ ν γ εία ςἤ ὰ τ α α εβ σ κ ῆ εο τ ςθ ῷ ὰ ῖςτ τ α ινἐλ τ π ιζό νκα ω τ ίβ ισ ν νΝ ὴ σ ῶ ντ ερ νΠ ῶ ιςκ α ὶ, τ τ σ ενὅ υσ ν ή ἐξ ῆ τ ρ ς ὰ γ κ τ ίκ ε ν .α α ὐ η κ έ ν ῆ α ιτ ο ρ ίδ ίη π ο τ ςπ επ ςἐλ α ι, διημ θ α σ έψ ρ τ σ ·α μ ὲ μ εν ἰςδ ὲ μ ῷ ῆ ο α τ ιδιω ι, ε τ ῆ ν κ ό ν ςπ εύ ςεὐ π χ ό ρ λ υ ν τ ο ε ω ςὑπ εχ ώ ν ὸ θ σ ι μ ῦ ο ὑ π δ μ ε έ ν τ α ο ξ ι ο ὶλ α ο εκ ῦ τ τ ν ε ό θ ςλιμ ν ἐλ ρ ά ώ χ ν ῶ τ υ ἑα ν ὴ τ 338 β ά ν ο ν τ [T] ε . ς μ ρ ω , ν ἀ ν ρ τ ι λ ἔ α δ ἧ σ π ε , α εί ς ῆ εβ τ σ ςἀ

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

158

b.

Shapur,

theking of thePersians, came toMesopotamia inorder to cap-

ture Nisibis. He besieged it for sixty-six days. James, the bishop of Nisibis, by his prayer chased the army away from it, andwhen they returned totheir country they found famine andpestilence before them

c. d.

as their reward. [C] ή σ ω ν ρ θ τ ὴ ν π ο μ β ίᾳ α τ σ π α ο Μ ο εσ ιλ τ ῇ ν θ ε ε λ σ ῶ ν ὺ ῆ ςἐπ ιςὁ ρ ερ Π Σ ά ω π ʹκ α ὴκα τ ισ ὶμ χ ύ σ α α γ ς ςξ ρ α έρ κ ιν α α θ ,κ ὶπ α ίσ Ν ίσ α ὴ νἡμ ιβ τ ςαὐ η . [CP] 337 σ ν ε ρ ώ εχ ῆ ν α τ ςἀ ὐ Sapor rexPersarum Mesopotamia uastata duobus ferme mensibus Nisibinobsedit. Iacobus Nisibenus episcopus agnoscitur. Adcuius preces saepe urbs discrimine liberata est. [J] 338

28. The nineteenth bishop of Alexandria, Gregorius. [C]

29. Constantine the new, whoruled for twenty-five years, died. [C]

30.

a.

In Antioch of Syria the church which wasin the form of a sphere was brought to completion after fifteen years. Constantius made its dedi-

b. c.

cation in the days of bishop Flacillus (Plyqylpws) on the day of the Epiphany of ourSaviour. [C] , ῖσ α ε θ ὴ ςἓ ικτισ ο ειδ ξἔτ ε σ ιρ α φ ία σ σ η λ θ ε ῖσ κ α ισ ἐκ ιν α κ ὲἡἐγ ἦ νδ ν α τ σ ν ε θ ῖσ ,ὑ ὸΚω α π ιω ελ εμ υθ ο λ ά εγ ο ῦμ υτ τ ίν ο ν α τ σ ν ω Κ ν ὲ ὸμ π ὑ . [T] 342 α εῖσ θ ισ ιν α κ ε κ θ ῖσ α α ὶἐγ ω ρ η λ τ ίο υδ ὲπ Antiochiae dominicum aureum dedicatur. [J] 342

31. The twenty-eighth bishop of Antioch, Stephanus. [C]

. ν ε σ ευ ιςἐκινδύν α μ έρ ἡ ὶν ισ ὶτρ π ν ἐ ω λ ά μ εγ μ ν ῶ εισ ὸσ π ὑ 32. a. Ἀ ν ια χ ε ιό τ [T] 342

2. TheReconstruction

159

Antioch wasindanger forthirteen days (because of) manyearthquakes.

[C]

33.

Κ ω ν σ τ ν ά τ ιο ρ ίο ςἈ σ σ υ υ σ ςνική α β ςἐθ ρ μ ευ ιά σ ε ν . [T] 343

34. a.

η ρ ςδ β ώ Σ ὲ , ὁτ α ῶ νΠ α σ ερ ῶ νβ σ ιλ εύ ς ρ ,π ὸ ςτ ο ῖςα ὐ τ ο ῦκα κ ο ῖςκ α ὶ ρ ισ τ ια α Χ τ ο ν ὺ ο ῖρ ε ὺ ὸχ ςὑ π ςἐδίω κ ε ν . [T] 343

b. d.

c.

Shapur persecuted the Christians. [C] Sapor Persarum rex Christianos persequitur.

[J] 344

35.

ῳ ά , Σαλαμ λ μ ο έν εγ υ ο μ υ ἐ ο ῦ δ ὲγενομ σ ν ρ εισ Κ η ύ ίν π ςτ ῆ ςπ ό λ εω ςτ ὰ . [T] 343 π έπ ν κ τ ε ια ω α δ τ π λ εῖσ

36. a.

μ γ έν ά εν λ ο ο ο υ υ μ ,Ν εγ εο μ κ ο ῦ α ρ ισ ε σ εισ ια ά Π ό ν τ ο υ κ α τ η π λ ὴ ν επ τ θ ώ η σ ία α ςκ ὶτ ο ῆ τ ῦἐπ ισ κ ο ςἐκκλ π είο υκ α ὶτ ῶ νἐκ ε ῖ εὑρεθ έν τ ω ν . [T] 344 ρ ν ῶ νἀ ν δ ῶ β α λ εὐ

c.

Neocaesarea of Pontus wassubmerged apart from only the church and thebishop andtheexcellent people whowere inside it. [C] Neocaesaria in Ponto subuersa excepta ecclesia et episcopo ceterisque quiibidem reperti sunt. [J] 344

of Pontus wassubmerged except forthechurch which wasin it; somepeople inside it were saved. [MS]

Caesarea

37.

μ σ ε ῶ κ τ Π ν ὰ ο ερ ν α ὶπ α λ λ ο ν εμ π ό ν ο λ λ ὺ ῶ ο τ ὐ ςα έβ ν υ ισ ῖο α μ ἱδ ο ὲῬ ω . [T] 344 ν ο ἀ ν εῖλ

38. The twenty-ninth bishop of Antioch, Leontius, a chaste man. [C]

39.

ῆ σ ο ν ςκα τ ά λ ,Ῥ έπ ο υ . [T] 345 ό δ εσ ν ο ε μ ςἡ εγ υ μ έν ο γ ο εν μ ο ῦ σ εισ

40. a.

·κ α ς α ὶῬ η έρ ρ θ ά μ ῦδιεφ ηἡμ α ο μ τ ία ὸσ εισ π ςὑ λ α ῆ μ ςΔ ητ ώ χ ρ ά ρ Δ υ ·τ ῆ ςδ μ π α ιςδιεφ ν ε α η λ ὲΚ ό ʹπ έν μ ειο σ εσ ία ευ ρ ε ῖςἐκινδύν ςιβ τ . [T] 346 η ν α σ ρ θ ά

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

160

There wasanother earthquake inwhich Rome wassubject to great danger for three days; twelve cities in Campania were destroyed. [MS]

c. 41. a.

346

Dyrrachium terrae motucorruit et tribus diebus ac noctibus Roma nutauit plurimaeque Campaniae urbes uexatae. [J] 346

κ ρ νὄ ία ε ρ ο π ῆ ν α τ έ επ ςλιμ υ ο ίη ςΣ ς ε κ υ ε ίᾳ ελ ω ν τ ά ν τ Κ ιο νΣ σ νἐ ὸ ςτ η . [T] 347 ν σ ε μ δ ό ο κ ῳ ν ινἀ λ α ὶτ ὴ ν π ό ,κ ώ ν εμ τ ὶπ ο λ ὺδια ἐ π

b.

c. 42.

a.

Constantius made a port inSeleucia of Isauria byhewing a large mountain andhe restored thecity. [C] Magnis rei publicae expensis in Seleucia Syriae portus effectus. [J] 346

κ ε ν η ,τ ὸ λ έκ νκ ία τ ν ν α σ τ ω νΚ ,ἣ ῃ ίκ ιν ο ῇΦ ντ νἐ ε ισ τ ό λ α ὶπ ινἔκ κ . [T] 347 ν ο δ α ρ η νἈ ν τ ά μ έν υ ο λ ο νκα ρ τ ό ερ π

In Phoenicia he built a city that he named Constantia (Qwsny); previously however it wascalled Antarados. [C] 43. a.

Ν ιμ ίᾳ α τ ο π ο εσ Μ ῇ ντ θ ὼ ελ , ἐπ α ιλ εύ ς σ σ νβ ῶ η ερ Π ν ῶ ρ ςδ , ὁτ ὲ β ώ Σ α η σ . ε ν ρ ώ θ ε ν εχ ὶςἀ ν ἰσ υ α χ ʹκ ιν α λ ά ὶπ η α μ έρ ςο ἡ ν ισ ε θ ρ ά εκ ιν π α σ ίβ [T] 347

In this year Shapur besieged Nisibis andhe launched a mighty attack on it. ...(but) when (Shapur) hadoppressed it for seventy-eight days... they

c.

returned (home) in disgrace. [Chron. 1234] Rursum Sapor tribus mensibus obsidet Nisibin.

[J] 346

ῷ ν ἐ ν α ρ ὐ ο ῷ τ ν ιἐ α ῆ ν ν α α ςφ έρ τ σ ὶἀ α εκ τ σ ,ὥ ο τ ε έν υἐγ ίο 44. a. ἔ κ ειψ λ ιςἡλ 347 [T] ʹ . ῳ ς σ ί ι η ν Δ α ὶ μ ρ α ς μ έ ᾳ ρ ῃτ ῆ τ ίτ ςἡ ρ ὥ b.

45.

Solis facta defectio. [J] 347

ῆ ς κ ῆ ᾳ τ ςκυρια τ έρ ᾳ δ ευ ρ νὥ νἐ ε ν ο έγ ο τ ό ρ ερ ςγ η μ χ ὐ ιο ςπ λ ινα ά ὁἥλ α μ έρ ἡ ς . [T] 348

2. TheReconstruction

ῷ έ σ ν τ ά μ ο εγ ῆ εισ ο ῦγενομ λ υμ υ ο υἐ τ ςΦ νΒηρ ο ιν η ίκ ς ,τ ὸπ λ ε ῖσ τ ο ν τ ῆ λ εω κ ενὥ ό τω ςπ έπ ςπ θ ο ῆ ςτ ῶ ν ν ικ ἐθ ῶ σ τ επ ν λ εἰσ η λ ελ υ θ έν α ιε ἰς μ μ ῖν η ο ίω ρ σ ία ν χ ὁ ισ τ ια λ κ ν ίζ ἐκ ν ὴ γ τ ε ιν γ ελ ἐπ α λ μ ό εν ο ι. ἐντεῦ ·ςἡ θ ίσ ε ννεω τ α ν τ ερ έ ςτιν ε ςτ ο ὺ η ο υ ῆ σ ςτύπ ςτ ία ςἐκκλ ςὥ σ ρἀ π π ο ε τ ε ν α ῆ ή σ ςἐξῄεσ α ν ,κ α ὶτό ςἐπ π μ νεὐ ο χ ο ά λ ν ο σ υ α σ ν τ ε ῆ θ ο ςτ ὸπ λ ς ὑ ῷ π εδ έξ η τ ο σ , ἅπ ία ν α ν τ α α ο μ ῆ ιμ τ ὰ τ ύ εν ςμ ςἐκκλ τ ο ὐ ρ ι, π α α να ἐ ρ ο ν μ ειτ ό τ ρ μ α ε ὸ γ εγ ᾶ ἡ τ ἡ Σ ςπ ς ν α ῶ ῶ ρ ς ν ,ὡ ν ὸ π ιο σ ς ή ςἸουδα ίο υ λ π ς ῶ ικ ις ν εσ ςζῶ , ἐθ α ἵρ ν τ ε . [T] 349 ς

46.

47

161

a. Also in Mesopotamia he built the city of Amida, which he named Augusta Constantina.

[C]

b.

AndinMesopotamia heenlarged Amida andcompleted it andnamed it

c. 48. a.

Augusta. [MS] ίω α . [T] 341 ς ςγεννα μ ῖτειχίσ ε ιο ο τ δ ο ν Κ ςἌ ἰκ ά ω ο τ ν ν σ α ιδ μ

ν , ἐπ η μ έν ο υπ τ ω ν ίο λ Ἀ ν λ ιν ό εγ ν η ρ ώ ν π ὴ ,τ ν ία τ ν α τ ν σ ω κ τ ίζ α ὶΚ ικ ε μ εσ α ὰ τ η ςσ τ α μ ίδ ίο δ υ , διεστῶ ῷ ςψκ νἈ α σ τ υ νἑα ὴ τ α ὐ ά σ ςα μ ο ν ο ʹ η β ρ μ ία ν . [T] 341

Also in Osrhoene he built a city, which he named Constantina, which waspreviously called Antoninopolis. [C]

And he named Tella, which had previously been called Antipolis, Constant. [MS]

b.

α ρ μ α α τ π ο ο ὶπ εσ Μ α τ ῇ ν ίᾳ ,κ ὼ θ β α σ ιλ ὺ ε ελ ςἐπ ν σ ῶ ερ ιςδ ρ ὲὁΠ Σ ά π ω ὶ α α ή σ ςκ ρ λ ό ν π εμ ο ὴ ὴ ι, κ ν Ν α ίσ ὶδιαφ ʹτ ιβ τ ω ςαὐ α ςρ έρ α ίσ κ α θ ςἡμ η μ χ α ν α μ εν ῖςπ ο ... [CP] 350 ς ο λ λ α ῖςχρησά ... ε ὶς θ θ εσ α κ α ρ α ιν π ίβ ισ νΝ ὴ ,τ ν ῶ σ α ιλ σ ὺ ερ ε ςΠ η , ὁβ ςπ ά λ ιν ρ β ώ Σ α

c.

Rursum Sapor tribus mensibus obsidet Nisibin.

49. a.

[T] 350

[J] 346 (=43c)

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

162

Apparatus Criticus

iib anthiociae LF: anthiochiae M tirannum L ordinatur XX uicisimus L epsLPN uitales B ivb philogonius FC: philogonus X vb eustatius MLFTC: eusthasius Q γ ετ οc ά γ η 1c ἀ π 2a τ ν ῶ ἐθ ν ῶ ν om.b 3 Ν ρ α σ ῆ ςτ ο ῦτ ῶ νΠ ερ σ ῶ νβα σ ιλ έω ςυ η ἱό δ ςg Ἄμ α ν g Κω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ςf Κ ω ν σ τ ά ν τ ιο ς ρὁυ κ α ίσ α ἱὸ ο ε ῖg ὀλίγ gxy α ν τ ν τ ν ίν ο σ α υπ ω ο λ εμ ὐ τ ςΚ ὸ ν τ ὸ ν ν ρ ά σ α ν έλ ε ινc 5a Κ ω ν σ τ ν α τ ῖν ο ςὁ ὴ εὐ η ν π ςτ σ ερ ά β εβ ὸ σ ν Δ α α ν ο ύ ςγέφ ρ υ α ν ῷ ἐ ν λ α η ιθ ὐ ν ίν τ κ α ὶ(κ α τ ὰ m.2) Γότ θ ω ρ α ν τ σ τ εύ σ α ςc: Κω ν σ τ ν α τ ῖν ο om.f) ν ςὁ(ὁ ὴ ςὁ η τ εὐ ικ έσ ω σ τ ν εβ τ α ο σ ςy:Κ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ς έσ τ α ὁεὐσεβ τ ο ςκ α ὶνικη τ ὴ ςd: Κω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ςὁμ έγ α ςκ α ὶεὐσεβέστα τ ο ςg στρα τ εύ σ α ς η ν π τ β ὸ ν Δ ερ α ν ο ά ύ σ α ρ ςγέφ ῷ υ α ν ἔ ἐ ν θ ν α α μ ὐ ὁ γ τ έ α ςΚ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ρ υ ο α ν γ έφ ῷ ἐ ς ν Δ τ α ν ο υ β ἔκ ίῳ τ ισ ελιθ ίν η νκα τ α σ κ ευ ά η νg ηὔρ σ α α τ ςνίκ οg τ ο ῦτιμ ίο υστα ρ ο υ ῦg α ὐ τ ο ῖς ἤ γ α γ εg

ρ επ α ν κ α ὶom.dy Δ α c ἐκ ε ῖσ εom.g ρ έπ Δ α ν ο ν Dindorf bythiniae LFC: bithiniae MPXD cibitatem L horem B: honore FX martiris L lucini L: lucani X: liciani C uocabulo] uo (lacuna) L helenopolin BNTQ: helonopolin P: helenaepolim M: helenae (lacuna) L nunc. om.L 8b anthiochia M: anthiocia F: anthiociam L: anthiochiam Q aedificare AX coepit B η ν c β 9a ο ύ α ν Δ β ινDindorf ν ο ῦ 9b Δ α 9c bridge] manM 11band12A eufronius eusebius A 13A placcillus M 13c ἐ κ ] ἐθ έσ έλ ευ ν ε π σ ισ ο ε νc ἑα ῦom. y π α νg κ υ τ η ό ο ὶom.f ἐπ λ ]π ῦom. dgy τ ιν ύ λ ᾽

7a 7c 7d

τ α ὐ ῇdgy 13e constantinopolis dedicatur XC paene omnium XC penae M: pene FQ g 14aἐ δίδο ν τ ο 17a τ ῆ ςb: om.gxyἰ νδικτιο ν ο ςcf (diff. acc.): ἰν ιc ἁρπ ά ] ἐπ α ὶcg εἰσ ν ιέ τ ὰ δb κα ζ ε ινμ ὲ ν ίemἀργ τ α ιντ κ ιςκ λ ό α π ὰ ῖςἐκκλ η τ ρ ιζ α α σ ία ιςc χήρ ννυ νem κ ὡ ὶὀρφ α υ ςἐ ν είω ο ῖς ιςg ξ α ὶξέν κ ο δ εν ο ο ιςbd: ξέν νc ίο χ ο ίτ ιςg σ ο 17c et om. OM famem L multitudo superscriptum O in] om. O siria AMPX ciliaquae O: ciliciaq: L periitFQTXDC ηfm: Σ ή ν μ ίν η α ex: Σ b: Σ α μ λ α μ g ίν λ α α 18a Σ α λ η α μ ίν α λ ρ ο ςDindorf: κήνα 19b κήνσω ρ ο ςV 20a Κ ο α λ κ ό ὐκα ερ ςcy ο τ έσ χ εgy 20b calocerus OABLFPNTD Foth.: calocaerus QHelm: calocherius M: caloceros XC opprimu

L η ρ ή ςb: τρια κ ρ 21a τρια ν τ α ετ ο ὶς(-ε ὶςg) gxy η κ ιρ τ α ο ν τ α ετ 22 ἀ π ὸκαπ ν ο ῦf 23c eustatius MX: eusthatius F: eusthachius Q: eustachius C Eustathius ... Hierosolymis om. L praesbiter BP: presbiter MQT: praesbyter FN: pbrX: prbt C: om.D hierusolimis B: hyrosolymis F: ierosolymis P: hierusolymis Q: iherosolimis X: hierosolimis D ʹdem β η λ ʹb: ἔ τ ο τ έν ςc ἔτ εθ ῦom.f ἐ τ σ α ιςb τ ο α ο ετ α έρ ςλ 25b Π .μ τ σ ν ω Κ ν 25c nicomediensi MFT: nicomendensi, corr. nicomedensi X epo P babtizatus QX 26aἐ β P α ν ὐ τ ε σ ο ῦP ευ ίλ σ α 26c romanorum ... regnauit om.C regnauit om.X constantinus] et add. A constantius om.ND νde Boor: α ὴ τ ὐ η τ σ ῇ ρ νcy αὐ ινc π εκ ε θ α ά ιβ η σ ρ ιςb: om.f τ β ώ α 27a Σ ν xy Ν σ ῶ ερ νΠ ῶ ιν ῶ νc: Ν ὲom. b Ν η ιβ ισ σ ῶ νf εὐχ ιβ ιν ισ ινc ῶ codd. δ ιβ νbdegm: Ν ίβ η σ α ῖςom. c Ν ρ έψ κ α τ α σ τ ν τ α τ ιdy ο α μ ςem διω μ εύ κ ν εν ό ο ιπ

2. The Reconstruction

163

π ερ ικ α θ ίσ α ςDindorf mesopotamiam OABC: moesopotamia Q opsedit M nisibenus, corr. nisibinus M: nisibinus F: nisibaenus P: nizibinus X: nizibius C eps LBP praeces ABMQC: pces pce L: praeces, corr. preces N: pces X saepae A: sepe LXD liberata est om.L 30b δ ὲpost ὑ ω ν π ὸ dgy Κ σ τ ν α τ ίν g ο υ 30c antiocae L: anthiociae F: antiohiae D aurem L 32a ἐ π μ ὶ. τρ α ἡ έρ ιςom.c ισ ὶν 33 Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ςc 34c rex persarum AFX η 35 Σ ή ν α ςbdf: Σ λ μ α η μ ςg ίν α λ 36aἐ π ισ κ ο π ίο υbdfg 36c neocesaria L: neocaesarea F: noecaesarea C: necessaria D ecclesiae M: ecclaesia N episo L: epo P repti A 36d Pontus] Pwsṭ ws (= Pusṭos) M 37 σ gm α υ ν λ λ ν ο έβ μ εν ά λ μ γ 39 γ εγ έν έν ο ά εν ο ο ο υb: μ λ ο εγ υμ ο υ υcfg μ ο υom.em λ ά εγ μ μ α ρ 40a Δ ρ ά α τ τ gA Δ ία ία υ χ ελ ε ιο ερ ν ςyA: Δ ςg ἐκινδύν ε υ εb 40b Campania] Qwlwpyn M 40c dyraccium O: dyrracium L: dyrratium BF: diracium X: dyrrachius D corruit terrae motu hoc ordine XC terre OMX corruit OMFTXD: conruit SABLQC hac L romo M (corr.) natauit SABD: notauit, corr. nutauit M: nutuit L: mutauit X etplurimeq: L campanie LN b ἀν η ο σ ικ μ ε ο νb 41a τ δ ό νom.f Σ ὸ ελ κ ευ ίᾳ 41b Isauria] Swry C (= Assyria) 41c rei port L: rebus publicae S: rei publice Q porticus B effectus est B 42 τ ὸπ ρ ρ ο τ δ νegmx ά ο ῶ ν τ dyἈν ο ιν c η η σ ίβ ρ ιςb τ μ ία ρ ν ςc: Σ α π b Ν ώ α τ 43a Σ ν Μ εσ ο π ο π α ὴ ώ 43c rursus N obsede A: obsedit XC Nisibin om.L

27c 27d

44a 45

46

47c 48a 49a 49b

by Δ ε σ ίῳ ἐ ν om. bd ἐν ... ἡ α ςom.c μ έρ γ μ ειλ ν ε ι ο γ ά μ εν ο ιb: ἐπ α γ ελ λ ό γ α νf ἐπ ὲ ]ο ἱμ ῖν ὥ ῆ θ ο ῆ θ σ ο τ ςcgyἡμ επ ὸ λ ςb: ὥ π λ σ τ ετ ε ιςb σ α ίρ ή σ ιο ιg ἀν α π λ ρ α om.b π ὰ bdgy: resecauerunt A τ ν α c: ἐξίεσ ν cgy ἐξῄ α εσ μ ε ῖc Κ ω g ἀνοικοδο ν σ ν ιο τ ν ά τ α ιδ μ ςom.y Ἄμ η ςg ψ] φc g Ἀμ μ ν ίδ κ ε μ α σ α νb ἐπ α τ ό ν ν ν ίν ω ὶ] δ ω τ σ α ὲg Κ ʹ ʹ π ιV ικ ερ ίσ α θ α ιβ ςDindorf Ν σ ή ιfx Ν ισ ῆ ιg: τ ίβ Ν ίσ τ em: τ ῆ Ν ιβ ῆ ιν ίσ ιβ

2. The Continuatio

164

Antiochiensis Eusebii

Part 2: Hypothetical Reconstruction andTranslation of the Continuatio Antiochiensis ad Chronicos canones Eusebii Caesariensis Μ α ῖν ο ρ ςκ τ ισ ιμ α ὰ ξ Χ τ ια ν ῶ ν ή μ ὸ γ σ α ν κ κ ιν ςδιω α ὶμ έλ λ ω ν ῆ ν θ α ιὑ ρ α τη π ὸΛ κ ικ ιν ν ίο υἐ ν τ ελ ευ Κ τ ᾷ ιλ . ικ ίᾳ

ʹ ʹ η λ τ ͵β

Constantinus libertatem omnibus Christianis dedit.

ʹἐπ ίσ μ ω ν θ λ κ ο ο σ ύ π ʹ. (i) Ἱερ ο λ ο ρ ςΜ α ιο κ ά η ςἔτ ιθ ʹἐπ Ἀ ίσ ν τ ιο κ χ εία ςκ ο π ʹ. (ii) ο λ ςΒιτά ιο η ςἔτ ς Ἀ λ ʹἐπ ρ εξ εία ςιζ δ ίσ α ν κ ο ο π ςἈ λ έξ ρ η ιε. (iii) ο α ν ςἔ τ ʹ

ʹ θ ιʹ

ʹ δ ο λ .σ ὀ ʹ ια

Κ ο ω ν τ ῖν σ τ ν α ςτ ν ὸ υ γ ρ ευ ἱὸ η ό σ ε ν ο ν τ ν σ ῖν α τ α ν ἀ ν ὐ ω τ ῦΚ ο κ α ρ α ίσ . α

ʹἐπ ίσ κ ο γ ό ν ιο Ἀ ν τ ιο π χ εία ο ο η α ιλ ε. (iv) ςκ ςΦ ςἔτ

ʹ ιδ

ʹ

ὀ λ .σ ο εʹ

ρ Χ ισ τ ια ῷ π α ν ιο ν ίν λ Λ ικ α τ ςτο ο ίῳ ὺ ὺ ντ ςἐ ςἐδίω . ν ξ ε Β α ε ὺ ιλ σ ςὁἐπ ίσ κ ο μ π α εία ο σ ςτ ςἈ ο ῦΠ ό ν τ ν ιν ο ίο υτ υἐπ ικ ὶΛ ὸ ν ρ τυ ρ ίο ή α σ α ν υστέφ ν α ο ν ἀ ῦμ εδ τ ο τ ο . AbAlexandro Arius presbyter deecclesia eiectus.

ʹ ιε

ʹ ις ʹ ιζ ʹ ʹ ιη μ τ ͵β ʹ ὀ λ .σ ο ς ʹ ιθ

εθ ᾽ὅ ʹ γ νκ ʹἐπ ίσ κ ο π ο β ςΠ α χ Ἀ ιο εία ῆ ν τ ν υ α λ ςκ ῖν ςζ μ ο ςμ ʹ· θ Ε ὐ ιο η δ. (v) σ τ ά ςἔτ ʹαὐτο Κ ω ν σ τ ῖν ν τ α ο ρ ῦΚ γ ςτ ευ ό ὸ ν ω ν ν υ ἱὸ σ η εκα σ τ ν ίσ ά τ ρ ιο α ν α . ἀ ν η Λ . ικ ίν ν ιο γ ά ςἐσφ ἤ χ η θ . ρ ὶςτ α η ο η δ υβ σ ε ῆ τ ίν ιλ ν ίᾳ α ετ ν σ τ ςΚ α ο σ ω Ε ἰκ εία μ ο ικ ςἐ νΝ

ʹ κ

ηἕω : ρ ίδ υ ο ςτ ίν η ὰ ἔτ α ιτ π α ῆ ο τ ν τ ν ετ ά γ α ςεἰκ ςΚ τ ν ω σ ά ετ ο ν α σ υ Σ μ ν ῶ α ἐπ ν ιφ ἀ π ε υκ α ὸιεἔτο ία ὶτ ῆ ίο ρ ο ςτ ῆ τ ς ερ ω ςἡ ο ῦΣ ιβ υ ςΤ ʹτ ἀ π ὸδ α ν ὲ σ υ ᾽ὃ ο ο ιλ έω θ υἔτ ρ ο ςΔ είο α νβ α ῶ ῦδευτέρ ς σ ,κ υτ ο ερ ῦΠ ιςν ο μ α ὸ η ςἀ ὁἐ ο λ ύ νἹεροσ ν εν εώ θ α ίο ις ρ ή τ β ε υ ο ν ρ δ μ π ᾽Ἑ η π φ α ιά ο λ υ ἀ π ὸδ ςὈ ῆ ς ρ ώ τ ρ ο ,κ ᾽ὃ ὲτ θ α ν ςπ ἐπ γ ρ χ ο ν Ἡ ῳ σ ύ σ ο ΐα ι α α ύ τ ὶο ἱτο ςκ ο ῦ α ιςν ο μ η ῆ μ ν π ὸδ ὲΣ ρ ῶ ἀ ο ώ ο ο τ ςἐπ λ ῆ ςτ σ α κ ο Ἱερ λ ύ ν ο ο ὶτ ισ ε ῦἐ ςπ ςκ υ ρ α β ίο ιςἦ ν ρ ᾽Ἑ π ὸδ ὲτ ῆ μ ἀ ψ ,κ α θ ν π α εω ὼ ίο ώ σ ᾽ὃ λ ς ν Σ ςἸλ υἁ α υ ο ῦ ς ῦδιφ ο ο π ςτ ρ ο ν Κ ν α ίω έκ η α σ ώ ιλ έ ρ ω τ ο ςἈθ υβ π ῦ ο ὶτ α ω έ σ ςκ ω ὲΜ ὸδ π ἀ ἀ π ὸδ α μ ὲἈβρ κ ὰ α α μ σ ε ιλ ῆ ω ὶτ ά ςβ ε ς ιρ ία ο εμ α υκ ὶΣ ίν ςΝ ο ίδ ς ρ η ιέχ ειὁὅ μ Π ερ ρ ῆ ὰ ἔω α ςεἰκ ο ετ λ νἀ β ςτ σ ὼ π ν α ο ὸἈ ςκα τ ίν ο υ ν Κ ω ν σ τα ἀ π ὸδ ο μ ὲτ μ ῦἕω α ο ὰ ῦκατακλυσ ςἈβρ ἀ π ὸδ μ ω μ ὲἈ ἕ κ δ λ ὰ α τ υ ο σ ςτ ο ῦκα ῦ υ ο ίν τ ν μ α ο ρ τ ῦτ ίδ Ὁ σ ν η ο ὰ ω μ π ςΚ ά ἕω ν τ α ἀ π ὸἈ ὰ δ ςτ ῆ ετ α ςεἰκ ο σ

ʹ ηση ἔτ μ ςʹ ἔτηω

ʹ β ρ η͵α ἔτ ʹ η η͵α ν τ ἔτ ʹ η φ ἔτἦ͵α ʹ η͵α λ ω ζ ἔτ ʹ β μ τ η͵β ἔτ ʹ β μ τ η͵β ἔτ ʹ β μ ἔτηϠ

ʹ β μ σ η͵β ἔτ ʹ κ ς η͵εφ ἔτ

Secundum autem supputationem Hebraeorum suntIubilaea LXXXVI, quae sunt quinquageni anni, hisque continentur anni 4300.

β paxplurima. Ex ι indeγ ʹ ʹ

2. TheReconstruction

2330

8

Maximinus launched a persecution against theChristians andwasabout to becaptured byLicinius whenhe

165

Constantine granted freedom to all Christians

died in Cilicia. Jerusalem: the thirty-ninth bishop wasMacarius, for nineteen years.*

(i)

Antioch: thetwentieth bishop wasVitalis, for six years.* (ii) Alexandria: theseventeenth bishop wasAlexander, forfifteen years.* (iii)

9 10 Olymp. 274 (316) 11

Constantine proclaimed

(317) (318) (319)

Antioch: thetwenty-first bishop wasPhilogonius, forfive years.* (iv)

(314) (315)

13 14

Olymp. 275

(320)

(321) (322)

2340

hisson, Constantine, caesar.

12

15

16

17 18

Licinius persecuted theChristians wholived inthepalace. Basileus, the bishop of Amaseia in Pontus, wasgranted thecrown of martyrdom under Licinius. Thepriest Arius wasexpelled from thechurch byAlexander.

Olymp. 276

(324)

19

(325)

20

Antioch: the twenty-second bishop was Paulinus, for seven months, and after him the twenty-third was Eustathius, for four years.* (v) Constantine proclaimed hisson, Constantius, caesar. Licinius wasmurdered. Thetwentieth anniversary of Constantine’s reign wascelebrated inNicomedia.

Here collected are all the years to the twentieth year of Constantine: Fromthefifteenth year of Tiberius andthecoming of ourSaviour Fromthesecond year of Darius, thekingof thePersians, atwhich time the Temple inJerusalem wasrebuilt Fromthefirst Olympiad, at which time Isaiah andhiscontemporaries prophesied amongst theHebrews FromSolomon andthefirst building of theTemple inJerusalem Fromthedestruction of Troy, at which time Sampson wasamong theHebrews FromMoses andthedouble-formed Cecrops, thefirst kingof theAthenians FromAbraham andthereigns of Ninus andSemiramis This entire canon, from Abraham to the twentieth year of Constantine, contains From the flood to Abraham From Adam to the flood Altogether from Adam to the twentieth year of Constantine there are Moreover, according to the calculation of theHebrews there areeighty-six Jubilees, which areperiods of fifty years, andthese encompass 4,300 years.

From this time there wasmuchpeace.

298 years 846 years 1,102 1,358 1,508 1,837 2,342

years years years years years

2,342 years 942 years 2,242 years 5,526 years

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

166

ʹ κ α ʹ β κ

ʹ ο λ .σ ο ζ

ʹ γ κ

ʹ κ δ

ʹ κε

ʹ κ ς

Κ ω ν σ τ ν ῖν τα ο ςὁπ ρ α ό τ α τ ο ςκ α τ ὰ τ ῶ ν π ο λ ίω εμ ν τ ῆ ςτ ῶ ρ ν Χ ισ τ ια γ τ ε ω ίσ γ ν ῶ ν π τ ςστρα ά ε εύ η τ σ α οτ ςὑπ ῇ εὐ ῇ τ ὴ χ ν ν η ίκ ν . (1) ια ρ κ ὰπ ρ ὴ υ δ ιὸκ ὸ ντ α ὶκ φ ςἐπ ῶ ο ισ νἐθ τρ ν ῶ νκ α τ ὰτόπ ο υ ςε ἰς ὴ ν τ ο ῦθ ε ο τιμ ῦπ επ κ ε ν . (2) ο ίη Ν ρ α σ ῆ ςὁυ ἱὸ σ ιλ έ νβα σ ῶ ω μ ετ Π ερ ςκα ν ο α τ ῦ ῶ ὴ τ έδρ ν ςτ Μ εσ ο ν α ε νκ ὶλαμβά ιπ ία μ ό λ ινἌμ α ῳ τ Κ π ο ω ν σ ιδ α τ ν . το ά ύ τ ν τ ιο ςὁ , Κω ν ρ σ τ κ α α ν α τ ῖσ ίν ο υπ α ῖς ,π ε ο λ ῖκ εμ α έ ὶπ τ α ίσ α ςὀλ α ίγ τ σ η ε ν τη ,ὡ ςἐκρά ά χ ῆ τ ςμ ςκ λ ο ω τ α ὕ ςο ὶα ὐ τ ὸ νἀ ν ελ ε ῖντ ὸ ν ρ Ν ῆ σ ν . (3) α [Κ ρ ίσ π ο ςὁυ η ,κ θ ή α ἱὸ ὶτ ν ὸ α έω σ ιλ ὸΒ ςΧριστια ςἐκοιμ υ ῦβ ο ςτ τ ρ α οκτίζεσθ ξ ι.] (4) α ἤ ν ιο τ ν ά ζ ὴ Κ ω ν ο ςεὐσ έσ σ ῖν τ τ τ ν α τα ςνικη τ εβ ο α ν ςκ α τ ῶ ὰΓερμ νκ α ὶ μ α τ ῶ ν κ ρ α Σ ὶΓότθ α ρ α ἤ ρ α τ τ ω εύ οκρα ν σ η α σ τ ν τ α ςνίκ ιὰ ν δ ιὰ ώ σ α ςε ρ μ ο ε ω α ὶτούτο υ ῦ ἰςἐσχά ςκ δ ν υ ά υ ςἐρημ α τ η σ ῆ ο ῦ ν τ ςτ τ γ εδουλ α . (5) ν εία ὺ α ὐ τ ο ςκατήγ ὴ ρ ν ο ισ σ θ μ ή εν ύ ν ο δ ν κ ο ἐπ ισ ό π ε ω ικ υ ν ν ο . (6) σ υ ν κ ἰκ α ν ο ὴ ὶτ ὴ νΛ ο υ κ ια ν νἐπ α ν ο ο α τ ῦτ ῦἐκ ικ ίσ α εῖσ κ α ρ ὶΔρέπ ἰςτιμ ςε ά εμ ρ ὶα η ὐ τ τ η ῦἙ ο κ λ μ μ ο ε εν λ ν ντ . (7) ό π υ έκ ν ῇ ο ινκ ώ λ ρ ο ςὁμ υ τ ρ ἤ ια κ ξ ρ ὸ ν α τ εῖσ τ ὸὀκτάγω οοἰκοδομ ν κ υ ν ο θ α ι. (8) ίᾳ ε χ ιο τ ν Ἀ ν ἐ

[π β ]π ιν λ ά ὴ εισ σ ερ α κ ις ν ο ῦ ςτ Κ τ ά α Δ ω ςγ έ ν ὸ ν σ τα τ ο ν ῖν ςὁ εὐ σ εβ φ ρ υ α νἐ ῷ λ να ιθ ὐ η κ τ ν ίν εκ π α επ ὶτ ίη ο α ο θ ὺ ύ ςὑπ κ ςΣ έτ α ξ ε ν . (9) ʹἐπ ʹ. (10) ίσ κ ο π ο η ιο ια α ν ά σ Ἀ λ ρ εία εξ ςἈθ ςἔτ δ ν ςιη α ʹΕ ιο ὐ ʹἐπ σ έβ Ἀ ς . (11) ᾽ὃ ν νκ εθ τ ιο χ ίσ ε εία κ ·μ ςκ ο π δ ο ιο ά λ ς ςΕὐλ Ε ιο ὐ φ ρ σ ίλ μ ε έβ ία ςὁΠ η ο α υἐπ α ισ ς α ςτ ῆ ίσ κ ο π ο ίν τ ςΚ ςΠ α ισ λ α φ α ο έρ τ ν φ ρ α α ε φ ὺ διά ρ ο α γ ρ ςἐγ ν ίζ ω γ α ὶσυγγράμμ κ ε τ ο ,ο ὗ σ υ

τ α ι. (12) Ἀ ν τ ιο ιο χ ν ςἔτ εία ο ρ ό ςκ ςα ςἐπ ο π ο ςΕὐφ κ ίσ ʹ. (12A) ʹ η ρ κ α ὰ ν ν ίσ ὶε , λαμπ ὐ Κ μ εγ ω τ ν σ ῖν τ τ ν α ο τ ο έσ α τ ιν λ ςὁ ςπ ό εὐ σ εβ ή σ α ς ῳ τ , Κω ετιμ ν σ τ α ν ο τιν ύ π ο λ ις ή τ ακτίσ ν ο α ίμ ς , συγκλ α δ η νΒυζά κ η μ ε έν ν ,τ τ ιο ρ ο ν ,Ῥ ό τ νκα λ ο υ κ λ ερ ὸπ έκ ν ὴ τ ὐ να η μ ώ φ υ ρ α ρ εύ α , [κ σ α σ ὶἔστη ὶπ ο μ εκ ς η α γ ο τ ίζ ρ ν α ινἀ ε ν α χ δ ευ τ έρ ρ ο ῦ ν κ ίο ν α κ α ο υ , π ρ ιά ν τ ὶἐπ ό α τ ἑα ῦ ο υ δ τ π τ ν ο ,ἀ ῦ ὸ ἀ ῦ ά ο τ ν ω α ὐ ῆ ο ςἐπ ςτ ὶ μ έρ ὶτ ὸδυτικ ὸ ν , ἐπ ιν λ ό π ν ε ὴ τ ῖν τ α οοἰκοδομ ο ὗἤρξ α ίσ ςἐ ν α ὶκομ ινκ ὴ λ νπ ό α σ ςτ ή η ςκοσμ λ ύ ςπ η σ νἐξιού η μ Ῥ ώ ο σ νεὐκ ἦ γ ο ν εω λ ιἔρ ,ε ἴτ ς ό α ὶπ ία χ ρ η ςκ ςἐπ α α ὐ τ ῇ ἀ π ὸπ ά σ μ ία ςκ ]. (13) ρ ο α υ μ ά ὶἀ ρ α ν ρ ὶμ δ ιά α ν τ ῦκ κ ο ω λ ν κ α ὶχα ʹ. (13A) η ια ο λ ςἔτ Ἀ ν τ ιο χ ιλ εία ςκ κ ά ζἐπ λ ο ςΦ π ο κ ίσ ʹ [δ α κ τ ὰ ν ιὰ ὴ ὴ φ ιλ ςτ ο θ ε ν τ ΐα α ῖν ο τ εὐ εβ σ ςὁ σ ν ν α ὐ ] ἐπ τ εΚω έτ ειν ο ῦ υ π ο ό τ ς ὰ τ α α ὶκ ,κ υ σ ιν τ ά λ α κ ν ῶ τ τ ῶ ν εἰδώ α ὐ ν λ ῶ α ω κ ν ν ν α ῶ ὶτ ἠ φ α ν ίζο ν τ οκ α ῦ ο ε ὶai π τ ρ ν ῶ ό τ ῦθ ο σ ο δ ο ιαὐ ιςτ ία σ η α ῖςἐκκλ ν τ ἀ π . (14) εδ ίδ ο ο

2. TheReconstruction

(326)

21

(327)

22

Olymp. 277 (328)

23

(329)

24

(330)

25

(331)

26

167

Constantine the most merciful campaigned against the enemies of theChristian faith andobtained victory through prayer. (1) Andas a result in God’s honour he built churches everywhere for the conversion of thepagans. (2) Narseh, thesonof thekingof thePersians, overran Mesopotamia and took thecity of Amida. Constantius Caesar, the sonof Constantine, made waronhimandthough hesuffered a fewsetbacks, at last heso gotthe upper handin battle that heeven killed Narseh. (3) [Crispus, the son of the emperor, died a Christian andByzantium began to be founded.] (4) Constantine the victorious andmost pious campaigned against the Germans, Sarmatians, and Goths, and gained a mighty victory through the power of the cross. Having laid them waste, he reduced them to utter slavery. (5) Healso summoned a universal synod of bishops. (6) Andafter founding Drepana in honour of the martyr Lucian, who wasburied there, henamed it Helenopolis after his mother. (7) In Antioch theoctagonal church began to be built. (8) Having [very often] crossed theDanube, Constantine thepious built a stone bridge over it andsubjugated the Scythians. (9) Alexandria: the eighteenth bishop wasAthanasius, for eleven years. (10) Antioch: the twenty-fourth bishop was Eulalius, and after him the twenty-fifth was Eusebius. (11) Eusebius of Pamphilus, thebishop of Caesarea inPalestine, wasfamousas a writer andhisremarkable writings arestill incirculation. (12) Antioch: thetwenty-sixth bishop wasEuphronius, foroneyear.* (12A) After founding a very great, famous, andprosperous city andendowingit witha senate, Constantine themostpious called it Constantinople (ithadpreviously beencalled Byzantium) anddecreed that it should be considered a second Rome. [He set upboth a porphyry column anda statue of himself atop it after hehaddecorated the city from the place where he began to build the city to the western district where the gate is that leads to Rome, and had brought into it from every province andcity every decorative object andstatue of bronze andmarble.] (13) Antioch: the twenty-seventh bishop was Flacillus, for eleven years.* (13A)

[Because of his love for God,] Constantine the pious incited the destruction of idols andtheir temples. They were obliterated everywhere andtheir revenues were given over tothechurches of God. (14)

168

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

ʹ η ο λ .σ ο

ζ κ ʹ

ʹ η ʹ κ ν τ ͵β

ʹ κ θ

ʹ λ

ʹ .σ ο ο λ θ ʹ α λ

ʹἐπ μ Ἱερ μ ο ω ν ίσ σ ο λ ύ κ ο π ο ςΜ ά ο ξ ιμ ς . (15) [ἡ β ἐ α νΝ η δ ικ σ μ ε ο ιλ ίᾳ ὴ ικ π ρ υ ὶθ κ α ε τ ίῳ εφ λ η έχ .] (16) θ μ ελ λ η ο ύ ςτ σ ῆ ςἑβδό η μ ςἰνδικτιῶ ν ο β ά ν ςἐπ εσ θ μ α ιλ α ι, λ ὸ ιμ ςἐγ έ ή σ ρ α τ α ντ ῇἀνα οἐ ῇἐπ ν ε τ τ ςσφ ικ ρ ο ο λ ό δ τ ο ν ερ ,ὥ σ τ εκώ μ α ς ῷ κ α ὰ τ σ τ ὸα τ ὐ ὸἐ υ γ μ ν ο έν ν α ὄ ῳ π ο λ λ χ λ α ςἐπ ὶτ ῆ ςχώ ρ α ςἈ ν α νκ ὶτ ω τ ιο χ έ ῆ ρ ο υἐπ χ ςΚ έρ ύ εσ θ λ ᾽ἀλλή α ικ ω τ α νκ α ὶἁ ρ νὡ ὲ π ά ςἐ τ ῖςἐφ α ὶτ κ εινμ ννυ ό ζ ᾳ δ ο ις , ἔσχα τ νδ ο ρ ὲἐ έ νἡμ α ν ιε ιέ ἰςτ ν α ἐπ εισ ο ςκ α ὺ ὶἐ ςσιτοβολῶ ῖςἀ ντα ή κ π α ο θ ιςκ α ὶ α ιδ ρ εύ ο ν τ ρ π π α α ά τ ν π ά ςἁ κ α ε ιν ζ ρ , γενέσ ῖν ε ὶἀ ν α χ ω θ α ιδ ὲτ ὸ ν μ ό δ ιο ν τ ρ ο γ ʹἀ υ ίω ῦ ,ὁ ρ σ ίτ ν δ έγ α ο ] Κω υ ὲ[μ ν υ ς σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ςσ ιτ ο μ έτ ρ ιο ν τ α ῖςἐκκλ η σ ία ιςκ α τ ὰ π ό λ τ ο ί σ α ιν ρ ε ὴ ἰςδιατροφ ν ἐχ α α ιςκ ῶ ν εκ α ςχήρ ὶξεν εκ α δ ιη ο δ ο χ η σ ίτ ὶτ είο ιςπ ο έν η ῖςκ λ ρ ικ ο ῖς ὲἐ . ἡδ η β νἈ ἐκ κ σ α ία ν λ ν εσ ίτ τ μ ιο ἐλ χ ά ε ο ίᾳ ο υμ δ ίο υ ς ρ ίο υ μ υ ςἑξα ρ ισ κ τ ισ υ ιλ ίο χ . (17) ς ῳ ,Σ μ ίν α έ λ α α ρ π ο τ ά ό μ β τ έν γ λ υ ο εν ο ἐ ρ υ ιςκα ο Κ ν ύ π α λ ῦ μ ο τ σ εισ θ ὺ νδιέφ η θ ειρ εν ὴ . (18) νπ λ ν α ὶἱκα εκ π εσ μ ῆ ά τ ιο α ςΔ λ ν τ ὸ ν υ ἱὸ Κ ω ν ν τ ῖν ο φ σ τ α ν τ ο δ ο ῦἀ ελ ςὁεὐσ ῦα ὐ τ ο ῦ εβ ρ γ ευ ό η σ ρ ε ν ο μ α .ἦ τ ίο ρ α ἀ ν νδ υτ Δ ςκα ίσ α λ ο ῦκήνσω α ὲΔ α λ μ ά τ ιο ςστρατη γ ὸ ςῬ μ α ω ίω νκ α ὶὕπ ρ ὸτ α ο τ ο ῦα γ ο ὐ ςπ τ ὸ ν ἀ ν α ρ ευθ ῆ ν α ικα ίσ ρ α α . (19) ῳ τ ή ρ υ α σ ν ν ῳ α τ ή σ ῇ ςο ν κἀ ὐ ν τ έσ Κ α χ ρ ο λ ετ κ ό ῇ α Κ ιρ ςἐ ν ύ Ῥ π ω μ α ίω νπ ρ β ο ῇ ο σ ,κ ηἐ λ α θ ε ν ρ μ ὶἡττη ὶςἅ α τ ο έθ ῖςα ῃ ἰτ ίο ιςἀ ν ῷ ῆ τ ςΚ ιλ ικ ία ρ σ Τ υ θ ο α ςκα ρ ε ὶςζ μ τ α ίο ίσ α . υκα ς λ α νὑ π ὸΔ ῶ (20) ητρια ρ ὶς κ χ θ η ο ν τ α τ η ο ετ ῦἤ ο ῦ ο υτ Κ ω ν α ίν σ τ α ν τ ο ςκ ὶν ικ ῦεὐσ εβ ω ιῬ . (21) λ ε ς ίμ ό ιν π τ ο υ ο τ ν τα σ ιλ ν ω Κ ν ἐ υφ ν ά π ῃ μ ώ

ᾳἐ ῷ ῷ ο ντ ρ κ ὐ α α τ ν ὰτ έρ ὸ ρἐ νἈ ὴ τ ιο ε ν χ ίᾳἐνἡμ ηἀ σ τ ν ά ἐφ μ ίν ρ α ο υ ,ἀ ο π ρ α ὡ μ ὸὥ ς έρ φ ν ίζ ὸκα π ό π ςκα δ ςἀ ν ὸ ν ικ σ ω λ τ ο ν α ἀ η η ς . (22) τ ρ ςἕω π ίτ ρ α τ έμ ςὥ ςπ ίνβ ὸ υ ιν ο ικ τ λ ν π ο α τ ο τ ό σ ν λ π ο σ εω β ύ ςΚω ,ἀ τ ρ ς Ε ερ θ ιο ὐ εσ τ ά σ ςπ ῆ ρ η κ ω ν ώ μ έπ λ α ς , δια ςἐλ η έν ρ ετ π ρ ο ρ ο ἀ ν ῃ ν κ ςκ ἰςἄ α α ὶε ο ν ἐπ

ιο νἐν ρ ρ τ ύ ιτ τ χ έκ β ρ ω α νὁτ ιο ὸΜ ςἀ ν ό ρ ίζ η ω ν ετ α ο ,κ ὶΖ ἐγ (23) γ . ῇ ή α α σ ι τ σ π ν τ ί ἐ ω τ τ Κ α ν υ ν ο ς ῇ ρ ο μ σ Ἱε ο ιςοἰκοδομ λ ύο ρ α ὑ α π ὸΣ μ ʹ ίᾳ α εσ νἐ νΜ ο π ο τ ρ ίω β υ σ σ ιςἈ σ α ῶ νἐ λ π ο λ λ ο νΠ έρ ὶτ η ν ῶ νἐπ ρ ά κ ιπ σ κ . (24) ο ν ο τ ν ὰ ω ςΚ ιβ μ α ίο ρ υ α ὶ ἐπ ὸ ς ,κ ω νπ ςῬ ο σ α σ α ι ἐδήλω νπ εμ λ Π ό έρ ή μ ῷ τ ῆ ], ὁρ ʹἐνια ςα β ιλ α σ εία ς υ τ ὐ τ ο ῦ β ὴ ς[λ ο ῖν ςὁ τ εὐ ν σ α εβ τ σ εία δ η , ς μ ο ικ , ἐλ ν θ ὼ ν ῶ ω σ ἕ ςΝ Π ερ ὰ α τ νκ ὴ λ ν τ ἀ ν ο ὴ α ὶτ σ α ςἐπ ῦ ο ὶςτ ε θ α τ ιω ίο ν , κα ξ ιτ νβ ὸ ε τ τ λ λ ά α ετ ῶ ςμ ἐν δ ό ω α ξ ὶεὐσεβ ςκ α ν τ σ ν ω Κ υ π ο ό ίο κ υ ἐπ ισ εβ σ ὐ Ε π τ ο ὸ α ςὑ μ ιώ ρ τ ίσ δ ο υ ςβαπ τη ω σ ῆ ν α α ʹκ ςιʹ. (25) ὶμ α η λ α σ τ ςἔ εύ α τ ιν ο υ π ό λ σ ιλ εω ,β ς ν α τ σ ν ρ ὸ ω τ ῶ νΚ ὐ ςα τ α ο ὰθ ν ντ ῦπ ετ ά α τ ο νμ α σ α σ ίλ ευ νλ εʹἐβ ίω α μ ω Ῥ ʹ(26) ηιγ α ςἔτ τ σ ν ώ ὶΚ α τ ίν ο ο έο υΚ ῖν ςὁν ςκ τ ν ω α ν τ ν σ σ τ ά ω ν τ ὶΚ ιο α ςκ

2. The Reconstruction

169

Olymp. 278 (332)

27

2350

28

(334)

29

(335)

30

Olymp. 279 (336)

(337)

31

32

Jerusalem: the fortieth bishop wasMaximus.* (15) [The basilica in Nicomedia wasburned downbydivine fire.] (16) Just before the start of the seventh indiction, there was a famine in the East of such extreme severity that the people of the villages came together atthesametime ina great multitude intheterritory of theAntiochenes andof Cyrrhus andassaulted oneanother; that attacking by night they looted andfinally by day they stormed the granaries andstorehouses, andplundered andlooted everything before retreating; andthat a modius of wheat cost 400 arguria. Constantine [the Great] graciously gave a grain ration to the churches ineachcity forthecontinual sustenance of widows, hospices, thepoor, andclerics. Thechurch inAntioch received 36,000 modii of grain. (17) The city of Salamis was levelled andkilled a great number of people during a very violent earthquake onCyprus. (18) Constantine the pious proclaimed Dalmatius, the son of his brother Dalmatius thecensor, caesar. Dalmatius wasa Roman general and consul before hewasproclaimed caesar. (19) Calocaerus wasa usurper ontheisland of Cyprus, butwasunable to withstand theRoman assault. After hisdefeat hewasexecuted by being burned alive along with his co-conspirators by Dalmatius Caesar at Tarsus of Cilicia. (20) The tricennalia of Constantine, the most pious andvictorious, were celebrated most lavishly in Constantinople-Rome. (21)

InAntioch a star appeared intheeastern skyduring thedayfromthe third until the fifth hour, producing much smoke as if from a furnace.* (22) Eustathius, a presbyter of Constantinople, having entered upon an apostolic life andreached the peak of virtue, wasfamous , as wasZenobius, the architect whobuilt the Martyrium in Jerusalem according to theinjunction of Constantine. (23) Manyof theAssyrians living among thePersians were sold inMesopotamia bytheSaracens. (24) The Persians declared waron the Romans, andConstantine the pious, [when he hadentered the thirty-second year of his rule], set outfor theEast against thePersians, butwhenhehadgone as far asNicomedia, hegloriously andpiously quitthis life, having been deemed worthy of holy baptism at the hands of Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople. Hehadreigned for 31 years and 10 months. (25)

Romans: after thedeath of their father Constantine thethirty-fifth to rule were Constantius, Constantine the younger, andConstans, for thirteen years. (26)

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

170

ʹ α

ʹ β

ʹ ο λ .σ π

ʹ γ ʹ δ

ρ ιςὁΠ Σ ά ω β π α σ ῶ σ ερ ν ιλ ε ὺ ῆ ςἐπ λ θ ετ ῇ Μ εσ π ο π ρ ή ο ο μ θ σ τ ίᾳ α ω ν ινκ Ν ισ ίβ α ρ ὶπ εκ α ά θ ισ ε ναὐ μ α έρ ἡ ʹκ τ ὴ ςξ α ν ὶμ ὴκα γ τ ισ χ ύ β εῖν σ α α ςλ ν ὴ τ η ὐ α ἀ ν σ εχ ρ ε ν ώ . Ἰά β ο κ ω ςδ η ν ῶ ὲΝ ισ ν ἐπ ιβ ίσ κ ο ῷ ῆ τ ςθ εο σ ε ο ν θ εβ ία π ςἐ τ ε ςἤ ιδιαμέν ω ν εὐ χ α ν γ ώ κ α τ ὰ ὰ ῖςτ ᾳ δ ῥ ίω η μ ν ςἐξήνυσ ε νὅσ σ ῶ Π ερ Ν ν ισ ν τ ὴ ν ιν ί, τ ῶ α ιςκ ίβ τ ἐλ π ιη κ ρ έν α τ έψ α ρ α α ι, διημ ιτ τ ῆ σ α τ ςἐλπ ίδ νκα ω ο τ ςπ ν επ ό ο ίζ ·σθ η κ ε ν .α ὐ τ ίκ γ ρτ α ὰ ῆ ςμ ὲ νπ ό λ ε ω ςὑπ ῷ εχ τ ρ ῆ ώ ο υ ντ ςεὐ ῆ χ ς μ α μ τ ιδιω εν ν εύ κ ό π ο ι, εἰςδ ὲτ ὴ νἑαυ ῶ τ νχώ ρ α νἐλθ ό ν τ ε ςλ ιμ ο ῦτ εκ α ὶλ ο ο ιμ ῦὑπ εδ έξ α ν ισ τ θ ὸ ντ ομ ῆ εία ςἀ σ εβ π ρ ς ε , ἧσ β ά ν μ ο ν τ α ε ,ἀ ν τιλ ν ς . (27) ω ἔδρ ʹἐπ ίσ ρ Ἀ λ εξ ρ γ κ εία ιο δ α ν ό ο π ο ς . (28) ςιθ ςΓρη Κ ν ω σ τ α ν τ ʹ. (29) ῖν ο η α ο σ έ ςὁν ιλ εβ σ ςἐτελ τ εύ σ εύ α η κ ε ςἔτ ῆ ρ τ ία υ ςΣ φ ςτ α ὸσ ιρ ο ειδ ὲ χ ε ίᾳ κ ὸ ν ιεἔτ ιο ςκυρια τ ν νἈ ἐ ιἐπ εσ ʹΚ η ,κ ρ θ ώ α η ὶὑ π ὸΚ ω λ ν σ τ α ν τ ελ ιω ίν ο θ υθ εμ ε ῖσ α π ὑ ὸ ω ν σ τ ν α ᾳ η τ τ ίο υ ἐ ῆ ἐν π λ ὶΦ κ α ίλ εκα θ ςἐπ ρ ίσ λ ιν ο μ υ έ ἐπ ισ κ ό π ἡ ῇ ιο υ τ φ α ν ε ία ςσω ρ τῆ ο ςἡμ ῶ ν . (30) ʹ. (31) Ἀ ʹἐπ ν τ ιο ίσ χ ε η κ γ ία ο π ο η ςκ ςΣτέφ α ν ο ςἔτ έρ α ʹἡμ ιςἐκινδύν μ ά εγ Ἀ ν τ ιό λ χ ῶ ν ὑ π μ ν ια ω ε π ὸσεισ ἐ ὶιγ ευ σ ε ν . (32)

εʹ ʹ ς ʹ τ ξ ͵β ʹ α π ο λ .σ ʹ ζ

ʹ η ʹ θ

β ευ Κ σ μ ω ν ε ν . (33) σ τ ρ σ ν ιά ά α τ ρ ιο ίο υ ςἐθ ςνική σ υ ςἈ σ β α ρ ιςὁ σ ιλ ε ρ ὺ σ ῶ ν Σ ά π ω ὸ ῶ ν Π τ ερ ο ςπ ςτ ῖςαὐ κ ο κ ῖςκ α ῦ α τ ο ὶτο ὺ ς ν ὺ ο ια τ ισ ρ . (34) ςἐδίω ν κ ε α Χ ῖρ ε ὸχ π ὑ ῳ ,Σ η α μ λ ίν α ςτ ῆ ςπ ά λ ρ ό ο λ υἐ εγ νΚ ύ π έν ε ο υμ ω ς μ ο ῦγενομ σ εισ τ ὰ π λ κ εῖσ . (35) ν ε π τ ω έπ τ δια α ρ μ ε γ έν η ια Π εν ο υ ,Ν ό ν τ εο κ α ισ ά ο ά ο υκατεπτώ λ ο υ μ θ εγ μ ο ῦ σ εισ η σ ία ρ α ῆ ῶ νἐκ ε υκ π λ ὴ ντ ε ὶτ α ῖεὑ ὶτ ο ςκ είο ςἐκκλ ῦἐπ ο π κ ισ θ έν ρ β τ ῶ ῶ ω ν νἀ νεὐλα . (36) ν δ μ σ α ῶ ν κ ῖο α λ ο ἱῬ μ ν π ω ο ό ὶπ ισυνέβα ερ λ λ ε Π ο λ ὺ τ ο ο ὰ εμ ν ςαὐ τ ῶ ν

ἀ ν ε ῖλ ο ν . (37) Ἀ ν τ ʹἐπ ιο κ π ο ό . (38) ίσ ο ν χ ς γ ςΛ εία εό ν τ ιο θ ςὁἁ ςκ ῆ σ ο ςκα τ . (39) έπ ν εσ ν ε ά λ ο υ ,Ῥ εγ ό δ ο μ ςἡ υμ έν ο γ εν ο ο μ ῦ σ εισ η κ α ρ ὶ α θ ά ς έρ μ φ η ρ ῆ ά τ χ ρ ἡ ι ε μ α δ τ ί α η ςΔαλ Δ ῦ μ υ ο Ῥ ςὑ π ὸ σ εισ μ ώ μ π α ν ι λ ε ό ς π α ʹ Κ η . ῆ τ ὲ δ ρ ς ε μ ῖ ν τ ςἐκ ειο έ εσ σ ευ ν ιν ύ ία δ ςιβ η σ (40) ν . ρ α θ ά δ ιεφ ρ ο ν ς κ ε ὄ έ ν α π επ ιμ ίη ία ρ ο ςλ ῆ τ υ ςΣ Κ ω ν σ τ κ ε ά υ ίᾳ ν ε τ ελ Σ ιο ν ςτ ἐ ν ὸ η (41) σ . ε ν μ ό δ ο κ ῳ ν ἀ ὴ λ ν τ ν π ι α ό ὶ κ ν ὼ μ ε ὶ π τ ἐ πο λ ὺδια κ ὸ ε, τ η λ έκ τα ν τ ία νκ σ ν ω νΚ ῃ ,ἣ κ α ὶπ ίκ ό Φ ιν ο λ ῇ ινἔκ ντ νἐ τ ισ ε ρ . (42) η νἈ α ν δ ν τ ο ά μ ρ έν ό τ π ο υ ερ νκα ο λ Ν ιμ ίᾳ α τ π ο τ Μ εσ ο ν ῇ ὼ α θ σ ιλ ε ὺ ρ ελ Σ ςἐπ νβ ιςὁτ ά ῶ σ π ω ερ ῶ νΠ ʹκ ώ α θ εχ ινα ε ν λ ὶπ ά ἰσ χ ν ὶςἀ υ η α έρ ςο νἡμ ε ινπ ισ ρ θ εκ ά α σ ίβ η ρ σ εν . (43)

2. TheReconstruction (338)

1

(339)

2

Olymp. 280 (340)

3

(341)

4

171

Shapur, the king of the Persians, invaded Mesopotamia in order to destroy Nisibis andbesieged it for sixty-three days, but being unable to capture it he retreated. Because Jacob, the bishop of the Nisibenes, stood firm in his accustomed piety, he easily accomplished his will with his prayers. And it was he who, when the Persians were hoping to subdue Nisibis, sawto it that they failed to fulfil their hopes. For, driven by the spirit of his prayer, they immediately withdrew from the city, and when they arrived in their ownterritory they met with famine andplague, receiving themasrepayment fortheimpiety that they were committing. (27) Alexandria: thenineteenth bishop wasGregory.* (28)

Constantine the younger died; he hadreigned for twenty-five years. (29) In Antioch of Syria thespherical church wascompleted after fifteen years. Its foundations hadbeen laid by Constantine and it was consecrated byConstantius, inthetime of bishop Flacillus, onthe dayof theEpiphany of ourSaviour. (30) Antioch: the twenty-eighth bishop was Stephen for three years. (31) Antioch wasthreatened for thirteen days bygreat earthquakes. (32)

5 6 Olymp. 281 7 (344) After conquering the Assyrians (342)

2360

Constantius celebrated

a triumph.*

(33)

(345) (346)

8 9

Shapur, the king of the Persians, in addition to his other evil deeds, also began to persecute theChristians of his kingdom. (34) Most of thebuildings in thecity of Salamis were knocked downin a great earthquake onCyprus. (35) Neocaesarea inPontus waslevelled ina great earthquake, except for its church, the bishop’s residence, andthe pious menwhowere found there. (36) The Romans waged waragainst the Persians andkilled many of them. (37) Antioch: the twenty-ninth bishop was Leontius the chaste.* (38) Theisland of Rhodes waslevelled in a great earthquake. (39) Dyrrachium of Dalmatia wasdestroyed byanearthquake, Romewas struck by earthquakes and threatened for three days, and twelve cities in Campania were destroyed. (40) Constantius built the harbour in Seleucia of Syria by cutting away a large portion of the mountain andhe rebuilt the city. (41) Andin Phoenice he founded a city andcalled it Constantia. It had previously been called Antaradus. (42) Shapur, theking of thePersians, invaded Mesopotamia andbesieged Nisibis for seventy-eight days, butheagain retreated indisgrace. (43)

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

172

ιʹ ʹ β π .σ λ ο ʹ ια ʹ ιβ

ῷ έν ε ῆ τ ο ν ,ὥ ῷ α σ τ ίο υ ἐγ εκ α ο ιἐ ὶἀ ρ ιςἡ λ α α ν ὐ σ α τ ν ειψ ν έρ ςφ τ λ ἔκ ʹ. (44) η ν ῃ ῆ τ ρ α ς ὶΔ ίτ έρ ρ ςἡμ α α τ ςμ ισ ἐ νὥ ίῳ ᾳ ᾳ τ ῆ δ ρ ευ ό τ ςκυρ η ο ερ τ ρ ια ο έγ έ ν ςγ ρ μ ν λ ιο ε ἐ ν ὥ ινα ςπ λ χ ά ὐ ὁἥ α ῆ έρ ς . (45) ςἡμ κ ῷ τ ῆ ρ ςΦ η υ η ά τ ο λ ιν μ ο μ εγ υ ίκ ς έν ,τ ἐ Β γ ν ο υ ο μ εν ο ῦ ὸ π σ εισ λ εῖσ τ ο ν τ ῆ ῆ θ ςπ ο η ό λ υ λ ικ εω ςτ ν ῶ ῶ νἐθ νεἰσελ ςπ κ έπ ε ν τ ω ,ὥ σ τ επ λ ρ ισ μ ῖνχ τ ια η ν θ ίζ έν σ ο ία ίω α γ ιε ἰςτ νὁμ ὴ νἐκκλ ςἡ α ε ινἐπ γ ελ λ μ ό εν ο ι. ἐντεῦ θ ε ίσ ννεω τ α ν ερ τ έ ε ςτιν ο ὺ ςτ υ ο ςτύπ ῆ ςτ ς ῆ ή σ η α α ς σ ν ία τ ε ὶτό ,κ ρἀ ν α π ςὥ π ο χ ο νεὐ κ σ π σ ςἐξῇεσ λ υ λ ε ἐκ ῷ ὑ π εδ έξ θ , ἅπ ῆ τ ο ῆ ο ν α τ τ ὐ ὰ μ ν α τ ά α τ α τ ς σ ε ςἐ ν ν α ςτ π λ ὸ ἐπ ο ν ο ο γ ν ή εγ σ ό ιο τ ε ρ ν ὸ μ ᾶ ,ὡ ς π π λ ρ α ς μ ς ἡ εν ς ι, π ο α ο ύ ιμ η σ ία ςμ κ λ ἐκ ἡ τ ῶ νΣ α μ ρ α ειτ ῶ ν ρ π ὸ ςἸουδα ῶ ίο ν ικ εσ ις υ , ἐθ τ ε ςζῶ . ἵρ ν ς ςα (46)

ιλ

ʹ

μ α τ ο π ὐ ο Μ εσ τ κ μ νΑ ν ῇ ίᾳ ε α ῖἐ ,ἣ ὶΚ ω ιο ο ν τ δ σ ν τ ο ά ςἌ ἰκ ο α ν ιδ μ γ ο ύ σ τ α νΚω ν α ]. (47) ίω εν ν ειχ ίσ α σ η κ ς τ ε , [τ ςγ α ν τ ία νκέκλ ν ὴ κ ε, τ η ω νκ λ ν ία τ τ έκ νΚ σ ν α ν ,ἣ η ῇ ο ρ ισ τ ὲἔκ νἐ ινδ ε Ὀ ντ σ ῇ λ π ό η ν , ἐπ μ ά υ σ α ο ν ο νἑα μ έν ὴ ςα τ ὐ ο η νἈντω εγ ν ιν υ ο π ινλ ρ ό ώ λ π ρ β ία ]. (48) μ ν η μ εσ ʹκ α τ ὰ ῷ , [δ ιεσ η υ ίο δ ςψ α μ τ τῶ ίδ ςσ σ τ α νἈ ν ὴ τ μ ίᾳ τ ὼ ν θ Μ ῇ εσ ο π ο α τ ελ β ἐπ α ρ ιν Σ σ ιςὁΠ ά ιλ λ σ π ὺ ῶ ά ε ω ν ερ ςπ ή σ α ς ʹ, διαφ ρ ὴ ω νπ ό ο λ εμ ςα ὐ τ Ν ινπ ισ α ρ ςρ εκ α ίβ έρ ά θ ισ ε νἡμ μ ο . (49) εν ς χ η α ν α ῖςπ κ α ο ο ῖςχρησά λ λ ὶμ

2. TheReconstruction There wasaneclipse (347)

10

Olymp. 282 (348)

(349)

173

of the sunon6 Daisios [June], so that even the

stars appeared in the sky at the third hour of the day.* (44)

11

The sun again became

12

(45) During

darker during

the second hour of a Sunday.

a great earthquake in Berytos of Phoenice most of the city wastoppled. As a result a crowd of pagans entered the church, promising to become Christians just like us. Thereupon some of themaltered their religion anddeparted, having stolen, asit were, theoutward forms of thechurch. Theyestablished a place of prayer andreceived a crowd of people into it, mimicking alltherituals of the church. They became as close to us as the heresy of the Samaritans is to the Jews, but they lived like pagans. (46) InMesopotamia Constantius built Amida [with strong walls], andhe

called it Constantia Augusta. (47) Healso founded a city in Osrhoene andcalled it Constantia,

(350)

13

naming

it after himself. It hadpreviously been called Antoninopolis. [It is 700 stades south of Amida]. (48) Shapur, the king of the Persians, again invaded Mesopotamia and besieged Nisibis for 100 days, waging waragainst it in different ways andusing manyengines. (49)

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

174

Appendix: Hypothetical Reconstruction of Uncial Page Layout CΟ Ο Π ΙΝ Τ Ρ Ν Α Α Ο CΤ Τ Ν Α Κ Ω Τ Ο CΚ Α Τ Α Τ Ω Ν Π Ο Λ Ε Μ ΙΩ Ν Τ Η CΤ Ν Ω Χ Ρ ΙCΤ ΙΑ Ν Ν Ω Π ΙCΤ ΕΩ CCΤ Ρ Α Τ Ε CΥ CΑ Υ Π Η Γ Α Γ Ε Τ Ο CΕ Κ Α ΙΚ Ο .Δ ΙΟ Υ Ρ ΙΑ Κ Α Π Ρ Τ Η Ε Υ Χ Η Τ Η Ν Ν ΙΚ Η Ν Π ΙCΤ Ρ Ο Φ Η Ν Τ Κ Α Ο Π Τ Α Ν Ο Ν Τ Ω Υ Ν Ε Θ CΕ Ω ΙCΤ ΙΜ Ν Τ Η Ο Υ Θ Ε Ο Υ Π Ε Π Ο ΙΗ CΤ Υ ΙΟ Ο CΟ Υ CΗ Τ Ρ Α Ω Ν Π CΙΛ .Ν Ε Ν Β Α Κ Ε Ν Ρ CΩ ΕΩ CΚ Α Τ Ε Δ Ο Τ Α CΟ Π Ε Μ Ν Μ Ρ Α Μ ΙΑ Ε Τ Η Ν Κ Α ΙΛ Ν Β Ε Α ΙΠ Α Μ Ο Λ ΙΝ Α Μ ΙΔ Α Ν . CΟ Ν CΤ Τ Α ΙΟ Ν Ο Υ Τ Ω Κ Ω Τ Κ Α ΙCΑ CΤ Ρ Κ Ν Ω Α Ν Τ ΙΝ Ο Υ Π Α ΙC CΟ Ο Λ Ε Μ Ε ΙΚ Α ΙΠ Τ Α ΙCΑ Π Λ ΙΓΑ Τ Ε Λ Ο CΟ Υ Τ Ω Τ CΜ Η Α Χ Η CΕ Κ ΑΚ Ν Α CΚ Ν Ν ΡCΗ Ν Ε Ο Α Α Α ΙΑ Ο Ε Τ Υ ΙΝ CΩ Τ Ν CΕ Ρ Α Τ Η Ν .Κ ΡΙCΠ Ο Ο Υ CΙΑ CΧ CΤ Β Α ΕΩ Υ ΙΟ CΟ Ρ ΙCΤ ΙΑ Ν Ο CΕ Κ Ο ΙΜ Θ Η Η Κ Α ΙΤ Ο Β Κ ΒΥ CΤ Ν CΝ Α Ο Ν Τ ΙΝ Ω Ν Η Ο Ρ Κ Τ ΙΚ Ξ Α Τ ΙΖ Α Ι.Κ ΕCΘ Ν Τ ΙΟ Ζ Α Η Τ Η C CΚ Α Ν Κ Ο Τ Α Ν Α ΙCΑ CΤ ΓΕ Ω Α Τ Ρ Μ Α CΕ Β Ε Ε Υ Ρ Μ Α Τ Ω Ν Κ Α ΙΓ Ο Τ CΝ CΑ Θ ΙΚ Α Τ Ε Υ Ω Ν CΤ Ρ Η Ν Η Ρ Α Τ Ο Κ Ρ Α Τ Α ΙΑ Ν Δ ΙΑ Ο C CΤ Υ Τ Η CΚ Ν Α Μ Ε Ω Ο Υ Α Υ Τ Α Υ Ρ Α ΙΤ Ο CΕ Υ Τ Ο CΑ ΙCΕ Τ CΕ Ρ Η Μ Ω CΧ ΙΚ Ν Ο ΓΑ Η Γ Η Ο Ε Τ ΙΤ Υ Α Δ Α Μ Ο Λ Ν CΚ .Κ Ε Υ Ε Ν ΙΑ Ι Υ Τ Ο Υ Ν Α Α Τ Η Ν Ε Π ΙCΚ Ο Ο Δ Ο Π Ν Ω Θ Ο .Κ Ν Ν Ρ ΙCΕ Ν CΥ Η Α ΙΔ Ρ Ν CΥ Ε Π Α Ν Κ Η CΕ Ν Ε Π ΙΚ Τ ΙCΑ Α ΙCΤ ΙΜ Ν Ο Η Α Υ Κ Ο ΙΑ Ν Υ Ο Τ Υ Ε Κ Ε ΙCΕ Μ Α Ρ Τ Υ Η ΙΝ Κ Τ Μ Ρ Π Λ Η ΙΑ Ν Ο Ε Ν Ο Τ Κ Ε Μ Ο Υ Τ Λ Ο Υ Ε Λ Ρ Υ Η Ο CΟ Ν Μ Ω Τ Ο Ο Κ Ν Η ΙΑ Τ Χ Ε Ρ ΙΟ Α Ο Κ Ξ ΓΩ ΙΑ Τ Ν Ρ Α Υ Ν Κ Τ Ο Ν Ο Ο Ι Α Ν Ν .Ε Κ Ε Ο Μ Ε Α Ι. ΙCΘ Ο Δ Κ ΟΛ

.

CΟ

Ζ

Κ ΓΚ Ι CΕ CΟ Ε Κ Υ Α Ο Ν CΤ Τ ΙΝ Π Α Ο Υ Α Ε Β ΙΝ ΙCΤ Ν Ν Ω Β Ν Δ Α Ο Η CΤ Ν Ε Ν Α CΓ Ε Φ Υ Ρ CΠ CΑ Α Ε Υ Ρ Α Ο Τ ΙΤ Α Κ Ε Κ Ω Λ ΙΗ ΙΘ Ν Η Ο ΙΝ Π Π Ε CΥ Ν .Α Π Ξ Ε Α Ε Τ Υ Α Θ CCΚ Λ Υ Ε Ξ Ρ Ε Π Ο Ν Δ Ο Α ΙΑ ΙCΚ CΙΗ Π Ε CΙΟ Ν Α CΕ Τ Η Α Κ Δ CΑ Τ Υ Α Η Ο CΕ ΙΑ Ο .Α ΙCΚ Π Ν Π Τ Ε Δ ΙΟ Χ Ε ΙΑ CΚ Π Ε Υ Ο ΙΛ Φ Μ CΕ Α Υ Κ Ε Ε Ν Π Ο Β Θ ΙΟ C.Ε CΟ Ε CΕ Β Υ ΙΟ CΜ Α Λ ΙΟ ΙCΚ Ο CΤ Π Ο CΚ C ΙΑ Ε Α Ρ Τ Ε ΙCΑ Φ Α Η Ρ CΠ Γ Γ Α CCΥ Λ Η Α ΙΝ ΙCΤ Τ Ο Γ Τ Ε Ο ΙCΥ ΓΡ Υ Κ Ν ΙΖ Α Ο Ω Ρ Ρ Α Φ Ε Ρ Ε ΓΝ Α Ο Μ Α Δ ΙΑ Μ Α Τ Φ ςΕ Π ΙCΚ Ο Ν Ω Π CΑ Ο CΕ .Κ CΕ Ο Ν Τ Υ Ο ΙΟ Φ Ρ Κ ΕΑ CΚ ΙΑ Ε Χ ΙΟ Τ Ν Ι.Α Ρ Π Μ Α Λ Ν CΟ Η Ο Ε CΤ Ν Τ ΙΝ Μ Ε ΓΙCΤ Υ CΕ Β Ε CΤ Α Ο Λ ΙΝ Α CΠ Τ Ο Ν Ω CΚ CΑ Η Τ ΙΜ Ε Ω Τ Τ Η Α ΓΚ CCΥ Ν Α Κ Τ Ο ΙCΑ Ν Κ Α ΙΕ Υ Δ Α ΙΜ Α Η Ν Ε Μ Υ Λ Ο Κ Ε Α Κ Λ ΙΝ Κ Λ Η Ο Π Υ Ο ΙΝ Κ Ν Τ Ν Ε Τ Ο Π Ρ Ο Τ Ε Ρ Α Ο CΤ Ν Α Α ΙΝ Ε ΙΖ Τ Α Ν Ν Μ Β Υ Ζ Α Ν Τ Α Η Ν Α Χ Ρ Υ Ρ Ν Ε Ρ ΙΟ Η Τ Υ Τ Μ Ν Ε Ω Η Δ Ν Α Ε Π Α Ι Α Κ Ν Ο Ι Κ Ν Υ Ο Ρ Φ Ρ Ο Π Ι Α Κ CΕ Η CΚ CΤ Α ΙΕ CΑ Ρ Ε Υ ΓΟ Τ Α Ξ Ρ Η Υ Ο Υ Ο Π Ε Α Α Τ Τ Υ Ο Ν Υ Ο Τ Ο Π Τ Υ Ο Α ΙΑ Ρ Δ Ν Α Υ Ο Τ Υ Α Ω CΕ Η CΤ Ο Ρ Ε Μ Ν ΙΚ Ο Τ Π Υ Ο Ε Ν Λ ΙΝ Π Δ ΙΤ Ο Τ Η Ο Ο Μ Ε ΙΝ ΙΚ Ο Δ Ο Ι Α Κ ΙΝ Λ Ο Π Ν Η CΤ CΑ CΠ Η CΜ Υ Ο Λ CΚ Η CΗ Υ Ν Ε Ξ ΙΟ Π ΙΡ Ω Μ Η CΕ Ω Ε Λ Ο ΙΠ Α CΕ Ν Ο Μ ΙCΑ Α Κ CΚ Υ Τ Χ ΙΑ Α Ρ Η Π CΕ Α Ο Π Π CΗ Α Α Κ Υ Ο Κ Λ Α ΙΧ Α Κ Ν Ν Τ CΜ ΙΑ CΚ Ω Ο Ρ ΙΑ Κ Δ Υ Α Ν Ε Ν ΙΑ Η Ν Ο Γ ΙΤ ΙΕ Ρ CΕ Ο Λ ΙΛ Κ Α Λ CΦ Ο Π Ο ΙCΚ Π Ε Ζ CΚ Χ Ε Ν Τ ΙΟ ΙΑ .Α ΙΜ Α Ρ Μ Α Ρ Ο Υ CΟ Ο ΙΝ Τ Ν Α CΤ Ε Ν Α Ν Υ ΙΝ Κ Τ Ε Ο Τ Υ Ε Ω Ο ΙΑ Ε ΙΛ Θ Π Φ Ε ΙΑ ΙΑ .Δ Κ ς ΤΗ Κ Ν Ω Τ Υ Α Ν Α Ω Κ Τ Ν Ν Α Α Ω Τ Ε Ν ΙΔ Η Ω CΤ Λ Ν Κ Ν Η Α ΙΤ Ω CΕ Β Ω Ε Υ

2. TheReconstruction

.C Ο Λ

Ο

175

CΙΝ Α Τ Α Λ Υ Κ Α ΙΚ Α Τ Ο Ο CΗ Α Υ Τ Π Φ Α Ν ΙΖ Ο Ν Τ ΟΚ CΟ Ο Α ΙΑ ΙΠ Ρ Τ Ν Υ Ω Τ Δ ΙΑ Α Ο ΙCΕ Κ Κ Λ Η CΙΑ ΙCΤ Ο Υ Θ Ε Ο Υ Α Π Ε Δ Ι Δ Ο Ν Τ Ο . · Η

CΟ Α Υ Μ Κ Ζ ΙΕΡΟ Ω Ν Μ Ε CΜ Π Ο Ο Π ΙCΚ Α Ξ ΙΜ Ο C.Η Ε Ν Ν ΙΚ Ο Μ Η Δ ΙΚ CΙΛ Α Η Π Υ Β Ρ ΙΘ Ε ΙΑ Ε ΙΩ Ε Φ Κ Τ Λ Α Ε Χ Θ Η .Μ Ε Λ Λ Ο Υ CΗ CΤ Η Ο CΙΝ Δ ΙΚ Μ Δ Η Β Τ CΕ ΙΩ Ν Ο ΙΛ CΕ Π Α Μ Β Α Ν Ε CΘ Α ΙΛ ΙΜ Ο CΕ Γ Ε Ν Ε Ο Τ Ν Ε Τ Η Ν Α Α Ο Τ Α Η Ε Π ΙΚ Ρ Α CΑ Τ Η CCΦ Ο Δ Ρ Ο Τ Ε Ρ Ο Ν Ω CΤ Ε Κ Ω Μ CΚ Α Α Τ Α Τ Ο Α Υ ΤΟ Ε Ν Ο Ο Μ ΧΑ Γ Α Ω Ν Ο Π Λ Λ CΥ Ω CΕ Ν Α Ε Π ΙΤ Η CΧ Ω Ρ CΑ Α Ν Τ ΙΟ Χ Ε Ω Ν Κ Α ΙΤ CΚ Η Υ Ο Ρ Υ Ε Π Ε Ρ Χ Ε Λ Α Λ Τ Η Ν Α Λ Ζ Ν CΕ Ν Α Ε Μ Ω Ν ΙΝ Ε ΙΚ Ω Κ Α Π ΙΑ Υ Α Ρ Κ CΘ Τ ΙΤ Α ΙCΕ CΧ Ο ΙCΕ Ο Δ Φ Α Τ Ο Ν Δ Ε Ε Ν Η Μ Ε CCΙ Ρ Α Υ Ε Ο Π Ε Ν ΙCΙ Α Ε ΙΕ ΙCΤ Ν Θ Η Ν Τ Α ΙCΑ Κ Α ΙCΚ Α ΙΕ Π Ο Α ΙΠ Α Τ CΚ Α Α Π Α ΙΔ Ν Ρ Ε Λ Ω Ο Β Τ Ο Ν Ε Ρ ΓΕ CΘ Ε ΙΝ Χ Ω Α Ν Α ΙΔ Ε Κ Α ΙΑ Ν Μ Ο Τ Ζ Ε ΙΝ Ο Δ Π Α Ρ CΑ Α Τ Ν Υ Ο C CΙΤ Ο Ο Ν Υ Τ Ν Τ ΙΝ CΤ Α ΙΟ Ν Ο Ω CΚ Υ Υ Γ Α Ε Α Μ Ε Ρ Δ Γ Τ Ρ ΙΩ .Ο Ν Ε Χ Α Ρ ΙCΑ Ο Λ ΙΝ Π CΙΑ Α Τ Τ Α Ο Η ΙCΚ Λ Κ Κ Ν Τ Α ΙCΕ Ο Μ Ε Τ Ρ ΙΟ CΙΤ Ε ΙCΠ Ε ΙCΔ Ο Χ ΕΙΟ Ο Δ ΙΑ Ν Τ Ρ Ο Φ Ν Ε Η Δ ΙΗ Ν ΙΞ Ε Α Κ CΧ Ω Η Ρ Α ΙCΚ Ν Η CΙΤ Ε Κ Α ΙΤ Ο ΙCΚ Λ Η Ρ Ο ΙΚ ΙC.Η Δ Ε Ε Ν Ν Α Τ ΙΟ Χ Ε ΙΑ Ε Κ Κ CΙ Λ Η CΕ Υ Υ Ρ ΙΟ CΤ Ρ ΙCΜ Ξ Υ Α Ι ΙΟ Κ ΙΛ Ο Δ ΙCΧ Μ Υ Ο Ν ΕCΙΤ Α Ε Λ Α Μ Β Α Ο Υ C.CΕ ΙCΜ Ο Ο Υ Ο Υ Ν Λ Μ Ν Ε Κ Α Ο Ο Ν Ε Υ Π C Β Τ Α Υ Ρ Ρ Τ Ε Ω Θ Ε Φ Ι Ν Π Ν Δ Λ Η ΙΕ Ν Η Θ Υ Κ Α ΙΙΚ Α Ε CΕ Ε Π Α Τ Π Λ ΙCΚ Α Ο ΙΝ Μ Α Α Λ Ν ΙΟ Ν Υ Ο Τ Ν ΙΟ Τ Α Μ Λ Α CΟ Ε CΕ Υ CΔ Ο Β Η Ν CΤ Τ ΙΝ Α Ν .Κ Ω Ρ Ε Ν Α Ι Ρ CΩ CΚ Ο Ν Η Κ Υ Ο Υ Τ Α Τ ΙΟ Μ Υ Δ Α Λ Τ Ο Υ Α Υ Ο Φ Λ Ε Δ Α Τ Υ Ο Ω CΡ Γ Ο Ρ Α Τ Η CCΤ Α Λ Μ Τ ΙΟ Α Δ Δ Ε Ν Ν .Η CΕ Ρ Ε Υ Ο Η Γ Ν Α Α Ρ CΑ Α ΙΚ Υ Ν Α Ε Η Ρ Θ Ο Γ Α Ν Α Ν Ο Τ Υ Α Υ Ο Τ Ο Ρ CΠ Τ Ο Π Α ΙΥ Α Κ Ν ΙΩ Μ Α C CΑ Ν Η Ν CΩ Τ Υ Ρ Α Ν Η Η Τ Ω Ρ Π Υ Κ Ν CΕ Ο Α ΙΡ Ο Κ Λ Α .Κ Α Ρ ΙCΑ ΙCΑ Η Τ Ε Τ Θ ΙΗ Α Κ Η Λ Ο CΒ Ο Ρ Π Ν ΙΩ Α Η Ρ Ε Τ CΧ Ω Μ Ε Τ Ν Α Κ Ο Υ Υ Α CΚ ΙΑ ΙΚ ΙΑ CΚ Η Τ CΩ Ν Τ Ο ΙCΑ Α Ρ Θ Η Ε Μ Α Τ ΙΤΙΟ Η Ρ Ε Ν ΙCΑ Υ Ο ΙΝ Τ Ν Α ΙCΑ Υ Κ Α Ο C.Κ Ρ ΙΟ CΤ Α Τ Ν Μ Ω Λ Α Δ Ο Π Υ Ν Ω Ε ΙCΖ Λ Θ Ν Ν Τ Α Ε Τ Η Ρ ΙCΕ Ο Κ Ρ ΙΑ Η Τ Θ Χ Η Υ Ο Τ Η ΙΚ ΙΝ Α CΚ Ο Υ CΕ Β Ο Υ Ε Υ Τ Τ ΙΜ Ο Ω C. ΙΛ Φ Υ Ν Α Π Η Μ ΙΡ Ω Ε Λ Ο Π Υ Ο ΙΝ Τ Ν Α CΤ Ν Κ Ω Θ .CΟ Ο Λ Κ Ω Ν Τ Α Ν Ω Ο Υ Ρ Ε Α Ρ Ε Μ Ν Η Ε ΙΑ Ε Χ ΙΟ Ν Τ Ν Α Ε Ρ Η CΤ Α Η Ν Α Λ ΑΕΦ Ο Π CΑ Ω Ρ Α Ο Δ CΦ Ν Ω ΙΖ Ν Π Α CΚ Ο Ρ Ε Μ Ν ΙΚ Ο Λ Ο Τ Α Ν Α Ο Τ Α Α Τ CΤ Υ C.Ε CΠ Ε Μ Π Τ Η Α Ρ CΩ Ω CΕ Η ΙΤ Ρ CΤ Ο Ο Ω Υ Α Ρ Α Π Κ Α Μ ΙΝ C Ο Π CΑ Ο Λ Ε Ω Π Υ Ο ΙΝ Τ Ν Α CΤ Ν Ω CΚ Ο Ρ Ε Υ Τ CΒ Ε Ρ CΠ Θ ΙΟ Α CΕ Η Τ Ε Ρ Α Ν Ο Ρ Κ ΙCΑ ΙΕ Α CΚ Ν Ε Ν Ο Π Η Ν Ν Α Ρ Η Β ΙΟ Μ Ε Ο Ο Λ ΙΚ Τ ΙΤ Χ Ρ CΑ ΙΟ Β Ο Ν Η ΙΖ Α Κ Ο Τ Ε ΙΖ Ρ Ω Ν Γ Ε Ν Π Ρ Ε Π Ω ΙΑ CΔ Ω Κ Α Λ Η Λ Η Μ Ο Δ Ο ΙΚ ΙCΟ Ο Μ Υ Λ CΟ Ν Ο Ν ΙΕ Ο Ε Ρ Ο Μ Α Τ Ρ Τ Υ Ρ ΙΟ Ν Ε Κ Τ Ω C Ρ Ε Π Ν Ε Ν ΙΤ Ω Ο Λ Λ Ο .Π ΓΗ Α ΙΤ Π Ε Υ Ο ΙΝ Ν Τ Α CΤ Ν CΤ Η Κ Ω ΝCΑ Θ ΒΒ Τ Η Κ Λ Ι Π Ε Ν Ω Ν Η Κ Α Ρ CΑ Ο Π Υ ΙΑ Μ Α Τ Ο Π ΕCΟ Ν Μ Ε Ν ΙΩ Ρ CCΥ Α ΙCΑ Μ Ω CΡ Ο Ρ Π Ν Ο Μ Ε Λ Ο Π Ν CΑ Ω Λ Η Δ ΙΕ CΑ Ρ Ε .Π CΚ Ο Ν Τ Ο Π Ρ Α Υ ΙΑ Ν Ε Β CΛ Η Β CΕ Υ Ε CΟ Ο Τ ΙΝ Ν Α CΤ Ν Ω CΚ Α ΙΕ Π ΙΒ Α C· Κ Υ Α ΙΟ Η Λ Ο Τ Α Ν Α Ν Η ΙΤ Π CΕ CΑ Η Μ Ρ CΟ ΙΑ Ε CΙΛ Α Β Υ Ο Τ Υ CΑ ΤΩ ΤΗ Α CΚ Ω Ξ Δ Ο Ν CΕ ΙΑ Ε Δ Μ Η Ο ΙΚ CΝ Ω Ε Ν Ω Θ Ε Λ Ν CΩ Ρ Ε Π Α Ν Α Τ Κ C Υ Ο ΙCΤ Θ Ε ΙΩ Α Ξ Τ Α Κ Ν ΙΟ Β Ν Ο ΙΤ Ε Τ Τ Α Λ Λ Α Τ Ε CΜ CΕ Β Ω ΙΕ Υ Π Ο ΙCΚ Π Ε Υ ΙΟ Β CΕ Υ Ε Ο Π CΥ Ο Τ Α ΙCΜ Τ Π Α CΒ Υ Ο Δ ΙΩ Ρ Η Τ Ω

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

176

Ο Υ Κ CΤ Ν Ω Α Ν Τ ΙΝ Ο CΑ CΕ Υ Π Ο ΕΥ CΙΑ Λ Ε Α CΒ Ω Τ Η Λ Α Κ Α ΙΜ CῙ. Ν Α Η

Ρ Ω Μ Α ΙΩ Ν Λ Ν Ε Υ CΑ Μ Ε Ε Ε Β Τ Α Α CΙΛ Θ Ν Α Α Τ Ο Ν Τ Ο Υ Π Α Τ Ρ Ο CΑ Υ Τ Ν Ω Ν Κ Ω CΤ Ν Ν Α Α Ν Τ CΤ Τ Ω ΙΝ ΙΟ Κ CΚ Υ Ο Α ΙΚ Ω Ν CΤ Α Ν Τ ΙΝ Ο CΟ Ν Ε Ο CΚ Α ΙΓ Η ΙΚ Τ Ω Ν CΤ Α CΕ Α CΑ Π Ω Ρ ΙCΟ Π Ε CΩ Ν Ρ Β CΙΛ Α Ε CΕ Υ Π Θ Η Ε Λ ΤΗ Μ ΕCΟ Π Ο Τ Α CΩ Θ Η Ο Ρ Θ ΙCΕ Μ ΙΑ Π Ν Α Ρ Ε Κ Α Α ΙΠ Ν Κ Ν ΙΝ ΙCΙΒ Α Υ Τ Η Ν Η Μ Ε Ρ Α CΞ ΓΚ Α ΙΜ Η Κ Α Τ ΙCΧ CΛ CΑ Υ Α Β Ε ΙΝ Α Υ Τ Ν Η Ν Α Ε Χ Α Ω Ρ CΕ Η .Ι Ν

Β .C Ο Λ

CΕ Ν Τ Ο Ω Τ CΟ Η Π Ε Ο Ο CΕ Β Ε Ι ΙCΚ Ε Π Ν Ω Ν Η Ν ΙCΙΒ CΔ Ε Ο Κ Ω Β Ν Ν Ω Μ Ρ Α Η Γ Α Δ ΙΩ Τ CΕ Α Ξ Κ Α Ν ΙCΤ Ν Ω Ε Α Υ Ε Χ Μ ΙΑ Α CΗ Θ Ε ΙΔ Ν ΙCΙΒ ΙΝ Ν Ε Α Π Ν ΙΖ Ο Τ ΤΗ Ν Ν Π Ε ΡCΩ Ω CΤ ΙΤ Α Ο ΙCΚ Ν CΕ Ν Υ Η Η CΕ ΙΤ Λ Α Ν Π ΙΔ Ε CΠ Ο Κ Ε Η Τ Ρ Α Μ CΘ ΙΗ Ψ Α Α ΙΔ Ε Ρ CΤ Α Τ Α Κ Ν Ω CΥ Ε Ε Ω Π Χ Λ Ο Ω Π Ρ Ν Ο Ν Τ Υ Ε CΜ Γ Ω Α Η Α Τ ΙΚ Ρ Τ Υ Ν .Α Ε Π Ο ΙΗ Κ Ν Ν Ε Α Υ Τ Ε Τ Η Ω Ο ΙΕΙCΔ Ν Μ Ε Ο Κ ΙΩ ΙΔ Τ Α Μ Τ Ε Ν CΠ Η Χ Τ CΕ Τ Η Δ Ε Ε Ο Υ Υ Π Ξ Α Ν ΙΜ Τ Ο Ο ΙΛ Α Κ Ε Τ CΛ Ν Υ Τ Ε Θ ΙΜ Ο Ο Χ Ν Ε Λ Ρ Α Ω Α Τ ΙΛ Ν Μ Β Ν Ν Α Ο Τ Α Ν Ρ Ω Δ Ε Ρ Ε CΠ Β Ε CΕ ΙΑ CΗ CΑ Η Τ Ν Μ ΙCΘ Ο CΓ C. Ρ Η Ρ ΓΟ ΙΟ Ο Π Ο ΙCΚ Π Ε CΙΘ Ν Δ Ρ Ε ΙΑ Ε C.Α Λ Ε Ξ Α

Π

Τ CΕ CΑ CΕ Β Α CΙΛ Ε Υ Η Τ Υ Ε Λ Ε Ν Τ Τ ΙΝ Ο CΟ Ν CΕ Α Ε Ο CΤ Γ Κ Ν Ω Κ ΙΑ Ρ Υ CΦ Ο Ε Α ΙΡ ΙΑ ΕCΚ Ο Δ Η CΤ .Ε Ν Ν ΙΑ Α Ρ Τ ΙΟ Χ Ε ΙΑ CCΥ Τ Η Κ Ε Ι Λ Ε Ν Τ Μ Α ΙΝ Ε Ο Θ Υ CΤ Ν CΙΕ Π Κ Ω Ν ΙΕ Ε Τ Ε Ο Ο Λ Η Ρ Π Ω Α ΙΥ Θ Κ Η Λ ΙCΘ ΙΛ Α ΙΝ Η Κ Κ Ε Α Π Ε ΙΦ Λ Ν Ε Π Υ Ο ΙΟ Υ Κ Τ Ν CΤ Θ Ε ΙCΑ Ν Ω Ω Α CΕ Ο Υ Τ Η Η Μ Ε Ρ Α Τ Η Ο Υ Π Ο Ε Π Π ΙCΚ C ΙΦ Ο Ρ Η Α Τ Ν Ε ΙΑ CCΩ CCΤ Ο Η Ε Τ Π Φ Ο Α Ν Ο CΕ Ε Η ΙCΚ Π Ε Η CΚ Χ Ε Ν Τ ΙΟ ΙΑ .Α Μ Ω Ν Κ ΙCΕ Π Ε ΙΙΓΗ Ν Α Λ Ρ Α Μ Ε Ω Γ Ε Χ Ε Μ Γ.Α ΙΟ ΙΑ Ν Τ Ν Υ CΕ Π Ο Ω ΙCΜ CΕ Ν Ε Υ Δ Υ Β Τ Ξ ς ΙΝ Ν . Ο Λ . CΠ Α . CΕ Θ Ρ ΙΑ Ν Μ Β Ε Υ CΕ Ζ Κ CΑ Η ΙΚ CΝ Υ ΙΟ Ρ CCΥ CΑ Ν CΤ Τ ΙΟ Α Ν Ω Υ Ο Τ Υ CΤ CΠ Ο Ρ Ο ΙCΑ Υ CΑ Ε Π Ω Ρ ΙCΟ CΙΑ Τ ΒΑ Ω Ν Ν Π Ε Ρ CΩ Ο ΙCΚ Κ Α Κ . Α ΙΡ Α Χ Ρ ΙCΤ Ο Χ Ε ΙΤ ΙΑ Κ Ε Ν Ο ΙΩ Ο Π Ν Δ CΥ Υ CΕ Υ Η ΙΝ Ρ Π CΑ Υ Ω Κ Μ Ν Α Λ Ε Ν Υ ΓΕ Ο Ο CΕ ΙCΜ Ο Υ Μ Ε Ν Ε ΓΑ Λ Ο Υ Μ Μ Υ Ο CΤ CΠ Ε ΙCΤ Η Ο Π Λ Α Α Λ CΤ Δ Ε ΙΑ ΙCΜ Ω Π Ε Π ΤΩ .CΕ Κ ΕΝ Ω Τ Π Ν Ε Τ Ο Ο Υ Τ ΙΑ Π Κ Α Ε Ρ ΙCΑ Α Κ Ν Ο Ο Ν Ε Μ ΓΕ Ε Ν Ο Υ Υ Ο Ε Γ Α Λ Ν Ω ΙΤ ΙCΚ Π Ο Ε Π Α Ε ΙΟ Κ Υ Υ Ο Τ Η CΕ Ν ΙΤ Θ Α Η Π Λ Η Κ Κ CΚ Λ Η CΙΑ Β Ε Ν ΙCΥ ΙΡ Ν .Ο Ω Μ Α ΙΟ Ρ Ω Δ Ν Α Ν Β Ν Ω Ε Τ Α Θ Ε Ν Ε Υ Λ Ρ Ω Ε Κ Ε ΙΕ Υ Α Ν Λ Λ Ο ΙΠ Ο Υ Τ Α Ω CΑ Υ Κ Ν CΩ Ρ Ε Μ Π Λ Ν Ε Τ Ο Ε Μ Α Ο Π Ν Α Λ Ο Ο Ν Γ Α CΑ Ν CΟ ΤΙΟ ΕΟ Ο Π Ο ΙCΚ Π Ε Θ CΚ Χ Ε Ν Τ ΙΟ ΙΑ .Α Ν Ε ΙΑ Ο Ν Α CΚ CΟ Ν Η CΗ Ο Ο Δ Ο Υ Ρ ΓΑ Λ Μ Ε Ο Υ Ν Ε Μ Ο Ν ΓΕ Υ Ο ΙCΜ Θ C.CΕ Η ΙΕ Δ Υ Ο CΥ CΕ Ο Π ΙCΜ ΙΑ Τ Α Μ Α Λ Α CΔ ΤΗ Η Χ Α Ρ Ρ Υ .Δ CΕ Ν Τ Ε Π Ε Ν Ε Μ ΙΟ CΕ CΕ Ν Ε Υ Α Υ Κ ΙΝ ΙCΕ Ε Ρ CΤ Θ Α Ρ Η Κ Α ΙΡ Ω Μ Η Η Μ Ε Ρ Φ Α Α CΤ Ν Ω CΑ Α Ρ Η Θ Ν .Κ Φ ΙΕ ΙCΑ Ε Α Ο Η .Τ Π CΔ Η Ε Κ Α Μ Π Ν CΙΒ Α ΙΑ Κ ΙΗ Ο Π Ε Π Α Ν Ε ΙΜ CΑ Ν Ρ ΙΑ Τ CCΥ CΤ ΙΟ Τ Η ΙΑ Ε Ο Κ Ν Υ Ε Α Ε Ν CΕ Ο Δ Ο Κ Ν Ω Α Ν Π Ο Λ ΙΝ Η ΙΤ Α Κ Ν Π ΙΠ CΕ Μ Ω Ν Ο Ρ Ο Ε Ε Δ ΙΑ Τ Ο Λ Υ Ν Α CΤ Ν Ν Κ Ω Η Η ΙΚ Ο ΙΝ Φ ΤΗ Ν Ε Ν Τ ΙCΕ Ε Κ Α ΙΝ Ο ΙΠ Α .Κ CΕ Ν Μ Η Ο Δ Α Ρ Ν Α Υ Μ Τ ΙΑ Ν Κ Ε Κ Ε Η Ν Α Ν Τ Α Ο Η Α Α Κ Κ Ε Ν Τ Ο Π Ο Ρ Ρ Ε Ο Τ Ε Μ Η Τ Ν Ν .CΑ Ω Θ Π Α Ω Ρ Ε ΙCΟ ΤΩ Π Ν Π Ε CΩ Ρ Ν Β CΙΑ Α Ε CΕ Υ

2. The Reconstruction

Ι Β Λ . CΠ Ο

177

CΟ Π Ο Τ Α Μ ΙΑ Ν ΙCΙΒ ΙΝ Π Α Ρ Ε Κ Ο Α ΙCΕ Ν Η Μ Ε Ρ Α CΟ Η Κ Α ΙΠ Α Λ Ι Ν Α ΙCΧ Ν Υ Θ Ε ΙCΑ Ν Ε Χ Ω Ν Ρ .Ε CΕ Η Κ Λ Ε ΙΨ ΙCΗ Λ ΙΟ Υ Ε Γ Ε Ν Ε Τ Ο CΤ Ε Κ Α ΙΑ CΤ Ε Ω Ρ Α CΦ Ν Ν Α Α Η ΙΕ Ν Τ Ω Ο Ν Υ Ρ Α Ω Ε Ν Ω Ρ Α Τ Ρ Ι Ν ΙΑ CΜ Α Η ΙCΙ CΗ Μ Ε Ρ Α Τ Η Τ Η ς Ω .

ΙΑΟ Η Λ ΙΟ CΠ Α Λ ΙΝ Α Ν Ν Ε Ν Υ Ο Ε Ε Γ Χ CΓ Ο Μ Ε Ρ Ω Η Τ Ο Ρ Ρ Α Δ Ε Υ Τ ΙΒ

ΙΓ

CΚ Ε Ρ Α Τ Η ΙCΜ Υ C.CΕ Ρ Α ΙΑ Ε Ρ Μ Κ CΗ Η Ο Υ ΓΕ Ν Ο Μ Ε Ν Ο Υ Μ Ε Γ Ε Λ ΙCΤ Π Ο Ν Ο Τ CΤ Η ΙΚ Ν Β Η Ρ Υ Η Τ Α Λ Ο Υ Ε ΙΝ Ο Τ Η CΦ Ω Ο Π Ο Λ Ν ΙΚ Θ Ω Ν Ε Ε Ν ΙCΕ Η CΤ Λ Ο Ω Π Θ Ε CΤ Ω Ν Λ CΠ Ε Π Τ Κ Ε Ε Ω Ω Η Λ Υ CΗ Θ ΙCΩ Ε Ν Ο Μ Α Μ ΙΝ Ο ΙΕ ΧΡ Ν ΙCΤ ΙCΤ Ν ΙΑ Ν Η Ε Α Κ ΙΖ Κ CΙ Α Ε Ε Η ΙΝ ΙCΑ Ρ Τ Ε Ω Ε Ν Ν Τ Ν Ε CΤ Ε Θ Τ ΙΝ Ε Τ Ε Ν CΤ Ο Π Α ΓΓΕ Λ Λ Ο Μ Ε Ν Ο Ι.Ε CΥ Ο Υ CΤ Ρ Α Π Λ CΠ Ε Η CΑ Υ Ο Π CΤ Υ CCΟ CΕ Η Ν Κ Κ Α CΙΑ Τ Η Ε C CΑ Ν Ο Μ Α ΤΕCΤ Ν Ο Π Ο Α Η Π Ν Ε Υ CΕ Ο Χ Ο Η Ν Κ Α Π ΙΤ CΑ Ε Ξ Ε Η Ε Ν Ο Τ Α CΕ Α Π Α Τ Α Ν Τ Τ Η Ν Α Υ Τ Ω Υ Π Ε Δ Ε Ξ Α Θ Ο CΕ Κ Κ Α Η CΙ Α C Ο CΗ Τ CΠ Ο Ν Ε Ν Ρ ΓΕ Ο ΓΟ ΙΠ CΙΟ Ν Α Ρ Α Π Λ Η Ο Υ Μ Ε Μ ΙΜ Μ Α CΩ ΙΡ ΕCΙCΕ CΑ Υ ΙΟ Α Θ Δ Υ Ν ΙΚ CΙΟ Ο Ρ Π Ω Ν Ω ΙΤ Ε Ρ Α CΗ Μ Τ CΑ Ν Ω CΑ Μ ΙΔ Ο ΙΟ Ν ΙΚ Ο Ο Τ Α Δ Μ Ε Ν Ν ΙΕ Τ Η Α CΖ CΤ Ν Ν Ω Ω Τ ΙΚ Α ΕC.Κ CΤ Ν Ν Κ Ω Α Ν Α CΤ Τ Υ ΙΑ Ν ΓΟ Κ Υ Ε Α Ν Κ Α Η Κ Η ΙΑ Μ Α Τ Ο Π CΟ Μ Ε ΙCΕ Ν Τ Ε Ν Κ Ε ΤΗ Ο CΡ Ε Ο Δ Η ΙΝ Α Ο Ν Α C.Π Ν ΙΩ CΓ Ε Ε Τ Ε ΙΧ ΙCΑ Τ Ν Α Ν Ω Ν Ρ Η ΙΝ Π Ω Ο Ν Υ Η Τ Ε Κ Η Λ Κ Ν Κ Ε Ν Η Η Ν Τ ΙΑ Ν Κ Α CΤ Ν Ω CΑ Ο Μ CΑ Ν Α Ο Ν Ε Ν Η Π Υ Μ Α Ε Ε ΓΟ Τ Ο Α ΙΝ Π Η Ν Ε Α Υ Τ Ω Δ ΙΕ CΤ CΗ Μ Π Β Ω Ε Ρ .CΑ Ρ Ι ΙΑ Μ Ν Α Τ Α Κ CΨ Υ ΙΟ Δ Α CCΤ Η ΙΔ Μ Α Ν CΑ Ω Ο Τ Α Π Ν Τ Η Μ ΕCΟ Ω Θ Ε Α Π Ε ΙΝ Λ Α CΠ CΙΑ Ε CΟ Υ Π Ν Β Α Ε CΩ Ρ CΡ Α Δ Ρ ΙΑ Ε Υ Τ Μ CΑ ΦΟ ΡCΟ Η Ν Θ ΙCΕ Α Ε Κ Ρ Π Α ΙΝ Ν ΙCΙΒ Ν Μ ΙΑ Τ Η CΑ Ρ Η ΙCΧ Μ Λ Λ Α Ν Ο C. Ο Ε ΙCΠ Α Ν Α Χ Η ΙΜ Α CΚ CΑ Ο Λ Ε Μ Η Ν Π Η

3. Commentary One item that is not included in the text of the restored Continuatio is the note that thepersecution of 303began inYear 351ofAntioch (see Study 1,Chapter 6.2.228c). This isbecause itmaynotbetheworkoftheContinuator and,furthermore, itseemed of nouseto assign it a number like therest of theentries, since it is a chronological marker nota historical entry. In instances when I cite parallel passages, thecommon words andphrases are underlined.

i-v. This material was interpolated back into the body of Eusebius’ chronicle. For the establishment of the text of the Canones at this point, see Study 1. The dating of these entries in the reconstruction is based on what follows andonthe position of the entries in the Chron. 724 in relation to the fewentries from the Canones that it preserves (see Chapter 1.7). Theentries of the Continuatio arereconstructed following thepattern of Euseʹἐπ ν τ ιο ίσ χ ε κ ία bius, whose entries were almost all of the form, e.g., Ἀ ο π ο ςιη ς Κ ρ ιλ ύ λ ο ηιε(224b = Sync. 473.2). Entries 10, 12Α ςἔτ , 13Α , 15, 28, 31, and 38 would originally ʹhave hadtheidentical structure. Thedouble entries (v and11) are based on Jerome’s translation (232c) andother examples such as 218i = Chron. 2. In some cases it appears that the au11 and224d= Sync. 472.1– Pasch. 503.10– thor of the Continuatio did not or could not fill in the length of the episcopacy. However, fortheearlier part of theCanones theSyriac translator often didnottranslate these figures, even where Eusebius didinclude them, so inthereconstruction I have provided plausible figures where it seemed appropriate, in italics. In what follows I shall take all the Antiochene bishops together after those of Jerusalem andAlexandria.

i.

In the Chron. 724 this entry appears with the accessions of Alexander andVitalis between the entry noting Constantine’s grant of freedom to all Christians, which belongs in 8 Constantine (313), andthe proclamation of Constantine II, which belongs in 11Const. (316). Jerome places it in 8 Const. (230b), theyear that includes themarginal comment onConstantine’s grant. Thisprobably indicates a dateof 313 for Macarius’ordination in the Continuatio, though 314 (the actual equivalent of 8 Const. inJerome’s chronology [for which, seeChapter 1.7]) is a less likely possibility.

3. Commentary

179

Macarius’ordination asbishop ofJerusalem is variously dated between 311and 314, andhisdeath between 333and335.1Theodoret (HE 1.3.2) implies a datearound the end of the Great Persecution (313/4) for his ordination. Theophanes andthe Chronographicon syntomon of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople andexact contemporary of Theophanes, provide a common set of bishop lists for Jerusalem, Alexandria, andAntioch, as well as Constantinople andRome. Some of this list is corrupt, but much apparently uncorrupted material is preserved. This list gives Macarius twenty years and Maximus six (15.16 and 30.16– 19/125.14 and 15, = Theophanes/Nicephorus). If the six is anerror for sixteen (that is, ς ʹfor ις ʹ), since six is too small to be correct, Macarius’dates will be 313/4 to 332/3, since Cyril succeeded Maximus in 348.2 A list that is closely related to Theophanes/Nicephorus, butwhich differs from it ina number of important places andis slightly later in date –the compilation as a whole probably dates to 854, though an earlier layer dates to 818 andan appendix concludes in 867/886 with Basil I –the Chronographeion syntomon (Chron. syn.), also gives Macarius andMaximus twenty andsix years respectively (78.15 and 18).3 A date of 313/4 corresponds exactly with the Continuatio.4 Agapius assigns Macarius twenty-four years andMaximus fifteen (540/540.4). Thelatter isclose enough tomyemended figure forTheophanes/Nicephorus/Chron. syn. to be correct, though the former is too long to be accommodated easily. The 940,5 also proAnnales of Eutychius, Melkite patriarch of Alexandria from 933– vides thelengths of theepiscopates of thesamebishops asTheophanes/Nicephorus/ Chron. syn., as well as their dates of ordination, and though most of these lists is corrupt, some information seems useful. Macarius is given nineteen years byEutychius, which is close enough to Theophanes/Nicephorus/Chron. syn. to be correct, but Maximus is assigned twenty-three, which is impossible (1004 and 1009–10/

1

2 3

4

5

6; DCB 3: 765; LTK 6: 1311; Grumel 1958: 451; Fedalto 1988: E.g. Lequien 1740, 3: 154– 1000; andEEC 1: 514. Jerome 237a, Barnes 1993: 107, Hanson 1988: 399, Fedalto 1988: 1000, LTK7: 210, andEEC 1: 546. For the relationship among the lists in Theophanes, Nicephorus, andthe Chron. syn., which all derive from anoriginal compilation of the last quarter of thesixth century, updated inparts to theearly seventh century, thatcontained Roman emperors, Persian kings, Arabcaliphs, popes, 9: andthepatriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, andAntioch, see Mango 1988– 7 andMango andScott 1997: lxvii-lxxiii andlxxiv-lxxv. For a discussion of the Chron. 366– 7. 45; Krumbacher 1897: 363– 4, 396; and Ševčenko 1992: 284– syn., see Gelzer 1885, 2: 329– The dates that are obtained from these lists are difficult to use since wedo not know what their original method of calculation wasnorwhether themethod wasconsistent for each bishop in each list. Bishop Ignotus, for instance, whowasordained on 15March 330 anddiedon 15July 332, could beassigned anexact twoyears andfourmonths, twoyears (asa rounded figure; from 330 [or whatever the calendar system was]; or from a a simple subtraction of years, as 332– statement like ‘Bishop Ignotus diedafter twoyears’), orthree years (counting 330, 331, and332 inclusively or from a statement like ‘Bishop Ignotus died in his third year’). Thus consistent evidence canvary byoneyear. Inmyanalysis below, therefore, aslong asthefigures given are consistent with the other evidence within one year ononeof these methods of calculation, I have accepted themas being accurate. 8, andGrumel 1958: 443. Onwhom, see QGBno.277, Graf 1947: 32–

180

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

3 and130.9– 11). The dates for Macarius andMaximus, though, are at least 124.2– approximately correct, 10 and29 Constantine (= 315 and334). Cyril, Maximus’successor in348, doesnotseemtohavebeenmentioned bythe Continuatio. This is peculiar, since the chronicle was completed about two years after Maximus’death. Just astheepitomator of the Chron. 724 omitted Euphronius andFlacillus, perhaps heomitted Cyril as well, buttheauthor seems to have been ignorant of episcopal events in Alexandria as well (see no. 28), so he maysimply nothave beeninterested enough orbeenable tofindoutforhimself whothecurrent bishops were andwhenthey were ordained (see Chapter 1.4.3 and4). iii.

3, six3/128.2– Achillas, bishop of Alexandria between Peter (Chron. 724 100.2– 17, seventeenth in succesteenth in succession) andAlexander (p. 100.17/128.16– sion), wasmissed bythe author of the Continuatio. IntheChron. 724 this entry onAlexander appears withtheaccessions of Macarius andVitalis between 8 Constantine (313) and11Constantine (316), aswasnoted for Macarius, above. Therefore in the reconstruction it has been placed with the ordination of Macarius under 8 Const., following theanalysis below. Jerome puts it in 15 Const. (=321 on his chronology; 230h), which is too late, probably a result of his combining three different events from three different years into a single entry: the ordination of Alexander, Arius’expulsion in 321, andtheCouncil of Nicaea in

325. Thedateof theordination of Alexander of Alexandria isusually given as312 or 313.6 Theodoret (HE 1.2.8) vaguely implies a date around theendof the Great Per6/62.9– 10), secution. Theophanes (13.23)/Nicephorus (127.18), Chron. Mar.(49.35– 2/193.10– 12), Agapius (539/539.4), and Chron. Or. (119/ Chron. 846 (148.31– 6fb) are of nousefor Alexander, since they all give himtwenty-three years, 110.8– which must be wrong, since we know the date of his death, 17 April 328.7 Twentythree years from 328 would place his ordination in 305/6, yetthepredecessor of his predecessor, Peter, wasmartyred in 311 on25 November, which is given theequivalent of 29 Hatur in the Egyptian calendar.8 More than likely theterm of twenty6

7

8

9; DCB 1: 79, cf. 1: 17; RE 1: 1461; DHGE 2: 182, 365; LTK 1: 313; E.g. Lequien 1740, 2: 398– Grumel 1958: 442; andEEC 1: 20. 226.20 (day and 227/224.15– 22 Pharmouti (the Egyptian month): preface to Festal Index 225– year); Barb. Scal. 228, p. 292 (day); andChron. Pasch. s.a. 330, p. 530.20 (it incorrectly gives ‘XIV kl. Mai.’[18 April] astheequivalent). 22 Barmudah (Arabic Pharmouti): Hist. patr. Alex. 1fb; el-Maqrizi, p. 37; 83.13; Chron. Or. 119/110.3– 3/82.9– 402/402.10; Synax. Alex. 2: 82– ; zyā 558.32 (=22 Miyā 9/556.24– 322.4; andSynax. Aethiop. 557– 2/320.9– Synax. Arab.-Jac. 320– Ethiopic Pharmouti). See Seeck 1919: 178, Barnes 1993: 18,DHGE 2: 365, Grumel 1958: 442, LTK 1: 313, andEEC 1: 20. Fortheyear, Eusebius, HE7.32.31 andJerome, Chron. can. 227k(the ninth yearof persecution, which is Easter 311 to Easter 312; onwhich, see Richardson 1925); forthe day, Barb. Scal. 197, p. 290 (25 Nov.); Hist. patr. Alex. 400/400.1 (29 Hatur); Passio s. Petri 81 (25 Nov. and29 5 [LatHatur); Passiones s. Petri 14 (25 Nov., p. 174 [Greek]; 29 Hatur = November, pp. 184–

3. Commentary

181

three years wastaken over by mistake from Alexander of Constantinople, whois also said to have been bishop for twenty-three years.9 According to Gelasius (HE 2.1.13– 14) there wasa vacancy for a year after the martyrdom of Peter until Achillas wasordained (Eutychius says it wasfive years; 3); such a detail deserves credence. He lasted between five andseven 999/117.2– months10 anddiedon 13June.11 Most sources give Achillas oneyear,12 which probably incorporates the vacancy of 312 to keep the lists on track.13 in]) = Anast. Bib., Acta sinc. s. Petri 463 andnote a (25 Nov.); Synax. Aethiop. 393– 7/392.1– 396.35 (29 edā r = Hatur); Synax. Alex. 1: 162– 127.11 (29 Hatur); Synax. Sirm. 256– 4/125.9– 8 (25 Nov.); andChron. Or. 118/110.6– 7 (29 Hatur). For other evidence, see Mart. Rom. 26 Nov., p. 546 n. 2; Cal. Pal.-Georg. 394– 5; Mart. 1 n. 7 (which includes a Neapolitan inscription recording 25 Nov.); Hieron. 25 Nov., pp.620–

9 10

11

12

13

andthevariety of synaxaria, menologia, andcalendars inSyriac, Arabic, Coptic, Georgian, and Armenian that all give 25 November (or the Egyptian equivalent of 29 Hatur): PO 3 (1909), 9; PO 10 (1915), 48, 115, 192, 226, 259, 297; PO 16 (1922), 114– 353– 7; andCal. Pal.-Georg. 106. Dates in Western documents vary from 23 to 27 Nov., with theMart. Hieron. placing the main entry under 23 Nov. (p. 615) andthe Mart. Rom. under 26 Nov. (p. 545). A Jacobite menologium from Aleppo also gives 26 Nov., PO 10 (1915), 66. TheMartyrologium Syriacum, which derives from an early fourth-century Greek original (date andplace of editions: Nau 9 andMariani 1956: 10– 19), gives 24 Nov., just before a break in thetext (p. 23/23.5– 1915: 7– 7). The Greek andSyriac lives of Peter, which give 29 Hatur and25 Nov., date to the fifth century (see Vitreau 1897: 67 andNau1900: 13). TheEgyptian year began on 1Thoth, which corresponded to29 August, except intheconsularyear preceding a leap year whenit corresponded to 30 August. Since 312 wasa leap year 29 Hatur would have beentheequivalent of 26 Nov. in311(see RE19.2: 1283, Grumel 1958: 442, Barnes 1981: 149, andBarnes 1982: 28). However, wedonotknow whether theoriginal ‘disseminated’ form of the date wasEgyptian or Roman, andsince a number of our sources are Egyptian, one would have expected anyconversion to have been made correctly (how many outside Egypt would have known how to convert Egyptian months?). Indeed, 25 Nov. would have been28 Hatur in311, which converted fromEgyptian toRoman inthenormal waywould give 24 Nov., thus perhaps explaining theMartyrologium, ourearliest evidence. Thedate of 25 Nov. would later have beenconverted normally bytheEgyptians back toanEgyptian form, to produce 29 Hatur. NotethatBarb. Scal., anAlexandrian source, nevertheless records thedate of themartyrdom ina Roman form, notEgyptian (unlike thedeath of Alexander; seen.7, above). I have therefore accepted thedate of 25 November (=28 Hatur). 20; Chron. syn. 79.8; Chron. 846 E.g. Socrates, HE2.6.2; Theophanes 17.6/Nicephorus 114.19– 150.14/195.12– 13;Jacob of Edessa, Chron. 216/290.10–11;Agapius, 540/540.1; Michael the Syrian, Chron. Appendix I, p. 431/745, no. 22; andNiceph. Callistus, Enarratio, 452. Three months: Epiphanius, Pan. 69.11.4; five months: Gelasius, HE2.1.15; six months: Eutychius 999/117.4 (Latin translation says ‘years’, buttheArabic says ‘months’); Hist. patr. Alex. 3 (two MSS, n. 2); Synax. Arab.-Jac. 3/83.2– 401 and402/401.6 and402.3; Synax. Alex. 2: 82– 321/321.7; Michael the Syrian, Chron., App. I, p. 430/745, no. 18 (says ‘years’); Chron. Or. 118/110.8–10 (also noted as ‘200 days’); el-Maqrizi, p. 37; Synax. Aethiop. 559.13–14/558.11– 12; seven months: Nicetas Choniates, Thes. 5.2 andSamuel Aniensis, Sum. temp. 41/663. Hist. patr. Alex. 401/401.7 and Chron. Or. 118/110.11 (19 Baunah = 13 June); Sirm. Synax. 6, MSS P andRb, andSynax. Aethiop. 574/574.9 (9 Sanē= 9 Baunah) give 3 June through 725– a simple error. There is a good discussion of this andother important evidence in AASS Nov. 40. III: 338– E.g. Theophanes 13.21/Nicephorus 127.17, Chron. syn. 72.47, Chron. Mar. 49.35/62.9, Chron. 3 (most MSS). 4, andSynax. Alex. 2: 82– 3/83.2– 8, Agapius 539/539.3– 846 147.34/191.27– ForAchillas’chronology inmodern scholarship, see Renaudot 1713: 65 (who also notes other

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

182

Achillas wasthusordained atthevery endof 312 orbeginning of 313 andAlexwas ordained in late June or early July of 313 andsurvived for just under fifteen years. Hist. Patr. Alex. (402/402.10), Gelasius (HE 3.15.7), Synax. Alex. (2: 83/83.13), Synax. Arab.-Jac. (322/322.4), Synax. Aethiop. (559.34– 5/558.32), and Eutychius (1004/124.6) give him sixteen years, which is correct, counting inclusively (though Gelasius thinks that heis counting exact years). Chron. syn. (73.1) gives himseventeen years. Samuel Aniensis (Sum. temp. 41/663) andMichael the Syrian (Chron., App. I, p. 430/745, no. 19) give himanexact andcorrect fifteen years. Eutychius (1004/124.4– 5) dates hisordination to5 Constantine, which is 310.

ander

ii, iv, andv.

Inthe Chron. 724 theentry onVitalis appears withtheaccessions of Macarius and Alexander between 8 Constantine (313) and11Const. (316). Inthereconstruction it hasbeenplaced with thetwoother entries. Theentries onPhilogonius, ‘Flavianus’, andEustathius appear in a block between theproclamation of Constantine II (316) andthefinal supputatio, which appears attheendof theCanones in 325 (see reconstruction). Jerome mentions themall, including Vitalis, ina block in328 (232c). The dates in thereconstruction arebased onthe analysis below. Thechronological linchpin intheseries of Antiochene bishops should be Philogonius, whose death is nowunanimously dated to20 December 324.14 This depends ultimately onSchwartz (1959: 131= NGWG[1905]: 268), whoestablished this date on the basis of his date of 324 for what has come to be called Urkunde 15 (the fifteenth document in Opitz’s collection of documents relating to theearly years of the Arian dispute), which names Philogonius in such a wayas to indicate that he was still living at the time (see below).15 Unfortunately, as weshall see, this is not the ‘fact’it is often taken to be, andwemustbegin from first principles inestablishing

8; Neale 1847: 113 n. 1; evidence in Arabic supporting six months); Lequien 1740, 2: 397– 3, 2: 182, 365; Fedalto Sollerius 1867: 30*– 31*; Grumel 1958: 442; DCB 1: 17; DHGE 1: 312–

1988: 582; LTK 1: 108; andEEC 1: 7. 14 E.g. Seeck 1919: 174, RE 19.2: 2483, Devréesse 1945: 115, Downey 1961: 336 and351, Barnes 1978a: 56, Lane Fox 1986: 642, Williams 1987: 58, Hanson 1988: 148, EEC2: 682, andMango and Scott 1997: 39 n. 3. 31. Hedates Urk. 15to 324 because heplaced thebeginnings of theArian 15 Schwartz 1959: 127– dispute entirely after thedefeat of Licinius byConstantine, which he erroneously dated to 18 Sept. 323, rather than 324. Onthis, seeCross 1939: 50, Hanson 1988: 131, andSchwartz 1959: 167: ‘Manmagsich drehen undwenden wiemanwill, keine Phase desStreites kannüber 323 zurückgeschoben werden, ohne daßmaninSchwierigkeiten über Schwierigkeiten gerät; dagegenlassen sich alle indemZeitraum vomHerbst 323 bis zumAnfang 325 mühelos unterbringen’. Theheading atthetopof thepageproclaims, ‘Alle Urkunden fallen indieZeit Herbst 323 bisAnfang 325’. Foranoutline of thestandard chronology of theArian conflict before Nicaea as propounded by Opitz (who dates the Urkunden between 318 and325), see Williams 1987: 8. ForWilliams’emended dates for the main Urkunden (321– 9 andHanson 1988: 133– 48– 9. 325), see Williams 1987: 58–

3. Commentary

183

this difficult chronological sequence of succession.16 For what follows, the reader is advised to consult Appendix 2, below.

I. Vitalis andPhilogonius Vitalis was bishop from 313 to c. 319. Theodoret (HE 1.3.1) states that he became bishop after thereturn of peace following theendof theGreat Persecution, thus 313, andthe Continuatio places his ordination between those of Macarius andAlexander, which are also 313. As was noted in Study 1 above (Chapter 6.1.4.12), the original list underlying the episcopal list in Theophanes, Nicephorus, Chron. Syn., andZonaras17 assigned Tyrannus thirteen years andEusebius places his accession in301. This also supports 313. Vitalis waspresent attheCouncil of Ancyra in31418 1 andKaufandwaslisted first among thebishops present: EOMIA 2.1: 32 and50– hold 1993: 67, no. 1 = Ruggieri 1993: 351, no. 1, though see Hanson 1988: 217. 31)/Nicephorus (130.18–19)/Zonaras (625.17– 19), Chron. Theophanes (8.27, 11.28– 7), Agapius (540/540.2), and Euty6/192.4– syn. (75.11–12), Chron. 846 (148.4– 20)give Vitalis andPhilogonius sixand 2 and123.19– chius (1000 and1004/119.1– five years respectively. The so-called Catalogus Harlemiensis quoted by Boschius 30), which ends with Vitalis, also gives himsix years. His ordination is (1868: 29– normally dated between 312 and314 andhisdeath between 318 and320. In the analysis of Philogonius’episcopacy it must first be noted that the dates assigned by Opitz to the relevant Urkunden, andaccepted in the main by most schol5 both ars since (though see below), must be wrong, since Urkunden 1.3 and 15.4– the dates Opitz were written and they time was alive the at indicate that Philogonius former to 318 andthelatter to 324.19 This implies six orseven years forPhilogonius, though, as we have seen above, he wasbishop for only five. Thus Opitz’s dates cannot form the basis for deciding thedate of Philogonius’death; butrather, since the Urkunden under consideration here are without anyinternal chronological evi16 Forthe bishops of theperiod covered bythe Continuatio (inorder, Vitalis, Philogonius, Paulinus, Eustathius, Eulalius, Euphronius, Flacillus, Stephen, andLeontius) andthe debate about 50; Boschius 12;Clinton 1850: 536, 548– their order andchronology, seeLequien 1740, 2: 707– 32; Cavallera 6; Treppner 1891: 27– 9, 96, 134, 155– 5, 88– 1868: 29– 48; Neale 1873: 73, 84– 16; 70; Bardy 1922; Sellers 1928: 21– 50; Devréesse 1945: 115– 8, 66– 7, 57– 3, 46– 1905: 41– 60; Barnes 3; Barnes 1978a: 59– Chadwick 1948; Grumel 1958: 446; Downey 1961: 336, 351– 9; Fedalto 1988: 682, 687; Barnes 1993: 16– 9; Hanson 1988: 208–11, 277– 1981: 213– 4, 227– 9; 15: 90, 1163; DHGE 3: 698– 2, 389– 6; 3: 688; 4: 231– 3, 525– 17;DCB 2: 279, 296, 322, 382– 16; 16: 14, 17; 17: 310–1; LTK3: 1202; EEC 1: 297, 298, 303, 325, 480; andRE 6: 1448– 1415– 9. 17 Zonaras wasa Greek historian whose Annales concludes in 1118. Heprovides thesame list of Antiochene bishops as Theophanes/Nicephorus/Chron. syn. (see n. 3, above), except that he 20), andsoI shall cite himalong withTheo19and627.14– misses Eulalius (12.34, pp.625.16– phanes/Nicephorus. Healso provides a common list of Roman bishops, butthey arenotimportant here. Mango andScott 1997: lxvii-lxxiii andlxxiv-lxxv overlook Zonaras in their discussion of this common source. 300. 18 For the date, see Héfélé-Leclerq 1907: 298– 19 Opitz 1934: 1 and29 fordates, and2.6 and31.6 and9 (of theGreek) forPhilogonius.

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

184

dence of their own, it must be the dates of the bishops that help to determine the dates of the various Urkunden. This approach hasnever been attempted before. Philogonius diedon20 December.20 If hewasbishop forfive years fromc. 319 hemust have died in 323 (counting inclusively). Sozomen (HE 1.2.1– 2) states that there wasa vacancy inAntioch during 324 (hegives theconsular year) – perhaps, he says, because of thepersecution of Licinius (who wasdefeated andstripped of imperial power on 19Sept. 324) –until theordination of Eustathius atNicaea (which is incorrect, but see below). He could hardly have said this if Philogonius haddied on 20 Dec. 324. A date of 323 therefore looks likely for his death. With regard to the evidence concerning Philogonius himself, however, wecangonofurther. Thedecisive evidence for 323 is provided by a determination of the date of Paulinus, who wastransferred from Tyre to Antioch around this time.21

II. Paulinus Paulinus is placed between Philogonius andEustathius bythelists of Jerome (232c), the Chron. 724 (100.20/128.20; whocalls him Flavianus’through transcriptional 22; called ‘Paulus’)/ (130.19– ‘ error22), Theophanes (11.30, 13.27, 15.17)/Nicephorus 19, 627.14–16), Nicetas (Thes. 5.6), Eutychius (1004/123.20–1; Zonaras (625.18– the Latin translation of Pocock incorrectly calls him Apollonius’, from the Arabic ‘ Bwlynws = Paulinus), and an unpublished list of Antiochene bishops that follows Eusebius’HE in a Florentine manuscript, which calls him ‘Romanus’.23Sozomen also refers to anotherwise unknown ‘Romanus’ as Eustathius’predecessor before the vacancy in 324 (HE 1.2.1), whomust therefore be Paulinus.24 The unpublished Florentine list places Romanus twenty-second in order, the same number assigned

2) andMart. 20 John Chrysostom, deBeato Philogonio 747 with 750; see also Synax. Sirm. (331– Rom. (594), which both date Philogonius to 20 Dec. andmention Chrysostom’s eulogy. 21 Eusebius, c. Marc. 1.4.2; Philostorgius, HE 2.7b (=Nicetas, Thes. 5.9), 3.15, and 15b(= Suda, s.v. Ἀ έτ ιο ); see also Bardy 1922. ς 22 Seen.4 onp.52 of thetranslation of theChron. Mar.: ‘Nomina Paulinus etFlavianus haudraro apudscriptores syros permutantur.’This isbecause Paulinus is written Pwlynws inSyriac while Flavianus is written Plwynws. 4: 23 Asdescribed inValesius’commentary toSozomen, HE 1.2, seenmosteasily inPG67: 863– ‘Hunc Romanum Antiochiensis Ecclesiae episcopum, nescio undenam hauserit Sozomenus. Habetur tarnen in indice episcoporum qui majores Ecclesias rexerunt a Christo usque ad tempora Magni Constantini. Hicindex habetur inBibliotheca Florentina, postHistoriam Ecclesiasticam Eusebii Caesariensis. In eo igitur indice inter episcopos Antiochenos decimus septimusponitur Timaeus; decimus octavus Cyrillus; decimus nonus Tyrannus; vicesimus Vitalis; vicesimus primus Philogonius; vicesimus secundus Romanus; vicesimus tertius Eustathius ...’I have not been able to find a more recent first-hand reference to this MS. See also Boschius

24

1868: 34. Nicetas follows Sozomen andplaces Romanus between Paulinus andEustathius, causing further trouble byassociating himwith anAntiochene martyr of theGreat Persecution; onwhom, see Chrysostom, Duohomiliae in s. Romanum mart. andDowney 1961: 329. See Chadwick 300 forevidence that Sozomen at least mayhave known of Paulinus as a bishop of 1958: 299– Antioch, when he confused him with another Paulinus, that of Adana (HE 3.11.7).

3. Commentary

185

to Paulinus by Jerome, the Chron. 724, and(by implication) Philostorgius (on which, see just below). Jerome andthe Chron. 724 are related, as we have seen, but the other lists arequite distinct fromthemandderive fromcompletely different sources (see Appendix 2, below). Philostorgius, onthe other hand, quite specifically states that Paulinus wasthe Arian predecessor of Eulalius (see no. 11, below), that is he succeeded Eustathius (HE 2.7b; 3.15 and 15b). In this he hasbeen followed by virtually all recent scholars (as noted above, n. 16). Jacob of Edessa likewise places Paulinus after Eustathius, butpresents a completely different account of thesituation; unfortunately thetext is corrupt in exactly the wrong places. In the translation that follows, everything in square brackets hasbeen supplied (probably correctly, in view of the Chron. syn. andMichael, noted below) by the editor: [Thus when Eu]stathius the bish[op of Antioch was sent into] exile, while Con[stantine] the Great wasalive, [the Ortho]dox appointed P[aulinus] in the place of Eustathius, whereas [the Arians] installed Eulalius. [He lived] (only) a short time and in his place they installed [Euphro]nius. When he too failed [to live a long time] in his stead Flacillus was (appointed bishop) by the A[rians] and when he died they appointed Stephen. The Arians occupied all the churches of Antioch, whereas Paulinus keptonly [one] little (church). (216/290.2– 10)

Jacob has here identified Paulinus I, a leading Arian sympathizer, as Philostorgius correctly notes, with Paulinus II, a pious andorthodox bishop of Antioch from 362 to 388. The information in thelast sentence infact derives from Socrates (HE5.5.4) andconcerns a muchlater conflict between Paulinus II andMeletius. Whatpromptedthis mistake wasnothing more than a bishop list, essentially thesame astheone used in the Chron. syn. andby Michael the Syrian, since they make the same mistake. The Chron. syn. (75.16) lists Paulinus after Eustathius andthough it calls Eustathius’other successors Arians (from Eulalius to Eudoxius), it does notcall PaulinusanArian, eventhough it notes thatEustathius wasexpelled byArians. Michael’s 30) andhe too names the 6, nos. 23– order is the same (Appendix I, p. 431/745– bishops from Eulalius to Eudoxius as Arians, but not Paulinus (whom he calls Paulianus’). The numbering of these bishops is the same in both the Chron. syn.

‘ Michael (Paulinus is twenty-fourth; heistwenty-second inthelists noted above), and thus confirming their common origin. Jacob’s account caneasily be seen as anattempt to make sense of this list innarrative form, withtheadded confusion of a later Paulinus (from Socrates), whoJacob thought wasthesameindividual. Thusall three of these later sources –Chron. syn., Jacob, andMichael –derive from a single list. Agapius, too, places Paulinus between Eustathius andEulalius, at least in the French translation (540). Heassigns Paulinus oneyear andEulalius six years, but these figures duplicate the oneandsix years attributed to Eulalius andEuphronius onp. 552/552.3 (this derives fromthesame source usedbyMichael theSyrian inhis narrative [see Appendix 2.1, below]). It would therefore at first seemseem that the numbers for Paulinus andEulalius are really those for Eulalius andEuphronius. Closer inspection of the text, however, reveals that six of the first seven names on 3 are corrupt in the manuscript andhave been restored by theeditor (see p. 540.1– the footnotes). The names Philogonius andEustathius arejust recognizable in the Arabic, butthe next twonames in the manuscript areneither Paulinus norEulalius,

186

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

noraretheyEulalius orEuphronius.25 Thenumbers, however, showthatthese names must originally have been Eulalius andEuphronius, not Paulinus andEulalius, as theeditor restores them. Agapius thusdoesnotinfact makereference to Paulinus at all. Paulinus does not appear in the lists of Chron. 846 or Theodoret either, andhe is also ignored by Socrates and Sozomen. In fact Theodoret explicitly states that Eustathius wasPhilogonius’ immediate successor (HE 1.7.10). Bishop before Eustathius, bishop after Eustathius, ornotbishop at all: obviously, some of these sources

mustbewrong. The Chron. 724 (and therefore the Continuatio) states that Paulinus wasbishop for seven months before his death; Philostorgius (HE 3.15) essentially confirms this, saying it was ‘after six months’. Heprobably died in his seventh month. Theophanes/Nicephorus/Zonaras, Chron. syn., andEutychius all state five years, which is hopelessly incorrect (anerror for five months?). Eustathius represented Antioch at the Council of Nicaea andmayeven have been one of its presidents.26 The council started at the end of May or rather the beginning of June of 325 (Barnes 1978a: 56 and72 n. 24)27 andweknow that Eustathius hadbeen ordained bishop some months before that, at least by the time of the Council of Antioch, when the Council of Nicaea wasstill to be held at Ancyra (Urkunde 18.1 and5).28 If Philogonius haddied on20 December 324 there would be no time for the election of two bishops and Paulinus’ tenure of six or seven months between Philogonius’death andevenJune 325, thedate of thebeginning of Nicaea, let alone in time for Antioch (March? 325). This difficulty is alleviated, however, if, as suggested above, Philogonius hadactually died in 323. On the other

hand, if Paulinus is placed after Eustathius, his seven months cause insurmountable problems of compression for theepiscopates of Eustathius’ Arian successors (see below). This all strongly suggests that Paulinus wasinfact Eustathius’predecessor. Thebest evidence forPaulinus apart fromtheepiscopal lists comes fromthelist ofbishops attending theCouncil of Nicaea. Tyre, Paulinus’seebefore histransfer to Antioch, wasnotrepresented byPaulinus, aswould have beenthecase hadPaulinus succeeded Eustathius, but by Zeno.29 Urkunde 4b, the henos somatos, is said by Epiphanius (Pan. 69.4.3) to have been sent to a variety of bishops including Zeno of Tyre, whois described as anold manat the time. Hethus must have been bishop

25 I should like to thank Dr. Boulos Roufail for first helping me with the Arabic. 9, no. 26 E.g. Patr. Nic. nom.LXI.50, 63.49, 71.2, 83.55, 101.50, 125.50, 193.46; EOMIA 1.1: 48– 51 = Patr. Nic. nom. 14.51, 50; 15.50, 47; Kaufhold 1993: 59, no.57 = Ruggieri 1993: 331, no. 56; Theodoret, HE 1.7.10; Sozomen, HE1.17.2; Michael theSyrian, Chron. 7.2, p.244/124b.22– α ῖο ; Sellers 1928: 25; and ς Ν ικ α ῳ ία ςκορυφ δ ό ν υ ῃσ ρ ώ τ 23; Nicephorus (130.21), ὁἐ ντ ῇπ 20), who,like other sources, mistakenly Williams 1987: 67. Cf., however, Theophanes (21.18– believes that Eustathius wasappointed bythecouncil, soheobviously could nothave presided. 27 Constantine wasatNicaea fromatleast 23 May(CTh 1.2.5); seeBarnes 1982: 76 andn. 125. 4, Williams 1987: 58 28 OnAncyra as theoriginal location for thecouncil, see Barnes 1981: 213– 3. and67, andHanson 1988: 152– 7, no.41 29 Patr. Nic. nom.LXI.40, 63.41, 73.91, 83.43, 101.40, 123.40, 191.37; EOMIA 1.1: 46– = Patr. Nic. nom. 12.41, 40; 13.40, 37; andKaufhold 1993: 58, no.45 = Ruggieri 1993: 330, no. 44.

3. Commentary

187

since at least early 325, since the henos somatos must pre-date Nicaea.30 Opitz dated the henos somatos to c. 319 (p. 6), which is impossible since Paulinus was still bishop of Tyre andhadbeenbishop of Tyre since atleast 315 (Eus., HE 10.1– 4, esp. 4.2) andprobably since 313, andcould nothave been transferred to Antioch by c. 319 since even onOpitz’s ownchronology Philogonius wasstill alive (see above, section I). Rowan Williams, oncompletely internal grounds andwithout anyknowledge ofthese problems involving Philogonius, Paulinus, andZeno,31 dates thehenos 58). If Zeno wasbishop of Tyre in early 325, somatos to Jan./Feb. 325 (1987: 50– Paulinus must therefore already have been transferred to Antioch. Hemust therefore havebeenEustathius’predecessor andPhilogonius musttherefore havediedon 20 December 323.32 The Continuatio, Theophanes/Nicephorus/Zonaras, Nicetas, Eutychius, Sozomen, andtheunpublished Florentine list aretherefore correct. Philostorgius andthe episcopal list behind Jacob of Edessa, the Chron. syn., and Michael the Syrian are therefore incorrect.33 Paulinus wasanArian andall the suc-

of Eustathius were Arians aswell; it would make sense to later writers that 5 that there wassuch Paulinus followed Eustathius. Weknow from Urkunde 18.3– great strife between orthodox andArian in Antioch in early 325 that Ossius hadto intervene andputlocal affairs inorder. This makes more sense if theArian Paulinus hadjust died, than if the orthodox Philogonius hadjust died. Paulinus is probably missing from some episcopal lists because of his short tenure or because his name wasremoved from thediptychs byEustathius because hewasanArian. The original episcopal list behind Jacob, the Chron. syn., andMichael contains many of the same errors as the Theophanes/Nicephorus/Zonaras list andthe two traditions areotherwise obviously closely related.34 This isparticularly obvious when thevarious notes intheAntiochene portions of Chron. syn. arecompared withNiceη θ ε ὶςὑ ρ phorus. Forinstance, Nicephorus says of Eustathius, ὁ ν ῶ ν εια λ ὸἈ π κ α ὶἐβ (130.22), while the Chron. syn. says, ἐξεβλ ρ ηὑ εια π ὸἈ ν ν(75.14–15), and ή θ ῶ 2, ’ο η σ ία η ὗτ ςἐκκλ ς(131.1– ά κ λ α ίν ὰ εγ ια ῆ ἐγ τ ςμ φ both record under Flacillus, ἐ 4). Furthermore, the numbering of thebishops in these lists agrees, number75.23– ing Vitalis andPhilogonius, for example, as twenty-first andtwenty-second. The list usedbythe Continuatio andtheothers noted above numbered themastwentieth cessors

30 Urk. 18.1 (the canons of theCouncil of Antioch in 325) unfortunately mentions neither Zeno norPaulinus of Tyre, since neither would have beensympathetic to whatOssius wastrying to achieve (see Schwartz 1959: 153). The existence of Zeno has caused great consternation to those post-Eustathian Paulinist scholars whohave noticed his existence: see thedesperate in2, Schwartz 1959: 119 n. 1, andesp. Bardy 1922: 40–1. See ventions of Boschius 1868: 41– 1 andFedalto 1988: 708 fora list of thebishops of Tyre. Treppner 1891: 70– 31 Seep.58, where hedates thedeath ofPhilogonius toDec. 324, andp.60, where hebelieves that a letter byPaulinus of Tyre (Urk. 9) could bepost-Nicaean. 32 As anaside, it should be noted that Williams’dates for thevarious stages of theArian controversy to 325 are the only ones that fit the evidence of the episcopal lists andthe evidence of Eusebius’Canones, who(it seems) placed Arius’first clash withestablished church authority in 16 Constantine, which is 321, the date Williams assigns to the first Alexandrian synod that condemned Arius andhis supporters (1987: 56). ForArius in theCanones, see Study 1, no.31. 9). 33 Cavallera refuses to countenance theidea that Philostorgius could be wrong (1905: 67– 34 See above, n. 3.

188

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

andtwenty-first. The two lists must therefore have a common ancestor. Since the list inTheophanes/Nicephorus/Zonaras agrees withtheother independent evidence withregard toPaulinus it mustmirror theoriginal version. Theerror of notidentifyingPaulinus asanArian, despite thestated andwell-known fact thatEustathius was deposed by Arians, confirms that the original list musthave looked like the list in Theophanes/Nicephorus/Zonaras andthat Paulinus’namewasshifted forward after thesix bishops following Eustathius hadbeen identified as Arians. Both the Chron. syn. andNicephorus explicitly state that Eustathius wasdeposed by the Arians, and Nicephorus states that he was followed by six Arians (130.23). The Chron. syn. and Michael label those six correctly as Arians (Eulalius to Eudoxius), but not Paulinus, Eustathius’immediate successor. Theindividual identification of thesixArians must therefore have occurred before the displacement of Paulinus. Nodoubt the shift of Paulinus’ name was simply a case of trying to reconcile different sources, since there wasno other Paulinus in the list andSocrates in particular (noted above) provided evidence for the existence of an orthodox Paulinus at some date after the expulsion of Eustathius, serving at the same time as the Arian bishops (Paulinus, Meletius [later Flavian], andEuzoius [later Dorotheus] were all bishops of Antioch at the same time, ordained by different theological groups in the city; HE 3.6, 9; 5, 15). 7; 5.3.2, 5, 9.3– 4.1.15, 2.4– The remaining puzzle is whyPhilostorgius’source onAëtius believed that Eulalius wasPaulinus’successor, andnotEustathius. Heis certainly tooearly to have been influenced by the changes in the episcopal list noted above.35 It is probable, however, that his source simply confused the names ‘Eulalius’ and ‘Eustathius’, since there were after all three bishops in a row with similar names, Eustathius, Eulalius, and Euphronius. This hypothesis is suggested first by the fact that the excerpt from Philostorgius in the Suda calls Eulalius thetwenty-third bishop of Antioch.36 This would make Paulinus the twenty-second. Paulinus andEustathius are the twenty-second and twenty-third bishops according to the list in the Continuatio andthe anonymous list in the Florence manuscript of Eusebius’HE noted above. Eulalius is twenty-fifth in the Chron. syn., andPaulinus twenty-fourth. Second, it wasPaulinus’successor in Antioch whoexiled the skilled Arian debater Aëtius, an action that would suit much better an anti-Arian purge of Antioch after the ordination of the orthodox Eustathius in early 325, than any action taken by the Arian Eulalius after the Arian victory that culminated in Eustathius’expulsion.37 35 The list common to Theophanes/Nicephorus/Zonaras/Chron. syn. appears to have been first compiled in the last quarter of the sixth century (see Mango andScott 1997: lxxiv-lxxv), and Jacob of Edessa waswriting attheendof theseventh century, sothechange tothelist to which theChron. syn. is thebest witness musthavebeenmadeduring themid-seventh century before it was used by Jacob. Consequently, it could not have been used by Philostorgius, whowas writing atthebeginning of thefifth century, orbyhissource, whowasobviously writing even earlier.

36 Seen most easily in the edition of Philostorgius, p. 45.33. θ ό ν ο , but this just ς 37 See Philostorgius 3.15, p. 45.10–12, whoattributes Aëtius’expulsion to φ seems to bea topos, seeLim 1995: 113. See also Kaster 1988: 5 and376, andLim 1995: 112– 14, for Aëtius’early career in Antioch. Eustathius drove outa number of others as well; see Hanson 1988: 209.

3. Commentary

189

Barnes, wholike all recent scholars believes that Paulinus wasEustathius’successor, expresses surprise that Paulinus wasable totransfer bishoprics fromTyre to Antioch in direct contravention of Canon 15 of the Council of Nicaea (1981: 228; see also Boschius 1868: 40). But since Paulinus wasEustathius’ predecessor, his transfer took place before Nicaea and so there was no violation of the council’s canons. Indeed, the great insistence against such transfers in Constantine’s correspondence with the Council of Antioch, which tried to transfer Eusebius from Caesarea to Antioch at a later date (Eus., VConst 3.59.5 and60– 62; see below), mostlikely arose because theprevious twobishops of Antioch hadbeentransferred fromother sees, Paulinus fromTyre andthenEustathius fromBeroea. Indeed Paulinus’transfer may have been one of the factors that prompted Canon 15 in the first place. Andwhat of Urkunde 15, the document that led Schwartz to date Philogonius’ death to 324 inthefirst place andalso dated byOpitz to324? Allrecent commentators put it earlier than that, with Williams’ date of early 323 being the most likely 8).38 (1987: 57– Theonly possible remaining impediment toplacing Paulinus before Eustathius is the beginning of Book Ten of Eusebius’HE (10.1.2), which bears a dedication to Paulinus. Book Ten, as wehave it, wascompleted in late 324/early 325, after the date I have suggested for Paulinus’death. But Eusebius produced at least three different versions of Book Ten, theearliest dating to c. 315/6, when Paulinus wasstill bishop of Tyre.39 Thequestion nowarises of whenPaulinus wasactually ordained, since there is a gapof about fifteen or sixteen months between thedate of Philogonius’death on 20 December 323 andthe earliest attestation of Eustathius as bishop of Antioch, which is at a Council in Antioch probably best dated to c. March 325 because of its reference to the upcoming council at Ancyra, which waslater switched to Nicaea (Urk. 18; seeabove). Barnes (1978a: 56) dates this council toMarch orApril, while 51) discusses the council but gives no specific date except to Hanson (1988: 146– say that it p receded shortly that of Nicaea’(p. 145). De Clercq (1954: 206) thinks ‘ the instigator of thecouncil, left Alexandria for Nicomedia in late Dethat Ossius, cember of 324, which would suggest a date of January or February for the council (for which, see pp.206– 17). Indeed, some scholars date theCouncil of Antioch no 24 andAbramowski moreclosely than324/325; see, forexample, Seeberg 1913: 218– 1975. Unfortunately there is nowayof being certain. Sozomen believes that Eustathius hadbeen transferred from Beroea to Antioch by the Council of Nicaea (HE 1.2.2; though in 1.17.2 he states correctly that Eustathius wasalready bishop at the time of Nicaea). If theCouncil of Antioch andtheCouncil of Nicaea hadbeenclose together in time, it would be understandable howsomeone could confuse the two. It is usually stated that thecouncil in Antioch wascalled to sort outthe problems caused by the death of Philogonius and to select the next bishop of Antioch.40 Un-

6 andesp. Hanson 1988: 148: ‘anypoint between 319 and324’. 38 See also Barnes 1981: 205– 39 Ontheeditions of Eusebius’HE,seeBarnes 1980: 197and201, andBurgess 1997. 40 Kelly 1960: 208, Anastos 1951: 141, deClercq 1954: 208, Downey 1961: 351, Barnes 1978a: 9. 56, Barnes 1981: 213, andHanson 1988: 148–

190

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

fortunately the text makes nomention whatsoever of Philogonius’death or the selection of Eustathius of Beroea asbishop of Antioch, andaswesawabove Paulinus wasEustathius’predecessor, notPhilogonius. Asnoted above Sozomen saysthat in 324 no one hadbeen appointed after the death of Romanus (=Paulinus) and attributes this totheLicinian persecution.41 This is confirmed by Urk. 18.3– 5, theacts of the Council of Antioch, which also indicates that Antioch hasbeen rudderless for some time: For when I came to the city of Antioch and saw the Church exceedingly troubled by tares through theteaching andfaction of certain persons, it seemed tometobedesirable thatthis evil should notbe eradicated andcast outbymealone... When, then, the grace of Godbrought us together to theseeof Antioch, andonexamining andfully going into thematters which were of common concern andprofitable andneedful for the Church of Godwe found much disorder rampant, especially because the ecclesiastical lawandthe canons were at many points set at nought anddespised in the intervening time by worldly menandcompletely in abeyance because theassembling of anysynod of bishops hadbeen forbidden in theplaces of those parts, it seemed goodthat there should first beexamined....42

Although Ossius starts off here talking about ecclesiastical lawandthecanons, the rest of the document is actually involved with theology, being an anti-Arian creed. These legal andcanonical problems aresaid to have arisen because (δ ιό τ ιin Schwartz’s Greek translation of the Syriac) no synods hadbeen allowed (i. e. before thedefeat of Licinius in Sept. 324). This probably relates to thetransfer of Paulinus from Tyre, which thus must have beenundertaken in defiance of proper procedures (i.e. without a synod). The phrase translated by Schwartz as ἐ μ ῷ ετ α ό ν ξ ῳ ὺχρ ντ (‘in the intervening time’) seems to point to theperiod between the death of Paulinus andOssius’arrival. Ossius’worries suggest that theArians weretrying tobring in another bishop without a synod, probably because they knew they didnothave enough support to gain widespread approval fortheir candidate. As Chadwick says (1958: 300), O ssius ... called it (I think) with the intention of ‘ in the diocese Oriens where Arius was carrying through a purge of the episcopate finding friendly support’. It would therefore seem that at the Council of Antioch Ossius wasresponsible either forthetransfer of Eustathius itself orrather for seeing 1). However, through anearlier attempt ata transfer (see Chadwick 1958: esp. 300– that wassimply a prolegomenon to thereal business of hispresence in Antioch, the crushing of a serious Arian foothold in an apostolic see andthe establishment of order andorthodoxy intheleaduptowhateven then wasseen as a crucial meeting of bishops that would establish the definition of orthodoxy. At such a council the orthodox could notafford to have thebishop of such aninfluential seein thehands of the opposition. We should therefore place Paulinus’transfer soon after thedeath of Philogonius andbefore the forced abdication of Licinius the next year, probably in the early months of 324. Hetherefore would have died in the autumn of 324, either just before or soon after Licinius’ defeat. The stasis in Antioch created by two opposing

2, 206, 376 n. 154; Williams 41 On which, see Eus., VConst 1.51; Urk. 18.5; Barnes 1981: 70– 50; andHanson 1988: 133– 4. 1987: 49– 5) breaks upthelast sentence into three 3. Stevenson’s translation (1957: 354– 42 Cross 1939: 72– sentences, seriously distorting themeaning. This division wasfollowed byRusch 1980: 46.

3. Commentary

191

groups each attempting to put forward their own episcopal candidate probably began with the death of Philogonius, increased quickly with the death of Paulinus and thevictory of Constantine over Licinius, andhadreached a crescendo byearly 325 whenOssius intervened.43 We thus have a situation where the Arians were able to transfer andinstall a well-known sympathizer into Antioch, anapostolic see, soonafter thedeath ofPhilogonius, without a proper synod. Paulinus didnotlast long, however, for whatever reasons, andattempts bybothparties to secure their ownnominee asbishop created a state of ecclesiastical stasis in the city. It was only the auctoritas of Ossius that allowed a quick orthodox victory, andEustathius became an important andvocal opponent of Arius and his followers.44 This stance of Eustathius’ was probably in reaction to the episcopacy of Paulinus, though Eustathius was chosen bishop of Antioch in the first place because of his anti-Arian theology (Theodoret, HE 1.4.62, says that the he philarchos [Urkunde 14, dated by Williams to 321/2] was sent to him while he was still bishop of Beroea). It is thus no wonder that the stress of the canons of the Council of Antioch (Urk. 18) is on anti-Arian orthodoxy, above all else, and in so many ways represents a microcosm of Nicaea.45 It was no doubt shortly afterwards that Aëtius wasexpelled fromAntioch (see above). Heis exactly the sort of character whose influence Eustathius would have wanted removed from

the city.

III. Eustathius

The date of the deposition of Eustathius is a vexed problem (for the evidence, see 30).46 Dates ranging from 326 to 331have beenwidely acceptChadwick 1948: 28– ed in the past, andmost recently Barnes has argued for 327, in response to Chadwick’s hypothesis of 326, while Hanson hasargued forthetraditional 330/1,47 though 6 and 1982: 76), 43 Barnes would have Constantine visit Antioch in December 324 (1978a: 55– which onmyreconstruction would puthimright inthemiddle of thefermenting dispute. Butthe 5), upon which reference to Constantine’s visit to Antioch in Malalas (Chron. 13.3, p. 318.3– Barnes chiefly bases his conclusion, refers to the building of the Great Church, which was begun in327 (see below, nos. 8 and30). Downey, however, shows that thestory is pious fiction (1961: 650– 3), though thebelief that Constantine himself began the foundations of theGreat Church seems to have existed atleast asearly asthe Continuatio (see entry 30). Coins of Antiochdepicting animperial aduentus thataredated to 324/5 donotprove thatConstantine actuallymadeit toAntioch, asBarnes admits (1978a: 71 n.21 and1982: 76 n. 123). Lane Fox(1986: 3) would have Constantine attend thecouncil anddeliver hisAddress to theAssembly of 642– 97, esp. 96. theSaints there, butthis is unlikely in theextreme: see Hall 1998: 86– 7, Sellers 1928: 60–120, andHanson 1988: 208–17. 44 Schwartz 1959: 146– 88), Seeberg 55 (=NGWG 1905, 271– 45 Onthis council andits creed, see Schwartz 1959: 134– 51. 11,Abramowski 1975, andHanson 1988: 146– 1913, Cross 1939, Kelly 1960: 208– 50; Chadwick 64; Sellers 1928: 39– 41, 57– 46 For the deposition itself, see Cavallera 1905: 36– 8. 1948; andBarnes 1981: 227– 8 n. 1 andHanson 1988: 209 n. 6 for the general acceptance of this 47 See Chadwick 1948: 27– date.

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

192

in anearlier paper onEustathius Hanson suggested 328 or 329, a date advocated as long ago as 1850 by H. F. Clinton.48 All the dates most commonly quoted today, 326, 327, and331, hinge onthe date of the Council of Serdica (see below, no. 33). At this Council the Eastern delegates wrote anencyclical inwhich they stated thatAsclepas, ex-bishop of Gaza, hadbeen deposed seventeen years earlier.49 It wasstated in another letter issued bythecouncil itself that he had been deposed at a council in Antioch and implied that it was under thepresidency of Eusebius of Caesarea.50 Since Asclepas seems animportant supporter of orthodoxy it is assumed that he wasdeposed together with Eustathius andmany others in an Arian purge of Antioch andthe neighbouring provinces.51 ThusEustathius mustalso havebeendeposed seventeen years before Serdica. Since Serdica now is dated to either 342 or 343 (see no. 33, below), Chadwick subtracted seventeen from 342 andplaced Eustathius’ deposition in 326, while Barnes subtracted seventeen from 343 andplaced it in327. However, before thediscovery and publication of the Festal Index in 1848 (Cureton 1848) andthe consequent discoveryof thecorrect range of dates forSerdica, scholars could only rely uponSocrates’ date for the Council, which was347 (HE 2.20.4). Thus it used to be assumed that Asclepas wasdeposed in 331.52 This date wasreinforced by Theodoret, whostates that the exile of Meletius, usually but erroneously dated to 361 (see below), took place thirty years after the deposition of Eustathius (HE 2.31.11), thus indicating 10). 331.53 Many still adhere to this standard date, mostnotably Hanson (1988: 209– Notcited by any modern scholar in this debate is the Chron. 724, which gives Eustathius four years, which from early 325 would place his deposition in late 328 or early 329. This date is supported by Jerome, who mentions the deposition of Eustathius (his owncomment) in anentry that extends through 22 and23 Constantine, namely 328 and329 (232c). Apart from these notices that refer to Eustathius specifically, there is thedate of theordination of Eustathius’short-lived successor, Eulalius (no. 11, below), which inthe Chron. 724 is thefirst entry after theentry on Athanasius’ ordination, which dates to 8 June 328 (no. 10), andthe second entry before the dedication of Constantinople on 11 May 330 (no. 13), thus indicating a date of 328 or 329.

In addition to these twosources, which definitely derive their information from the Continuatio, there is a notice inPs-Dionysius, which is probably independent of

48 Barnes 1978a: 60; Chadwick 1948: 32 and35; Hanson 1984: 173, 174, 179; andClinton 1850: 536, 549.

‘Dicimus autem Asclepan, quiante decem et septem annos episcopatus honore discinctus est’ 20). (Decret. synod. Orient. 11, p. 56.19– 50 ‘SedAsclepius coepiscopus noster actaprotulit, quaeconfecta suntapudAnthiociam praesentibusaduersariis etEusebio exCaesarea et ex sententiis iudicantum episcoporum ostendit seesse 4 [Greek] = Athana6 [Latin], lines 21– inreprehensibilem’ (Ep. synod. Sard. 6, p. 118, lines 3– 6; EOMIA 1.2.3: 648.210–14). For various problems with sius, Apol. c. Arian. 45.2, p. 122.3– 8. 7 andHanson 1988: 276– this evidence, see Hanson 1984: 175– 2, Barnes 1978a: 60, Barnes 1981: 228, andBarnes 9 n.4, Chadwick 1948: 31– 51 Sellers 1928: 48– 1993: 17. 52 See Boschius 1868: 38 andChadwick 1948: 32. 8 andHanson 1988: 209–10 for other supporting arguments for 330/1. 53 See Boschius 1868: 36–

49

3. Commentary

193

the Continuatio (126.13–14/169.10–12).54 Ps-Dionysius explicitly dates the synod that deposed Eustathius to year 640 of theSeleucid era(Sel.), which in theoriginal Greek version of the Continuatio would have been regnal year 24 Constantine, that is 1 Oct. 328 to 30 Sept. 329.55 This date is supported by apparently independent testimony from a list entitled, ‘At what times andin the days of which kings the synods gathered’, which is the last document (‘Rubric 7’) in the Syriac miscellany that is the Chron. 724 (116/150.10–11).56 Highly confused, it would nevertheless seemtoconfirm a connection between thedate 640 Sel. andthedeposition ofEustathius. Itbegins, ‘Intheyear640, inthedaysof Julian, thepagan emperor, Eustathius 7). Unfortunately thecompiler hasconrose against thechurch’(116.15–16/150.26– fused Eustathius of Antioch with Eustathius of Sebasteia and the council that deposed theformer withtheCouncil of Gangra (in355?).57 Whatever thesource of the confusions, it does showthat thedate probably didnotderive from a chronicle; for if it did, thecompiler could hardly have confused thetwoEustathii, oneunder Constantine andthe other under Julian. The information that these three chronicles – Chron. 724 (two different, independent texts), Jerome, andPs-Dionysius –preserve, therefore, is of greater evidentiary value than anysource currently cited in the debate concerning Eustathius’ deposition since it is founded upon a contemporary Antiochene source andwhat appear to be twoindependent witnesses to thedate of

the council.

None of theepiscopal lists found in Theophanes (15.17)/ Nicephorus (130.21)/ Zonaras (627.16), Chron. syn.(75.13), Agapius (540/540.2– 3), orEutychius (1004/ 2) is of any help in dating Eustathius since the first assigns himeighteen 123.21– years, andthe latter three, eight years.58 Theformer would seemtobe a mistake for the latter (the addition of an iota). Eight years takes us to 332, perhaps the date of Eustathius’death, since heseems to have been deadby 337; see Hanson 1988: 211 6) there appears anentry that de7/169.24– lines further downthe same page (126.25– rives indirectly fromtheContinuatio (see nos.47 and48, below), viaa Syriac epitome thatdoes notseem to have mentioned Eustathius (see Chapter 1.5). If theentry under discussion above does derive ultimately from the Continuatio, it canonly doso through a different source tradi8. tion from that which carried the version of nos. 47– 3; Grumel 1958: 209–10;Samuel 1972: 142– 4, 245– FortheSeleucid era, seeGinzel 1914: 40– 9. That theSeleucid year didnotbegin on 1 2; andMeimaris 1992: 53– 6; Bickerman 1980: 71– Oct. in this period, in spite of the usual scholarly opinion, is correctly stated by Samuel 1972: 2. It began somewhere inthelate summer orearly autumn, 6 n. 8 andBickerman 1980: 71– 245– andwasaccommodated within that range to the months in the various local calendars in the East, many of which, because they followed the Syro-Macedonian calendar, tended to have their NewYear in September or October. The chief evidence for 1 October dates from the fifteenth century (Ulug Beg), though it wasbased upon much earlier evidence. The reason I have used 1 Oct. here, of course, is because the author of the Continuatio wasfollowing the Antiochene calendar, which didbegin on 1 October (see Chapter 1, n. 52). 4. See Palmer 1993: 10 and21– ForGangra, see, forexample, Barnes 1989a. Thedate of this council is greatly disputed, butas far as I knownoonecites this text with its references to Julian (it maybe accurate in this, at least; butthenit places thecouncil of Ancyra [314] under Hadrian, sothenagain it maynotbe). 6) also has eight years but this was added by the editor from 20/194.5– Chron. 846 (149.19– Chron. syn. (see thefootnote onp. 194of theSyriac text).

54 Twelve

55

56

57 58

194

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

andBarnes 1993: 149. Eutychius (1009/130.7– 8), however, explicitly dates the orof Eulalius to 23 Constantine, which is 328 (assuming calculation from 306, like Eusebius). Thefinal supporting evidence, forwhatit is worth, comes from Socrates andSozomen, whonarrate Eustathius’ deposition immediately after the accession of Athanasius inJune 328 (Socrates, HE 1.23– 4, andSozomen, HE2.17–

dination

19).

Theexact date of Eustathius’deposition wasprobably theendof 328, after the start of thenewyearintheEast, i.e. between October andDecember inclusive, since that is the only date that fits the specific evidence for Eustathius, noted above, and allows sufficient space for his immediate successors, Eulalius (c. three months, to early 329), a vacancy of some months (eight?) during 329, Euphronius (c. fifteen months, to late 330), Flacillus (eleven years; still bishop in January 341), andStephen (three years; deposed early summer 344).59 Thedate of late 328 fits mostof theother available evidence aswell (which has generally been ignored by recent scholars): it is eighty-five years before the accessionof Alexander of Antioch in413 (Theodoret, HE3.5.2)60 andit is after therestoration, in December 327/January 328, of Eusebius of Nicomedia andTheognis of 1andBarnes 1982: 77), who Nicaea atthecouncil of Nicomedia (Barnes 1978a: 60– 4), Sozomen (HE 2.16 and are said by Philostorgius (HE 2.7), Socrates (HE 1.23– 20) to have engineered and 19), Theodoret (HE 1.21), and Gelasius (HE 3.16.7– attended thecouncil that deposed Eustathius. Theresult of this latter clarification is 5) that theEusebius mentioned byEustathius ina quotation inTheodoret (HE 1.8.1– wasprobably Eusebius of Nicomedia, recently restored to his see, rather thanEusebius of Caesarea, as is often supposed.61 ‘Eustathius hadbeen one of the more violent opponents of theEusebian party, andonthereturn of the leader of the opposition he wasone of the first to go’(Chadwick 1948: 28), not least because of the pamphlet warhe waswaging with Eusebius of Caesarea at the time (Socrates, HE 1.23.8, andSozomen, HE2.18.4). The date of 328 does not, however, correspond exactly with the statement of Theodoret that theexile of Meletius inearly 360, asis nowknown, took place thirty years after thedeposition of Eustathius (HE2.31.11)62 northestatement of theEasternbishops that Asclepas wasdeposed seventeen years before Serdica (which met in 343, as wecannowconfidently state: see no. 33, below). In the former case the context shows thatthirty isjust a round figure forthirty-one orthirty-two. Thelatter is rather more problematic since theevidence is so incomplete. Asclepas could not have been deposed bya council inAntioch that washeaded byEusebius while Eustathius wasstill bishop. ButasHanson points outwearenotabsolutely certain that thecomment ‘praesentibus aduersariis et Eusebio ex Caesarea’actually means that 59 For this chronology, see the commentaries to entries ii, iv, andv; 11; 12A; 13A; 30; 31; and Appendix 1, Part 2. 60 For Alexander, see Downey 1961: 457 andDCB 1: 82. 61 Onthis evidence, seeBarnes 1978a: 60, 73 n.49 (where hedismisses thechronology of all the 8; andWilliams 1987: 68, 4; Hanson 1988: 208–11,277– church historians); Hanson 1984: 171– 274 n. 137. 3. 9; cf. Hanson 1988: 382– 62 Onwhich, see Barnes 1993: 148–

3. Commentary

195

Eusebius presided over the council (1984: 176– 7). This would mean that Asclepas could have been deposed before Eustathius, even by Eustathius. I aminclined to believe that thepassage does imply Eusebius’presidency, however, andthis means that Asclepas musthavebeendeposed either atthesametime asEustathius orlater, which makes thefigure of seventeen years impossible. Butthere were at least two councils in Antioch in quick succession, oneat theendof 328 to depose Eustathius andelect Eulalius, which seems to have been a violent andriotous affair, for which Constantine had to send out his comites to keep the peace (Eus., VConst 3.59 with 62.1),63 andanother upon the death of Eulalius, perhaps only three months later, which washeaded by Eusebius of Caesarea andwhich chose him as bishop against hiswill (orsohewrote toConstantine).64 This latter council musthave remained in session for some considerable time, for Eusebius refused the offer of the transfer andthecouncil appealed toConstantine andhadtoawait hisdecision (hewasinthe Balkans). They then hadto bring in Euphronius from Caesarea in Cappadocia and ordain him. It wasalso this council, I believe, that produced thetwenty canons that have in thepast been ascribed to theDedication Council inAntioch of January 341 320; see Schwartz 1959: 216– (text in EOMIA 2.2: 216– 230; see no. 30, below, for theDedication Council).65 These canons showthatEusebius presided overthiscouncil. Wedonotknowwhopresided overthecouncil todepose Eustathius, butit could have beenEusebius aswell. Furthermore, I see no evidence to connect the depositions of Eustathius and Asclepas (Chadwick [1948: 32] all butadmits the same). In fact, Athanasius’ ac5, his singles out counting of these years suggests the exact opposite. In Hist. Ar. 4– of and deacons the church presbyters in Antioch as the and a of number Eustathius first victims of the Arian purge. Hethen discusses the deposition of Eutropius of Adrianople, and finally lists eight other deposed bishops, of whom Asclepas is the fourth, before discussing in more detail others whosuffered as a result of Arian persecution. InApol. defuga sua 3.3, he lists nine episcopal victims of the Arians, Eustathius first andAsclepas last. There is nothing to link anyof these bishops with anyother andnowhere does Athanasius suggest orhint that they all mettheir fate at 5). Nodoubt his 63 Eusebius deliberately avoids going into anydetail over the first council (3.59.4– conduct wasless meritorious than it wasin declining theepiscopate of Antioch later on. His compression is what has led Socrates andSozomen to omit Eulalius in their account of these years (see no. 11below), forhejumps fromhints about theriots anddisturbances that attended thedeposition of Eustathius immediately tothethree letters fromConstantine praising hisdecisiontorefuse thetransfer toAntioch after thedeath of Eulalius andrecommending Euphronius instead. Ascanbe seen, this account, like somuchelse in the VConst, is tendentious andselfserving (see Cameron 1997, andthe discussion in Study 1, Chapter 6.1.1, as well as no. 25, below for another example of Eusebius’manipulation of embarrassing facts). 64 So certain wasthecouncil, andperhaps solong thewaitforthereply fromConstantine, that the episcopal list preserved in theContinuatio still listed Eusebius as thetwenty-fifth bishop over twenty years later (see no. 11, below). 65 The problem of the absence from the canons of the council of Aëtius of Lydda (Syriac list: 5), whois addressed byConstantine 221; Latin list: EOMIA 2.2: 231, 312– Schwartz 1959: 219– in his letter to thecouncil (Eus., VConst 3.62.1) is probably simply that hehadto leave before the council finished its business andwasnot around to sign the canons (see Schwartz 1959:

225).

196

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

the same time. If they hadall been disposed of in one fell swoop, in some kind of Arian pogrom, onerather suspects thatAthanasius, thebishops atSerdica whomention only Asclepas, andthe church historians (including the virulently anti-Arian Jerome), whomention only Eustathius, would have made mention of this purge. Athanasius thus implies that Asclepas wasdeposed after Eustathius. Since weare really notevencertain of thereasons forAsclepas’removal, wecannot evensaythat hewasdeposed by Arians because of his orthodoxy.66 I am therefore inclined to tentatively place the deposition of Asclepas in the turmoil following thedeath of Eulalius (see Hanson 1984: 175– 7 andHanson 1988: 8), which would be early 329 on myrevised chronology andjust under fifteen 277– years before the Council of Serdica. This is the only date at which we know Eusebius of Caesarea tohavebeenpresiding over thereligious affairs of Antioch (which, as I have suggested above, is nota conclusive argument). If the text is notcorrupt (which is possible), then the bishops at Serdica must simply have made a counting error. However, it is only anerror of oneyear andas such is a trivial mistake: since the council washeld late in November/December 343 (see Barnes 1978a: 69, and no. 33, below) according to the reckoning of most Eastern calendars it was already the newyear (see n. 55, above, onthe Seleucid era, andn. 52 of Chapter 1, onthe Syro-Macedonian calendar) andcounted inclusively it would havebeensixteen years since 329 (which in most places intheEast started in Sept./Oct. 328). Whatever the problems involved with thedate of thedeposition of Asclepas it hasnobearing on thedate of thedeposition of Eustathius. After a brief hold onAntioch theArians were shut outby Ossius andthe strong andcommitted orthodoxy of Eustathius, whosoonwasto take a position of leadership attheCouncil of Nicaea andafterwards. Hewas,therefore, thefirst target upon thereturn of Eusebius andTheognis from exile, andit wasnotlong before a variety of charges were concocted, somebased nodoubt onEustathius’ownwritings (Hanson 1988: 216). Eustathius vigorously fought thecharges, appealing to theemperor, andeventually Constantine hadtosendinthecomites Acacius andStrategius Musonianus torestore peace (Eus., VConst 3.59.3 with62.1). Eustathius wasdeposed and the Arian Eulalius took his place. Helasted perhaps three months andthe process started all over again. Another calmer synod washeld, whose bishops chose Eusebius of Caesarea. Asnoted above, herefused andEuphronius wastransferred from Caesarea in Cappadocia. From this point onward non-Nicaean bishops of various Arian theological persuasions hada lock uponAntioch andtheorthodox followers of Eustathius were powerless to gain sole control again for eighty-five years.

66 TheEastern bishops atSerdica stated thatAthanasius agreed withhisdeposition andthatMar20), sothere seems cellus refused tocommunicate withhim(Decret. synod. Orient. 13,p.57.18– little reason to suspect that he wasoriginally a victim of the Arians, though later problems 2 andApol. defuga sua3.3). certainly allowed Athanasius todepict himthat way(Hist. Ar.5.1–

3. Commentary

197

1.

The Latin translation by the editor of the Chron. 724 translates the Syriac mrmn (‘merciful’) as ‘clementissimus’. This is probably a correct reflection of the original. ‘Clementia’ was an important part of Constantinian propaganda (see Grüne6) andConstantine wasoften referred to as ‘clementiswald 1990: 71– 3 and 134– simus’ininscriptions (see Grünewald 1990: 201, 224, 244, and256, nos. 131, 286, 417, and482, as well aspp.203 and204, nos. 138 and148).67 Asweshall see below (no. 5), there is good evidence that the author of the Continuatio had paid close attention to Constantine’s titles in at least oneinscription. Theevidence of theepithets inthe Continuatio elsewhere shows a close adherence tocontemporary usage: ‘victor’and ‘pius/piissimus’ arethe standard titles usedhere andall appear in contemporary inscriptions.68 Furthermore, Syriac hasnocomparatives or superlatives, requiring a periphrasis to express them (Brock 1977: 84.) In this case such a periphrasis would be awkward andit would seem that the superlative wasignored. ῆ ν ῶ νπ νΧριστια ίσ ςτ ῶ τ Theophanes hascut τ εω , which appears in both the ς Chron. Pasch. andthe Chron. 724. The Chron. 724 includes thewords ‘from God’/ mn l (129.16), which donotappear inthetwoGreek witnesses. It is notthesort of comment that would be omitted, so it would therefore appear to be a gloss by the translator. The reconstruction therefore follows the Chron. Pasch. μ α γ ιhasanunusual meaning here, obtain/gain/win’; it is paralleled from ο ὑ π ά ‘ςπ ῳ ρ ία π η ό ρ λ ικ ν α ε ὸ ο ιςπ λ τ ιβ ςΚ ελ η έμ π ίω νἈφ Eusebius: Σ κ ο λ λ ὰ μ α ςῬ ίο ω ις 8) andΒρού ρ τ η ία ιο ν ... Ῥ ςἸβ μ α γ ω ίο ε τ γ ά ιςὑπ γ ο(135e = Sync. 333.7– γ η ά ε η τ ο π ὑ 5). A nearly identical structure appears in no. 5, below, (144d = Anon. Matr. 42.4– η ν . Thestructure of the μ α ιas themainverb governing theobject νίκ ο ἴρ butwith α the main verb and battle theoutcome, is denoting denoting participle the with entry, ρ α τ τ ε with ύ ω common in the Canones, though Eusebius only infrequently uses σ (42bh= Sync. 179.20), ρ ά τ ευ ω ν ἐσ σ ίκ α ν ο ιν Φ τ ὰ τ α α δ ῖο λ ικ κ α τ ά + genitive, e.g. Χα μ ρ α ά τ ευ ν(59be = Sync. 201.15), andἍρπ σ α η ν α ίω ν Ἀ ἐσ τ γ ο ζ ό ν ε ... ς θ α Ἀ ςκα τ ὰ ίν ω ς ε(103bk = Sync. 285.7). Theparallel passage to Μ σ ευ τ ά ῆ ὰ τ κ α τ ςἸω τρ ν ία ςἐσ 3) is τ εύ ... at 59g(= Sync. 191.30) inCramer (1839: 196.22– ρ σ α α ς σ τ ία ν ελ ικ ὶΣ π ἐ τ ά ευ . Theparticiple, atleast, is correct. Insimilar ρ σ ν ε α τ Μ ίν ω τ Σ ία ν ἐσ ικ ελ ὰ ... κ ς ἰςor ἐπ with ε ω ρ α ύ τ ε ί+ accusative, and(much less τ contexts Eusebius also uses σ ρ ό ςor ε ἰς+ accusative. often) π ο λ έ ω with a direct object or withπ εμ This entry contains general comments with no specific historical references in mind. They serve as an introduction to the continuation proper, andin the Chron. 724 they appear after the final supputatio in the Canones, which suggests 21 Constantine, i.e. theyear 326, buttheChron. Pasch. dates themto 325 asthelast entries emperors, always in the superlative. See, for example, CIL 6.1106 (Gallienus), 1122 (Diocletian), 1128 (Maximian), 36949 (Maxentius), 1134 and 1143 (Constantine), 1196 (Arcadius, Honorius, andTheodosius), and1200 (Focas). Pius wasa part of theofficial titles usedbyevery emperor inLate Antiquity: Dominus Noster Imperator Caesar [name] Pius Felix Augustus. Forpiissimus, see Grünewald 1990: 191, 197, 8, and 140, as 216, 218, 257, nos. 67, 108, 232, 247, 488. For victor, see Grünewald 1990: 136–

67 It wasalso used by other 68

50, 251, 253, 259, nos. 124, 263, 437, 446, 452, 468, 494, 495. well as 200, 221, 248, 249–

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

198

before the Eusebian supputatio andin Theophanes they appear under 19 Const. (=324). This suggests that the author of the Continuatio extended 20 Const. beyond the last entries of Eusebius’chronicle. These entries have therefore been included under 20 Const. inthereconstruction.

2. HeretheSyriac translator of Chron. 724hassomehow, either deliberately orthrough anerror, managed to translate ἐθ ν ῶ νas C hristians’. Mango andScott (1997: 33) ‘ translate ἐθ ν ἡ ῶ ν as nations’, buttheexpression ἐπ ισ ὴ τ φ τρ ο ῶ ν ἐθ ν ῶ ν , which derives fromActs 15:‘3, is very common inChristian literature andmeans ‘theconversion of the pagans’(as it is translated by Whitby andWhitby 1989: 14). The Chron. Pasch. hasadded some material that does notappear inTheophanes or the Chron. 724; thereconstruction follows thelatter two. Whitby and Whitby (1989: 13) translate κ ρ υ ια κ άas ‘Sunday’, but that is ἡ ήnot τ ρ (see no. 45, below, for the former). τ ια κ ὰ υ κ ά ρ ια κ κ υ ὸκυρια κ ό νis a normal word for ‘church’ (Mango andScott [1997: 33] translate it correctly). Perfects for aorists (π ) is a common trait of late Greek andsuch perfects apκ ε ν επ ο ίη pear frequently intheContinuatio without anydifference inmeaning fromtheequivalent aorist.69 They also appear in the Canones, though not as frequently.

See no. 1, above, forthechronology.

3. There is a close parallel in the Canones at204d= Sync. 430.13: Ο ὐ ο γ λ εσ ό σ ο ρ ςΠ ά μ ε . There is also Σ ρ α θ α ω έδ τ α νβ κ σ ν ρ ιλ α ε ὺ χ ώ κ ν μ α ςτ θ ὴ ύ α ίω ν ιτ Ῥ ω ὴ ν Π α λ α ισ η α ρ π ςὁτ ώ α ῶ νΠ μ σ σ ερ ο ῶ ιλ νβ νat 96bh(= Sync. 255.6) andΣ α ε η νκα ὺ τ έδρ ς τ ίν ρ μ ία ν ... at 220f (= Sync. 466.8), where theparticipial form of Synὼ ν Σ υ ρ α κ α τα δ ν εῖλ εis the standard form of the usual word for ‘kill’in cellus is not original. ἀ Eusebius.70 Thepresent tenses in this entry seemunusual in thecontext of theother entries that tend to use imperfects, aorists, and perfects (though perfectly normal historical presents in Classical andlate Greek) andmaybe theresult of alterations byTheophanes. Thedate Theophanes assigns tothisepisode (324) is manifestly incorrect, since Constantius wasnotproclaimed caesar until 8 November 324 (Barnes 1982: 8 and Kienast 1990: 309), long after the normal campaigning season wasover andafter the start of 325 according to most Eastern calendars (see above, n. 55). Thecorrect date at first seems tobe 335/6, since Constantius wascaesar then andit seems that

5; Blass, Debrunner, andFunk 1961: 177, §343; and 45, esp. 244– 69 See Chantraine 1927: 233– Palmer 1980: 186.

70 E.g. 104bb = Chron. Pasch. 269.15, 106a = Sync. 285.14, 117g = Sync. 310.2, 131a = Sync. 332.11, 133d= Sync. 333.4, 146b= Sync. 353.5, 168a= Sync. 379.18, 169a= Sync. 380.10, 169k = Sync. 384.4 (pres. tense), 182f= Sync. 409.25, 190m= Sync. 419.21, and212i = Sync. 435.20.

3. Commentary

199

Narseh, the brother of the Persian king Shapur II, invaded Armenia around that time.71 However, Theophanes claims that Narseh was the son of Shapur, not his brother, aswastheNarseh whocampaigned in335/6 (Moses 3.10), andtheNarseh of 336seems tohaveescaped andreturned toPersia, notbeenkilled.72 Furthermore, Festus (Breviarium 27.3) indicates that an obviously well-known Narseh died in fighting in the 340s andboth Libanius (Or. 59.117 and 118, dated 344/5) andJulian (Or. 1.24A andD, dated c. 355) indicate that a son of Shapur wascaptured and killed during thefamous night battle atEleia/Singara in344; onwhich, seeBlockley 7.73 In addition, P awstos’ confuses Shapur with Narseh, the Persian 1989: 476– ‘‛ in 298 andinterweaves that account into his king whowas defeated by Galerius narrative.74 Howmany Narsehs arewedealing with here? First of all, asjust noted, P awstos’hasobviously confused twoaccounts, that of Narseh’s defeat in298 with‘a‛later Persian defeat, probably because it involved a Persian leader named Narseh. Garsoïan (1989: 265 n. 16) believes the confusion arises over the individual named by Festus, Libanius, andJulian, namely Narseh, the sonof Shapur II, whowaskilled at the Battle of Singara in 344 (for this date, see nos. 33 and37). Buttheunderlying account in P awstos’is obviously notthebattle ‛– 8. Singara appears later, badly of Singara; it is the Armenian struggles of c. ‘335 misdated, inMoses 3.12 (p.265). BothMoses andTheophanes indicate thataNarseh was involved in fighting in the east before Singara, Moses calling him Shapur’s brother, Theophanes Shapur’s son. Other evidence indicates that Moses’narrative must have taken place before the death of Constantine (though he explicitly dates these events to 341; cf. 3.8, 10, and 11 with Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 396 n. 7). Narseh, thesonof Shapur whodiedin344 atSingara, could hardly haveledanarmy onhis ownin 335/6, whenhis father wasonly about thirty (having been born only shortly before his accession in 309/10). The Narseh of Festus, Libanius, andJulian, the son of Shapur, is therefore not the Narseh of Moses, the brother of Shapur (pace PLRE and Dodgeon and Lieu). The Narseh of Theophanes, the son of Shapur, appears to be the individual referred to byFestus, Libanius, andJulian attheBattle of

71 The chief sources are the fifth-century historians Moses Khorenats‛i (Moses of Khorene) 3.10, 4, andtheEpic Histories attributed to P awstos Buzand’(‘Faustus of Buzanda’) 3.20– pp.263– 1, pp.94–100. For P awstos’(as I shall refer ‘to‛the Epic Histories) andMoses, see Dodgeon 55; and 35, 41– 16, 22– andLieu 1991: 395 ‘n.‛1,396 n.6; QGB, nos. 5 and54; Garsoïan 1989: 1– 61. Onthis episode, seePLRE I: 616, s.v. Narses 2; Barnes 1981: 259; BlockThomson 1978: 1– 7, Barnes ley 1989: 469; Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 154, 395 n. 3; seealso Enßlin 1936: esp. 106– 9 n. 13, and 1985: 132 n.43, Barnes 1983: 235, Blockley 1989: 476 n.65, Matthews 1989: 498– 7. Thedatehinges uponthedeath ofTiridates in330, theappointGarsoïan 1989: 262 n. 1,264– mentof Hannibalianus as rexregum etPonticarum gentium in335, andtheinstallation of Arsak ontheArmenian throne in 338, which areattested apart from Moses and P awstos’. ‘‛ states that the 72 There is noindication in Moses that Narseh waskilled and P awstos’explicitly ‘ ‛ activity in theeast in 335– 6, ‘king of the Persians’escaped thedefeat of his army. ForPersian see Julian, Or. 1.13B, whosays that after Constantius arrived in theeast ‘the warwasalready smouldering andwould soon be kindled into flame’.

73 This Narseh does notappear inPLRE I.

74 See Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 395 n. 4, Matthews 1989: 499 n. 13, andGarsoïan 1989: 10, 30, 7. Nevertheless, there is noreason to entirely discount theaccount of P awstos’as 40, 264– 38–

a result.

‘‛

200

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Singara retrojected into the situation involving Narseh, the brother of Shapur, in

335/6.

I aminclined to believe that this is an authentic entry that refers to a raid into Mesopotamia in 335/6 byNarseh, thebrother of Shapur, whowasperhaps attemptingto install himself ontheArmenian throne orwasatleast active ontheArmenioRomano-Persian frontier (see Blockley 1992: 175 n. 36). The capture of Amida probably belongs to the exploits of this Narseh, since Amida is closer to Armenia thanSingara andthere is nohintthatAmida wascaptured in340s. This brief capture of Amida wasquickly forgotten after Narseh’s eventual defeat, since until Constantius made Amida a military strong-point inhiseastern defences (see below, no.47), it washardly morethan a village, andof little import.75 Constantius’actions against theNarseh inthisentry, however, involve thebattle of Singara andthesonof Shapur, not the brother of Shapur at Amida.76 This seems confirmed by the oddcomment about Constantius, π τ α ίσ α α ςὀλίγ , surely a reference to the equivocal outcome at Singara. Just as P awstos’confused theevents of 298 with those of 335/6 because ‘ ‛the author of the Continuatio has confused events of 335/6 with of oral sources, so those of 344. Inboth cases thereasons were probably thesame: thewell-known rôle played by a Persian named Narseh in 297 and344, andtherelative obscurity of the events of 335/6 andanother Persian named Narseh. This entry is probably a result of oral stories in circulation in Antioch at the time of writing and the conflation is unlikely to be the fault of the compiler. There are therefore twoerrors in this entry: theconflation of the twoNarsehs, Shapur’s brother of 335/6 andShapur’s son of 344, andthe dating of the entry over ten years too early, 325 (it would seem; see Chapter 1.7) instead of 335/6. This suggests that the compiler of the Continuatio hadno exact chronological information concerning the event andwasjust guessing. These activities of the Persians on the Romano-Persian border are probably the actions mentioned by Eusebius, Libanius, Julian, andthe KG (via Eutropius) that preceded open hostilities between Rome andPersia in Mayof 337 (see no. 25, below). They should therefore probably date to late 336 after the arrival in Constantinople of the first Persian envoys. 4.

η is analteration byTheophanes; forthis, seeno.25. It is not θ ή I suspect that ἐκοιμ used by Eusebius in the Canones. For the verbal construction of the second half of ρ τ ο α the entry, see no. 8. The closest parallel I have found in the Canones is Σ ιν(224c = Sync. 471.11–12). For the ε ρ τ ἤ ίζ οκ α τ ξ τ ιό ν χ ν εια ὴ νἈ ν ῖν ο ς...τὴ ιν νκα 75 Barnes 1983: 235. 72 makes it clear that Constantius wasnotinvolved inanymilitary action 76 Libanius, Or.59.60– in the east before his father’s death, so any Persian activity on the frontier must have been ephemeral; seeBarnes 1981: 397 n. 146andDodgeon andLieu 1991: 395 n. 3. Thus, although captured andperhaps sacked Amida wasnotheld for anylength of time.

3. Commentary

201

founding of cities Eusebius normally useseither ἔκ 77or(more often) ἐκτίσθ τ ισ ε η .78 Eusebius copied this structure from earlier Hellenistic andimperial chronicles. It appears, for instance, in the Parian Marble, Κ α σ σ ρ ά ν ε δ ια ἐκ τ ηandΛ ίσ θ υ σ ιμ ά 3; FGrHist 239. 14, 19). η(B 17, 22– θ λ ιςἐκτίσ ό π ια ε χ I havekeptthese twoentries together because theyappear tobea single entry in Theophanes. Since I amnotcertain that they were a part of the Continuatio, I have enclosed them in square brackets, though they mayriot belong onthe last clause. I have not been able to find any other source used by Theophanes that mentions these twoevents in this wayor together, norareMango andScott able to assign a source (1997: 38 l and m).The entry on Crispus could possibly derive from Theodorus (Hist. trip. 3, p. 3, andCassiodorus, Hist. trip. I.6.1– 2), butthere is noevidence for theentry onByzantium, sothe Continuatio would seemtobetheobvious source. It is Theophanes’account of theinitial foundation of Constantinople a page anda half 30) that derives from hisTheodorus Lector compilation (Hist. trip. 27, later (23.22– 14, andCassiodorus, Hist. trip. 2.18.2– 4). Furthermore, the wording of the pp. 13– ρ ξ α τ οκτίζεσ θ α α ιandἤρξ τ ο clause onByzantium mirrors that of no. 8 (below): ἤ εῖσ θ α ι(mirrored by Jerome’s ‘aedificari coeptum’). This reference to the μ ο δ ο ἰκ ο refoundation of Byzantium (just as later uses of theverb refer to refoundations; see nos. 13, 42, 48) corresponds to other fourth-century usages of the name ‘Byzanti70). um’compiled by Barnes (1997: 69– Crispus, Constantine’s eldest sonbyhisfirst wife, wasexecuted byConstantine at Pola in c. Mayof 326: Barnes 1981: 220–1,Barnes 1982: 8, 84, andKienast 1990: 302. AsBarnes states, T heprecise details of his crime have been obscured by le‘ 220) but‘it isclear [that he]diedasa result of a dynastic gendandinvention’(1981: intrigue which benefited the sons of his step-mother Fausta’(1975: 48). That Fausta, Constantine’s second wife andmother of histhree youngest sons, wasinvolved in Crispus’removal seems assured byher(apparently) forced suicide shortly afterwards in Rome in July. For the most recent interpretation of the events, one more suited to a soap opera than Roman history, see Woods 1998. Constantine began the refoundation of Byzantium as Constantinople on 8 November 324 (Barnes 1982: 76). Theophanes places this entry in theyear following nos. 1 and2, which the Chron. Pasch. dates correctly to 325, so this entry probably belongs in 326, where I have placed it. It is thus dating the death of Crispus, rather than the official date of the refoundation of Byzantium.

77 E.g. 42bn= Sync. 179.23, 44bc = Sync. 184.4, 45bg = Sync. 185.3, 52bh= Sync. 190.8, 165g= Sync. 379.23, 172i = Sync. 388.9, and 173c = Sync. 388.10. 78 E.g. 32bi = Sync. 174.16; 33bf = Sync. 174.18; 43bg= Sync. 178.2; 45bc= Sync. 184.26; 48bb= Sync. 185.14; 48bc= Sync. 185.15; 49bf = Sync. 186.2; 49bi = Sync. 186.1; 52be= Sync. 190.6; 54ba= Sync. 189.25; 95b,c,d,f,g= Sync. 253.8, 9, 10, 12, 18; and214h= Chron. Pasch. 499.5– 6.

202

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

5. As noted above in Chapter 1.7, the Chron. 724 (text 5b in Chapter 2.1) says that ‘the kings andpeoples of thebarbarians’were madesubject toConstantine (129.18– 19). The b arbarians’is clearly a reference totheTheophanes excerpt (5a), butthatentry does‘notmention a king. Entry 3 does. Entry 5bwould thusseemtobesummarizing nos. 3 and 5. As a result I have followed Theophanes for both entries 3 and 5. If Theophanes accurately reflects the original texts of nos. 3 and5, his entries show that the compiler of the Chron. 724 could condense his material quite heavily. On thestructure of theentry, see no. 1, above. Constantine took the victory titles Germanicus maximus in 307, 308, c. 314, 328/9; Sarmaticus maximus in 323 and 334; and Gothicus maximus in 328/9 and 332 (Barnes 1982: 258 with 27), which makes it clear that this entry (dated to 327) is a compendium of Constantine’s barbarian victories, not an account of his campaigns this year. However, Constantine’s title ofDacicus maximus from336is missing. This suggests that the author’s information probably derives from a local inscription erected before 336 that named Constantine with his victory titles, which were usually listed inthis order (e.g. Barnes 1982: 23 andGrünewald 1990: 217, no. 236). This could also explain the unusual structure of the Greek: Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ς η τ ὴ έσ τ α τ ο ν ικ ςεὐσεβ ς(representing an original ‘Constantinus uictor piissimus’) έσ ὴ α τ ὶεὐσεβ ςκ τ α ω ν τ instead of Κ σ τ ο α ν ῖν τ ο . ς ςὁνικη Mango andScott (1997: 44 n. 1;cf. p. 34 n.7 andreferences there) areincorrect inmentioning theKaisergeschichte (KG) inrelation tothechronicle ofTheophanes. It was a collection of Latin biographies from Augustus to Julian andConstantius (357) that appears to have been lost intheearly fifth century (see no.20, below). It is notrelated toTheophanes or this material.

6.

Thereconstruction is a Greek translation of theSyriac using vocabulary taken from Theophanes andthe Chron. Pasch. (Eusebius never mentioned synods in the Canones), who, however, puttheir council notices in the passive, suggesting that the ὴσύνο ο μ εν ἰκ δ ικ ο ο υ π ςἐπ κ ω ό ν ισ original of this entry could well have been ἡ (see theoriginal passives inno.8, forexample, that were rendered as η ρ ο ίσ θ η θ ν σ υ actives in the Syriac witnesses). ForEusebius’tendentious suppression of theCouncil of Nicaea intheCanones even though the final entry of that work (Constantine’s uicennalia of 25 July 325) occurred after thecouncil hadended, seeChapter 6.1.1 of Study 1.Jerome dated his notice on the council to 321, attaching it to a notice on Arius from the Canones (230h). TheContinuatio misses thecorrect date bytwoyears, aninteresting error for so important anevent.

3. Commentary

203

7. All four witnesses arealmost exactly alike intheir wording, making reconstruction very certain, buta fewdivergences require comment. Both the Chron. Pasch and Jerome mention thatDrepana wasinBithynia, a fact ignored byTheophanes andthe Chron. 724, two otherwise reasonably accurate witnesses. It is probable that the former two added the name independently for greater precision, since there were others cities named Drepanum (see below fortheformof thename) andit waswellknown that this particular city wasin Bithynia because of its association with Helena. Furthermore, each adds it in a different way, oneas anadverbial phrase with theparticiple, theother asa genitive with ‘Drepana’. I have therefore notincluded it in the reconstruction. The agreement of the other three against the Chron. Pasch. shows that the original hadἐ κ ε ῖσ γ ε, not ἁ ίο υ . I have also followed the same sources against the Chron. Pasch. for theposition of Λ ο υ κ ια ν ο . ῦ A parallel is furnished by Syncellus: Ἡ ρ η ώ δ ςτ ὸ νπ ά λ α ιΣ ρ ά τ τ ω ν ο γ ςπ ρ ο ύ ν ρ ὴ ντ ο ο ῦΚ α ίσ α ρ 3), based on ςἐπ εια Κ α ισ ικ τ ίσ ά νε α ἰςτιμ ςὠ μ α ν σ ό ε ν(380.2– 167dof Eusebius, which is somewhat different. Eusebius uses ἐπ ικ τ ίζ ω for the refounding of cities, e.g. 96k= Sync. 253.23, 127c= Sync. 330.5, 131d= Anon. Matr. ή ν ἰςτιμ + genitive appears in no. 2, above, as well, 40.4, and 167e= Sync. 380.4. ε andwas also used by Eusebius, e.g. 166a= Chron. Pasch. 366.8 and 167e = Sync. ῷ π ρ α ί(384.19– μ τ ώ ν ο ντ υ 380.5. Syncellus provides a further parallel with his ὁμ 20) added to 170c, but it does not seem that Eusebius used this expression. For ὺ ςἐκ εῖσ εὄν τ α έν ςδεδεμ ο υ εin the attributive position, seeActs 22: 5: το . ς ῖσ ε ἐκ The Continuatio andthose that depend upon it, including Socrates (HE 1.17.1, 18.379), state that thecity’s original namewasDrepana, a feminine form. Stephen of Byzantium, relying on a source that probably predates the renaming, also calls it Drepana (238.16–17 and536.6). Ammianus, however, calls it Drepanum (26.8.1), the form that most cities of this name exhibit, especially the famous example in ίο ςdiCostantino consistently calls Sicily.80 Theanonymous ninth ortenth century Β ρ έπ α ν ο ν , even when copying Theophanes (3, 4, and25, pp.308.11–12; 311.6, it Δ 16; 338.10),81 probably also under the influence of other similarly-named cities of the time. RE 5.2 accepts the name Drepanum (s.v. Drepanon 4, col. 1697), as do 12), mostother modern scholars (e.g. Barnes 1981: 3 and221andDrijvers 1992: 9– buttheearliest evidence indicates that ‘Drepana’isthecorrect form. Drepana/Helenopolis is modern Hersek, onthelarge promontory WSWof Izmit; seeMango 1994: Fig. 1.

Allthree sources forthis entry agree onthedate of 327. Barnes (1981: 221and 1982: 9 n.40, 77 n. 130), however, argues that therefounding of Drepana asHelenopolis musthavetaken place after thedeath of Helena andontheanniversary of the martyrdom of Lucian, whodied on7 January 312. Since Helena wasstill alive on 7 January 327, Barnes places therefounding in328, andconcludes that Helena died in theinterim. However, though there is noexplicit testimony asto thedate of He79 80 81

Geppert assigns these passages to a Constantinopolitan chronicle onthebasis of theparallels in theChron. Pasch. andJerome (1898: 40 and115). 23). , butthat is clearly wrong (13.12, p. 323.19– ά γ ο υ Malalas calls it Σ 2 andKazhdan 1987: 201. For thedate of this late work of hagiography, see Lieu 1996a: 101–

204

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

lena’s death

in the literary sources (see Drijvers 1992: 73, presenting a number of dates suggested byearlier scholars based ontheliterary sources: 327, 328, 329, 330, 7, and337), imperial mints ceased producing ‘Helena Augusta’issues in late 335– 329, which strongly suggests that that is when she died; see Bruun 1966: 72– 3 n. 6 6. Besides, there is noneedforHelena tohavebeendead andDrijvers 1992: 13,73– for the city to have been named after her; see Whitby andWhitby 1989: 15 n. 51, Hanson 1988: 210 n. 14, Kienast 1990: 296, andMango 1994: 146, whoall accept thedating of theChron. Pasch. Theagreement of all three texts shows that thedate of 327 must be the correct date for the Continuatio, at least, if notin reality. What cannot be explained, however, is the connection between Lucian andHelena (see 12).82 The Continuatio is the only source to preserve the date of Drijvers 1992: 9– thisevent. Forsomereason Mango andScott (1997: 44 n.2) believe thatTheophanes is independent of the other sources, including Chron. 724, Chron. Pasch., and Jerome.

8. Jerome andMichael theSyrian showthatTheophanes’version is anaccurate reflection of the original Greek. Both Theophanes andMichael reflect the Continuatio in referring to the octagonal shape of this church. κ ρ υ ια κ ό νis the same word used for ‘church’ in no. 2, above, andis reflected by Jerome’s translation of ‘dominicum’ (he uses the same η σ ία is the word in no. 30, below, suggesting that it appeared there as well). ἐκ κ λ normal wordused in the Chron. Pasch. andTheophanes, andit appears in all later entries. The only parallel construction I have found appears in Josephus, AJ 8.62, α τ οοἰκοδομ εῖσ (cf. Contra Apionem 1.145). Euseν θ α ο ιχρό ν κ α θ ᾽ὃ ὸ νδ α ν ςἤρξ ὲὁ 3 = Chron. Pasch. 168.7). ρ εὼ ἤ ν ... ν ο(70a.2– τ ν ξ τ ν ὸ α ῶ μ ο μ ε ἰκ ο δ ῖν ο bius hasΣ ολ ο is Eusebius’normal wordfor ‘build’in such contexts, e.g. 90bd= Sync. μ ῶ ο ἰκ ο δ ο 230.16, 91be= Sync. 250.8, and 123a= Anon. Matr. 38.5. The ‘Great’or ‘Golden’Church of Antioch wasprobably begun in 327, since weknowfromother sources thatit wasdedicated in341(see no.30, below) andthe Continuatio dates the beginning of its construction to 327 andlater says that it was dedicated within fifteen years of its foundation (counted inclusively = 327); see 9, especially n. 105. The Continuatio is Eltester 1937: 254 andDowney 1961: 342– Onthesupposed foundation of this the event. of this preserve date to source theonly see no. 30, below. Constantine, by church

9. The π λ ιςin the Chron. Pasch. does not appear in either Theophanes or εισ κ τ ά Michael the Syrian, which suggests that it is an addition, butit could be authentic since it could easily have beenomitted. It therefore appears inthereconstruction in 82 For a general

account

8. 88, esp. 877– of Helenopolis, see DHGE 23: 877–

3. Commentary

205

square brackets. Michael’s comment about Constantine’s army’s crossing over the bridge is missing fromTheophanes andtheChron. Pasch. andis clearly anaddition. The additional comment found in Michael about Constantine’s conversion of the Scythians toChristianity could bepartof theoriginal entry since it could easily have beenomitted fromtheother two,butit probably wasadded fromSocrates, HE 1.18.4. ῆ ν ]τ Cf. Eusebius’ [Κ α ρ ο ὸ ῖσ νῬ νπ α ο μ τ ὸ α νδια β ὰ ςΓερμ α ν ο ὺ ςκ α ὶΓά λ λ ο υ ς τ α ο(155a = Sync. 363.1), which uses different vocabulary. Close parallels σ ἐχ ειρώ to τ ο ὺ α ύ θ κ ςΣ ςὑπ έτ α νcan be found in the Canones, e.g. Τ ε ξ ιβ έρ ιο ςΚ α ῖσ ρ α ο ῦ ρ Ο έν α κ ὐ ιν δ ικ α ο ο ὶτ ςκ ειμ υ ὺ ο ὺ α ςπ ιπ ςλ ςτ ο ρ ῇΘ ῃὑπ ά κ έτ α ξ ε ν(166h = Sync. 7), Τρα ϊα ν ὸ κ α 379.6– ά ς... Δ ςκ α ὶΣ κ ύ θ α ςὑπ ο τά ξ α ς ... (194a = Sync. 423.18), and Λ ρ θ ο υ ο τ ά ο ιο ςὑπ κ ύ ά ρΠ α ςΚ α ξ ῖσ ... (205a = Sync. 430.12). α ς This bridge crossed the Danube from Oescus to Sucidava in Moesia Inferior. Barnes (1981: 221) suggests a date of 328 for the building of this bridge since CTh 6.35.5 (as emended by Seeck) shows that Constantine wasat Oescus on 5 July of that year; see Barnes 1982: 77 andBrennan 1980: 563 andn. 35. This date is supported bytheContinuatio asdetermined bytheagreement of Jerome andtheChron. 53) discusses the importance of Pasch. (see Chapter 1.7). Bleckmann (1995: 45– this bridge in Constantinian propaganda (hence its appearance here). The Continuatio is theonly source topreserve thedate of this event.

10. Athanasius was ordained bishop of Alexandria on 8 June 328: preface to Festal Index 227/226.21; accepted by Seeck 1919: 178, Grumel 1958: 442, Hanson 1988: 248, Kienast 1990: 296, andBarnes 1993: 18.

11.

It is hardto see whyEulalius’name andnumber dropped outof the text of Chron. CΕ Β C• ΙΟ 724, but Eusebius’ name has been lost through haplography: ΕΥ CΕ Υ Ε CΕ Β ΙΟ C. Jerome’s list C (ineither Greek orSyriac) wasreduced toa single ΕΥ Β ΙΟ

confirms the names.

FortheleaduptoEulalius’ordination, seeabove, nos.ii, iv,andv.Eulalius died a year of his election to the see of Antioch, in early 329. The Chron. 846 7, Agapius (552/ 552.3),83 andMichael the Syrian, Chron, 7.3, p. 1/194.6– 149.20– 4 (from the same source as Agapius) assign himone year. Eutychius’ 263/132c.3– eleven years is probably a mistake foroneyear(1009/130.8; hecalls him‘Valerius’/ ο νχρόν ν , the same expression he uses ο λ ίγ Wlryws). Theodoret, HE 1.22.1 says ὀ for Achillas (HE 1.2.8), wholasted about six months. Jacob of Edessa agrees, saying‘fora short time’/glyl (216/290.5). Though thenames arenowmissing, theChron. 724 originally listed him together in a single entry with Eusebius (like the short-

within

83

Agapius gives

himsix years onp. 540, butthis is themisplaced termof Euphronius (see above,

nos. ii, iv, andv).

206

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

Eusebii

lived Paulinus with Eustathius), which indicates a very short episcopacy, one that ended before thenextyear(i.e. 1Oct. 329). Theophanes (29.26)/Nicephorus (130.24) give himthree years, which I take to be anerror forthree months (he is missed by 17). Neale (1873: 96), probably onthe same authority, says, ‘All Zonaras 627.16– that is known of himis, that hewasanArian, andthat he survived only three months’. The Chron. syn. (75.18) assigns himthirteen years, which is anerror for the three years of Theophanes/Nicephorus. Eulalius is also noted (probably byerror; see ii, iv, andv.III, above) by Philostorgius (HE 3.15), but is ignored by Socrates (HE 1.24) andSozomen (HE 2.19), because their (ultimate) source, Eus., VConst 3.59– 62, didnotmention him. As wasnoted above, a council washeld uponthe death of Eulalius, andit and the church of Antioch chose Eusebius of Caesarea as bishop (Eusebius, VConst 62; Socrates, HE 1.24; Sozomen, HE 2.19; andTheodoret, HE 1.22.1). He 3.59– refused. Letters were written to Constantine, whowas campaigning south of the Danube atthetime (see Barnes 1982: 78). Heoffered Antioch twochoices, of whom Euphronius of Caesarea in Cappadocia eventually became the next bishop. This council andits correspondence, of course, created a vacancy in Antioch for many months, during which Eusebius probably conducted theaffairs ofthechurch. This is no doubt why the episcopal list of the Continuatio considered him as the twentyfifth bishop. Imperfect memory of this vacancy nodoubt gave rise to thebelief that Eustathius’deposition wasfollowed byaneight-year vacancy: Socrates, HE 1.24.8, followed by the common source of Agapius (552/552.4) andMichael the Syrian, 3. Probably thevacancy waseight months, which was Chron. 7.3, p. 263/132c.1– then perhaps confused with the eight years Euphronius is given in some episcopal lists (see below). The year assigned to Eulalius by the Chron. 846, Agapius, and Michael probably includes this vacancy to keep the lists ontrack. Euphronius died after a year anda few months (Theodoret, HE 1.22.1; Euty2 [calling him ‘Cyprianus’/ chius gives hima rounded twoyears, 1014/135.21– Qbrynws]), to be succeeded by Flacillus, probably in late 330; see Barnes 1978a: 60 9. Flacillus’ordination is usually dated to 333.84 andBarnes 1981: 228– Theophanes (33.9)/Nicephorus (130.25)/Zonaras (627.17)/Chron. syn. (75.20) give Euphronius eight years, Chron. 846 gives him twenty-three years (150.25/ 3), andthecommon source of Agapius (552/552.3) andMichael theSyrian 195.22– (Chron. 7.3, p. 263/132c.5– 6) six years. Asthey stand, thenumbers inTheophanes/ Nicephorus/Zonaras/Chron. syn. are almost useless. The four bishops, Paulinus, Eustathius, Eulalius, andEuphronius, areassigned a total of thirty-four years (five, eighteen, three, andeight; five, eight, thirteen, andeight forthe Chron. syn.), even though there areonly seven years intotal between 324 and330 inclusive. Thesame is true forEutychius, whogives themtwenty-six years (five, eight, eleven, andtwo). If we accept that some of these numbers originally indicated months rather than years (esp. Eulalius andperhaps Paulinus) wecanmake some headway, buteighteenoreight years forEustathius andeight forEuphronius arehardto understand.

1; Neale 1873: 96; Grumel 1958: 446; DCB2: 525; DHGE 17: 310; and 84 Lequien 1740, 2: 710– Fedalto 1988:

687.

3. Commentary

207

12.

The author’s penchant for looking to Eusebius for inspiration allows us to make a fairly accurate reconstruction of theGreek original of this entry: Ε ὐ σ ιο έβ ςὁΠ μ α φ ίλ ο υἐπ ίσ κ ο π ο ςΚ α ισ ρ εία α ςτ ῆ ςΠ α η λ α ε ισ ςσυγγραφ ὺ τ ίν ςἐγ ν ρ ω ίζ ε τ ο ,ο ὗκ α ὶ φ ο μ έρ ρ φ α α ν τ α ο διά τ μ α ρ ι. Thefirst clause is based on 193c(= Sync. 423.11), ά γ γ σ υ ε Ἰο ὺ ερ ῦ ςἸουδα σ ε τ ο ὺ ῖο ιβ ςΤ ςἐγ ν ρ ςσυγγραφ ω ίζ ετ ο , and212g(= Sync. 434.18), η σ ια ε σ τ ικ ὺ ὸ Μ ο υ σ ια ν ὸ ρ ν ςσυγγραφ ςἐγ ίζ ςἐκκλ ω ε τ ; thesecond isbased on205c ο (= Chron. Pasch. 481.19– 20), ὧ νκ α φ φ α ὶἔγγρα έρ ο ν τ α ιτ μ ρ α τ ὰ ρ ύ ια , and205i (= φ α ίλ ο υτού Sync. 431.11), Θ τ εο α τ διά ο φ ρ υσυγγράμμ ο ά ε ἰσ ικ α έρ ὶφ ο ν τ α ι. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea from c. 313 to 30 May339 (Barnes 1981: 278– 9), is mentioned here because of the attempt of the council of Antioch to make him bishop of Antioch in 329 (see nos. ii, iv, andv.III, and11, above). 12A. There is nosurviving text for this entry, simply the enumeration of the Chron. 724 (Euphronius musthavebeencounted asthetwenty-sixth insuccession) andtheepiscopal list inJerome, so I have marked it with an A’anditalics to distinguish it from ‘ tonos. ii, iv, andv, andno. 11, theother entries. Forthechronology, seethepreface above.

13.

TheChron. Pasch. andChron. 724agree exactly, andtheChron. Pasch., Theophanes (with theanachronistic ν ), andSocrates supply themissing final phrase that was έα ν omitted by the compiler of the Chron. 724.85 Its appearance may be related to the ο υ π ό λ ε ιῬ τιν unusual ἐ ω ν σ τ α ν ν Κ in no.21, where thename ‘Rome’does not ῃ μ ώ appear to be anaddition by thecompiler of the Chron. Pasch. (the name C onstan‘ tinople-Rome’appears nowhere else inthat work). It could be a half-understanding attempt to putinto practice Constantine’s injunction concerning Constantinople’s name, or it could originally have said ‘Constantinople, the second Rome’(see no. 21, below). Β υ η ν hasnumerous parallels in the ζ τ ά ν ν ιο μ έν ο ν κ α τ λ ρ ό υ ο ερ π ὸ Thephrase τ Canones.86 See also nos.42 and48, below, which mirror this parallel andcopyeven η ν μ ο λ νκα έν ο υ ρ ό τ ερ η κ ὸπ ,τ ε λ έκ κ ιν λ ο ύ π ω ν ο σ τ ιν τ ν α more from this entry: cf. Κ η ρ ν α Ἀ ν τ ά μ έν ο υ α λ κ ν ο ρ ό τ ερ κ ε ,τ ὸπ η λ κ έκ ν α ν ω τ τ ν σ ία Β υ (13), with Κ τ ιο ζά ν ν 85 86

Geppert (1898: 115) suggests noparallel for this material (VConst 3.22 and25 are parallels to thefirst partof theparagraph only). η(44bb = μ έ ν ο κ τ νἈ ὴλ εγ ο ρ ό τ ερ η(43bg = Sync. 178.21), π ν έ μ υ ο λ ιἘ ά λ α E.g. ἡπ ακα ρ ύ φ υ ν ε ία ν τ νΒιθ , τό ὴ νν ῦ η(48bc = Sync. 185.15), τ μ έ ν ὴκα λ ο υ η ν ν δ ρ ια α ρ ὶνΜ π Sync. 184.9), ἡ 2), ὁπ ρ εν β μ ο ὰ ὶνἈ ς(76bb = Sync. ςκα λ ο λ ύ (73bc = Sync. 212.1– ν η έν μ υ ο λ νκα ία κ υ ρ δ ὲΒεβ ρ ὶν γ ο ντ ὸπ ρ ρ τ ά ν ω ο ύ τ ςπ ρ ά ρ ηΔ χ ιο ν(97be = Sync. 253.26), andΣ υ έν μ υ ο λ νκα ῦ 217.1), ἡν η ν(167d = Chron. Pasch. 367.3). μ έν κ α λ ο υ

208

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

ω ν (42) andΚ σ τ α δ ο ν ν τ ία η ν κ κ έκ λ ε η ,τ ν Ἀ ὴ ρ ν ν ώ π τ ω ν ιν ο υ π ό λ ιν λ μ η εγ ο ν(48; έν myreconstruction of theGreek following theSyriac). It is clearly a standard expression for chroniclers, andcanbe found in Eusebius’chronicle antecedents, such as the Parian Marble: τ ρ ὸπ ό τ ο ερ νκαλουμ ήandτ ηἈ τ έ ν ικ ὸπ ρ ό τ ερ ο νΓρα ικ ο ὶκ α μ εν ο ι(A 3– λ ο ύ 4, 11; FGrHist 239. 1, 6). It is difficult to determine whether theextensive description of Constantinople found in Theophanes (28.25– 9) belongs to the Continuatio or not. Mango andScott (1997: 46) cannot assign a source andtheending seems to be reflected in Jerome’s comment, which both suggest inclusion. Ontheother hand, onewould have expectedeither the Chron. 724 or the Chron. Pasch. to have included at least some of the description, anda description of Constantinople would have been easy for Theophanes toobtain andcould havecomefromalmost anywhere; this suggests it should be excluded. I have therefore included in, butwithin square brackets. Theophanes’ α ν , wasprompted by a much later usage, the result of the ν έα ν , instead of δευτέρ official decree of 381 that Constantinople be called the ‘NewRome’(see Dagron 7, 54, and458). 1974: 45– Mango andScott (1997: 46) follow the punctuation of de Boor andtranslate, ‘Hesetupa porphyry column with a statue of himself ontopof it attheplace where hebegan tobuild thecity inthewestern part, bythegate leading outtowards Rome.’

This follows the translation of Classen in the CSHB edition of Theophanes: ‘atque columnam ex porphyrite, cui propriam imposuit statuam, ea inurbis parte, quaeius aedificia condi coepta, adocciduam regionem, quaRomam ituris uiasternitur, ereπ ό+ genitive andthe bare genitive can have the xit’(p. 42). I cannot accept that ἀ meanings assigned by the translators, ‘at’87and‘next to/beside’, respectively. The ή σ phrases make much more sense if taken with the following participle (κ α ) μ ς ο σ ή σ α ). This produces a double chiastic strucς τ rather than with thepreceding one (σ μ ίσ α ) andavoids locating the famous ο ς ture with the three participles (including κ column incompletely thewrong place, inthewestnexttothecity wall bythegate to Rome, rather than in the circular Forum of Constantine, thecity’s new‘umbilicus’ (ODB 1: 517), a location that Theophanes would certainly have known.88 Since Constantine’s building projects were situated chiefly in the eastern part of the city, the Greek clearly means, ‘from the east, where hebegan construction, to the west, ή σ α ςτ ὴ ν μ ο σ where thegate to Rome is situated’. Such a phrase must belong with κ σ α ςκίο ν α . , notστή ιν λ π ό Constantinople wasdedicated on 11May330; seeBarnes 1982: 78 andKienast 4 (whodoesnotcite the 1990: 296. ForConstantine’s senate, seeDagron 1974: 120– Chron. 724). Along with the Origo Constantini imperatoris (6.30), the Continuatio is the earliest source to attest to Constantine’s senate in Constantinople. If the description of Constantinople in Theophanes is original, this would be the earliest 31. reference to theConstantine’s porphyry column: see Fowden 1991, esp. 122– 3; Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, andDanker , Lampe 1961: 189; Sophocles 1957: 212– π ό 87 See, s.v. ἀ 9. 8; andThayer 1901: 57– 1979: 86– ίο ςdi Costantino copies thisdescription ofConstantine’s found88 Theanonymous author of theΒ ingof Constantinople fromTheophanes, butomits these problematic phrases andstates correct15). ῷ (24, p. 337.5– ῳ φ ρ λ μ ό έ εγ ο ν ῳ ῳ τ π ῷ τ ό ly that thecolumn waserected ἐ ν τ

3. Commentary

209

13A.

Like Euphronius (no. 12A), Flacillus doesnothave anordination notice intheChron. 724, butwasassigned a number (twenty-seventh) andappears inJerome’s enumeration, so hemust have appeared in theoriginal enumeration of the Continuatio. See 12Aaswell forthe ‘A’designation. Forthechronology, seenos. 11,above, and30, below.

14.

The Chron. 724 andJerome both abbreviate heavily andso thereconstruction relies on Theophanes. The first part of the reconstruction is myGreek rendering of the Syriac, ‘because of his love of God’. It is bracketed because it does not appear in Theophanes andmay, therefore, be an addition by the epitomator, like the ‘from κ α τ ὰ τ ῶ ν ν κ ν α ῶ εἰδώ ῶ ὐ τ α ν α τ ν ῶ ά λ α κ ὶτ λ υ ν ω σ ις God’in no. 1.Theexpression ἡ τ ά λ υ σ ιςnormally just takes thegenitive. I have notfound is mostpeculiar, since κα anyparallels to this construction. Constantine’s anti-pagan programme, which did not specifically call for the destruction of temples, just the confiscation of their treasures, began shortly after 324, though many temples were destroyed andpagan practices abolished (Barnes 8), sothere musthave beena specific event inAntioch 12, andesp. 246– 1981: 210– orits environs in331thatprompted therecording orremembrance of this entry. One would assume that some important local temples were attacked ordestroyed year. The Continuatio is ouronly source for this event, whatever it was.

inthis

15. Maximus wasordained bishop of Jerusalem inc. 332 (see above, no. i). There is no wayto be certain exactly where this entry belongs, 331 or 332, since it seems to have been dislocated from its proper place in the Chron. 724 (see Chapter 1.7).

16. Similarly structured entries appeared inEusebius, though with a different verb (see ῳ φ έσ νἘ η(47e = Sync. 178.26), ὁἐ θ ή σ ρ ὸ νἐνεπ ο ῖςἱερ φ ελ ὸἐ νΔ below): τ α ὶ ... κ η θ ή σ ρ επ ν ἐν ὸ ο ῖςἱερ φ ελ Δ ὸἐ ν (118c = Sync. 311.1), andτ η θ ή σ ρ ν α ὸ ... ἐνεπ ς 8). The same subject structure ν(151d = Anon. Matr. 43.7– τ ὸἐ ιο νῬ λ ώ ιτ π α ῃΚ μ ώ I have ε ρ ὶθ ίῳ υ appeared elsewhere in the Canones as well.89 Theonly parallel to π (223c = Sync. 470.26), perhaps referring to the same pheῷ κ α ν υ ερ ε ίῳ found is θ

; 54bd= ν ό ῖςἱερ ο φ Δ ελ ὸἐ ν ῳ ἱερ ; 47be= Sync. 178.26, τ ό ν ή λ Δ ν ὸἐ 89 E.g., 43bi = Sync. 179.18, τ ; and123a= Anon. ν ό ῳ ἱερ ν ὸ 4, τ ἐ σ έ φ Ἐ ; 64b= Sync. 208.3– ς ινεώ ῖν σ ευ λ Ἐ ν Sync. 190.10, ὁ ἐ ν . ό ιζ ρ ὶνἱερ νΓα ὸἐ Matr. 38.5, τ

210

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

nomenon. Eusebius uses κα φ τα λ έγ ω in identical contexts (buildings, though not churches, andcities),90 though his usual verb is ἐμ π ίμ η μ ρ π ι, usually in the form η(as above).91 ή σ θ ρ ἐν επ Theburning of thechurch inNicomedia appears only inTheophanes andmay belong to the Continuatio, since it does not derive from Theodorus or any other known source usedbyTheophanes (see Mango andScott 1997: 47 n.atoAM5823). Eus., VConst 3.50.1 refers to Constantine’s building a church in Nicomedia after embellishing Constantinople, which could bethereplacement forthis church. Theophanes, andtherefore perhaps the Continuatio, is the sole source for this episode.

17. Jerome’s additions seem to be his own, based perhaps on information heobtained while staying Antioch in the years immediately before translating the Canones. Where Michael overlaps withTheophanes heshows that Theophanes is anaccurate witness to theoriginal. Michael suggests that Theophanes hassubstituted a ὁ μ έγ α ς ὴ ςΚ ω ν η τ σ τ α ν τ ν ικ ῖν ο Κ ω ν σ ς τ . This suggestion is strengthα ν τ ῖν ο ςforanoriginal ὁ α μ έγ ςΚ ω ν σ τ ῖν ο τ α ν ω ςandΚ ν σ τα enedbythe fact that ὁ ν τ γ ῖν ο α έ ςὁμ ςareTheophanes’favourite titles forConstantine. However, Michael’s testimony is notstrong enough to change Theophanes’ text in this case, though the original probably had η τ ὴ ω ν σ τ ςΚ α ν τ some form of ὁν ικ ῖν ο . I have, therefore, bracketed μ ς α έγ ς . 386.2: λ ιμ ό For similar notices in the Canones, see 170d= Sync. 385.27– ς ... ρ ,ὡ ά ρ ίω νδη ν ῶ λ ςπ λ α ντ ο υ χ ίω ό νἰσ ὸ μ α δ νμ κ α τ ιο έσ χ νῬ ὴ ω ντ ετ ο ῦσ ίτ ο υ 20: λ ό ιμ ςἐ ν θ ρ ῆ α ῆ ν ν α π α ι= Cedrenus 322.19– μ ο ιτ ό ν ε Ῥ γ ρ δ θ ν έγ ὸ α ὡ ιο ν ςπ ῃ ν μ ώ ιμ ῦκ α τ ὰ τ ὴ νἙ λ λ ά δ γ ο α εγ ν ό τ ʹ; and 181a = Sync. 405.14–15, λ ο ς υ ρ σ ίν ω νκ χ ζ μ εγ ά λ ο υὁτ η ρ . ά μ ω θ νἐπ ο ιο ό δ ῦσ ίτ ςἓ ο υμ ξδιδράχ η ώ ς ο δ ... ιμ Eusebius has a possible parallel to the second line of this entry: λ σ τ εwith theinfinitive is thestandή ... (205f = Sync. 430.21). ὥ σ α σ α τ α ρ ν ό σ ο ικ ςἐπ ςἐ ν for ἐ ν ardlate Greek formulation forclauses of actual andof natural result.92 ὡ ρ α ιν + dat. andε ἰς+ accus.94 π is normal in late Greek,93 as is theequivalence of ἐ is a late verb from theLatin praedor. δ ε ύ ω

η γ ) andSync. 250.16, 189b= Anon. Matr. 20 (σ κ λ έχ α τ θ υ εφ 90 E.g. 93aa= Chron. Pasch. 224.19– λ εξ ν , of α 49.3 andSync. 418.23– 4, and208g= Sync. 433.4 (cf. also 207f= Sync. 432.10, κατέφ debt records).

91 E.g. 47be = Sync. 178.26, 109c = Sync. 301.1, 112f = Sync. 297.8, 132d= Sync. 333.2, 172d= Sync. 388.5, 186i = Cedrenus 380.10, and 188a= Sync. 417.9. τ σ ε τ σ ε4; Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, andDanker 1979: 900, s.v. ὥ 92 Sophocles 1957: 1188, s.v. ὥ 8, §391. See also no.44, below. 2.a.β ; andBlass, Debrunner, andFunk 1961: 197– ςIV.3.c; ς1;Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, andDanker 1979: 898, s.v. ὡ 93 Sophocles 1957: 1187, s.v. ὡ andcf. Blass, Debrunner, andFunk 1961: 237, §453(4). ν B; Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, andDanker ; Lampe 1961: 460, s.v. ἐ 94 Sophocles 1957: 460, s.v. ἐν νI.6; Blass, Debrunner, andFunk 1961: 117, §218; andJannaris 1897: 380, 1979: 260, s.v. ἐ §1565; see also LSJ9 552, s.v. ἐ A.I.8. ν

3. Commentary

211

Theophanes dates this famine tojust before the seventh indiction (29.13), which would indicate thesummer of 333, thus confirming theregnal year.95 For this fam7, 353– ine, see Downey 1961: 336– 4. Ata price of 400 arguria permodius, anargurion cannot bea goldsolidus ora silver siliqua (which were struck at ninety-six to the pound andwere rare in this period), since this would render values of 400 solidi permodius and16.7 solidi per modius (assuming twenty-four siliquae to thesolidus) ata time whennormal prices ranged between twenty and thirty modii per solidus.96 The only possible coin left, therefore, is thesmall bronze coin of theperiod, theso-called ‘follis’, butgenerally referred to at the time as a ‘nummus’, struck at about twelve carats (c. 2.48 g) with 1.1% silver andthe legend GLORIA EXERCITVS with two standards.97 If in 333 there were approximately 100 denarii to thenummus andthere were approximately 8,281,500 denarii (5,521 talents) or more to thepound of gold,98 the price of wheat during this famine in Antioch was approximately 40,000 denarii per modius or around three modii per solidus. I shall assume that this is a modius castrensis of twenty-two to twenty-four sextarii. InEgypt, where grain prices were naturally muchlower thaninAntioch, in335, 341, theprice wasfourteen, twenty-four, andtwenty-six talents per 338, andc. 338– artaba, that is, roughly 6,300, 10,800, and 11,700 denarii per modius (PLond VI 1914, POxy I 85, SPP XX 81 = SB XIV 11593).99 The first example is still within

95

96

97

98

99

Indictions runfrom 1September to31August ina rotating cycle of fifteen years. Unfortunately the cycles are not numbered andso when a document is dated only by indiction is it often 203, Bickerman 1980: 78– difficult if notimpossible to date it securely; seeGrumel 1958: 193– 4. 9, andMeimaris 1992: 32– 3; andBagnall 1985: 6. 7; Sperber 1974: 31– 6 n. 87; Jones 1974: 206– 6, 1185– Jones 1964: 445– See also below for some other prices fromEgypt. 90); andCarson, Hill, 15, 37; Bruun 1966: 8–13, 693 (Antioch, nos. 85– See Bagnall 1985: 12– 62 (issues of Antioch). 8, 1361– andKent 1978: 30, nos. 1356– 5, based onthebullion value of thecoins themselves. There are 1,500 Bagnall 1985: 34,37,44– 17.Thedenarius, once thestandard silver coinofthe denarii tothetalent; seeBagnall 1985: 16– empire, hadby333 long since ceased toexist asanactual coinandwasmerely a standard unitof account. There arenoimmediately contemporary prices forgoldfromthepapyri (Bagnall 1985: 37 and61). Bagnall believes that theinflation of this period wascaused solely bygovernment 4 andBagnall 1993: 330–1) andI have followed devaluation of the coinage (Bagnall 1985: 53– himinmycalculations, butI cannot helpbutfeel thatthere wasfurther underlying inflation that the government wastrying to keep upwith or offset, a practice that simply made the overall 35. Ibelieve that in333 eachsolidus would inflation worse. Onthis, see Howgego 1995: 121– havebeenworth morethanthetheoretical 115,021 denarii I haveusedinmycalculations above. This would havetheeffect of lowering theprice of wheat inquestion. However, forevidence of periods of stability between thegovernment’s devaluations, a fact that supports Bagnall’s the3. sis, see Bagnall 1989: 72– 5; for thedate, seeJones 1974: 212, For SPP XX 81, see nowSijpesteijn andWorp 1976: 101– 4, Bagnall 1985: 64, andPOxy LVI 3874, p. 176 n. 32. There Bagnall andSijpesteijn 1977: 123– areunfortunately noprices closer to333. Where I havetranslated Egyptian artabas into Roman modii I have used the equation of 1 artaba = 3.33 modii xystoi, the ‘shaved’or ‘flat’modius castrensis of twenty-two sextarii or 1.375 regular Italic modii of sixteen sextarii each (DuncanJones 1976a: 44– 74; 7; Duncan-Jones 1979: 370–1, nos. 61– 9; Duncan-Jones 1976b: 54– 6, 48–

andespecially Mayerson 1998).

212

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

the period of the 1.1% silver nummus noted above, andthus would render an approximate value of 18.3 modii persolidus. Inthecase of SPP XX 81 andPOxyLIV 3773 (c. 340) we have roughly contemporary prices for both gold andwheat andso wecancalculate exactly thenumber of modii persolidus. For the former weknow thatsolidi soldfor 183.3 talents or275,000 denarii each, sowecancalculate thatthe wheat was selling for 23.5 modii per solidus. In the latter the price for a solidus fluctuates over eighteen months between 2331/3 and 2431/3 talents (350,000 and 360,000 denarii) andthe price of wheat fluctuates between forty andfifty talents (60,000 and75,000 denarii) per artaba. The highest price in any given month is 26 March) andthe lowest is therefore 15.6 modii persolidus (Phamenoth = 25 Feb.– 27 Sept.).100 From these examples above, 20.3 modii per solidus (Thoth = 29 Aug.– we thus have a high of around 15.5 anda low of 23.5 modii per solidus in Egypt in the decade following 333. Bagnall (1985: 6) estimates that the average price of wheat in thefourth century wasabout eight artabas persolidus, or around 26.7 modii per solidus. The famine price we have from Antioch in 333 is thus between five and eight and a half times higher than the normal Egyptian prices of a slightly later period. The twouncontroversial famine prices wehave from the later fourth century, tenandfifteen modii persolidus,101 arefromCarthage andEgypt, bothcentral grainproducing areas of theempire, where prices, even intimes of shortage, were bound to be lower than those in a densely populated city like Antioch, which could only produce just enough grain for itself locally andwhere grain prices could therefore always be controlled andmanipulated to the advantage of the seller (onwhich, see below). In times of shortage, extra supplies could only be imported from great distances, thus serving to increase prices again. These prices arebetween three andfive times lower than the famine price in Antioch that I have calculated above. Wealso have thecomments of Julian concerning thefamine in Antioch in 362, where heseems to indicate that prices were normally muchhigher than the African andEgyptian prices noted above: he gives a price range of five, ten, and fifteen modii persolidus.102 Julian says that people would have beencontent with a price of scarcely five persolidus given thefamine andtheharsh winter; tenis whatgrain had previously been selling for; andfifteen is what he sold his imported grain for, a figure that he implies was a reasonable summer price. The famine price of five modii persolidus is notfar off from thefigure of three I have calculated above. 6) wehave a reference ρ ια Κ ω ν FromtheΠ σ τ ω α λ ε τ ά ν τ ό π ιν υ ο ς(3.84, pp.245– so severe that grain was that to a famine inConstantinople inthetime of Anastasius sold for one modius per solidus. 100 POxy LIV 3773, p. 208, omitting doubtful readings. 4. 101 Ammianus 28.1.18 andLife of St Pachomius 33– 7, andMatthews 18, Jones 1974: 206– C. On which, see Petit 1955: 109– 102 Misopogon 369B– 12and541n. 18,whotakes Julian’s ‘metron’asbeing theequivalent of twomodii in 1989: 409– order to convert the price of fifteen metra perargurion to thirty modii per solidus (a North 7) African summer price attested byAmmianus, 28.1.18). Ontheother hand, Harl (1996: 316– claims that this ‘metron’is theequivalent of a Syrian unit called the ‘cab’, of which there were four to theItalic modius, i.e. oneeighth of Matthews’unit. Aswecanseefrom the Continuatio, when the emperor brings in grain, it is measured in imperial modii, notlocal units.

3. Commentary

213

From the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, preserved in Ps-Dionysius, we have famine prices from Edessa between theyears 500 and505 (811, 812, 813, and816 Sel.).103 Edessa is about 300 kmNE of Antioch, accessible by a northern road that passes through Zeugma/Apamea andbya southern roadthat passes through Hierapolis. Joshua tells us that in 495 (806 Sel.) the normal price of grain wasthirty modii per solidus (187.28–9/253.23– 4). This appears to be extremely cheap in light of the Egyptian prices quoted above, but this fact andthe figure in cab noted below suggest that these figures are cited in Italic modii of sixteen sextarii not the modii xystoi of twenty-two sextarii used in the Egyptian prices above. Conversion renders an equivalent value of 21.8 modii persolidus, which is in line with theEgyptian prices cited above. Throughout most of the famine theprice remained at about four Italic 6/265.23– 3; 196.5– modii per solidus (195.14–16/264.21– 4, 200.9–10/271.14–15, 19), though inFebruary (Shebat) of 501 (812 Sel.) it rose to thir227.10–11/308.18– teen cab persolidus or three anda quarter modii persolidus (199.10/270.7– 8), and after theharvests of theyears 501, 502, and505 (812, 813, and816 Sel.) it dropped 30/270.26– 7, 200.33– to five, twelve, andsix modii persolidus respectively (199.29– 1).Converting theunits ofthree anda quarter, four, 16, 227.12–13/308.20– 5/272.15– five, six, andtwelve Italic modii tomodii castrenses produces values of 2.4, 2.9, 3.6, 4.4, and8.7 modii. Suchprices fit inexactly withtheAntiochene price I amsuggest-

ing for 333. The problem of high prices in Antioch is probably a result of a number of factors. The first is oneof economies of scale, which would naturally result in higher prices inAntioch. Antioch’s hinterland could probably produce just enough forselfsufficiency whentheweather wasgood, butanyfluctuations could have haddisastrous results: thefamine of 362 wastheresult of a lack of rain after thesowing atthe beginning of winter (see Downey 1961: 21), andsimilar causes probably underlie thefamine of 333 (Jerome indicates that theproblems were very widespread, which suggests badweather as a cause). Thesecond factor is that grain prices could easily be controlled andmanipulated to theadvantage of theseller, thus exaggerating the natural market forces that would tend to drive prices upduring a shortage or as a result of fear of a shortage, andthis seems to have happened in Antioch in 362. Sellers could divert produce to export markets where prices were higher andleave the city to fend for itself, or simply just hoard the grain andallow the prices to rise naturally. That Antioch was a densely populated city increased the control such dealers hadoverprices. Antioch’s increasing population inthefourth century seems to have put a great strain on its grain-producing hinterland, andas a result it was subject to increasingly frequent famines as thefourth century progressed, the most 3, and 384– 5, and there may have 3, 382– 5, 362– well-known being those of 354– 9, and392. The final factor is Antioch’s been shortages as well in 375, 386, 388– position as a military centre for the eastern frontier andthe growing presence of imperial administration and troops in the city. This would have increased the consumption of grain in thecity andperhaps troops closer to thefrontier were supplied from Antioch as well. Such additional burdens would have exacerbated the natural 103 Onthese prices, see Leclainche 1980.

214

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

tendencies among thegrain suppliers tomanipulate theprices.104 Although theOronteswasnavigable, inboth 333 and362 theemperor hadtointervene andbring grain infromsomedistance. This gives theimpression thatAntioch wasrather isolated or limited with regard to its ability to gain access to other supplies of grain. Presumably whenits crops failed those of neighbouring areas hadfailed as well andgrain hadto be imported from abroad. A realization of such circumstances would have driven upthe prices even further. In view of the above evidence for prices, the shortage of 333 must have been extremely severe indeed, which nodoubt explains whyit wasrecorded insuch detail by the Antiochene chronicler over fifteen years later.

18.

The structure of theearthquake notices seems to have been copied from anearlier notice in Eusebius that only survives in translations (228a): T erraemotu horribile aput Tyrum et Sidonem multa opera conciderunt et populus ‘innumerabilis oppressus’(Jerome, 228a), ‘Whenthere wasa mighty earthquake, most of Tyre andSidon 5) andT here was 5/128.4– collapsed andmany people perished’(Chron. 724 100.4– ‘ people a mighty earthquake andmost of Tyre andSidon collapsed in it andmany 6). See Study 1, Chapters 5.2.14 and 1/149.4– perished in it’(Ps-Dionysius 111.30– 6.2.228a/14. The other, later earthquake notices in the Continuatio follow the same

or a similar pattern, with a variety of verbs. Many of Eusebius’notices follow the (115f = Sync. ν ο ό τ ω ν γ εγ ῶ μ ν εισ same pattern with a preceding genitive absolute: σ μ έν 20) andσ εν ο ο μ ο υ(119c = Chron. Pasch. 317.10, where Jerome, ῦγ εισ 309.19– ά λ ο υ is missεγ theArmenian translation, Ps-Dionysius, andSyncellus showthata μ ing). There is also 198e, theoriginal of which Jerome, theArmenian translation, Ps2) suggest wassomething like σ γ μ ο εν ῦ εισ ο Dionysius, andChron. Pasch (476.1– μ έν (Sync. 426.17 η ο ή υΝ δ θ τ τεπ ώ ικ μ α εια ικ α /κ νκ ὶΝ α ία ο ςτ ὰ π ο λ λ κ ὰ α τ έπ εσ εν ῷ κ α τ ε π μ εισ is rather different). Eusebius’ standard expression, however, is σ (182e α έν ε τ ο έγ ςἐγ μ ὸ ςμ εισ η (orvariants).105 Other examples include σ σ α ν , -θ η θ τώ εσ ν(183h = Sync. 410.3, where Jerome, the Arα έπ τ α ... κ ις ε λ ό = Sync. 409.27), π ικ α ία ςτ ῷ is missing), Ν ὰ μ εισ menian translation, andPs-Dionysius showthat a σ ό γ εν 6), andσ ν ία ν υ ιθ εισ Β μ ὸ ὰ τ α α ς ... μ γ ςκ έ ν(174d = Sync. 394.5– π ο λ λ ὰ εσ ε ἔπ μ εν ο ς ... (174d = Sync. 394.10–11). Eusebius’earthquake notices themselves were based on similar notices that he found in the Olympiad chronicles that heused as 4; andMatthews D; Downey 1961: 324, 353– 104 Onthese problems, seeJulian, Misopogon 368C– 22; Liebeschuetz 1989: 540 n. 6; andonthefoodsupply of Antioch ingeneral, Petit 1955: 105– 32 (neither of which mentions thepassage under discussion); andthe works 8, 126– 1972: 96– 18: cited bythem. Forthesituation inthe340s, see theExpositio totius mundi etgentium 36.15– ‘Constantinopolis enimThraciae abea [Aegypto] quamplurime pascitur; similiter etorientales partes, maxime propter exercitum imperatoris

etbellum Persarum.’

105 E.g. 172a = Sync. 386.19, 188g = Sync. 417.14, 194d= Sync. 423.21 (Jerome, the Armenian ῳ wasomitted bySyncelλ ά μ εγ ῷ μ εισ translation, andPs-Dionysius showthatsomething like σ lus here), 195d= Sync. 423.24, 198e= Sync. 426.17 (?), 200a= Sync. 427.3, and208c = Sync. 432.17.

3. Commentary

215

sources, e.g. Phlegon of Tralles: σ εισ μ ο ῦἐ νῬ μ εν έν ο ῃγ ο υπ μ ο λ ώ λ ὰτα ύ η τ ς έπ ε σ ν ε(FGrHist 257 F 12.4). υ σ Theverb κα η τ σ επ α (quoted above; seealso no.36, below), based ona late ν τώ θ aorist passive deponent formof π ίπ τ ω derived fromtheperfect stem, is notunusual in late Greek from about the third century AD.106 Twoexamples appear in earlier authors, Cassius Dio (70.4.1) and Diodorus Siculus (26.8.1), but both are in rewritten passages derived from later epitomes, the former from Zonaras (it does not appear in the corresponding fuller epitome of Xiphilinus; ed. Boissevain, p. 245) andthelatter from theinferior Eclogae Hoeschelianae (ontheEclogae, seeWalton 1957: ix-x; the form of κα τα π ίπ τ ω in this passage is condemned as ‘Byzantine’by Walton [1957: xvii]). Inboththese examples it isusedwithreference toearthquakes. Syncellus even hasanactive form, again with reference to anearthquake (σ εισ μ ὸ ς ηκα τ έπ τ ω ρ μ σ ε έ , 378.27 = 166c). ρ ο υπ ο λ Κ ύ π λ ὰ ρ is a common verb in Eusebius107 andis always used of people, as ω φ θ έ δ ια here, butseeno.40, below. Barnes (1981: 393 n. 77) andMango andScott (1997: 48 n. 3) equate theearthquake mentioned by Malalas (Chron., 12.48, p. 313.8– 15) with this earthquake, which is unlikely. Malalas dates the earthquake to the time of Constantius I and states that thename of Salamis waschanged to Constantia. But since Constantius I was never in the East andcould never have hadanything to do with Cyprus or Salamis, Malalas is probably referring to theearthquake of 344 (see below, no. 35) andConstantius II, whointhis period wasrenaming a number of other eastern cities Constantia as well (see nos. 42, 47, and48). Malalas has simply mistaken which 7. Nor do I Constantius was involved.108 On Constantia/Salamis, see RE 4: 953– (pace GuidoSalamis in earthquake later the of just a duplicate believe that this is within a very region same the can hit earthquakes massive 127); no. 674, 1989: boni short space of time, as theearthquakes in Afghanistan in February andJune of 1998 demonstrate. The Continuatio is therefore theonly source to preserve anaccurately dated record of this earthquake.

19.

Thereconstruction follows theChron. Pasch., which provides thebasis fortheconfusion between the two Dalmatii that exists in Theophanes as well. The second phrase, again identifying the twoDalmatii, I have omitted from the reconstruction as a duplicate of the first. ; ω τ , andἀπ ίπ ο π ω τ ίπ , καταπ ω τ ίπ , whocites forms for π ω τ ίπ 106 See Sophocles 1957: 891, s.v. π Jannaris 1897: 273, §996215; andde Boor 1885: 767, s.v. π , whocites ten examples in ω τ ίπ Theophanes alone.

); 190i = Sync. ν η σ α ρ θ ά ιεφ ); 182a = Sync. 407.16 (δ η ν σ α ρ θ ά ιεφ 107 E.g. 165f = Sync. 378.26 (δ η ); σ α ν ρ θ ά ιεφ ); 196d= Sync. 425.5 (δ η ρ θ ά ιεφ ); 195c = Sync. 423.23 (δ ν η σ α ρ 419.18 (δ ά θ ιεφ ε ι). φ θ είρ ια and222e= Sync. 470.5 (δ 108 Guidoboni (1989: 674, no. 127) is correct in dating Malalas’ earthquake, but for the wrong reason.

216

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

ρ ε ύ γ ω is theusual Greek wordfor proclaiming someone augustus orcaeο ἀ ν α sar, among other things (Latin: appello), andconsequently it appears a number of times in the Canones in the active andthe passive (the latter always in the form ).109 η ρ εύθ γ ο η ἀ ν

It is here that wemeetthefirst of twoentries concerning Dalmatius Censor, the half-brother of Constantine, andDalmatius Caesar, thecensor’s son. TheContinuatio provides a surprising amount of evidence about these two, some of it otherwise unattested, even though the father andsonareconfused. This interest in father and sonprobably arises fromthefact that Dalmatius Censor wasstationed inAntioch in 5 andthe Continuatio waswritten in or in the environs of Antioch.110 Jerome 333– andthe Chron. Pasch. are able to date Dalmatius’ accession correctly since both were relying onearly recensions of theDescriptio consulum (s.a. 335.2). Both authors regarded the Descriptio as a more official’source of information andtherefore asmore authoritative. Consequently,‘this is nottheonly case where oneorthe other accepts its account over that of another source (see no. 32, below, for another example involving Jerome). Asnoted above inChapter 1.7, Theophanes’date probably mirrors the Continuatio since the usurpation of Calocaerus (no. 20, below) involved Dalmatius Censor, whowasmistakenly taken forDalmatius Caesar bythe author of the Continuatio. This confusion ledto the assumption in the mindof the continuator that Dalmatius hadto have been madecaesar before his actions against Calocaerus; hence the ante-dating of his accession. TheContinuatio is thesole source tomention thatoneof thetwoDalmatii (probγ ό , though whatexactly this means is unclear; ς α τη τρ ably thecensor) hadbeen a σ see Barnes 1982: 105 andreferences inn. 66 there. I think it neednotindicate anything more specific than that Dalmatius had held some kind of high-level military command. 20. λ εξ This entry wascopied directly from the Canones (226e = Theoph. 7.11–12): Ἀ ᾽ἣ ν π λ εῖσ ,κ β α θ τ ο λ ι ο ρ ῇ ο ίω σ μ α ν π ῇ ν τ χ ο Ῥ ω κἀ τ ὐ ν έσ ... ο ῳ ύ π τ ἰγ ρ Α ε τ ια ν ῇ σ ὺ ά ν δ (see Study 1, no.8). TheAlexandriἰτ ίω ν ... α η ν δ κ εδω ό τ ω ν τ ῶ ν η , δίκ σ α ν ρ έθ ῃ ἀ ν ( ε ἰςἀ Rome against π ο σ τ ν α σ ...ἀ ία ι),just as α εῖσ θ ansinthis entry were revolting χ of the the author of the mind in the link provided Calocaerus was, which probably ή (212i= σ α ν τ α ρ α ν ν β ῖ ν ο υ τ ν ή σ α Ἀ λ see , ς ν ν ρ α ρ ο υ ... τ ς ι κ α Κ α λ ό Continuatio. For α υ θ ε ὶςζ inthe Canν ῶ Sync. 435.19). Surprisingly enough there areparallels for κ β ά 43.1) and Σ α = Anon. Matr. 42.21 – (149f η ν ῶ ζ ones: Σ θ έλ ύ α ευ κ τ α ο εκ ς...κ 109 E.g. 163d= Chron. Pasch. 363.5 = Sync. 376.18, 167k= Sync. 379.8, 190a= Sync. 419.12, 190b = Sync. 418.17, 199c = Chron. Pasch. 475.18, 229a= Cedrenus 473.13–14 (cf. Chron. Pasch. 2), and230e = Chron. Pasch. 523.4. 519.1– 2, Barnes 1981: 251, and 110 For Dalmatius Censor, see Downey 1961: 353, Barnes 1978a: 61– Barnes 1982: 16, 87 n. 172, 105, who, like PLRE I: 241, s.v. Dalmatius 6, andRE 4: 2455, misses thecorroborating reference in theChron. Pasch. toDalmatius as censor. ForDalmatius 2; Barnes 1982: 8, 45, 198; 2, 261– Caesar, see PLRE I:241, s.v. Dalmatius 7; Barnes 1981: 251– andKienast 1990: 303.

3. Commentary

217

κ ω ...Β ν ρ ό ιν χ χ ο ...ἔκ α υ σ εζῶ (90be = Sync. 84.5). ἀ ν τ α ρ ῃ ν ηis Eusebius’reguέθ lar passive form of the verb ἀναίρω.111 The present tense also appears in a number of passages. Healso uses ἐσφ η(for ‘murdered’). For the active form, see no. 3, γ ά above. Jerome copied his notice onCalocaerus from theKG, a short Gallic collection of imperial biographies from Augustus to Constantius andJulian, written in 357, that wasused by such fourth-century historians as Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Jerome, Ammianus Marcellinus, andthe authors of theHistoria Augusta andtheEpitome de caesaribus (see Burgess 1995b: esp. 367), butit wasthe Continuatio that allowed himtodate theusurpation, since there werenodates intheKG.TheDalmatius referred to by Theophanes is not Dalmatius Caesar, buthis father, Dalmatius Censor (see no. 19, above).112 The Continuatio is the only source to preserve the date of these events.

21.

I have accepted thereading of theChron. Pasch., butwiththeaddition of κ α ὶνικη τ ο ῦ fromTheophanes (which I believe is more likely to have been cutthan added). The νΚ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ιν ο naming of the location of the celebrations, ἐ υ π ό λ ε ιῬ , is supῃ μ ώ ported by theparallel in the Canones, Jerome 231e (for which there is nosurviving Greek text): V icennalia Constantini Nicomediae acta...’ (seeentry no.34, Study 1, ‘ ω ν σ τ ν νΚ α τιν ο υ ιτ π ό ε ῇδ λ ε υ that the original mayhave read, ἐ above). I suspect ᾳ τ έρ Ῥ , though ‘Constantinople-Rome’ maysimply be a confused response to ῃ μ ώ the knowledge of Constantine’s ‘renaming’of thecity in 330 (see no. 13, above). ρ ίςis the usual Greek translation of the Latin tricennalia. The η ρ ια κ τ α ο ν ετ τ structure andvocabulary of this entry areparalleled manytimes fromtheCanones.113 ἤ χ ηis always translated by Jerome by either ‘acta’or actus’; cf. Jerome 231e, θ ‘ quoted just above. 2 andKieConstantine’s tricennalia fell on25 July 335; seeBurgess 1988: 81– nast 1990: 296. Constantine unusually celebrated both thebeginning andtheendof his twentieth andthirtieth anniversary years, that is, in 325 and326, and335 and 336; see Burgess 1988: 79 n. 6.

111 E.g. 130a= Sync. 331.29, 158c= Sync. 368.14, 214i = Anon. Matr. 52.7, 216g= Sync. 442.11, and218b= Cedrenus 452.2. 16; PLRE I: 177, s.v. Calocaerus; andKienast 1990: 304. 112 ForCalocaerus, see Barnes 1982: 15– 12), butthis is tooearly for Aurelius Victor implies a date of 326 or 327 forCalocaerus (41.11– anyinvolvement byDalmatius andso mustbe incorrect. η γ ἀ ώ ν (101bh χ θ ἤ η (101bd= Sync. 286.14), Ν ρ χ θ ε α ῶ τ π ο ν έμ ω τ ώ ςἤ ρ π ια θ μ ια κ α ύ 113 E.g. Ἴσθ ὶΠ ὴ μ ν η(102bc = Sync. 286.26), γυ θ χ γ ὸ νἤ ὼ ν ικ ςἀ μ υ ςγ ῖο α ν η θ α ν α νΠ ῶ = Sync. 286.24), ὁτ η α( 112b θ χ ὴ ςἤ ν ετ ν τ α α τ ὼ ἑκ γ ο ἀ ν ρ ίω λ α (94bc = Sync. 252.23), andΚ η χ θ ...ἤ ν ο τ ρ ῶ π α ιδ π εία ʹ = Sync. 297.4).

218

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

Eusebii

22. This entry clearly underwent some corruption before it wasadded to the Continuatio. As a result, it is difficult to understand exactly what it describes. It does not seem

tobe describing a meteor. A meteor certainly generates smoke, butit is unlikely to ) andwould have passed by within a fewseconds, ρ ή be described as a ‘star’(ἀ σ τ certainly notovertwotothree hours. It is nota supernova (Ramsey andLicht 1997: 191). It would therefore seem to be a comet. However, comets last for weeks, not hours, and if visible during the day a comet would certainly be visible at night. In this instance it would have appeared before dawnandcontinued tobevisible oninto theearly morning hours. It would notjust have appeared at the third hour. In addition thehalo andtail of comets tendtobe described interms of hair bytheancients, not smoke. Nevertheless, a comet fits the description the least badly of anypossibility. It must be that the original stated that the comet appeared over many days in the morning, being visible until between the third and fifth hours depending on the day.114

This comet would therefore bethe ‘hui’comet or ‘broom star’, that wasrecordedinChinese sources ashaving first appeared on 16February 336.115 It would have continued to appear inthe skyforperhaps a month ormore after that date. Asnoted inChapter 1.7, Idonotbelieve that theauthor of the Continuatio could have misdated events in Antioch for which other chronological information was recorded (as here). Consequently I haveplaced this entry under 31 Constantine (336), rather than 30 Const. (335) asit appears inTheophanes. Theconfusion inthedescription of this entry indicates that thecompiler is notaneye-witness, butobtained his information

at second or third hand. Consequently, this entry could easily have been misdated to 335 in the Continuatio. The appearance of this comet wasalso recorded in theKG(onwhich, see no. 20, above). It appears inEutropius 10.8.3 andAurelius Victor 41.16, whosaythat it appeared before thedeath of Constantine andwastaken as anomenof his death.116 It also appears in the Passio Artemii 7 (= Philostorgius 16a), which says the same thing.

23. Jerome andthe Chron. 724 abbreviate the original, which is reported in full by ίζ ρ οor τ ε ν ω Theophanes. This passage wasbased onEusebius, whouses either ἐγ ἤ κ μ α ζ εtonote thefloruits of famous individuals (I havecounted overeighty exam114 Notice that a number of thesources that rely onAugustus’memoirs, which said that thecomet of 44 BC appeared for seven days, nevertheless make it sound as though thecomet appeared 13. This is often thecase with comet 68, nos. 1– only once; see Ramsey andLicht 1997: 158– sightings (especially in mediaeval chronicles), only the first dayor the most important dayis recorded, nottheentire period. 115 See Ho 1962: 159, no. 168; Seeck 1919: 183; andGrumel 1958: 469. 116 OntheKGandits relationship to these works, seeBarnes 1978b: 94, Burgess 1993b, Burgess 1995a, andBurgess 1995b.

3. Commentary

219

pies of the former alone). It wascopied from 223i = Sync. 471.7– 8: Ἀ ν α τ ό λ ιο ςὁ Λ α ο δ ικ εία ςἐπ ίσ κ ο π ο ρ ς...δ ια έ π π ω ν ρ ν ἐγ ω ίζ ε τ ο . The Martyrium was the central basilica of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built byConstantine inJerusalem starting in 326 andprobably dedicated on 13September 335.117 Zenobius’ fame in 336 obviously arose from the dedication of the church. One wonders, though, howthe author of the Continuatio came to know of

Eustathius, since heotherwise knows nothing about Constantinople orabout anyone fromthere, apart fromthededication of thecity itself, a fewgeneral details about its appearance, andConstantine’s thirtieth anniversary celebrations there (things that manyintheEast would haveknown atthetime). Perhaps theauthor of theContinuatio actually metthese twomentravelling in Antioch at some point in 336 or later. It would explain whytwosuch seemingly different individuals were listed together like this. Therapidity of Jerome’s compilation is madeobvious here, asheattributes the construction of the Martyrium to Eustathius, rather than Zenobius, whom he does notmention. Eustathius andZenobius areonly known from the Continuatio.

24.

φ ὴ π Cf. Ἰω ρ ιπ ά ν(32b= Chron. Pasch. 110.17–18). ῶ φ κ ιὑ π σ σ α ὸτ ῶ νἀ ετ δ ελ On this episode, see Julian, Or. 1.21B; Stein 1959: 130; Blockley 1989: 473; 5 n. 13. Strangely it is not discussed by Shahîd and Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 384– 1984: 66. The Continuatio is ouronly source.

25.

Theparallels between Theophanes andtheChron. Pasch. areclear, andthis allows a confident restoration ofmostoftheentry, butthere aresomedifferences thatcreate ω ν σ τ α ν τ ῖν ο ς . Theophanes difficult problems. Bothpassages areidentical downtoΚ includes ὁ ή ς , which I haveaccepted asgenuine. Inwhatfollows Theophanes εὐ σ εβ appears to offer a précis of the Chron. Pasch., though headds that Constantine was ή ill. His ἀ σ α σ θ ςexactly mirrors thesame participle inTheodorus (Hist. trip. 51, εν 7), andclearly derives from that source. The description of Constantine’s pp. 26– –seems ίο ν ῶ δ ετα ό λ λ τ ά τ ιτ νβ ε ὸ ςμ ξ ω α ὶεὐσεβ ςκ death in the Chron. Pasch. –ἐν to mirror the Chron. 724 (101.24/130.6: ‘he departed from this world in a state of righteousness’) better than thetext of Theophanes andso seems to reflect theoriginalmore accurately thanTheophanes. Thewording seems tohavebeencopied from (Study 1, no. 18). Furtherίο ν νβ ὸ ιτ ε τ τ ά λ λ ετα ιο ω τ ςἐνδό ξ ν ςμ ά τ σ ν ω Eusebius: Κ 50. Forthedate, see Hunt 40; Seeck 1919: 183; andBarnes 1981: 248– 117 Eusebius, VConst 3.25– 23; Jeffery 2. Formodern accounts of thechurch andits history, seeSavoy 1908: 16– 1997: 421– 67; Duckworth 1922: 71–135; DAC7.2: 2311–18,2320–1;andCoüasnon 1974: 13,47– 1919: 3– 6, which have photos and/or reconstructions of the fourth-century church. 8, 41– 17, 37– 12– Only theDACmentions Zenobius and, erroneously following Jerome, Eustathius.

220

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

more, in an earlier passage of his owncomposition Theophanes uses the verb ῆ ν α η θ ι(17.30), which suggests that its appearance here is a result of rewriting. κ ο ιμ The phrases that follow in the Chron. Pasch. have been omitted from the reconstruction, ἐ ρ νπ ο τ ῆ α ῆ σ ςα τ ςπ ὐ τ ε ό λ ίῳ εω ς , which probably derives from Malalas (13.14, p. 324.6–7),118 andthedate μ η ν ὶἈ ρ τ εμ ισ ʹ, which is fromtheDescripια ίῳ tio consulum (s.a. 337.1), though ‘XI kl. Iun.’(22 May) hasbecome 11May. The original reference toConstantine’s baptism canbeextracted fromTheophanes’own comments through comparison with the Chron. Pasch., though interestingly Theodorus also saysthatConstantine τ ο θ είο ῦ υ κ α τ α ξ ιο ῦ τ α τίσ ιβαπ μ α τ ο ς(51, p.27.15). Ordinarily this might suggest that the parallel in Theophanes derives from Theodorus, butthe Chron. Pasch. is identical toTheophanes (bar theadjective) andcompletely independent of both Theophanes andTheodorus. Theophanes’source must be the Continuatio andtheparallel mustbe fortuitous. Theodorus derives from Socrates at this point, though Socrates’ only parallel with Theodorus is the β α π τ ίσ μ α τ ο ς(1.39.2). The reference to the length of Constantine’s life in Theophanes is copied verbatim fromTheodorus, though thelength of hisreign is different, agreeingwith the Chron. Pasch., which shows that the Continuatio is thesource here, not Theodorus. This completes theentry excepting twoproblematic sections. Both the Chron. Pasch. andTheophanes start off the second sentence with κ α ὶ ὰ ν ω σ τ α ν ςΚ τ ῖν ο ; however the Chron. Pasch. follows it with anexpression of ἐπ ιβ ς ʹἐνια ῷ τ ῆ α ιλ σ εία υ ςα ς , ‘when he had entered the thirty-second τ ὐ τ ο ῦβ β time, λ year of his rule’, while Theophanes follows it with τ η δ έω μ ῇ Ν ν ικ π ο ό λ ε ι(‘after he hadentered the city of the Nicomedians’). Elsewhere in this entry Theophanes is clearly just condensing the text that is reported in the Chron. Pasch., as wasnoted ά ιβ ςought to mean above. In thecontext inwhich it is usedinthe Chron. Pasch. ἐπ ‘enter’or ‘start’, as is the case in Socrates, whosays, ἐπ ὰ ςἑξηκοσ ιβ τ ο π τ ῦπ ο υ έμ π ερ ρ ιπ ω σ ίπ τ ρ ο τ ίᾳ ςἀ ε ι(‘Having just turned ῖν τ ν α τ ν σ α ιλ σ ὺ ε ςΚω ῦὁβ ο τ υ ια ἐν sixty-five, the emperor Constantine fell ill’; HE 1.39.1). Other examples are noted in n. 135, below. But Constantine wastwomonths from completing his thirty-second year, not entering it, as the author of the Continuatio in fact notes just below. Perhaps the author of the Chron. Pasch. has added the regnal year himself (since his text hadno marginal regnal years, only consuls), thus omitting what was already present in the Continuatio. Perhaps the author of the Continuatio was just being imprecise and wanted to note explicitly that Constantine hadreached his thirtysecond year whenhedied (cf. Eusebius’emphatic repetition of Diocletian’s regnal year in Study 1, no. 15). The true reading of the Continuatio cannot therefore be determined inthis case andI have left brackets around thetemporal phrase fromthe Chron. Pasch. As to the city of the bishop who baptized Constantine, the Chron. Pasch. has been followed onthe probability that it preserves the original reading. The Chron. Pasch. says that Constantine wasbaptized by Eusebius of Constantinople; Theoη δ ε ία ετ τ ίο έν ο μ α τ ν εθ ςμ ςἐ υτ ο ο ῦΝ ικ εβ phanes that he was baptized ὑ π ὸΕὐσ ιν Κ ω ν σ τ α ν τ ο υ π ό λ ε ι(‘byEusebius ofNicomedia, whohadbeentransferred toCon118 Ontheimportance of Malalas asa source fortheChron. Pasch., seeWhitby andWhitby: 1989: xv-xix, esp. xv-xvi.

3. Commentary

221

stantinople’; 33.20); andJerome that he wasbaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia. This is theonly mention of Eusebius in the Chron. Pasch., whose seventh-century compiler is unlikely to have known of whatcity Eusebius wasbishop in 337, andso probably simply copied his source without altering it. Elsewhere Theophanes still calls this bishop ‘Eusebius of Nicomedia’, even when he wasbishop of Constantinople (38.1, 4; asdoes Nicephorus, 114.23). Hedoes notmention histransferral to 38.2), so the only reason for TheoConstantinople for another nine years (37.34– phanes to mention that Eusebius wasbishop of Constantinople here would be if Eusebius wasso called in his source. Eusebius wasnotin fact transferred to Constantinople until the autumn of 337, after Constantine’s death (Barnes 1978a: 66, 3), being installed by Constantius, 6, 212– Barnes 1981: 262, andBarnes 1993: 35– andremained bishop there until his death in midto late 341 (Barnes 1993: 68 and 213). This would account for the Continuatio’s error: in 350 Eusebius would have beenmorefamiliar asthebishop ofConstantinople. Jerome, like Theophanes, knew of Eusebius chiefly as the bishop of Nicomedia andso identifies himin that way

only.

(‘declare war’) is very unusual; I can find no ν ο ο The expression δηλ ῦ ν π ό λ εμ parallel for it. Perhaps it is related to the Latin, bellum indicere’. ‘ There are a number of different traditions concerning Constantine’s final days andit is necessary toreview themajor sources inorder toreconstruct theevents and determine theaccuracy of the Continuatio andits place within these disparate traditions. Eusebius’Life of Constantine (VConst) is theearliest surviving account of Constantine’s last daysandit hastherefore usually beenthebasis of modern accounts.119 In VConst 4.56 Eusebius states that Constantine began preparations for anexpedi᾽ἀ ῶ ν ν ἐ α π tion against the Persians in response to Persian aggression in the east (τ η ς , 56.1), though nochronology is given for ρ ή ω σ ά ν κ θ ε είσ σ ιν ω υ ρβ κ ο ςἀ ῆ ςβα τ ο λ either thePersian irruptions orthebeginning of Constantine’s response. Theendof chapter 56, all of chapter 57 andthe beginning of 58 are missing from the manuscripts. Onthe basis of the chapter headings, preserved separately, we know that Persian envoys arrived in Constantinople just before Easter of Constantine’s final year, i.e. 3 April 337, nodoubt in response to Constantine’s preparations. There is nofurther mention of thePersians or theexpedition in Eusebius, buta reference in Socrates that seems to have been drawn from Eusebius states that Constantine obtained peace fromthePersians without recourse towarfare because of their ‘fear of ; Socrates, HE 1.18.12, with Fowden 1994: 147, έω ς ιλ έ σ α ο theemperor’(δ ςτ ο ῦβ 1).120 Constantine thencelebrated Easter. 150– 60, andMacMullen 1987: 223– 70, Barnes 1981: 259– 119 E.g. Jones 1962: 224, Piganiol 1972: 69– 4, butnotStein 1959: 130. Browning (1975: 34) reports a version very similar totheoneI offer below.

120 Geppert assigns this passage to VConst 56.4 and57, notrealizing that these passages arebuta modern supplement (1898: 24 and115). Fowden (1994: 147) believes that Socrates andGelasius of Cyzicus were bothdrawing onthelost history of Gelasius of Caesarea, whowashimself drawing upon the VConst, butGelasius of Caesarea’s history seems to have ended with the death of Arius in 336; see Schamp 1987. Socrates’account therefore probably comes directly fromEusebius (Gelasius of Cyzicus’account is very different).

222

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

Eusebius implies, butdoes notexplicitly state, that Constantine fell ill shortly after Easter (4.60.5). This illness wentfrom anἀ μ ν α ω λ ία τ ο ῦσώ μ α τ ο ςto a κά κ ω ιςthat forced him to seek hot-water baths within Constantinople (τ σ ῆ ςα ό ὐ τ ο ῦπ μ λ ῶ εω ρ νὑδάτω ο ὰ θ ὶλ υ ςἐπ τ ερ ), i.e. the calidarium or sudarium of some urban ν thermae like thebaths of Achilles orZeuxippus. Hethentravelled to Helenopolis in Bithynia andprayed at the oratory of themartyrs’, probably correctly identified by ‘ of themartyr Lucian (61.1). Thewaters andhisprayers modern scholars astheshrine hadnoeffect andso, realizing that hewasabout to die, hedecided to be baptized 3). He then travelled to a suburban villa (π (61.2– ρ ο ά σ τ ) outside Nicomedia ειο ν where hewasbaptized,121 puthisaffairs inorder, anddied around noonon22 May 64.2).122 In spite of his illness Constantine is suspiciously lucid until the end (61.3– andable to make speeches andcompose hiswill. Unexplained inEusebius’account is thepresence in this villa of thearmyandvarious important military commanders (τ ῶ ν ρ σ α τ τ ο π γ έδ ό εμ η ν ω ε ν ο χ ο α ρ χ ἱτα ρ ικ ὶκαθ ο ς , 63.2; τα ικ ξ ία ία α ξ ὶλ γ ο χ ο α ί, ἱσ ρ ὰ λ α 65.2; τ ο ιπ τ ρ τ ιω ὰ α τ τ ιω ικ ο , 65.2; andο σ ά τ τ ί, 66.1) along withthebishικ ops andbodyguards. Constantine’s journey to Nicomedia wasclearly military in nature, in spite of Eusebius’attempts to hide that fact. 40, so influential onlater Greek andSyriac The account of Socrates, HE 1.39– ecclesiastical historians andchroniclers, appears atfirst tobea précis ofEusebius.123 Butcloser inspection reveals thatthis is notentirely thecase. Socrates’account falls 5, 2, concerning Constantine’s illness andtravels; 39.3– into three sections, 1.39.1– 2, concerning his funeral andburial. Thefinal section concerning his will; and40.1– 71 that adds certainly derives from Eusebius andis a careful précis of VConst 4.66– nonewinformation, except to note that Constantius arrived from theeast, andeven ρ ν ρ α υ κ ι(Soc. 40.1) ά σ ιλ εν ο ῇ θ ἐν έμ mirrors some of Eusebius’vocabulary, e.g. χ η ᾽ὑψ λ ό φ ᾽ὑψ η ν λ (Soc. 40.1) andἐ ο ῦ ι(Eus. 66.1); ἐφ κ α ν ρ ρ υ σ κ ῇ α τ ετ εν ίθ τ ο λ ά andχ (Eus. 66.1); ὡ σ ν α α ε ὶζῶ ο ςκ ὶκ τ ν α ς(Eus. 67.3); and ὶζῶ τ ν ο ς(Soc. 40.1) and ὡ ο ... ἐπ ῶ ν ερ π τ ς α ίδ ν δ ω εύ ισ τ ά ς(Eus. υ(Soc. 40.2) andὁτ ίο τ ν α τ ν σ τ ο ω ν ςΚ ά τ ισ ἐπ 70.1). Furthermore Socrates’comment about Constantine’s building thechurch of 2. the Apostles for his burial (40.2) refers back to VConst 60.1– The story about Constantine’s will (HE 1.39.3) is taken from Rufinus (HE 10.12), though theprovisions ofthewill showsomeinfluence fromEusebius (VConst 4.63.3). Socrates says hebequeathed manyprivileges to Rome andConstantinople, while Eusebius says he honoured the Roman inhabitants of the imperial city with annual gifts; thedifference maysimply bea misreading of Eusebius. However, Socrates also states that Constantine survived for a fewdays after making hiswill and θ ύ ) to theeast toinform Constantius of his ὐ ς that someone wassent immediately (ε father’s death (39.5). Eusebius makes nochronological comments atallwithregard

121 For the various traditions concerning Constantine’s baptism, see the excellent discussions of 70. There is nothing I canaddto these treatments. Dölger 1913 andFowden 1994: 153– 122 For thedate, preserved in many sources other than Eusebius, seeBarnes 1982: 80 andKienast 1990: 297. 123 Geppert (1898: 24, 117–18) lists the following parallels: VConst 4.60.2 = HE 1.40.2; 61.1, 3 2 = 40.1; and70 = 40.2. 2; 62.4 = 39.2; 63.3 = 39.3; 66.1 = 40.1; 67.1– (misunderstood) = 39.1– 5 and40.3 are paralleled with Rufinus 1.11 (= 10.12). HE 1.39.4–

3. Commentary

223

to Constantine’s death

apart from the general time frame of Pentecost (64.1) and says that word was sent to the caesars (plural), but not until the body reached Constantinople and was lying in state (68.1). This would have been some time later since thebody would probably have been embalmed before making its progress to Constantinople.124 It is hardto imagine hownews could have been kept from Constantius for so long. Socrates’ details do not derive from Rufinus. A third source seems to have been consulted. Evenmore interesting is Socrates’account of thedeath of Constantine. Hesays that Constantine fell ill soon after turning sixty-five (his birthday was27 February) andsailed from Constantinople to Helenopolis to partake of the naturally hotsprings inits neighbourhood (ὡ υ ικ μ σ ο ῖςθ ο ςφ ῖςχρησόμ ερ εν ο ςτ ο ῖςἐκ ε ειτ ῖγ ν ιά ζ ο υ σ ). ιν These arePythia Therma, modern Yalova, about 30 kmWSWof Helenopolis, modern Hersek.125 His illness became much worse there so he deferred his use of the baths andtravelled from Helenopolis to Nicomedia. While staying in a suburban ρ ο ά σ ) hewasbaptized. estate there (π τ ειο ν This version not only omits important information found in Eusebius, chiefly Constantine’s prayers in Helenopolis itself, it includes details not found in Eusebius: the closeness of the events to Constantine’s birthday (Eusebius only describes Constantine’s illness in relation to Easter, which Socrates does not mention), his sailing to Helenopolis for the baths (Eusebius says he ‘advanced’ [π ρ ό εισ ιν ] to the φ ικ ν ε ῖτ α ι] in ‘the city named after his baths of his own city’ and ‘arrived’ [ἀ mother‘’), andthedeleterious effect of thebaths onConstantine’s health. Unlike the later section with its verbal parallels that definitely derive from Eusebius there are μ only twominor parallels of vocabulary in this section, θ ο ερ ῖς(39.1) andθ μ ῶ ερ ν (61.1), andτ (61.1), the latter in a different context. ρ ά ο υ (39.2) andλ τ ὰ λ ο ρ ά υ τ Since botharetalking about hotwater ina bath, they could hardly be expected notto share suchvocabulary. Thereference tothevilla andthebaptism probably doderive from Eusebius. Like Eusebius, Socrates’only reference to a Persian expedition appears in the earlier passage noted above (1.18.12). It thus appears that there wasanother source circulating in the first half of the fifth century that gave a variant account of Constantine’s death. Probably connected with this variant account in Socrates is the information about the time of Constantine’s death (originally a fewdays after his arrival in or near Nicomedia?), the immediate sending of theenvoy to Constantius, andthe latter’s arrival from theeast. Mostother sources, asweshall see, knowfewdetails about Constantine’s death and the sort of detail preserved in this account, confirmed as it is in its general outlines byEusebius andMalalas (asweshall see), indicates anearly source, which strongly

124 Although theembalming of deademperors wasnota regular practice among theRomans, there arereports of it whentheemperor diedoutside Constantinople (Grierson 1962: 37 n. 138). The bodies of Constantius II, Julian, Jovian, and Valentinian I were all embalmed (Ammianus 21.16.20, 25.5.1, 26.1.3, and30.10.1). 6, 157,andFig. 1(amapofthearea). Strange125 ForPythia andHelenopolis, seeMango 1994: 141– lyenough, whenreconstructing theitinerary of Constantine mostmodern scholars, even when otherwise following Eusebius, substitute Socrates’trip to Pythia forEusebius’visit to thebaths inConstantinople (MacMullen [1987: 223] includes both).

224

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

encourages us to accept its testimony. Eusebius will be found to be tendentiously modifying this narrative (viz. theremoval of thePersian expedition andthedelay in summoning Constantius) andthedetails of his account aretherefore less deserving of ourconfidence. Twoother glimpses of this early alternative account canbe found in sources of the ninth andtenth centuries, those following the so-called Logothete tradition (e.g. Symeon the Logothete 41.10– 7fb = Leo Grammaticus 87.21– 88.3 = Theodosius 14 = Cedrenus 519.16–21126), andin one of the twelfth century, Melitenus 63.10– 7). In theLogothete tradition Constantine hasset outagainst the Zonaras (13.4.25– α τ ὰ Π ερ σ ῶ ν ) andtravels from Nicomedia to the naturally Persians (κ ή σ α ιν ς127κ hotbaths at Pythia (ἐ ν τ ο μ ῖςΠ θ ίο ιςα ά υ μ τ ο ιςθ ὐ τ ο ο ερ ῖς ) where he falls ill. He then goes viaHelenopolis ‘to thecamp’(ἐ ῷ χ ρ ά α κ ν ι) where hedies of a ‘raging fever’ τ in the ninth year after the ‘building anddedication of Constantinople’ (= 338/9).128 Nomention is made of his baptism. I have given the phrase ἐ ῷ χ ρ ά ντ α κ ιas it is presented bytheeditors of bothCedrenus andLeoGrammaticus, andit is translated byboth editors as ‘incastra’andbyFowden (incorrectly) as ‘incamp’(1994: 150). The Old Church Slavonic translator and the editor of Theodosius Melitenus, however, treat it as a place name, as Stephen of Byzantium proves that it is: ἔ σ τ ικ α ὶ η μ δ Ν ῷ ικ ο εία ῳ ισ π η τ ο ν ,ἐ ντ ςκόλ λ σ έγ ίο π ρ ιο νμ να α ρ π ό ὐ ἄ λ λ ο ξἐμ τ ῆ ςΧά ς (688.11–12).129 Thetext should therefore readἐ ῷ Χ ρ ά α κ ι(as inTheodosius), ‘to ν τ Charax’. The detail that Constantine hadto travel to Charax viaHelenopolis seems todemonstrate a knowledge of thefacts, since theonly roadalong thebaydidin fact 6 and Fig. 1). At the least this pass through Helenopolis (see Mango 1994: 141– detail demonstrates certain knowledge of thegeography of thearea. Theappearance of Charax, anobscure site that is named incontradiction tothestandard account that put Constantine’s death in Nicomedia (see below), also argues that this account should beconsidered seriously, since weknowthat Constantine didnotdieinNicomedia, butin animperial villa named Achyron that wassomewhere in the vicinity of Nicomedia (see below, n. 138). Onthebasis of this evidence, it would seem that it wasprobably west of Nicomedia onthe north shore of the gulf andclose to Charax. In theLogothete tradition, then, though in a slightly different form, wecansee anoutline that mirrors Socrates more thanEusebius. But anysource that wascopyingSocrates, orEusebius, would havementioned thatConstantine’s illness waspre-

7, 263, and ODB 3: 1982– 3, s.v. Symeon 126 For the Logothete tradition, see Jeffreys 1990: 46– Logothete. Asa whole it cannot betraced further back than theEpitome, tenuously dated tothe early eighth century.

127 The OldChurch Slavonic translation, Theodosius, andCedrenus support this reading against ή σ α Leo’s ν ικ ς . 128 Leo omits thereference to thededication, which is found in theother three witnesses. 129 RE 3.2: 2121, s.v. Charax 6. Charax wasbetween Nicomedia (mod. Izmit) andDakibuza (mod. 9, andNicetas Choniates, Hist., col. Gebze) (Georgius Acropolites, Chron. syn. 37, p. 59.7– 597) andso appears to have been near the site of modern Hereke, a name that clearly derives from ‘Charax’. It wastherefore situated onthenorthern shore of thebayof Nicomedia, about 7 andTAVOΒVI 12. twenty-five Roman miles west of Nicomedia; see Tomaschek 1891: 6– Achyron, thevilla inwhich Constantine died (see n. 138, below), would therefore seem tohave been closer to Charax than to Nicomedia.

3. Commentary

225

existing since it wasobviously the cause of his visit to the baths in the first place. Eusebius says his illness gotworse before hewentto thebaths andSocrates says it got muchworse at thebaths. The absences in theLogothete tradition of illness before Pythia, the villa near Nicomedia as the place of his death, the baptism, the will, andthe funeral would also be peculiar if thesource were Eusebius or Socrates. No hint is dropped in either Eusebius or Socrates as to Constantine’s specific ailment andnomention is madeof a fever orCharax. Finally, theLogothete tradition states that Constantine wasburied in a porphyry or Roman coffin (ἐ νλά ρ ν ᾷ α κ ιπ φ ρ υ ορ ἤ τ ο ιῬ ω μ α ), as he was; Eusebius andSocrates (from Eusebius) state that it was ίῳ gold.130 The Logothete tradition clearly, then, does not depend upon either Socrates or Eusebius. Thefact that none of thedetails of theLogothete tradition arefound in anyother source, suggests thatwearedealing witha tradition separate fromtheone represented inSocrates, yetonethatclearly is describing thesamereality. Since this is so, ouroriginal mistrust of Eusebius waswell-founded. Zonaras hasConstantine conveyed toSoteropolis, which is nowcalled Pythia’, α τ ὰ Π σ ερ ῶ νἐκστρατεύ by triremes during his campaign against the Persians ‘(κ ).131 Here heis poisoned byhis half-brothers. Hetravels to Nicomedia, where he ν ω dies. Nomention of Helenopolis orthebaptism is made. Zonaras then says, adding a detail outof place fromanother source, thatConstantius hadarrived inNicomedia from Antioch while his father wasstill alive. This idea probably derives from two panegyrics by Julian, whoimplies andthen states that Constantius arrived at Constantine’s side while he wasstill alive: Or. 1.16C-D, where he says that Constantius alone of Constantine’s sons hastened to himwhile hewasstill alive andstricken by illness, andOr. 2.94B, where he states that Constantine himself summoned Conὴ ν μ ρ χ ρ π ; his α ξ τ ύ ὶτ ν ἀ ὴ ν α π ε ὰ stantius, his favourite son, andentrusted himwith τ brothers neither were summoned norcame.132 The propagandistic nature of these comments is clear from their panegyrical context. All other sources either state or 130 Eusebius states that Constantine wasput into a golden coffin at Nicomedia, wasconveyed to Constantinople in it, andwasentombed in it: 4.66.1 and70.2. Constantine was, however, entombed in a large porphyry sarcophagus, as the Logothete tradition states; see de Ceremoniis 6, with Downey 1959: 37, no. 1, and40, no. 1; Origo ciuitatum Italiae, p. 104; 2.42, p. 642.5– 2, 39. Surely Constantine would have 4; andGrierson 1962: 1– 10, 20– Vasiliev 1948: esp. 8– hadhisporphyry sarcophagus prepared forhisdeath along withthemausoleum itself. However, I cansee noobvious reason whyEusebius would purposely alter this fact. It could be,however, that Constantine wasoriginally entombed in a temporary gold coffin that was later replaced during thereign of Constantius bythelarge porphyry sarcophagus thatwascommented uponby

later writers. Alternatively, Eusebius’source maynothave madeit clear inwhich sarcophagus ν α ρ ). ά ξ Constantine wasentombed (the Greek word for ‘coffin’/ sarcophagus’ is the same, λ ‘ (Downey 1959: 34, no. 1). ‘Roman’wasanepithet often applied toEgyptian porphyry 131 ForZonaras’account, seeDiMaio 1981 andDiMaio andArnold 1992, of which thelatter goes seriously off the rails in accepting at face value the account of Philostorgius, Zonaras’ chief source at this point (see below). 4. DiMaio misses Or. 2. For Zonaras’ knowledge of Julian’s 1, 123– 132 See DiMaio 1981: 120– work, see, e.g., Zonaras 13.4.30. For another useof Julian byZonaras, see Dimaio 1988: 230. Hunt(1998: 1) starts the newCAHoff badly byciting these passages of Zonaras andJulian to support thestatement that ‘summoned atthenewsof hisfather’s illness, [Constantius] came too late to find himstill alive’.

226

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

Eusebii

imply that Constantine wasdead before Constantius arrived in Constantinople to perform the funeral.133 Zonaras states that Constantius came from Antioch, a fact not mentioned by anyother source. The Chron. Pasch. is the only other source to venture such a detail andit says that Constantius wasin Mesopotamia at the time 6). Zonaras is usually andcorrectly accepted in this, since it seems unlikely (533.5– that Constantius would have moved forward into Mesopotamia (and thus into danger of battle: as we shall see in no. 27 Shapur wasalready on the frontier at this point) before the arrival of his father andthe rest of the army. Obviously, Zonaras is a witness tothesource of thenon-Eusebian narrative that is presented bySocrates. Like Socrates, hementions thetripbyseafromConstantinople to the baths and indicates that this was where the life-threatening ‘illness’ came upon him. Zonaras mirrors Socrates in his use of τ ο μ ῖςἐκ εν ο ε ῖ χρησά ς μ ο θ ῖςὕδα ερ υ σ ικ μ ε σ ιν(cf. ὡ ο ν ςφ ῖςχρησόμ ο ο ῖςθ ςτ ερ ο ῖςἐκ ειτ ε ῖγ ν ιά ζ ο υ σ ιν , 39.1), which would seemtoderive fromthecommon source, since hisaccount (here andelsewhere) otherwise owes nothing to Socrates. However, most of his account of Constantine’s death derives ultimately from Philostorgius.134 Philostorgius says that whenConstantine learned that thePersians were preparing forwaragainst him he set out from Constantinople, getting only as far as Nicomedia, where he was poisoned by his brothers andsoon died.135 Zonaras has grafted the non-Eusebian

7 (body taken back to CP), 68.1 (news sent to Con133 E.g. Eusebius, VConst 4.64.2 (death), 66– 4; Rufinus, HE 10.12; Socrates, HE stantius), 70.1 (Constantius arrives); Libanius, Or. 59.72– 9; Michael the Syrian, 7.4, p. 1.39.5; Theodoret, HE 1.34.2; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 337, p. 533.1– 13 (the latter twoprobably deriving ultimately 5/564.12– 24; andAgapius 564– 6/134a.18– 265– from Socrates). 134 Note that Geppert includes a ‘Kaiserbiographie’ as one of Socrates’ sources here andthat it 3). For the passages under 75, esp. 71– includes many close parallels with Zonaras (1898: 69– discussion here heassumes thatSocrates hasmisread Eusebius andonlyattributes Constantine’s 8). I would argue that Socrates derived this entire age to this biographical source (1898: 117– section andtheother later details from this source, whatever it was. ίο ς 135 HE2.16 (see also 2.4), also found inthePassio Artemii 7 (= Philostorgius 2.16a, p. 26), theΒ 9), andCedrenus (520.4–10). The details are missed by DiMaio di Costantino (35, p. 654.4– 3), whoattributes theentire passage toPhilostorgius. Barnes (1981: 262) states that (1981: 122– this story wascirculated at the time as a justification for themassacre of Constantine’s family andattributes theversion inPhilostorgius toEunapius (1981: 398n. 12). ButZosimus (2.39.1), ό ῳ σ , p. whocopies Eunapius at this point, simply says that Constantine died of a disease (ν 97.5), a statement mirrored bybothJulian andLibanius (see below), bothpotential sources for Eunapius. Strangely, this story is notmentioned byFowden 1994. εία ιλ σ α ς τ ῆ ν ο ο ςβ α ίν ςτ ν ο ἔτ ο ςἐπ κ ιβ ο ερ τ σ τ ν εύ ὸ δ Theappearance inPhilostorgius of τρια ν θ ὼ ρ ο ελ ν ο ὸ ἔτ τ ςπ α ὶτριακοσ κ ν τ ο ρ ῶ ἰςτ ὸπ α ὐ τ ο ῦ(or, as it appears inthePassio Artemii, ε ρ α ά ) andἄ ς(inthePassio) might atfirst suggest ς ιβ ἐπ υ ο τ έρ ευ δ ο ῦ α εία α ὶτ σ ιλ ςκ ῆ τ τ ο ῦβ ὐ ςα α ή σ ), but ς ʹἐνια ῷ ῆ τ α εία ιλ σ ς , ὁρμ ςαὐ τ υ ο ῦβ β τ parallels with the Continuatio (ἐ ά ς... λ π ιβ ά ςwitha year total is notuncommon inlater Greek (see theexample inSocrates above, as ιβ ἐπ well asPs-Athanasius, depassione et cruce Domini [PG28.233] andVita sanctae Syncleticae 5 [PG 28.1489], John Chrysostom, Homilia XL in cap. XVII Gen. [PG 53.371] andHorn. LIII in cap. XXVII Gen. [PG 54.464], andAnonyma scholia recentiora on Aristophanes’ Clouds 510a.19) andit appears at least twoother times inPhilostorgius himself or a witness (2.9a, p. ρ α ς(or a compound) also occurs at least three 20, and9.5, p. 117.15). The participle ἄ 20.19– 11; and7.15a, p. 100.29). other times in witnesses to Philostorgius (1.7a, p. 8.13; 6.5a, p. 72.10– Both forms are therefore stylistic characteristics of Philostorgius.

3. Commentary

227

tradition heshares withSocrates onto thenarrative hefound inPhilostorgius, andso has Constantine poisoned at Pythia andthen taken back to Nicomedia to die. We cannot tell whether this non-Eusebian tradition mentioned thewaragainst thePersians ornot, since thewarwasmentioned byPhilostorgius, which could account for Zonaras’reference to it, andSocrates hadclearly already accepted Eusebius’ versionofConstantine’s Persian expedition (itappears atHE1.18.12), soanyreference to the expedition in the common source with Zonaras would consequently have been omitted. It certainly appeared inthecommon tradition found in theLogothete

historians. Although weseemtobedealing withtwoindependent traditions –Socrates and Zonaras on the one hand, andLeo, Theodosius, Cedrenus, andSymeon the Logothete on the other –a common narrative can be reconstructed if we remove the material from Eusebius andPhilostorgius. Just after Constantine turned sixty-five, ashewassetting outonanexpedition against thePersians, hefell ill. Hetravelled to the naturally hotsprings at Pythia where his illness grew muchworse. Hewent via Helenopolis to Charax, where a raging fever fell upon himandhe died a fewdays later. Constantius wasthen summoned from Antioch butarrived too late. After the funeral Constantine wasburied in a porphyry sarcophagus in the Church of the Holy Apostles. The only discrepancy in the two accounts concerns the first leg of the itinerary. Socrates andZonaras state thatConstantine sailed to Pythia, Socrates noting specifically that he sailed from Constantinople, while the Logothete tradition states that he wasat Nicomedia, travelled to Pythia, andthen travelled to Charax. Both versions are historically plausible, though the detail of sailing to Pythia seems less likely to be aninvention. Libanius, in a speech delivered in344/5, agrees withEusebius that Constantine began preparations forwaragainst thePersians inresponse toPersian military activities intheeast andmentions thearrival ofobsequious Persian envoys seeking friend70; envoys, ship andiron, which Libanius claims Constantine gavethem(Or. 59.60– 67).136 Henext describes whatmustbeEusebius’Persian embassy that arrived just before Easter, though far fromcowering andbegging for peace theenvoys demand back disputed territory: either the Romans vacate the territory so that the Persians canreclaim it, or Shapur will usetheRoman refusal as a pretext for declaring war (71). Constantine takes up the gauntlet, saying he wants to give his response to Shapur in person, andsets off forwar, only tobe recalled bytheAlmighty whenhe reaches Nicomedia (72). Nofurther details aregiven concerning Constantine’s death. Libanius’ account suggests that Eusebius hasconflated the twoPersian embassies into one: the first putin the place of the second. About tenyears later Julian says that thePersians broke thepeace, butescaped punishment while Constantine wasalive because he died amidst his preparations ά τ ο λ ν , ([Κ λ α ς ξ ετα α κ ρ σ ευ ω μ ν σ α τ π ν ν α ν ο τ ίο ]ἐ ίν β ν τ ο υ εμ α λ ό π ν ν ὸ ὸ ςτ α ὸ ῖςτ ρ ῖςπ ῳ , 16D). In ν ό σ ῇ ). Hestates earlier thatConstantine haddiedof disease (τ Or. 1.18Β ῳ ό σ 363, after the death of Julian, Libanius also stated that Constantine haddied ν (Or. 18.10). Eunapius/Zosimus says thesame thing (see n. 135, above), asdoes the

136 Onthereality of Libanius’statements here regarding theironandtheRoman banontheexport of ‘weapons-grade iron’toPersia, seeLieu 1996b: 207, nn.22 and23.

228

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Epitome de caesaribus (41.15), which also derives at this point from Eunapius (Barnes 1976: 265– 7). The KG, dating to 357, also explicitly noted Constantine’s death amidst his preparations for a Persian war. The original text must have read something like, ‘Constantinus cumbellum pararet in Persas, quiiamMesopotamiam fatigabant, in Acyrone uilla publica iuxta Nicomediam moritur anno imperii XXXI et aetatis LXVI’.137Again, as we have seen above in Eusebius, Philostorgius (2.16a), Libanius, andJulian it is the Persians whohave taken the first actions against the Empire, and as in Zonaras andthe Logothete tradition, Libanius, andJulian, Constantine dies amidst his preparations. Writing in theearly sixth century Malalas states that Constantine wasonaprocessus, an official procession outside the walls of Constantinople, when he died at ‘some’ suburban villa (ἐ τ ιν ρ ο α ί) named Ἀ νπ σ τ ε ίῳ ρ χ υ ώ ν(‘ T he Chaff-house’) 8). Ascanbeseenjust above, the nearNicomedia, after anillness of six days(324.5– name of this villa also appeared in the KG, which is independent of Malalas; the name must therefore be correct.138 Both Malalas andtheKGreport a tradition that seems to derive ultimately fromanofficially promulgated version of Constantine’s death. The Greek name of the villa could hardly have made it to Gaul, where the author of theKGseems to have lived,139 andsurvived fortwenty years simply as an oral tradition. AsinLibanius andPhilostorgius Constantine simply travels to Nicomedia where hedies; noother journeys arementioned. TheLogothete tradition also implies aninitial trip to Nicomedia. If, as I suspect, the version in Malalas derives solely from anofficial proclamation the condensation there is probably a result of official simplification and correction’. Anyofficial proclamation of Constantine’s ‘ that he died on his way to war against the Perdeath would hardly have mentioned sians, andconsequently hisadvance to Antioch is presented asa routine trip outside theimperial city. Thesimilar account of thetrip toNicomedia inother sources may have ultimately been prompted bythe naturally wide dissemination of this ‘official version’, butit maysimply be a result of a lack of available detail ornarrative compression (see below). Malalas states that Constantine wasill for six days. This is probably accurate, being consistent with Socrates (and the Logothete tradition?), but it cannot include thefirst stages of theillness noted by Eusebius andSocrates. It probably just refers to thelast serious stage that began at thebaths. Zonaras states that Constantine was , 13.4.27), though his source is unknown ν ό ν ᾽ἱκα ο α ή σ σ ςἐφ ill for a long time (ν (perhaps itwasPhilostorgius). This probably refers totheentire timeofhisἀ μ α λ ν ω ία τ μ ο α . ς τ ο ῦσώ Although the Chron. Pasch. relied ultimately on the Continuatio, Malalas, and theDescriptio for its account of theevents surrounding Constantine’s death andits aftermath, thecompiler hadyet another source concerning Constantius’rôle in the funeral. This source correctly dated the siege of Nisibis to 337 (see no.27, below), 137 Eutropius 10.8.2, Jerome 234b, Origo 6.35, andVictor 41.16. Onthis entry, seeBurgess 1995b: 367, no.42. 138 See Burgess 1999. 9. 139 See Burgess 1993b: 495–

3. Commentary

229

noting that Constantius hadto return to Constantinople for his father’s funeral in spite of the threatening warwith thePersians (ἔ τ ιτ ο ῦΠ ερ σ ικ ο ῦπ ο λ έμ ο υἐπ ικ ε ιμ έν ο υ 6). It wasthis source that noted that Constantius was ‘in the east in , 533.5– Mesopotamia’ when he heard of his father’s death (see above). Again wecan see that the Persians were already active at the time of Constantine’s death andthis activity wasserious enough to demand Constantius’continued presence in theeast. Festus claims that Constantine actually invaded Persia and that the Persians capitulated through fear of Roman military might (Brev. 26). This is very similar to Eusebius, evendowntothesending of a legation, butwould seemtobeindependent (it certainly does not derive from Festus’ main source, the KG). Later traditions claimed thatConstantine hadactually engaged anddefeated thePersians, e.g. Malalas 13.3 (p. 317.17–19= Johnof Nikiu 77.61, p. 64) andSynax. Sirm. 700 (21 May), either some considerable time before orjust before his death.140 Such later propagandizing accounts canbe dismissed, though the Synax. Sirm. confirms again that Constantine wasnotactually in Nicomedia whenhedied. Finally, wehave the account of the Continuatio, which states that thePersians declared waron the Romans andthat Constantine responded by setting out for the east against them, only todieatNicomedia. Its viewof pre-emptive Persian aggression is supported by Eusebius, Libanius, Julian, Philostorgius (2.16a), the KG, and the Chron. Pasch. There canbe little doubt, then, that theinitiative in thehostilities of 337 lay with Shapur, notConstantine, whowassimply reacting to actual Persian aggression onthefrontier. It is also clear fromtheContinuatio that inAntioch it was Shapur whowasseen to have declared war, notConstantine.141 Andlike Libanius, Julian, Philostorgius, theKG,Zonaras, andtheLogothete tradition, the Continuatio records that Constantine washeading fortheeast tomake waronthePersians when he died. These different andmostly independent traditions make this quite certain, in spite of theexcision of the Persians andthe warfrom the contemporary account of Eusebius andthe official proclamation that seems to lie behind Malalas. Nevertheless, the frequent appearance of the military andsoldiers in Eusebius’ account exposes the military nature of Constantine’s travels. Like Libanius, Philostorgius, andMalalas, theContinuatio states that Constantine advanced to Nicomedia anddied there. Aswassuggested above, this is probably a result of influence fromtheofficially promulgated version, a lack of detailed information, and/or narrative compression rather than a common tradition (except for the KG andMalalas, though the KG obviously hadaccess to another tradition as well). Constantine left Constantinople anddied shortly thereafter in or near Nicomedia; in theabsence of anyother information it would seemlogical to anyone that

η ε τ ή ὰ ν ςμ εἰρ α τ σ επ κ ά σ ε νκ α ο ίη ὶἐπ α ὶἐνίκη νκ ῶ σ Π ερ ὰ τ α εκ σ α 140 Malalas: Κ ρ ά τ ε υ ὶἐπ εσ τ . Synax. μ μ ν ίω ε α ν τ η ὰ ω ἔ Ῥ χ ε ιν ν ή σ α ν τ ο ςεἰρή α ἰτ σ υ ο Π έρ β ῦ ρ Σ ρ ο α ά ν ,τ α ῶ ο σ α υ σ ιλ ,β έ ω ερ ςΠ ή δ ν εια μ ικ ο νΝ ὴ τ ὰ τ α νκ μ εν τ εία ο ῶ ρ α ιτ ςἁ κ ά ςκ α ψ ὶἔ ντιν Sirm.: τ νἐγ ῆ ῶ σ ςκ ερ α τ ὰ τ νΠ ῶ μ ε ῖ. η δ ἐκ ν ιο ρ γ ύ μ ρ εν ν ῶ ὸ εν ρ ό γ ο ςΚ ς ,π ἀ 53 (who mistakenly believes that Theophanes 9, Fowden 1994: 146– 141 See Blockley 1989: 468– andthe author of the Chron. Pasch. derived their accounts from the KG [p. 152 n. 33]), and 3, andBlockley 9 and1985: 132– especially Matthews 1989: 499 n. 14,contra Barnes 1981: 258– 1992: 12.

230

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

hehadtravelled directly fromonecity totheother since hewasheading fortheeast. Such aninterpretation (that Constantine proceeded directly from Constantinople to

Nicomedia) maylie behind Constantine’s presence inNicomedia before hisdetour to Pythia in the Logothete tradition as well. It could be that this more common and simple account replaced an earlier andless well-known account of Constantine’s travel bysea. Like Eusebius andthose whoultimately depend upon him(e.g. Socrates), the Continuatio knows ofConstantine’s latebaptism butunlike allother surviving sources (that donotultimately depend uponit), it knows whodidthebaptizing: Eusebius of Constantinople (see below). Theerror involving Eusebius’seeindicates that this information wasnotcontemporary withtheevents, butwasrecorded ata later date, whenEusebius wasbetter known asa bishop of Constantinople (hediedin341; see above). Manyyears after hisdeath hebecame more well-known forhisactions under Constantine after Nicaea andso wasknown as Eusebius-of-Nicomedia’. The ‘ by thetheology of Constanauthor of the Continuatio wasclearly notembarrassed tine’s baptizer. This does not make him an Arian, however, though Theophanes clearly thought so. It simply means, as I suggested in Chapter 1.4.3, that he was not particularly involved witheither side of theTrinitarian debate atthetime. There is noevidence foranyexplicit comment about Eusebius’theology ortheramifications of the baptism for Constantine’s beliefs. Indeed, the author shows nosigns of even having known Eusebius’theology. TheContinuatio appears tobetheonlysurviving direct source thatnames Eusebius as the bishop who baptized Constantine,142 though Theodoret admits that he waspresent during Constantine’s final days(HE 1.32.1) andPhilostorgius andAgapiusstate thathereceived Constantine’s will andkeptit safe (2.16 andp.564/564.8– 9), anaction thatseems plausible inthecircumstances. Nevertheless, Eusebius’name must have appeared in other sources that no longer exist andit wasprobably preserved in oral accounts as well.143

Shapur’s first embassy probably arrived in late 335 or early 336 in response to Constantine’s granting to Hannibalianus the title of rex regum et Ponticarum gentium on 18 September 335 (Kienast 1990: 304). This could only be seen by Shapur as a claim by Constantine onArmenia andthus a clear threat to Persian designs on theterritory andperhaps even to thePersian empire itself (Constantine’s true motives areunknown). Shapur wasnodoubt testing thewaters, trying thegauge Constantine’s intentions andin addition looking for anopportunity to reclaim both Ar8. Persian inroads menia andthe territories lost to the Romans by Narseh in 297– during the summer of 336 in Armenia andontheRoman frontier, including a brief capture of Amida (no. 3, above), necessitated preparations for a more active response onthe part of the Romans, though nodirect action wastaken. Constantine could have been biding his time as he made ready a massive assault onPersia that

142 Jerome, the Chron. Pasch., andTheophanes counts derive fromTheophanes.

derive from the Continuatio,

andmany later ac-

143 See n. 121, above. The shift from ‘Eusebius of Nicomedia’ to ‘Eusebius of Rome’, as 62), obviously presupposes a general knowledge of demonstrated by Fowden (1994: 158– Eusebius’role inthebaptism.

3. Commentary

231

required nearly a year’s preparation. It wasnodoubt these preparations during the 7 thatEusebius described inthelost portion of theVConst. autumn andwinter of 336– The lack of animmediate andserious response from Constantius, stationed in the east since 335, seems to have encouraged thePersian king. Persian activity onthefrontier wasfollowed upbythearrival of further Persian envoys in Constantinople, probably inlate March of 337, since Eusebius mentions their arrival just before Easter of that year, which was3 April. By this point Constantine was probably already feeling unwell. Whatever Constantine’s previous threats concerning thewell-being of Christians in Persia (see Barnes 1985), Shapur seems to have taken the initiative in 336– 7 andpresented Constantine with anultimatum that could only lead to war. Perhaps in view of Roman inactivity following theraids theprevious year hebelieved that theRomans were unwilling to goto war withPersia over thedisputed territory. Libanius presents thePersians asoffering an ultimatum that Constantine rejects; the Continuatio regards it as a formal declaration of warbythePersians. Thedifference is probably oneof perspective. Eusebius (followed by Socrates) hasattempted tocover upConstantine’s involvement inthis failed expedition byclaiming that Constantine madepeace withthePersians before 53), butConstantine clearly could notallow hisfinal Easter (see Fowden 1994: 146– theescalated Persian threat tocontinue andhelaunched anexpedition against them. ThePersian envoys left Constantinople andreturned to Shapur withexactly the answer hewasexpecting, since hemustalready have beenassembling histroops on the frontier. Constantius’ departure for Pannonia after his father’s funeral shows there wasnoreport of Persian activity onthe frontier in the weeks following Constantine’s death. Yet Shapur wasbesieging Nisibis byc. 16June (see no.27, below). Shapur must not have invaded until he had received news of Constantius’ quick abandonment of Antioch. As we shall see in no. 27, the siege was perceived at the time as a response to Constantine’s death. After the departure of the envoys Constantine concluded his preparations at once andprobably set outfrom Constantinople for Antioch in mid-May. Although he hadbeen feeling unwell for over two months, he could not allow a slight discomfiture to slow him down. In hopes of ridding himself of his malaise he detoured by seatotheportofHelenopolis andwentfromthere tothebaths of Pythia. Therest of theexpedition nodoubt went ahead to Nicomedia byland, where Constantine was to meet them in a fewdays. Eusebius is either mistaken in his comments about the baths of Constantinople (a misunderstanding of his source) or being deliberately misleading about the first stage of Constantine’s voyage. His tendentious removal of thePersian expedition casts a pall over theentire narrative. Constantine’s illness grew decidedly worse at Pythia –perhaps an effect of the baths themselves or perhaps a result of the final efforts of preparation andthe trip from Constantinople –and he moved into the stage that Eusebius described as κ ω κ ά σ ις , which ledto the high fever described in the Logothete tradition. It wasno doubt at this point that Constantius wassummoned from Antioch, as theclosest of thethree sons, perhaps even by Constantine himself, though every source states or indicates that he wasnotsummoned until after Constantine’s death, except for Julian (noted above), who seems to be making as much as he can of the fact that only Constantius wassummoned byhisfather intheend.I believe thatJulian is correct in

232

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

this, at least. Constantine mayhave stopped off atHelenopolis forprayer, anunderstandable action; it is recorded only byEusebius, however. Hewasprobably too ill tohave acted andspoken asEusebius represents. Hethenwastaken toAchyron, one of at least two imperial villas outside Nicomedia, close to the emporion Charax, it would seem. It was at Achyron that he was baptized in extremis by Eusebius of Nicomedia anddied. It hadbeen six days since he took ill in Pythia. Hisbody was probably embalmed andtaken back to Constantinople, where it layin state until the arrival of Constantius fromAntioch. Hisother sons werenodoubt informed aswell, though they made noattempt to return to Constantinople for the funeral.

26. Thisiscopied fromEusebius’standard rubric forannouncing a newkingoremperor, ʹ ἐβ μ ίω νιθ α 9 = Sync. α σ ίλ ʹ (214.8– ω ευ σ e.g. Ῥ ε νἈ ή ν λ τ ν ω ῖν ιο ο ηδ ρ ςΑ ὐ ςἔτ 437.11). As is the case with this passage some are rather more detailed, e.g. Ῥ ω μ ʹἐβ α α ίω σ ίλ νιγ ευ σ εΤίτ ο ή ςἈντω ς η θ ν ,σ ε ῖν ο ὶςεὐσεβ , ὁἐπ ς λ ὺ ικ ντ ο ῖςπ α ισ ὶν ʹ(202.1–3 = Sync. 428.14–15) andῬ ηκ γ ἔ κ τ α ὶΛ ʹἐβ μ ο ω η λ υ ίῳ κ α α ίῳ ίω ρ Α ὐ νκ 2 = Sync. 438.6). See also μ α ʹ(215.1– ία μ λ ςυ έξ α ρ ο νἈ σ ε ςὁΜ α ν δ ευ σ ίλ ιγ η ἱὸ τ ςἔ Study 1,nos. 1,3, and19.Theenumeration is carried onfromtheCanones: Constanμ ε τ μ θ ὰ ρ α ά β ὰ ν α τ ο ντ ρ ο α ὸ ῦπ τ ς tine was thirty-fourth; see Study 1, no. 19. Cf. Ἀ ʹ(Cramer 1839: 157.1), which derives from Eusebius’Chronographia. I have ηρ τ ἔ followed thewording of the Chron. Pasch. buttheorder of thenames derives from the Chron. 724, which putConstantius first because hewasemperor of theEast, and thus the ‘local’emperor. Constantine’s sons took until 9 September to proclaim themselves augusti,144 though every literary source (except the onethat actually supplies the date, the Descriptio s.a. 337.2) assumes that their elevations took place immediately after their father’s death. Fortheevents between May22 andSept. 9, seeBurgess forthcoming b.

27. The other witnesses show that Theophanes is an accurate witness to the original Greek text. θ κ ίζ α α ρ as here and ω κ α ρ έ ιο λ ω , notπ ο Eusebius’only wordfor ‘besiege’is π For π α ρ α κ α θ ί ζ 1957: s.v., and ω 844, , see Sophocles in nos. 43 and49, below.145 ήis the regular negative of a participle in later Greek; it Lampe 1961: 1017, s.v. μ ις σ τ does notnecessarily denote a conditional.146 P[ostclassical] Greek often uses ὅ

‘ 305, 307, 309. 144 Barnes 1982: 8, Barnes 1993: 218, andKienast 1990: 2, 146h= Sync. 348.24, and 187a= Sync. 417.2. 145 E.g. 114f = Sync. 299.29, 146c = Sync. 352.1– ήA.II.2.d; Blass, Debrunner, and 146 See Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, andDanker 1979: 516, s.v. μ ήB.6; andJannaris 1897: 430, §1815: ‘towards the 3, §430; LSJ9 1124, s.v. μ Funk 1961: 222–

ήhadsupplanted beginning of our era μ irrespective of their nature’.

ο ὐbefore all infinitives,

participles,

andadjectives,

3. Commentary

233

indiscriminately for ὅ ς(Jannaris 1897: 352, §1435); see also Blass, Debrunner, and 3, §293. I cannot find a parallel for the unusual expression τ Funk 1961: 152– ὸτ ῆ ς ῆ ςπ μ ν α εῦ . χ εὐ Jerome says this siege lasted for ‘almost two months’, Theophanes and the Chron. Pasch. say it lasted sixty-three days, the Chron. 724 says sixty-six days, and the Chron. 1234 says sixty-five. The agreement of Theophanes and the Chron. Pasch., independent Greek witnesses to a Greek source, andJerome’s rounded figureindicate that theContinuatio originally reported sixty-three days. Another more

common tradition, which conflates all three sieges –the first andthose of 346 and 350 –gives a figure of seventy days, e.g. Theodoret, HE 2.30.4; Vita S. Ephraem 6; Vita Iacobi (on these two texts, see below, n. 154); andMichael the Syrian, Chron.

7.4, p. 266/134a.8–7fb. 7), and the Chron. 724 The evidence of Jerome (234f), Theophanes (35.1– 18) demonstrates that the Continuatio also reported what are 6/130.14– (101.33– portrayed as the ultimately successful efforts of Jacob, the bishop of Nisibis, to drive the Persians from the city. It does not mention his death andimplies that he was still alive when the Persians retreated, though the strange expression τ ὸτ ῆ ς μ αmaysuggest that Jacob was indeed dead by the time the Persians ῆ ν εῦ ςπ χ εὐ evacuated Roman territory. However, Jacob does seem to have died in Nisibis on 21 and 2 and 103.13–15/96.19– the thirtieth day of the siege (Chron. 724 77.21– 11, with Agapius 565/565.4).147 Ephraem (Carm. Nis. 13.19) andGennadius 132.9– (de uir. ill. 1) say that he wasburied within the walls, which shows that the siege wasstill going onwhenhediedandshowed nosigns of ending soon; seeMart. Rom. 289 andPeeters 1920: 289. Later hagiography, suchasthe Vita S. Ephraem 7 (Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 171) andthePassio s. lac. Nis. patr. 25, claims that Jacob died shortly after the siege, but that would not explain why he was buried within the walls of Nisibis. The date of his death wasprobably 15 July, since that is the date attested by the Mart. Syr. (19/19.2; on which, see n. 8),148 andby the related WesternMart. Hieron. (375), andhence theMart. Rom. (288).149 The later Greek tradition assigns himto 13 January,150 but this can be explained as anerror for 15 July based on a Latin date (‘id. Ian.’for ‘id. Iul.’). The siege thus began onc. 16 June. But of whatyear? Because of the confusion in our sources, there is a difficulty in ascertaining whether the first siege of Nisibis and the death of Jacob took place in 337 or 338. Thedate of 337 is accepted bya fewscholars, forexample, Ernst Stein, T. D.Barnes, andRoger Blockley,151 but scholarly consensus, exemplified by Otto Seeck, Paul Peeters, A. H. M. Jones, André Piganiol, Jean-Maurice Fiey, Michael andMary 6. 373, andFiey 1977: 21– 7, Peeters 1920: 285– 147 For Jacob, see DCB 3: 325– 148 Fortheeastern/Syriac origin of this entry, which dates to thethird quarter of thefourth century, 14, 15. On this basis I have little doubt that the 8 and Mariani 1956: 13– see Nau 1915: 7– information is accurate. 2. Other, later sources givecompletely different days. Thevarious 149 Onthis, seeMariani 1956: 20– Syriac, Arabic, andCoptic martyrologies of PO 10, for instance, offer 14 Aug., 10 April, 14 May, 28 Aug., 13May, 8 May, and5 April (pp. 44; 55; 78; 85; 100, 110; and 130 respectively). 220.13 (18 Tubah = 13Jan.). 8/219.13– 90 andSynax. Alex. 1:357– 150 E.g. Synax. Sirm. 388– 151 Stein 1959: 137, 488 n. 34; Barnes 1985: 133; Barnes 1993: 252 n. 33; andBlockley 1989: 470.

234

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Whitby, C. S. Lightfoot, Dietmar Kienast, and Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, for example, favours 338.152 Let us first examine the contextual evidence for the date provided bythesurviving narratives andthentheir absolute chronological evidence. In Jerome entries 234c and234e, thedeaths of Ablabius andDalmatius, which actually took place together inJune of 337 (see Barnes 1981: 261– 2; Barnes 1982: 5; andBurgess forthcoming b) are placed before andafter the 8, 87 n. 172, 134– siege. This indicates that thesiege took place atthesame time astheassassinations of Ablabius and Dalmatius and thus belongs in the summer of 337. Chron. 1234 places the siege into a narrative that derives from Socrates, between Constantine’s 35/153.20– baptism andhis death andfuneral (121.19– 154.5). Although tooearly this indicates that the compiler believed that the siege belonged in the summer of 337. Theauthor of theChron. Pasch. mustalsohavepossessed a source thatledhim to locate the siege in the summer of 337, since he quite distinctly places the siege between thedeath of Constantine andtheaccessions of histhree sons. Thesiege is presented as the result of Constantius’ abandonment of the frontier to conduct his father’s funeral. Thenarrative andits chronology donotderive from the Continuatio, buttheentry onthesiege itself is almost identical to Theophanes andso it must have derived from the Continuatio. Agapius also explicitly dates the siege to the same year as Constantine’s death (337) andlike the Chron. Pasch. he narrates it immediately after discussing theleading rôle played byConstantius inthetransport of Constantine’s body from Nicomedia to Constantinople, something noted by the Chron. 1234 as well. Agapius begins, ‘In this year [i.e., the year of Constantine’s death] when Shapur, the king of Persia, learned of the death of Constantine the Great, herose upandattacked Nisibis’(565/565.1). Michael theSyrian is a witness 9), since both are almost to the same source usedby Agapius (7.4, p. 266/134a.25– identical at this point with respect to thetransport of Constantine’s body andShapur’s invasion, though Michael substitutes for the original account of the siege one related to the single conflated account found in Theodoret, HE 2.30. The connection between the siege andConstantius’ rôle in the funeral arrangements of Constantine that led himto abandon the eastern frontier, in three sources that are notdirectly related (Chron. Pasch., Agapius, andMichael), strongly implies a common tradition or source, though notthe Continuatio. Michael’s notice of the siege is in fact his second. The first is placed just before Constantine’s baptism (7.3, p. 259/133c.7– 4fb), which again indicates the summer of 337. Confirmation of the historicity of this chronological connection is provided by Libanius, who, like the Chron. Pasch., states that Constantius wasconfronted with a choice between dealing with the Persian invasion andundertaking his father’s fu6). Hechose the latter option andat first the Persians didnot neral rites (Or. 59.73– thenhadto confer with hisbrother (in Pannonia, as Constantius fear. of out attack

8, s.v. Constantius 4, andRE 1A:2335, s.v. Sapor 2), Peeters 152 Seeck 1919: 186 (also RE4: 1047– 1920: 296 and301, Jones 1964: 112, Piganiol 1972: 84, Fiey 1977: 25, Lightfoot 1988: 111, Whitby andWhitby 1989: 22 n.74, Kienast 1990: 309, andMango andScott 1997: 57 n.7. See also Matthews 1989: 499 n. 15. The date of 338 is also accepted in most dictionary and 2; LTK5: 844; NIDCC encyclopedia articles onJacob orNisibis, e.g. DCB 3: 326; RE 17.1: 741– 522; ODCC 721; andODB 3: 1488.

3. Commentary

235

weknowfromJulian, Or. 1.19A and20C) andatthispoint hereceived newsthatthe Persians hadattacked (‘deserted the river bank’, as Libanius states), which forced Constantius to return, a clear reference to the siege. Constantius hastened back to the borders of Persia but the Persians hadby then retreated in fear of his return (these events should be compared with the parallel narrative of Julian, Or. 1.17C– 22A). Constantius’conference with Constantine II andConstans dates to the summerof 337 (see Burgess forthcoming b). Zonaras too (13.5.6), drawing on yet another independent tradition,153 states that Shapur attacked uponlearning of Constantine’s death. The Chron. 724 (103.1– 11, part of thenext chronicle epitome in thecollection) 15/131.26 and132.6– 2, 11– also dates thedeath of Constantine, theaccession of hissons, andthesiege of Nisibis to the same year (though that year is thecanonical 649 Sel.; see below). A number of other closely related sources quoted by Paul Peeters in his article onJacob of Nisibis also date the siege immediately after thedeath of Constantine (the Historia religiosa of Theodoret, Vita s. Ephraem, Vita s. Iacobi, andPassio s. Iacobi Nisibis patriarchae),154 as does the Chron. Se‛ert, which twice says that the siege took place ‘upon thedeath of (the emperor) Constantine’(23 and27, pp.288 and297/288.5– 6 and297.3). Thecontextual evidence of thesources, therefore, only allows a date of summer 337 for the siege of Nisibis. Nota single source indicates 338. Jerome andTheophanes, however, following theContinuatio, bothdate thefirst siege to the first year of Constantius, that is, 338, andJacob of Edessa andthe Chron. 1234 date it to 649 Sel., which is also 338 (technically Sept./Oct. 337 to Sept./Oct. 338),155 though in thecase of the latter it means dating the death of Constantine to 649 aswell since thecompiler hasadded hisaccount of thesiege of Nisibis between hisdescription of Constantine’s baptism andhisdeath (derived fromSocrates). The 13), andChron. 846 (148.33/ 6/4.12– 15), Chron. 819 (2.5– Chron. Edess. (5.11/4.13– 193.12) all date the death of Jacob of Nisibis to 649 Sel., as does Elias of Nisibis, whoalso correctly dates the death of Constantine andthe accession of his sons to 174.2) dates the 9/173.22– 7/99.24– 100.5). Ps-Dionysius (129.5– 648 Sel. (1: 48.23– death of Jacob of Nisibis to the same year as Constantine’s death andhis sons’ accession, butassigns all three to 649 Sel. This account seems to be related to the one found in the chronicle epitome in the Chron. 724 that follows the Continuatio epitome, since it dates the siege andthe death of Jacob to the same year as the accession of Constantine’s sons, which is identified as649 Sel. Inanearlier unrelated passage in a different section the Chron. 724 dates the siege to the year after 23). 4/96.18– Constantine died andbequeathed theempire to his three sons (77.20– The Chron. Se‛ert, or rather oneof its sources, linking thebeginning of thePersian persecution of the Christians with Shapur’s attack on Nisibis (that is, following the chronology of thelongrecension of themartyr acts of Simeon barSabba‛e; onwhich, 40, whothinks it maybeeither Philostorgius orJohnof Antioch. 153 SeeDiMaio 1988: 239– 9 for translations of many 154 Peeters 1920: 297, 303, 368. See also Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 165– of thetexts mentioned here, especially forthepassages fromTheodoret’s Historia religiosa and Historia ecclesiastica, andthe Vita S. Ephraem. V.Ephraem 6 says that Shapur launched his invasion within ‘a fewdays’of Constantine’s death. 155 For Seleucid eras, see n. 55, above.

236

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

see no.34 below), assigns a date of 31 Shapur (=340) tothesiege of Nisibis (23 and 4) and 30 Shapur (=339) to the death of 27, pp. 288 and 297/288.6–7 and297.3–

Constantine (10, p. 251/251.7–8). Only the Chron. Pasch. explicitly dates the siege to the consular year AD337. Since this contradicts what appeared in the Continuatio, it mustderive from another source. As can be seen, the explicit chronology of all the sources except the Chron. Pasch. is completely at variance with thenarratives they retail. The major problem is that theconfusion of thenarrative andchronology among almost all theavailable evidence suggests that the Seleucid date wasnot remembered separately, but was obtained or calculated from a chronicle, in fact almost certainly from the Continuatio, viaanearly Syriac epitome (see Chapter 1.5), since it isbyfartheearliest known source to explicitly date the siege andJacob’s actions to protect the city, andwas clearly widely disseminated, in one form or another, in the Syriac-speaking world. The Chron. Edess., Chron. 724, Ps-Dionysius, Chron. 819, Chron. 846, Elias, Jacob of Edessa, andthe Chron. 1234 all contain the date 649 Sel. (for Constantine’s death, the siege, and/or Jacob’s death), but as wasnoted in Chapter 1.5, they all contain oneor twoother entries, 47 and/or 48, usually with their associated Seleucid chronology (not regnal years), that must ultimately derive from the Continuatio as well. This derivation andthe confusion concerning the chronology of the death of Constantine, theaccession of hissons, thesiege, andthedeath of Jacob render theabsolute dates of 338 and649 Sel. all but useless. The type of chronological confusion weare faced with here shows that we are dealing witha problem that arises froma difficulty concerning therepresentation of transitional regnal years ina chronicle (see Study 1,Chapter 2). Normally anemperor’s death andtheaccession of hissuccessor(s) arethelast entries of that regnal year andreign. Anything occurring in the calendar year after thedeath andaccession is pushed over into the next regnal year. This usually causes notrouble, butunfortunately in this case Constantine died early in the year, on 22 May, leaving most of 337 (unfortunately, again, aneventful year) to follow hisdeath andtheaccession of histhree sons (not infact until 9 September, butit is always assumed inthese sources that it happened immediately). This means that anyevents after May337 endup after theaccession of Constantine’s sons in 1 Constantius, which is associated with the Seleucid year 649, which is 338. Thus anything deriving from a chronicle and labelled 1Constantius and/or 649 Sel. could date to338 ortopost-22 May337. This problem with regnal years holds true for all oursources that date thesiege to either 338 or 649 Sel., since the chronology of all of them derives from a chronicle that followed these same principles, the Continuatio. This explains the chronological inconsistencies seen above: Constantine dies in his thirty-third, thirty-second, or thirty-first year (the actual figure varies), which is 337 or 648 Sel. Constantius and hisbrothers become augusti at theendof 33/32/31 Constantine, which is 648 Sel. (337). Whatever event follows is then dated to the regnal year after Constantine’s death, even if it took place inthesamecalendar year. Anything occurring in337 and dated to 1 Constantius canthus have occurred both intheyear after andinthesame year as the death of Constantine, yet still be dated to 649 Sel. Conversely, when a later compiler without access totheoriginal chronicle format, asis thecase withthe chronicle epitome in Chron. 724 andwith Ps-Dionysius, hadonly the date of the

3. Commentary

237

death of Jacob of Nisibis (649 Sel.) andknewthat it happened in the same year as the death of Constantine (as stated by other narratives), he consequently dated the death of Constantine andthe accession of his sons to 649 Sel. (338) as well. Sources relating a strictly narrative account of theevents suffer nosuchdistortions. It is only whentheartificial regnal-year chronology is imposed uponthemthatcontradictions arise.156 Anything that originally occurred in 338, of course, would be dated to 1 Constantius/649 Sel. andthere would benoconfusion orcontradiction between narrative andchronology. Such problems can only arise for events that occurred between 23 MayandSept./Oct. 337. It is clear that the chronicle format accounts for the mistaken chronology of the sources andhowevents universally andexplicitly linked in independent sources witheither theleaduptoortheaftermath of thedeath of Constantine in337 could be dated by an equally explicit chronology to AD 338/649 Sel. It is also clear that the narratives themselves cannot all derive from a chronicle source, since in that case thedeath andthesiege would appear inseparate years andthere would benoreason to link them. Onthe other hand, if the siege hadtaken place in 338, it would be far more difficult to account for the close association in the sources between Constantine’s death andthe siege in different andindependent narrative traditions. The sources, such as they are, therefore stand firmly in favour of 337, in spite of the incorrect chronology. Historically, this conclusion makes the most sense as well: one can hardly imagine Shapur’s declaring war, then avoiding invasion in 337 with Constantine deadandConstantius in Constantinople andthen Pannonia, only to invade in338 while Constantius waspresent andactive ontheeastern frontier. AsBlockley points out(1989: 475 n. 59), all three sieges of Nisibis (337, 346, and350) seemto have beenundertaken whenthere wasnoimperial presence intheeast forShapur to contend with. This cannot have been fortuitous. The date of 337 also confirms that Jacob must have died during the siege, not after it as some sources claim orimply (see above). Since Jacob diedon 15July and Constantine diedon22 May, there is notenough time between those twodates fora sixty-three-day siege, andthere is noevidence that Shapur began the siege before the death Constantine. Constantine diedon22 May337 andwithin about twenty-five days Shapur was besieging Nisibis (c. 16 June). Hewasobviously already near the frontier with his armyandmoving forward forwaragainst Constantine andtheEmpire. Hisprogress wasnodoubt hastened bynewsof Constantine’s death ormore probably just news of Constantius’ hasty departure from Antioch on hearing of Constantine’s illness. Newsof Constantine’s being incapacitated andConstantius’absence fromthefrontier wasall Shapur needed to begin his invasion. Indeed, he hadprobably already massed hisarmywhenhedeclared warontheEmpire inearly 337 after thereturn of his envoys in April (see no.25 above) andhadprobably already planned his assault onNisibis –anobvious first-strike target that would strike a great blow at Roman

156 Scaliger sawthis clearly as long agoas 1606. Hedated thesiege to 337 andstated, ‘Est ergo metachronismus unius anni propter initium Constantii alieno tempori assignatum, Lupulo, et Polemio Coss. [338]’(Scaliger 1606: 230, fourth part; Scaliger 1658: 251, third part).

238

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

morale if taken quickly, a linchpin intherestoration andcontrol of Armenia to the north, andanembarrassing loss forPersia inthewaragainst Galerius andDiocletian in298 thathadtoberecovered.157 Constantine’s funeral wascompleted quickly and Constantius left Constantinople soon afterwards (see Burgess forthcoming b); he wasalready inPannonia whenhereceived newsof thesiege (Libanius, Or.59.75). Jacob died on 15 July andwasburied within the walls of thecity. The siege lasted until c. 17 August, at which point Shapur retreated, probably as a result of disease anda shortage of supplies.158 Asfar as weknow, for thesecond year in a row(see nos. 3 and25, above) nocentral Roman action wastaken against them. By thetime Constantius hadcompleted hisbusiness intheBalkans andarrived back inConstantinople (probably inlate September), newsofthePersian retreat hadreached thecity andConstantius could turn hisattention to other matters (i.e. thedeposition of Paul andthe ordination of Eusebius of Nicomedia; see Socrates, HE 2.7, with Barnes 1978a: 66 andBarnes 1993: 213 and219). Hereturned to Antioch for the winter. Libanius’claim that he immediately went as far asthe frontier is anexaggeration.

28. Gregory entered Alexandria as its bishop on 22 March 339.159 The author of the Continuatio probably didnot mention the death of Gregory in 345 or Athanasius’ return in 346. They mayperhaps have been skipped by the epitomator of the Chron. 724, as were Euphronius andFlacillus, butthere is noevidence in Jerome that they appeared originally in the Continuatio. Whatever episcopal source the author was using for Alexandrian bishops it seems to have ended here.

29. notices for emperors in Syncellus, the Chron. Pasch., and the Anon. Matr. suggests that if the author of the Continuatio was following ᾷ , which ελ τ ευ Eusebius here exactly, he most likely would have used the verb τ appears most often in the witnesses. But present tenses are rare in the Continuatio (but seeno. 3, above), so inthereconstruction I have usedἐτελ η σ , which also ε εύ τ ). does ἀ (as π θ α ν έ ν ε Eusebius to appears in thewitnesses Constantine II died in early April of 340.160 Hehadbecome caesar on 1 March 317161 andso hadruled for twenty-three years when he died. However, Eusebius dated his accession to 11 Constantine (=316; see Study 1, no. 28), andif the regnal

A comparison of the death

6, andonthehistorical background to 157 Onthe importance of Nisibis, see Lightfoot 1988: 105– 13. these events from 296 onward, seeBlockley 1992: 5– 158 It should benoted that Shapur wasnotcalled awaytodefend hiskingdom against theChionites during this siege, as Mango andScott (1997: 57 n. 7) claim. Thecited passage of Christensen 6, not337; see also Blockley 1992: 16. (1944: 236) refers to theperiod 350– 6; Barnes 1993: 46; andGrumel 1958: 443. 159 Festal Index 11, pp.237, 238/236.142, 238.145– 160 Kienast 1990: 305 andBarnes 1993: 218. 161 Barnes 1982: 7 andKienast 1990: 305.

3. Commentary

239

years of the Continuatio arecounted inclusively, thetotal is aninternally consistent twenty-five regnal years. It is difficult to say howmuch if anything Jerome actually owes to the Continuatio in his entry, since he hadboth the KG andthe Descriptio as well.

30. Theophanes’account seems tohavebeenheavily rewritten andthereconstruction is chiefly the Syriac rendered into Greek based onTheophanes. Jerome’s translation of ‘dominicum’suggests thattheGreek originally hadτ ρ ια ὸ κ κ υ ό (asinnos.2 and ν η σ ία as reported by Theophanes. ‘in the days of bishop 8, above), not ἡἐκκλ 5/130.23) makes little sense inthis context, since FlaFlacillus’(Chron. 724 102.4– cillus hasalready beennoted asthebishop of Antioch (no. 13A) andhissuccessor is about to be announced, but once it is realized that the original Greek wasἐ π ί+ genitive, it becomes clear that theoriginal sense was‘inthepresence of’, not‘inthe

time of’.

Having two sources that mentioned the dedication of the church, his ecclesiastical source (Theodorus, Hist. trip. 58, p. 29, andCassiodorus, Hist. trip. 4.9.3) and

the Continuatio, Theophanes mistakenly mentions the dedication twice, though Mango andScott (1997: 61 n. 5) incorrectly believe that Theophanes hasjust copied Theodorus out twice. That being the case, it seems unlikely that the reference to Constantine would have been added again fromTheodorus, especially ina different construction with a different verb. For this reason I believe that the reference to Constantine is authentic, eventhough it does notappear intheChron. 724. Its omission in the latter could easily be dueto haplography, either in the original Greek, in Ν Α Π Ο Κ Ω Ν CΤ the translation from Greek to Syriac, or in Syriac: a jump from Υ CΤ Ν Ν Α Τ Ω ΙΟ is even easier in Syriac than Greek. Thechurch Κ Υ Ο Π Ο Υ to Υ Τ ΙΝ probably could nothave been personally founded by Constantine since there is no record of hisbeing in Antioch in327; seeBarnes 1982: 77, andabove, n.43, though there is almost noevidence for the latter half of that year. The Continuatio would therefore be theearliest source to attest to thebelief that Constantine wasinvolved γ α έ ςfound in Theophanes in the foundation of the ‘Great Church’. The epithet μ here wasprobably added byhim(see no. 17, above); I have notretained it. The church wasconsecrated on6 January 341.162 The Continuatio is the sole source for the day. For the correction of the chronology of the witnesses to the Continuatio at this point, see Chapter 1.7. Theophanes states that the church was completed in six years, while the Chron. 724 says fifteen; the latter is correct. Socrates says it wastenyears (HE2.8.2). 2)/ Flacillus is given twelve years in Theophanes (37.24)/Nicephorus (131.1– 18) andthe Chron. syn. (75.22), which, counted inclusively from Zonaras (627.17– 162 See Athanasius, deSynodis 25.1(whodates it totheconsuls of 341andthefourteenth indiction, which is 1 Sept. 340 to 31 Aug. 341); Socrates, HE 2.8.5 (the consuls of 341); Eltester 1937: 6; Downey 1961: 343 n. 106, 357 n. 174, 358 n. 179, 359 n. 186; andBarnes 1993: 57, 253 254– n. 9, 256 n. 12.

240

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

330 (see above, no. 11), would place his death in 341, a date that squares with the evidence of theContinuatio andtheother evidence fortheepiscopate of hissuccessor, Stephen (see below, no. 31). As noted above (no. ii, iv, andv.II), Nicephorus (131.1– 2) andthe Chron. syn. (75.23– 4) also mention in almost identical wording that Flacillus presided overthededication of the ‘Great Church’inAntioch. Chron. 846 (151.24/196.29–197.1), Agapius (565/565.8), Michael theSyrian (7.4, p. 270/ us’ )giv 10), and Eutychius (1014/136.1; calling him Blsyws/‘ Blasi e 135c.9– him only four years, which is impossible.

31. Stephen’s ordination asbishop of Antioch is normally dated to342 or343.163 Shortly after Easter (15 April) of 344 hewasinvolved inanattempt topina false charge of fornication on a visiting Western bishop, Euphrates of Agrippina (Cologne), by planting a prostitute in his bed (Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 20.2– 5, and Theodoret, HE 10.2). Hewasdeposed in the summer of that year, a date determined by the 2.9.1– dates of Easter in344, theCouncil of Serdica (late 343; no.33, below), andthedeath of Gregory of Alexandria (26June 345).164 Theophanes (42.16)/ Nicephorus (131.3)/ 2) give himthree years, which, 19) andChron. 846 (151.25/197.1– Zonaras (627.18– in conjunction with theevidence for thedates of nos. 30 and32, above andbelow, would place his ordination in 341, thus confirming the evidence of the Continuatio. Agapius (565/565.8), Michael theSyrian (7.4, p.270/135c.10), andEutychius (1014/ 136.2; calling him Syws/‘Eustatius’) give him five years, which is impossible. The Chron. syn. (75.25) assigns himfour years.

32.

ί, II.E). π ί+ dative meaning ‘for, during’is later Greek (Lampe 1961: 516, s.v. ἐπ ἐ ν υ ιν ε δ ύ in the Canones with reference to earthω Eusebius does notuse the verb κ quakes (see no. 18, above). On this earthquake, see Downey 1961: 359 and n. 189, and Guidoboni 1989: 674, no. 126, and675, no. 128 (a result of considering the accounts of Jerome and Theophanes as describing different earthquakes). Theophanes andthe Chron. 724 just mention Antioch, butJerome is also basing hisentry onanearly version of the Descriptio (s.a. 341.2165). Jerome’s correct date fortheearthquake derives fromthe 11; and 163 E.g. Clinton 1850: 536, 550; Grumel 1958: 446; DCB2: 525; DHGE 3: 699; 17: 310– 12) puts it in345. Fedalto 1988: 687. Lequien (1740, 2: 711– 164 Onwhich, seeAthanasius, Hist. Ar.21.2; Apol. c. Arian. 51 and57; Theodoret, HE2.10.3–12.1; 2; see also de Clercq Hist. Aceph. 1.1 andFestal Index 18, with the commentary on pp. 171– 8, Hanson 1988: 1954: 317 n. 116, Grumel 1958: 446, Downey 1961: 360, Barnard 1980: 6– 8. 307, andBarnes 1993: 87– ά λ ισ of Socrates, HE τ α 165 Where ‘praeter’is a scribal error for ‘praesertim’; cf. theequivalent μ 2.10.22, which is also dependent on an early version of the Descriptio. For this, see Burgess 1993a: 197.

3. Commentary

241

Descriptio (of which this part waswritten in 342; see Burgess 1993a: 193– 4). Theophanes says it lasted for three days; Chron. 724 thirteen days. I have accepted the latter, though either could be correct depending on the duration of the aftershocks. The independent Descriptio says it lasted all year (as does Agapius [who dates it to 6 Constantius], which derives ultimately from Socrates, which itself derives from the Descriptio). Michael adds that the earthquake destroyed the church (it did not).

33. β ε ύ ω μ is the standard Greek verb for the Latin triumpho. This entry is clearly ρ ια θ modelled onsimilar passages inEusebius withthestructure of subject, object with its governing aorist participle of conquest, and verb, the closest parallels being (194a = Sync. β κ ευ ά ρ α μ α ϊα α ὶΣ κ ύ θ σ ρ ιά Τ ν ςκ α ᾽α ό τ ά ὐ τ ε ο ῶ ... Δ ν ν ςὑπ ἐθ ς α τ ξ α ςκ θ ρ ο υ ο ςὑπ ρΠ ύ κ ά 423.18) andΛ τά ο ιο β α ῖσ ευ ςΚ α α ξ μ ᾽αὐ α σ τ ρ ιά (205a ςκ τ ῶ ν ε ν ἐθ ᾽αὐ τ precedes theverb inEuseα τ ῶ ν = Sync. 430.12). Ascanbe seen, however, a κ bius;166 perhaps it waslost from this entry during the compilation of Theophanes’ ιο έρ ιβ ςἐπ ῃΠ ὶν α ίκ ν ν ο ν chronicle. There are also examples of the form Τ ίω ν έρ ιο (167f = Sync. 379.9) and[Τ ιβ ] ἐπ ς β ῃ ὶν ίκ ευ Ῥ σ α ε ν ιτ μ μ εν ῶ κ ίω ν ρ α ιά ρ ν ὶἈ ἐθ β ευ σ ε ν(168b = Sync. 379.10–11). μ ιά ρ α α ν ν κ ν ἐθ ίω νκ ὶΠ ο ν α δ ικ ίω ιν ὐ ὶΟ On this triumph and its date, see Seeck 1919: 192; McCormick 1986: 39– 40, 6; Blockley 1989: 474 (strangely quoted from Cedrenus rather than Theo105– phanes); andDodgeon andLieu 1991: 385 n. 18. As noted in Chapter 1.7, weunfortunately cannot tell whether the author of the Continuatio dated this event to 343 or 344. This triumph probably took place in Antioch (see below) andI doubt that such an event in Antioch so close to the date of composition could have been misdated. I therefore have assigned this entry to 7 Constantius (344), as the first event of that year. It should, however, beborne inmindthat this date is hypothetical andcannot beusedtosupport thedate of theCouncil of Serdica obtained fromother sources, since it relies uponthem. This triumph is certainly the one that Athanasius states occurred during the μ εν ο ι[that is the Eastern bishops, for ρ φ ά σ ο ε ῃπ ιχρησά Council of Serdica: ἄ λ λ ρ ά ψ γ ν α τ ο σ ῶ ς(Hist. ν τ Π κ ερ α α ὰ ια σ ιλ ςβ ίκ έω leaving theCouncil], ὡ ιν τ ο ῖςἐπ ὐ ςα Ar. 16.2). There has been much controversy concerning the date of this council, with the arguments centering oneither 342 or 343.167 The early view, once it was realized after the publication of Athanasius’ Festal Index in 1848 (Cureton 1848) thatthedateprovided bySocrates (HE2.20.4) andSozomen (HE3.12.7) waswrong (i.e. 347), wastheyear 343 (atleast asearly as 1852 thatI have found: Larsow 1852: 31 n. 1) andthat fits all the evidence the most neatly (best summarized by Hess 4).168 1958: 140– 166 E.g. 179g= Sync. 404.10, 191b= Sync. 419.19, 207e= Sync. 432.7, and208f = Sync. 433.1; cf. also 162d= Sync. 369.10. 9, Bar24, Richard 1974: 318– 27, Barnes 1978a: 67– 167 See most recently de Clercq 1954: 313– 8, Elliott 1988, Hanson 1988: 293 n. 64, andBarnes 1993: 259 n. 2. nard 1980: 1– 168 Thefacts thatFestal Index 16says that Athanasius spent Easter 344 atNaissus –‘Whenhehad

242

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Then in 1904 Eduard Schwartz drew attention to a consular date given amidst theLatin fragments that accompany theHistoria acephala incodex Veronensis 60: ‘congregata est synodus consulat. Constantini et Constantini aput Sardicam’(EOMIA1.2.3: 637).169 Theconsuls, of course, indicate theyears 320 or 329 (‘Constantino VI et Constantino Caes.’or ‘Constantino VIII et Constantino Caes. IIII’; see CLRE s.aa.), but by emending ‘Constantini’ to ‘Constantii’ and ‘Constantini’ to ‘Constantis’, Schwartz came upwiththeconsuls of theyear 342 (‘Constantio III et Constante II’) andconsequently reinterpreted alltheevidence interms ofthatyear.170 This emended consular date became the foundation for all arguments that date the council to 342.171 Indeed, I suspect that without this ‘evidence’noonewould have ever suggested a date of 342. Suchemended ‘evidence’is hardly strong enough to support the weight that has been putupon it, yet the battle has raged ever since, though supporters of 343 have notyet offered a plausible explanation for the consulateapart from accepting Schwartz’s emendation andsuggesting that it refers to the convoking of the council in 342, eighteen months before it actually met, which is plausible.172 It was noted above that the ‘consulatus Constantini et Constantini’ indicates either 320 or 329. It canhardly be a coincidence, however, that theyear 329, C on‘ and stantino VIII et Constantino Caes. IIII’, is theequivalent of thesecond indiction that theCouncil toowould have fallen inthesecond indiction if it hadtaken place in late 343 (it is dated to the autumn by all commentators).173 A check of such works as 9) that date by conthe Fasti Heracliani (398.17–18) andthe Chron. Pasch. (529.8– sul andindiction showthat theconsular year 329 is treated as theequivalent of the second indiction. TheFestal Index dates all Easters bya number of methods including indictions andconsuls (the indictions come first). Even Athanasius uses an in-

hestayed [lit.: was] inNaisos andthere hecelebrated Easter’(p. 243/ Festal letters from exile after the council (which working backwards from his return on21 October 346 must be the letters of 346, 345, and344) alone should beenough todemonstrate that thecouncil took place in343. Asanoutsider to this debate I cannot fathom the adherence to 342 andthe auctoritas of Schwartz (on which, see returned from thesynod

243.209) 242.207–

–andthat he sent three

below).

7 (=NGWG 1911: 515–17). Opitz emend11(=NGWG 1904: 341) and325– 169 Schwartz 1959: 10– edthetext of the fragment inEOMIA tocorrespond with Schwartz’s argument. 170 Schwartz’s emendation wasactually anemendation of anemendation: in their 1753 edition of the letters of Leo the Great Pietro andGirolamo Ballerini hadsuggested the emendation of ‘Constantii IV et Constantis III’, i.e. 346, which corresponded more closely to the (incorrect) dateof 347given bySocrates andSozomen (seen mosteasily inPL56: 146, section X). Schwartz simply emended theBallerini’s emendation. See Schwartz 1959: 11andHess 1958: 140. 171 E.g. Hess 1958: 140: ‘It is largely fromthis evidence [i.e. theconsular date] that [Schwartz] has dated the Council of Sardica in that year’; Richard 1974: 326: ‘Nous croyons avoir montré qu’aucun des trois arguments avancés parZeiller [in favour of 343] n’est efficace contre le ; andElliott 1988: 65: ‘Since there is noother témoignage de la notice ducod. Veronensis 60’ direct evidence [apart from theconsular date] it waspossible for Schwartz to argue that all the direct evidence pointed to342, andtoexplain other statements inoursources, notably byAthanasius, in thelight of that.’ 2, andBarnes 1993: 259 n. 2. 172 Socrates, HE2.20.6; see deClercq 1954: 320 andnn. 131– 173 For indictions, see n. 95, above.

3. Commentary

243

diction whendating the Dedication Council of 341 (see above, no. 30). So indictions were used at the time as a means of dating. This 15-year error suggests that the Greek original of theLatin fragment dated thecouncil byanindiction andthatwhen theworkwastranslated intoLatin sometime after c. 420, theobscure date (forWesterners) wasconverted into a more understandable consular date, albeit the wrong one.174 Farfrombeing animpediment todating thecouncil to 343, theconsular date

of cod. Ver. 60 in fact supports it. J. B. Bury appears to have been the first to link this entry in Theophanes concerning Constantius’triumph withAthanasius’account of thetriumph announced at Serdica (1896: 303and305), butit seems tohavebeenlostinthewakeof Schwartz’s argument based on the consular date: it is not quoted by Seeck (1919: 192), nor 9). More recently theentry hasbeen misdated to mentioned by Barnes (1978a: 67– ‘341/2’(based ontheabsolute values of Theophanes’Annimundi, which canonly beusedasa subsidiary chronology totheregnal years) andthelink hasbeenmissed again.175 Michael McCormick (1986: 39 n. 14) andDodgeon andLieu (1991: 179) areamong thevery fewrecent scholars to maketheconnection (based onBury). This triumph wasprobably celebrated following Constantius’capture of a Persian city andthe settlement of its population in Thrace (Libanius, Or. 59.83–7176). Julian seems to refer to the same event (Or. 1.22A– B, D). Dodgeon andLieu suggest that Nineveh wasthe city captured, which is consistent with Constantius’ sole Persian victory title, Adiabenicus,177 andtheContinuatio’s reference to A ssyrians’. The victory itself, such as it was, probably preceded the capture of Nineveh ‘ and must have been at theotherwise unknown Narasara, since it is theonly clear victory listed byFestus (27.2) andthere wasonly onePersian triumph. Mostothers (follow9) take Narasara asan‘episode’inthebattle of Eleia/Singara ingPeeters 1931: 248– in344, since Festus saysthatNarseh diedinthebattle atNarasara andweknowthat Narseh died in the battle of Eleia/Singara (see no. 3). This seems to meunlikely, mostespecially because Narasara is notmentioned byanyother source withregard toEleia/Singara, Julian andLibanius putNarseh’s death atthebattle of Eleia/Singara, andFestus treats thetwobattles of Narasara andEleia/Singara quite separately, notasparts of thesameday’s fighting. Moreplausible is thatFestus orhissource, as a sort of hypercorrection, has mistakenly ascribed the death of Narseh, which occurred amidst theshameful defeat plucked fromthejaws of victory atEleia/Singara in 344 (see below, no. 37), to the victory the previous year at Narasara (wherever thatwas178), notleast because of thesimilarity of thenames. If not, onemustassume that Festus hascompletely missed thevictory andtriumph of 343, andseparated out individual parts of a single engagement, elsewhere referred toonlyasa defeat (since he does mention the defeat at Eleia/Singara), andgiven the otherwise unattested victory anotherwise unattested name. 174 Onthehistory of theHistoria acephala andits fragments, seeBarnes 1993: 4. 175 E.g. Portmann 1989: esp. 9 and11andBarnes 1993: 312 n. 17. 176 Libanius has tactfully compressed the years between the first siege of Nisibis in 337 andthe 8). 82). Later on, he wasnotquite so tactful (Or. 18.206– victory of 343 (76– 177 Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 385 n. 18, Downey 1961: 360, andBlockley 1992: 15. 178 See Enßlin 1936: 106n. 1, foranother suggested location (nowhere nearNineveh, though).

244

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

The triumph was probably celebrated in Antioch (see McCormick 1986: 39), Constantius’ military base of operations for the Persian war, hence the appearance of thevictory andthetriumph intheContinuatio. It is this triumph that the Continuatio is dating, though the victory itself could have been wonas late as October; Barnes dates the victory to summer/autumn (1993: 220) andthe council to Nov.Dec. (1978a: 69). The triumph would have shortly followed the council, once the bishops hadreturned. Whathasnotbeennoted before byhistorians is that since this victory was clearly related to Constantius’ taking of the victory title Adiabenicus (see above atn. 177), thetriumph wasprobably heldon31 January 344, which was later commemorated with four days of ludi andone of circuses on 26, 28 to 31 January to mark theevent (calendar of Polemius Silvius, January, with Stern 1953: 6 andDegrassi 1963: 375, 404). 83– Theophanes (37.13–14 = 343), like Jerome (235e = 342), mentions Constans’ victory over theFranks, butthenotice is independent of the Continuatio andderives ultimately fromanearly recension of theDescriptio (s.a. 342.1), directly inthecase of Jerome, andindirectly inthecase of Theophanes viaSocrates (HE2.13.4) andthe 3, Theodorus compendium (Theodorus, Hist. trip., text summary at topof pp. 31– andCassiodorus, Hist. trip. 4.13); see Burgess 1993a: 194 n. 22. This source was missed by Mango and Scott (1997: 61c).

34.

1 (Study 1, This entry would seem to be based on Chron. can. 230f = Theoph. 16.30– ρ Χ ισ τ ια ν ο ὺ ῷ π ςἐδίω no. 29): Λ α λ α τ ίῳ ικ ίν ιο ο ὺ τ ξ ν ε . Apart from this pasςἐ ς ... τ sage andΧ ρ ισ τ ια ν ο ὺ ςἐδίω ξ εat 192a(= Sync. 419.24 andChron. Pasch. 467.19) ρ ισ μ α τ ὰ Χ ὸ νκινεῖν.179 τ ια γ ν ῶ ν δ ιω Eusebius usually uses theexpression κ Jerome shows that Theophanes hasantedated this entry andno.35 byoneyear (see Chapter 1.7). Theevaluation of themeaning andcorrect chronology of this entry plunges one into a vast quagmire of historical analysis andreconstruction thatcannot beavoided or ignored. Theproblems aresocomplex that I have felt it necessary to provide the reader with each step of the analysis.

I. The Problem Following his unsuccessful siege of Nisibis in 337, Shapur II, king of Persia, first took action against the Christians of hiskingdom byissuing a firman (or edict) that drastically increased the taxes paidby the Christians. Within a short space of time hehadincreased his pressure uponthemto thepoint of promulgating a second firmanthat ordered the destruction of the churches. This wasfollowed by the arrest 179 185c = Sync. 414.4, 194f = Chron. Pasch. 471.13, 216e = Sync. 442.9, 218d = Sync. 444.20 γ ειρ (ἤ ε ), and223c = Sync. 470.25.

3. Commentary

245

andexecution in Karka de-Ledan, a newPersian city near the site of Susa, of just over one hundred Christians, most especially Simeon bar Sabba‛e (Š m‛ wn br b‛), the metropolitan bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. This was followed by a ten-day pogrom, known as the ‘Great Massacre’, that concentrated on the Christians in Bet

Huzaye (Khuzistan). A general relaxation of the persecution ensued, though the martyr acts still list in the following years theexecutions of upto 120 Christians at

a time.

The general outline of these events is notin dispute; thechronology, however, fromthefact that most of oursources arecompletely contradictory concerning therelative chronology of eachof these events (see Appendix 4, below). Some spread them outover a number of years; others compress them. The contextual andstated dates range from 338 to 348, andthis hasconsequently created complex chronological problems formodern scholars whohave tried to sort out the contradictions. For example, Michael Kmosko hasargued for a date of 13 April 344 for thedeath of Simeon; Paul Peeters for 17 April 341; Martin J. Higgins for 14 Sept. 344; andmost recently T. D. Barnes for 14 Nisan (=28 March) 340.181 Some general accounts still repeat theolddate of 339.182 Icannot solve all theproblems raised by the primary andsecondary sources, butI dohope that the following analysis anddiscussion will layto rest once andfor all thechronological questions, at least.183 is.180 Theproblem arises

68, Decret 1979: 137– 47, and Frye 72, Wigram 1910: 59– 180 For an outline, see Labourt 1904: 43– 40. The former twoare notparticularly scholarly andthe latter is very short. 1983: 139– 7, 93– 61, 85– 713; Peeters 1938; Higgins 1951; Higgins 1953: 48, 54– 4; 181 Kmosko 1907: 690– 349), 9. Forsomedates accepted byearlier scholars (330– Higgins 1955; andBarnes 1985: 128– 6. 8 andKmosko 1907: 695– see Assemani 1719: 1– 182 E.g. Frye 1983: 140. 183 In what follows I have not taken into account the thesis of M. J. Higgins that the Christians of Persia shifted the Semitic names of the months ahead by five months (i.e. Nisan = September instead of April). Inthiscase theconnection between GoodFriday andthemartyrdom of Simeon is too strong to be a later artefact, concocted simply from thedate (14 Nisan). Careful analysis of Higgins’s theory inbothspecific andgeneral terms, however, shows that it is fundamentally flawed andinaccurate, asis explained byRaymond Mercier inAppendix 3. It waswhile following upquestions from Mercier about Higgins’ theories that I first came to suspect that the unknown calendar in many of the Persian martyr acts either wasor was very similar to the Jewish calendar. Because of his expertise in the field of ancient calendars andhis interest in Higgins’s theory, Mercier hasvery kindly agreed to explain Higgins’s errors anddemonstrate theuseof theJewish calendar inmanyof oursources where previous scholars have beenunable to accurately identify thecalendar used. In spite of theresults of Mercier’s analysis of Higgins I owemuch to Higgins’s scholarship on this entire question. I should also state that in what follows I dolittle morethanreevaluate thearguments ofMichael Kmosko inthelight ofHiggins, later scholarship, andthe evidence of the Continuatio. Anyinterested reader should carefully examine Kmosko 1907, Higgins 1953, Higgins 1955, and Pierre 1995, who follows up the arguments presented byHiggins 1951, especially (see below).

246

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

II. Interpreting

Aphrahat, Dem. 23.69

The fundamental difficulty, as I see it, is that most scholars have started from the Persian martyr acts andused the dates they contain to correct the contemporary record, in this case Demonstration 23 of Aphrahat, a Syriac writer andtheologian known as T hePersian Sage’wholived within thePersian empire, perhaps inAdia‘ to me seems completely backwards. I can think of no case in Late bene.184 This Roman history where a contemporary local witness with noevident bias hasbeen ignored oremended awayin favour of later martyr acts, especially ones that are so obviously inconsistent andcontradictory intheir ownnarratives andchronology.185 In Demonstration 23.69 Aphrahat says (in the translations of Parisot, Barnes, Pierre, andBruns): Epistolam hanc adte scribebam, amice, inmense Ab,annosexcentesimo quinquagesimo sexto regni Alexandri, filii Philippi Macedonis, quiestannus trigesimus sextus Saporis, regis Persae, quipersecutionem excitauit; annoquinto cumeuersae suntecclesiae, annoquoetmagna strages martyrum inorientali regione facta est...

I have written youthis letter, dear friend, in the month of Abof the year 656 of the rule of Alexander thesonofPhilip theMacedonian, andintheyear 36ofShapur, thePersian king, who caused persecution, in the fifth year after the churches were destroyed, in the year in which occurred a great massacre of martyrs intheeastern region... Je t’ai écrit cette lettre, monami, aumois d’Av,enl’an 656 duroyaume d’Alexandre, fils de Philippe le macédonien, enla 36eannée deShapur, le roidePerse quia fait la persécution, enla cinquième année oùlesEglises ontétédéracinées, enl’année oùil yeutgrand ravage demartyrs aupays d’Orient... Ichhabedirdiesen Brief geschrieben, meinLieber, imMonat Abdes656. Jahres derHerrschaft Alexanders bar Philippus, des Makedonen, im 36. Jahre des Perserkönigs Schapur, der die Verfolgung veranlaßt hat, imfünften Jahre nach derZerstörung derKirchen, in demJahre, da diegroße Vernichtung derBlutzeugen imLande desOstens geschah...186

TheJulian equivalent of themonth Abis a difficult problem. A number of different calendars could havebeenusedbytheChristians of Persia, themostprobable being some form of lunisolar calendar like the Jewish calendar or the Babylonian 184 See, e.g., ODB1: 128. Though it is usually accepted thatAphrahat washeadof a monastery in MarMattai, north-east of modern Mosul, the evidence for this information is very late and highly suspect: see PSyr, p. 43 (‘Nonmeretur fidem A[phrahatem] fuisse in monasterio Mar 5. Mattai, utaffirmatur saec. XIV’) andBruns 1991: 44– 185 See the similar comments byPierre 1995: 265 and276. For all thetexts to bediscussed below the reader is directed to Appendix 4, a chronological table that presents the important chronological data discussed throughout this section.

186 Parisot 1894: 150, Barnes 1985: 128, Pierre 1989: 963, andBruns 1991: 579. Peeters’s translation (1938: 132) is essentially the same, though for ‘qui est annus trigesimus sextus’he has ‘anno trigesimo sexto’, andfor ‘anno quo’hehas ‘illo annoquo’. Kmosko (1907: 699) is also similar, having ‘et anno36 Saporis’for ‘quiestannus ... Saporis’, asis theFrench translation of Devos (1966a: 246): ‘Je t’ai écrit cette lettre, monami, aumois d’abdel’année 656 durègne d’Alexandre, fils dePhilippe le Macédonien, et enl’année 36 deSapor, le roi perse qui fit la persécution, enla 5eannée (après) quefurent détruites leséglises, enl’a nnéeoùeutlieule grand massacre des martyrs en terre d’Orient ...’. I have included all these different translations to showthat fortranslators theSyriac is unambiguous inwhatit says.

3. Commentary

247

calendar (familiar to the Near East as the pre-Roman lunisolar Syro-Macedonian calendar of theoldSeleucid Empire), theJulian calendar, orthePersian calendar. In eachcase, theSyriac names ofthemonths would havebeensubstituted forthepropῷ er names, in this case Abfor Ab, Λ ο ς , Augustus, andIsfandarmudh respectively, though the months themselves never matched exactly, because the Jewish andBabylonian calendars were lunisolar (indifferent ways) andtheJulian andPersian were solar, though unlike theJulian calendar thePersian hadnointercalation (see n. 187, below). The Babylonian calendar, adopted and adapted for use by many different peoples andcities, took onmany different forms in theeastern Mediterranean and thesuccession of months wascalculated andarranged verydifferently depending on the city or community where it wasused. However, it is the Jewish calendar, as it can be determined from later evidence, that provides the best parallel for the evidence wehave fortheChristian calendar inPersia atthis time, bywhich I meanthat many of the Christians of Persia, including Aphrahat, appear to have used a lunisolar calendar that most often resembles the reconstructed Jewish calendar (see n. 183, above, andAppendix 3).187 It is this calendar that I shall useforall conversions in this section. Since weare dealing with a lunisolar calendar, wemust first determine theyear before wecandetermine theJulian equivalent of Ab. Since Shapur came tothethrone atsome point inlate 309 orduring 310, andhis second regnal year began with thePersian NewYear on 1 Farvardin (=10 September310), thethirty-sixth year of Shapur therefore began on 1Farvardin (=1 September) 344.187 The ‘year of Alexander’ is the Seleucid era (Sel.) andsince it appears from Aphrahat andlater sources that it wasroughly synchronized with Persian regnalyears, which started at thebeginning of each newPersian year, both thePersian regnal and Seleucid years were probably reckoned by the Christians of Persia to begin with the month of their calendar that most closely approximated the Persian first month.188 At this date, that month wasTeshrin I. As can be seen in Appendix 3,

187 ThekeytothePersian calendar hasbeenexplicated bydeBlois 1996, whoshows thattheJulian equivalents for the Persian NewYear’s Day in Nöldeke’s table (Nöldeke 1879: 436 and Bickerman 1983: 791) are five days too early before c. 500 (cf. the earlier discussions of 12). Since thePersian calendar wasa 8, andBoyce 1983: 805– Bickerman 1983: 785 n. 2, 786– solar calendar that wasnever intercalated, the date of 1 Farvardin hadslipped back from 10 to 1 September between 310 and344 (one dayevery fouryears). ForthePersian calendar ingeneral, 8, 410–11, 90. OnShapur’s regnal years, see Nöldeke 1879: 407– see Bickerman 1983: 785– 435, andonthesystem thePersians usedforcalculating regnal years, seeBickerman 1983: 783. 310) as 1Shapur: There is muchevidence inthechronicles alone toconfirm 621Sel. (thus 309– for instance, Elias of Nisibis gives 621 Sel. as thedate of Shapur’s accession (1: 48.1–2/98.8– 10), andin theking list onp. 26/42.16 and43.1 (where 538 + 83 = 621), andthe Chron. Se‛ert 310inthe (23, p.287/287.11– 288.1) places hisaccession inthefifth yearofConstantine (=309– Seleucid calendar probably used by the original author). Other correlations between Shapur’s regnal years andSeleucid eras confirm this date. 188 OnSeleucid dates, see above n. 55. In Demonstration 12.1 Aphrahat states that Nisan (April) 31 wasthefirst month of theyear. However, inDem. 14hesays hewaswriting inShebat (=2– January) 35 Shapur and655 Sel. If theSeleucid yearhadbeenreckoned from 1Nisan, i.e. if the change from one Seleucid year to the next hadoccurred in April, Shebat andAbwould be in different Seleucid years butthesame Persian year, since Persian years at this point ranfrom 1 September (see previous note). Aphrahat thus roughly correlates Seleucid years andPersian

248

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

section 2.2, because of the constant backward slippage of the Persian calendar, a century later the first month hadshifted back to Ilul, the previous month. In this case, 656 Sel., 36 Shapur probably began on 1 Teshrin I or 24 September 344 and concluded on29 Ilul or 13 September 345. Accordingly, Ab of 656 Sel., 36 Shapur wasapproximately 17 July to 15 August 345 of theJulian calendar. The obvious meaning of this passage of Aphrahat, therefore, to anyone who comes to it with no knowledge of the martyr acts, is that the massacre took place in 656 Sel./36 Shapur (i.e. between 24 Sept. 344 and July/August 345) and that the destruction of the churches occurred five years earlier, in 651 Sel./31 Shapur (=20

7 Sept. 340). Sept. 339– PaulPeeters begins withthelongrecension ofthemartyr acts (analysed below), which places the death of Simeon bar Sabba‛e andthe second day of the Great Massacre on 14 Nisan of 31 Shapur (=340). This 14 Nisan was also a Good Friday according tothemartyr acts (see below). Peeters also notes that theByzantine celebration of Simeon’s martyrdom is usually recorded on 14 April, with some synaxaria recording 13 and 15.189 Onesynaxarion, that of Sirmond, anda reference in a Melchite evangelistary, which both date from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, give thedate as 17 April.190 Peeters seizes uponthis date, since GoodFriday fell on 14Nisan and17April in341, while 14Nisan was29 March in340 andGoodFriday was 28 March. Because of this synchronism Peeters proposes the date of 17 April 341forthedate of Simeon’s death, eventhough nota single source places hisdeath 1). 20, 130– in this year, which is 32 Shapur (pp. 118–

regnal years, as all other later writers seem to do as well, so the two were probably in close synchronization. TheSeleucid year therefore probably began asclose aspossible tothefirst day of thePersian NewYear. Since thePersian NewYearbegan on 1September in344, theSeleucid year thus probably began forAphrahat on 1Teshrin I, thefirst full month following thePersian

NewYear. 604. This is a result of thefailure to realize that Nisan wasa lunisolar month 189 Synax. Sirm. 599– notanexact Julian equivalent (as it later was). Only onemanuscript each is cited by Delehaye for 13 and 15 April. Most manuscripts date between the twelfth andthirteenth centuries (of which Delehaye cites fourteen), butthe twooldest, P andH, date from the tenth andtenth/ eleventh century respectively. They all report 14 April. To these could be added the Cal. Pal.Georg. 60; Saliba, Martyrologium 180; andthevariety of early Syriac andCoptic synaxaria in 1, 202 n. 3, 269; Synax. Arab.-Jac. various manuscripts published in PO 10 (1915), 75, 120– 9/78.11–79.11, which all give 14 April (or 19 Synax. Alex. 2: 78– 3and 15.10; – 10) quotes Greek, Syriac, Barmudah, which is the Egyptian equivalent). Assemani (1748: 6– andCoptic synaxaria that give 14April, a number of Greek documents that offer 17 April and 20 April, as well as anArmenian text that offers a date of 12 April. Themenologium of AlBirouni (PO 10 [1915], 306) gives 30 Nisan (=30 April). In the Mart. Syr. the martyrdom is noted at theendwithout anychronology (p.24/24.3). IntheRoman church it is 21 April (Mart. 8). Rom. 147– 8. The Sirmondian synaxarion is dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century. 190 Synax. Sirm. 607– Thenotice appears under both 14and17April intheevangelistary (Peeters 1938: 119). Simeon’s martyrdom also appears under both 14 and 17 April in a very late Syriac synaxarion in PO 10 (1915), 76. For 17 April, see the previous note as well. Probably under the influence of the Sirmondian synaxarion andPeeters’s article, mostmodern eastern ecclesiastical church calendars commemorate Simeon’s martyrdom ontheseventeenth. 5314 /314.4

3. Commentary

249

The chief problem with Peeters’s conclusion, of course, is that the date of 17 April is notvalid evidence. Heclaims that ‘uncomputiste grec soucieux’, ‘unrévi3) hada Greek translation of certain early martyr acts of seur intelligent’(pp. 142– Simeon andknowing theGreek equivalent of 32 Shapur andthat thePersian calendar waslunisolar wasable to calculate the correct Roman date (17 April) for the martyrdom. But nosource gives 32 Shapur asthedate of themartyrdom of Simeon andnocompiler of the twelfth century or earlier would have, or could have, made such a calculation. Andeven if hedid, theresult of hiscalculations would be of no more value as primary evidence than Peeters’s owncalculations: that 14Nisan fell on 17April, GoodFriday, in341is a fact whether Simeon wasmartyred onthatday or not (but see below, for this ‘fact’). This GoodFriday synchronism of 14Nisan and17 April 341 cripples Peeters’s entire argument andoverwhelms all other sources, even Aphrahat. Peeters claims that Aphrahat’s clause beginning ‘illo anno quo ...’, which mentions theGreat Massacre, refers notto ‘scribebam’ (as doall the other chronological references in the colophon), but to the immediately preceding clause, that which mentions the destruction of the churches. Thus the massacre –which Peeters, following the long recension of the martyr acts, associates with the martyrdom of Simeon –andthe 9, esp. 133). Hedoes destruction of thechurches occurred inthesameyear (pp. 132– admit, however, that theobvious meaning is still possible, saying wemust interpret the grammar in thewaythat best suits theother evidence.191 Hestates that thedate of 31 Shapur is thedate of theoriginal edict calling forthedestruction ofthechurches, notthe date of their destruction or thedeath of Simeon, which both would have occurred around eight months later in 32 Shapur.192 This chronology does not accord with either his reading of Aphrahat or the martyr acts. The faults of this approach are obvious andtherest of Peeters’s argument neednotbe analysed, subservient as it is to the false synchronism of GoodFriday 14 Nisan and 17 April 341. There are further, even more fundamental problems, however. Throughout his argument Peeters assumes that 14 Nisan means ‘the fourteenth dayof the moon of Nisan’(e.g. pp. 130, 131, 134, 136), i.e. thedate of thefull mooninthelunar month of Nisan, which hecalculates according totheChristian computus (see Appendix 3. 1. 1. 4). Henowhere attempts to determine whatcalendar wasactually being used by the author of the martyr acts, he simply assumes that all lunar calendars are the same, thatthey will have mechanisms forperfect adjustment withthesolar year, and that in such a calendar the fourteenth of each month will always coincide exactly 191 En définitive, onne saurait contester que, bien oumalvenue, la phrase est grammaticalement susceptible de deux constructions. Dès lors, toute la question est de savoir si, de ces deux constructions possibles, il nevautpasmieux s’entenir à celle quis’harmonise sans peine avec l’ensemble dela tradition, ous’il est plus sage dese buter à uneautre exégèse, enraturant les manuscrits et en bousculant les faits qui la rendent improbable’ (1938: 134) and ‘Non! la grammaire syriaque n’ a pas le moyen denous contraindre à dénaturer les textes et à déformer 9). He was well aware of Kmosko’s les faits pour aboutir à un pareil non-sens (1938: 138– 9), butseems to hold it incontempt: see his earlier comments in 1920– hypothesis (1938: 132– 1: 70 n. 4, 72 n. 1, 74 n. 1. Hethinks even less of Higgins; see Peeters 1943. In his rejection of 8). this chronology he is followed by Devos (1966a: 246– 32 andPeeters 1920– 1: 70 n. 4. 192 See Peeters 1938: 123, 124–

250

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

with thefull moon. Ascanbe seen in Appendix 3, however, this is notthe case. As noted above, theJewish calendar provides thebest parallel forthecalendar usedby theChristians of Persia, andinTable 6 of Appendix 3 wecansee that between 338 and345 Jewish 14Nisan coincided with thefull moon, orrather thefourteenth day of the lunar month, what is technically called ‘luna xiv’, in only two of eight years (339 and344). Of these two years only in 344 does 14 Nisan coincide with the date of GoodFriday. In 341, theyear in which Peeters wishes to place the martyrdoms, 14 Nisan fell on Wednesday 18 March; Good Friday (17 April) fell on 14 Iyar, the next month. Like Peeters, Assemani (1748: 28 and47), Kmosko (1907: 697– 701 and704), andPierre (1995: 277) allequate 14Nisan with ‘lunaxiv’of thecomputus rather thanwith 14Nisan in anyreal calendar. Evenmore problematic forPeeters’s analysis is the fact that Jewish 14 Nisan would have fallen on Good Friday (28 March) in 340 (31 Shapur) as well, even though ‘luna xiv’wasthe next day. His argument started from the ‘fact’that 14Nisan wasnotGoodFriday in340, 31 Shapur, yetit was. Consequently none of Peeters’s arguments hasanyforce. T. D. Barnes, too, begins with thelong recension of themartyr acts andtries to subvert Aphrahat, not grammatically but editorially, by appealing to A, the lesser andlater of the twosurviving manuscripts.193 The manuscript uponwhich the text 23 is based, B, is dated to AD 512 and is of the of Aphrahat’s Demonstrations 11– 10 anddated to AD 474. The same tradition as B, containing Demonstrations 1– reading of B is also supported by a seventh-century quotation preserved by George,

bishop of theArabs.194 Manuscript A is of thesixth century andis generally inferior to B-B, which wasused as thebase manuscript byboth editors of Aphrahat.195 Barnes takes this variant reading of A (which nevertheless still says that Aphrahat waswriting in the year of the Great Massacre) and then ‘emends’ the text to obtain the meaning he requires, namely that Aphrahat waswriting ‘in the fifth year after the great massacre of martyrs intheeastern region’(p. 129). Thusthedestruction of the churches andthe massacre took place five years before Aphrahat wrote, that is, on 14 Nisan of 31 Shapur (AD 340), the date of the martyr acts. Barnes also appeals to the acts of the 120 martyrs of Seleucia (p. 129). These martyrs were arrested in the fifth year of the Persecution (that is, in the fifth year after themartyrdom of Simeon), held inprison forsix months over thewinter, and executed on6 Nisan (≈April; BHO718196). Barnes then (rightly) claims that Aphrahat would never have described events ‘inAdiabene’, where these massacres took place, asbeing in ‘theeastern region’, thelocation ofthemassacre hedoesdescribe, since helived inAdiabene himself. Butthese martyrdoms areirrelevant totheargument. Aphrahat’s expression, rbrbt/the ‘Great Massacre’(col. 149.7), is exactly thesame expression applied inthemartyr literature tothemassacre that took place overa ten-day period starting on13/14 Nisan andcentred inKarka de-Ledan andthe region of Khuzistan (Bet Huzaye), which was‘intheeastern region’, though many

70 andn. 11. 193 In this he is following Nedungatt 1980: 69– 70. 194 See Kmosko 1907: 699 n. 2, Barnes 1985: 129, andPierre 1989: 969– 15, 17 andParisot 1894: lxvii-lxix, lxxi, andlxxix. 195 Wright 1869: 10– 9. 9 andBedjan 2, 291– 196 Text in Assemani 1748: 105– 5; translation in Braun 1915: 97–

3. Commentary

251

were martyred throughout Persia (see below).197 Aphrahat mustbe referring to the Great Massacre of the martyr literature, martyrdoms that could nothave been confused with a lesser series of executions ata different time andplace.198 Furthermore, both Peeters andBarnes believe that the martyrdom of Simeon andtheGreat Massacre werepartof thesame series ofevents. Butthis is onlytrue in the latest, long recension of themartyr acts. Asweshall seebelow, theearliest and most trustworthy short recensions state that the twoevents in fact occurred a year apart. Thus if theGreat Massacre took place inthesameyear astheedict waspromulgated, oreight months later, Simeon musthavebeenmartyred before theedict; yet all traditions of the martyr acts quite clearly place his martyrdom after the edict.

III. The Martyr Acts

To resolve this confusion involving the dates of the edict or firman ordering the destruction of thechurches, themartyrdom of Simeon, andtheGreat Massacre, we must carefully examine the martyr acts themselves andespecially their chronologies. Asweshall see, they arefar from unanimous in their testimony. III.1. TheShort Recension: Sozomen

Theearliest tradition of themartyrdom of Simeon nolonger exists, though wehave three witnesses to it, each further in time from the original. The twowitnesses that areclosest to these lost martyr acts arepreserved in a Greek summary in theHEof 11) andin a single text in Syriac that is conventionally divided into Sozomen (2.9– two, TheMurder of Mar Simeon the Bishop andThe Great Massacre of the Holy Martyrs of God that took place in the territory of Beth Huzaye (BHO 1117 and 124).199 Sozomen is theearliest of thetwo, since hewaswriting in thelast years of the440s andearly 450 andtheearliest Syriac manuscript dates to474, though Paul Devos believes that theSyriac canbetraced back tothefirst half of thefifth century (1966a: 240–2).200 The structure anddevelopment of Sozomen’s version, however, 197 Thephrase appears at thebeginning andendof Massacre B (Bedjan 2, 241 and248), theaccount of the ‘Great Massacre’inthelong recension, andintheexplicit of Massacre A(Kmosko 1907: 700), theshort recension of the ‘Great Massacre’(onwhich, see below). 198 Bruns 1991: 580 n. 38, thinks thatAphrahat could bereferring tothemartyrdom of the 120. 778. BHO 36 andKmosko 1907: 715– 199 BHO 1117: text andtranslation in Assemani 1748: 10– 54. Onthe title of 50; text in Bedjan 2, 248– 124: text andtranslation in Assemani 1748: 45– these acts, seeHiggins 1955: 1n.3 andKmosko 1907: 700 (whomisses theword ‘bishop’inhis translation). I shall refer to them as Simeon A andMassacre A, respectively. Onthe close relationship between Sozomen andtheshort recension inSyriac, seeDevos 1966b. Onthelost 421), p. 65, andfor its date (c. 399– archetype, nowstyled ABx, see Wiessner 1967: esp. 40– 4. For the Armenian translations of the Persian martyr 189. See also Devos 1966c: esp. 221– acts, see vanEsbroeck 1977. 200 ForthedateofSozomen, seeHEpref. 19(indicating 439 astheoriginal terminal date, though he got no further than425), with Barnes 1993: 8, 206, and209. For the date of the Syriac manuscript, see Kmosko 1907: 713.

252

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

betray its earlier composition. Since both are so close to one another in general structure anddevelopment I shall refer to both as ‘theshort recension’. Sozomen begins with denunciations bytheMagi andJews before Shapur II, the king of Persia, of Simeon, archbishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, charging that he ‘was a friend of the emperor of the Romans andmade known to him Persian affairs’ (2.9.1). Shapur believed these informers andas a result heavily taxed all Christians, hoping that they would despise their religion.201 Later he ordered that all leaders of the church should be killed, the churches demolished, their treasures confiscated, andSimeon arrested as a traitor to the Persian kingdom andreligion. Thus didthe Magi andtheJews destroy thehouses of prayer. Simeon wasbrought before Shapur butrefused to payobeisance to himorworship thesun, inspite of themanyinducements offered bytheking andthreats against himandall Christians inPersia. Shapur ordered him to be kept in prison for a while, thinking that he would change his mind

5). (2.9.2–

While he was being conducted to prison he was met by Usthazanes (so the manuscripts say), anagedeunuch, anoldfriend of his, andfoster father of Shapur. He had been a Christian but hadrecently apostatized. Simeon rebuked him and passed himby. Usthazanes wascrushed, realizing what he hadlost through his apostasy. Shapur heard of his wild lamenting andsummoned himin order to find out what his trouble was. Usthazanes explained that he hadbetrayed Christ anddeceived theking, since hehadonly pretended to worship thesun. Whenherefused to abandon hisrediscovered faith, Shapur in a fit of anger ordered himto bebeheaded andhis order wascarried outafter a public proclamation (2.9.6–13). The next daywasGood Friday andafter Shapur hadagain been unable to persuade Simeon to worship himor the sun, he gave orders that Simeon be executed along with one hundred others. Theothers –bishops, presbyters, andother clerics – were executed first andSimeon spoke toeachbefore hewasexecuted andstrengthenedhimin his faith. Hewasexecuted last, along with Abedechalaas andAnninas, 5). two aged presbyters from his ownchurch (2.10.1– AsAnninas wasabout to beexecuted, hewasencouraged byPusices, thehead of the king’s artisans, whowasimmediately brought before Shapur, where he revealed hisChristian faith. Because hespoke his mindto Shapur, histongue wascut out andhe was tortured to death. His daughter, a holy virgin who hadbeen de2). nounced byunknown slanderers, wasexecuted atthesame time (2.11.1– called that edict an promulgated year, Shapur on Friday, Good The following for the death of all confessed Christians. The Magi sought out all Christians in all the cities and villages of Persia, and a great many were killed, including many of those in thepalace. Among these wasAzades, a eunuch muchbeloved by theking, andwhen Shapur heard of his death he was struck with such great grief that he revoked his general anti-Christian edict, replacing it with one calling only for the

201 The Epic Histories attributed to P awstos Buzand’ (see n. 71, above) also mentions taxation ‘’ 8), butGarsoïan believes topersecution (4.17, pp. 147– andharassment asthefirst stepleading that this reference derives from themartyr acts andso is without independent value (1989: 288 1:61. nn.2 and13). Unfortunately therestof theaccount is valueless aswell: seePeeters 1920–

3. Commentary

253

deaths of Christian leaders (2.11.3– 5). Thiswasfollowed bythemartyrdom of Simeon’s twosisters, oneof whomwasnamed Tarbula, whohadbeendenounced bythe Jews (2.12.1– 3). TheMagi continued to actively round upChristians, concentrating on bishops andpresbyters, andthose in Adiabene, since it was mostly Christian

(2.12.4).

III.2. The Short Recension: The Syriac Acts (A)

The Syriac version of the short recension (BHO 1117), usually referred to as recension A’, similarly starts withtheimposition of taxes ontheChristians of Persia, but ‘ a date is given for what follows: Year 117 of the Persian kingdom and 31 Shapur 7, coll. 725 and728/726. 23– 4 and727. 8– (Simeon A,6– 10). Simeon wrote toShapur that Christians could notpaythetax, since they were poor andnottheslaves of any man. Shapur replied that Simeon wastrying to turn the Christians against himand threatened to execute him. Simeon responded that death meant nothing to himsince it would be on behalf of his flock andhis faith in imitation of Christ. When Shapur readthis letter heexploded inparoxysms of rage andordered Christian clergy tobe put to death, churches destroyed, sanctity polluted, and church vessels confiscated 12, coll. 732– 8). Andhe added, ‘Bring me 7/731– andputto profane use (SA 10– Simeon, thechief of thesorcerers, because hehasrejected mykingdom andchosen 4). that of Caesar, in that he worships his Godandmocks mine’(col. 737/738.20– The Jews then began to work against Simeon andthe Christians. The Jews and the Magi brought about the destruction of the church at Seleucia-Ctesiphon and Simeon wasarrested andquickly sentoff tothecity of Karka de-Ledan inBetHuzaye with Abdhaykla andHannina (‛B (d) hykl and nyn; ‘Hananina’is a typographical error intheLatin). Hewasbrought before Shapur butrefused topayobeisance to him, paytribute, orworship thesun, inspite of manyinducements andthreats from 26, coll. 737– Shapur. Shapur then sent himtoprison until thenext morning (SA 13– 50). 49/738– tzd; Sozomen’s UsthaThe accounts of the martyrdoms of Gushtazad (Gwhš zanes), the one hundred other Christians, Simeon, Pusik (Pwsyq), andhis daughter 778), except 48, coll. 749– 77/750– areessentially thesame asinSozomen (SA26– that Gushtazad is explicitly stated to have been executed on Maundy Thursday 13 Nisan, andSimeon andtherest onGoodFriday, 14Nisan (SA33, 37, coll. 757, 764– 6). It is also mentioned thatSimeon andShapur hadbeenfriends (SA40, 5/758, 763– 5), something weknowfromother sources as well.202 Thedeaths of col. 768/767.4– 8). 8, coll. 776– 7/775– Pusik andhisdaughter arenarrated last (SA47– InBHO 124, Massacre A, Shapur’s edict ordering thedeath or enslavement of all professed Christians is dated toGoodFriday 14Nisan, 32 Shapur, andtheGreat Massacre that followed it is dated from noon on that day until the second Sunday after Good Friday, a total of ten days (Assemani 1748: 45 and47).203 The prisons 18. 202 E.g. Chron. Se‛ert 27, p. 297/297.9, andChron. Arb. 11, p. 68.15/46.17– 203 Themanuscripts report that the ‘Great Massacre’lasted ‘fromFriday thefourteenth [of Nisan] at the sixth hour [i.e. noon], when the edict was promulgated, until the next Sunday of the

254

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

were filled with Christians andthe scale of the slaughter is much greater than in Sozomen, but the outcome is the same: the death of Azad causes Shapur to restrict his persecution to the leaders of thechurch after innumerable Christians have died (col. 50/50.5– 18). Atthevery endit is mentioned that manysoldiers from 12, 13– Shapur’s army were martyred aswell. There arethus four stages tothepersecution of theshort recension: taxation; an

edict ordering the confiscation of church treasures, the destruction of the churches, andthe deaths of the clergy; thearrest andmartyrdom of Simeon andonehundred other Christians; andanedict ordering the death or imprisonment of all Christians, which is repealed after ten days. The date of the first stage is unknown, but the implication is that it was some considerable time before the first edict (the results 7). The first edict dates to year are described in Simeon A 6, coll. 725 and728/726– 117 of the Sasanid era and31 Shapur, buthowlong before GoodFriday, 14 Nisan, when Simeon is martyred, is unknown. The second edict waspromulgated a year later in 32 Shapur onGoodFriday, 14Nisan. The date of 31 Shapur indicates 3 September 339 to 1 September 340 (see n. 187, above). Thus thedates of themartyrdom andthemassacre would appear to be 28 March (Good Friday and 14 Nisan) 340 andeither 18 March (=14 Nisan) or 17 April (=Good Friday) 341. Year 117 of the Sasanid era also indicates the same year as themartyrdom of Simeon, 340, since thefirst year of the Sasanids wasreckoned from 2 October 223.204 The exact correlation of these twodates of 31 Shapur and 117 Sas. (the only verifiable correlation in the entire martyr tradition; see below) certainly suggests an authentic date, probably remembered from the actual edict itself. Its exact agreement with Aphrahat in date (31 Shapur) anddescription (the destruction of the churches) marks it as the certain date for Shapur’s edict ordering the destruction of the churches, which must therefore have been issued between 3 September 339 and1 September 340. Ofthis there canbe nodoubt. Some episcopal lists, too, give the date of 31 Shapur for the death of Simeon,205 andthe Chronicle of Se‛ert also mentions 31 Shapur, though it connects it with the very beginning of the persecution andthefirst siege of Nisibis.206 Asit stands, theshort recension is internally consistent, both in its narrative andits chronology, though it has obviously

3 fb; Bedjan 2, 251.7– 9). second week of Pentecost, that is tendays’(Assemani 1748: 47.7– This hascaused confusion butAssemani is correct instating that ‘Pentecost’refers to theentire period between Easter andPentecost (1748: 50 n.3, confirmed byEusebius, VConst 4.64.1). It thus means ‘until the first Sunday after Easter’. As weshall see below, the long recension changes this reference. Higgins gets into trouble by translating ‘Friday the fourteenth’ as ‘the 30). It should also bementioned fourteenth Friday’, i.e. fourteen weeks after Easter (1955: 29– that Assemani misses theonly explicit reference to Nisan in Massacre A. Histext andtranslation has on this same day’(45/45.2), butthetext of Bedjan says ‘inthemonth of Nisan onthis ‘’(248.2). Assemani also adds ‘Lunae Aprilis’to his translation of thetext translated same day above from p. 47, though it does notappear in theSyriac. 19; 26, 29; Altheim-Stiehl 1985; Frye 1983: 118– 3; Higgins 1955: 19– 204 See Peeters 1938: 122– 8; andRist 1996: 24. Forthedate, seen. 187, above. Pierre 1995: 266– 205 Forthese lists, seebelow. Asweshall also seebelow, these dates almost certainly derive from themartyr acts. 7 and297.3– 8. 206 Chron. Se‛ert 23 and27, pp.288 and297/288.5–

3. Commentary

255

invented its correspondence between Simeon andShapur andtheir interviews; contradicts Aphrahat, a contemporary, by four years concerning the date of the Great Massacre (32 vs36 Shapur); andprovides a datethatdoesnotcorrespond withGood Friday in 341.

III.3. The Short Recension andthe Chronicle of Arbela Furthermore, the Chronicle of Arbela assigns the date of 6 Nisan 31 Shapur to Shapur’s edict,207 which would be 20 March 340, eight days before Good Friday. This ‘chronicle’is really a sixth-century collection of the lives andmartyr acts of the bishops of Arbela inAdiabene from 104to544 compiled frommanydifferent sources.208 The section treating Bishop John of Arbela, which narrates the events surrounding thebeginning of thepersecution andwhich contains thedate of theedict, is madeupof atleast five separate sources that have beengrafted together inblocks andinplaces outof chronological order. Thelater material comprises anaccount of 75.17/50.7 fb– 52.11), which is related tothatinTheothefirst siege ofNisibis (74.6– doret;209 anepitome of thelong recension of theacts of Simeon andtheGreat Mas79.14/53.7 fb– sacre (77.4– 56.2; forthelongrecension, Simeon B andMassacre B, see below); anda lament on the evils of the times andthe difficulties of writing 57.11). This leaves uswith four passages from two 80.24/56.10– about them (79.21– 53.19, onBishop John and underlying original documents, pp.75.18 to 77.4/52.11– the first edict, which includes some material out of chronological sequence –640 ; Sel. is narrated as if it were only twoorthree years before 31 Shapur (=651 Sel.) – 21/56.2– 10 onthestart of thepersecution after thedeath of theMobed pp.79.15– 58.15 and82.1– 83.9/ 58.15– 59.20 of the fol81.20/57.12– Pagrasp; andpp. 80.25– lowing chapter onBishop Abraham, which deal specifically with the arrest, imprisonment, andmartyrdom of John, fromtwodifferent sources that give twoquite differentaccounts of theevents.210 Since thecompiler hadaccess tothelong recension of themartyr acts of Simeon (Simeon B), which gives thedateof Simeon’s martyrdom as 14Nisan 31Shapur (see below), onewould expect this datetoappear. It doesnot. Thedate of 6 Nisan 31 Shapur, rather, appears inthematerial that derives from the early Acts of Bishop John andis therefore independent of andprobably earlier than

53.2. 7/52.1fb – 207 Chron. Arb., p. 76.6– 5, 569. In general, see PSyr no. 148, Brock 1979/80: 23– 208 This work is usually dated to 550– 7, whoshows that modern scepticism 3 nn.26– 38, andSchrier 1992: 82– Chaumont 1988: 29– concerning this important source (based on Aßfalg 1966 andFiey 1967) is unfounded. The evidence presented here supports Schrier’s conclusions.

209 HE2.30; see no.27, above. 210 Peeters regards the entire narrative as deriving from an original Passio matryrum Adiabenae 72). andcombines the passions of theLives of both John andAbraham (Peeters 1925: 267– Peeters is notreally quite surewhattodowiththenarrative oftheChronicle ofArbela, ‘L’étrange histoire! ... Maiselle està toutlemoins fortdifficile à concilier avec d’autres documents beaucoup plus sûrs, quemanifestement le compilateur dela chronique d’Arbèle n’a jamais lus’(Peeters 8). 1925: 267–

256

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

themartyr acts as a whole. This date therefore appears tobe independent testimony to the promulgation of the edict ordering the destruction of the churches. Consequently, there must have been some conflation in theaccount of themartyrdom of Simeon presented intheshort recension, since there is notenough time between the promulgation of theedict on6 Nisan andSimeon’s martyrdom on 14 Nisan for the events described, since Seleucia is about 340 kmfrom Karka de-Ledan as thecrow flies andconsiderably more by road. This suggests that the proclamation of the edict of 31 Shapur and the martyrdom of Simeon occurred further apart than the short recension implies.

III.4. The Long Recension: The Syriac Acts (B)

The long recension of themartyr acts, which have been mentioned above, is rather later thantheshort andmuchlonger. It is divided into fourseparate acts, TheMartyrdomof Mar Simeon, theArchbishop of the Church of the East... (= Simeon B); The Martyrdom of the Glorious Pusai/Posi (Syriac: Pwsy); The Martyrdom of the Daughter of Pusai, theHolyMartha; andTheGreat Massacre that tookplace inBet Huzaye (= Massacre B) (BHO 1119, 993, 698, and704).211 It is usually referred to as Recension ‘B’. The earliest manuscript of BHO 1119 is ninth century (C).212 These longer acts areclearly based uponthesame source astheshort recension and the two actually incorporate many of the same passages from it, indicated in Kmosko’s translation of Simeon B with italics (which he also uses for Biblical quo8 n. 2). tations; see coll. 807– The long recension begins byexplicitly dating thebeginning of thepersecution of theChristians tothedeath of Constantine andthetime of thefirst siege of Nisibis (that is, 337; see above, no. 27), butgives a sequence of dates that are completely inconsistent with this chronology andwith themselves: 655 Sel., 296 years after the Crucifixion, 117 Sas., and31 Shapur (Simeon B 2 and4, coll. 781 and789/782.13– 22). The last twodates derive from thecommon source with the short 18 and790.9– recension; the first two, however, derive from another source(s) separate from the 4. TheCrucifixmartyr acttradition. TheSeleucid date indicates theyear Sept. 343– 8, but just of theCouncil the date be an for error could year 337 – indicate could ion 40. Further on, of Nicaea.213 As noted above, 117 Sas. and31 Shapur indicate 339– 960 (Simeon B only; this is the translation I cite 211 Text andtranslation in Kmosko 1907: 779–

57, 8; translations in Braun 1915: 5– 32, 233– 41, 241– 207, 208– below). Texts in Bedjan 2, 131– 8. Forthedifferences between thetworecensions of themartyrdom of Sime82, 83– 75, 76– 58– 9 andespecially Wiessner 1967, whodison andcomments on both, see Kmosko 1907: 705– cusses thegeneral literary andthematic structures anddevelopment of this group ofmartyr acts, 39, general overview andquestion of sources, recensions, which hecalls the ‘B-Zyclus’(pp. 7– 44, the Great Massacre and 94, Simeon; 94–105, Pusai and Martha; 128– and authors; pp. 40– Azad). 212 Though there maybea manuscript of theseventh oreighth century thatcontains this recension; see Kmosko 1907: 714 onMSS NandV. Wiessner (1967: 135n.7) dates thelong recension no earlier than theendof thefifth century 213 That thecrucifixion eracould begin aslate asAD42 is demonstrated bySwanson 1993. Vosté

3. Commentary

257

Simeon B mentions Julian’s attempt torebuild theTemple inJerusalem twenty-four years later (14, col. 809/810.12– 15), a date thatcorresponds with 117Sas. and31 Shapur if counted inclusively, since theattempt torebuild theTemple took place in

May363.

Shapur’s invasion of Roman territory stirred upinhima desire to persecute the Christians of hisownterritory so heconceived theidea of doubling thetaxation on them. He wrote a letter to the prefects of the land of the Aramaeans (the inhabitants of Bet Aramaye andits capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon) asking them to force Simeon to sign a document promising that he would collect andbe responsible for this double taxation, since theChristians took the side of Caesar, ourenemy’(SB 4, coll. 789 ‘ between Simeon andthe 1; quotation, 791.15– 16). A long dialogue and792/790– headof theprefects follows in which Simeon refuses theburden of taxation (SB 5– 805/791– 806). Hisresponse wasconveyed toShapur, whogrewvery 10,coll. 792– angry andclaimed that Simeon refused to obey his orders andwas stirring upthe Christians against the Persian kingdom andmaking them servants of Caesar, who wasa follower of their sect. TheJews heard this andbegan todenounce Simeon and theChristians to Shapur, whowrote again to theprefects telling them that Simeon mustobey his order orbe killed along with his followers. Simeon responded andit is this second response that sends Shapur into hisparoxysms of rage andcauses him 18, coll. 805–17/ to issue his edict against the Christians andtheir churches (SB 11– 818). Thechurch inSeleucia is destroyed andSimeon hasa long speech before 806– theChristians of Seleucia before heis taken off to Karka de-Ledan along withother presbyters from Seleucia andmany other bishops andcaptives from other western 831). 25, coll. 817– 32/818– andnorthern cities (SB 19– Most of what follows is essentially similar to what is found in the short recension (Simeon A) except that the speeches are much longer andmore frequent, and there is much added detail andcommentary. Thedays for Gushtazad andSimeon’s 4, and97, martyrdoms are the same as in Simeon A, 13 and 14 Nisan (SB 64, 73–

24, and958.8– 907.1, 919.19– 13, 906.24– coll. 888, 905, 908, 920, and957/887.11– of Simeon. death the (=Pusik) and Pusai of arrest the after ends B Simeon 11), but Pusai andhis daughter, whonowhasa name, Martha, getseparate acts all to themselves, andthey are martyred notonFriday with Simeon andthe other martyrs, as 7, coll. 776–7/774–8),214 butonSaturday andEaster indicated in Simeon A (SA44– 1fb; andMar4/Bedjan 2, 229.2– Sunday respectively (Pusai 15; Braun 1915: 73– 9 and249.9–10). Where the 80 and81/Bedjan 2, 338.8– tha3 and5, Braun 1915: 79– long recension again differs greatly from the short is in calculating the Great Massacre from the martyrdom of Gushtazad onThursday of the (Great) Week of the

‘

1941 shows that the Chron. Pasch. as well as muchlater Nestorian writers used a system that 9 dates theCouncil of Nicaea to 636 Sel., 30/193.4– started in AD30 or 31. Chron. 846 148.26– 327 from the Incarnation and296 from the Ascension (obviously the same system as the Crucifixion dating; see below). Though this is based on a (correct) editorial supplement, it provides anera that starts with AD29. The Chron. Se‛ert (15, p. 258) offers a synchronism of 616 Sel. and273 Ascension, which implies an era that starts with AD 32. See also Higgins

8, 29. 1955: 26– 214 Notime is indicated forMartha.

258

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Unleavened Bread’, andcontinuing right through until the ‘Sunday of the second week of Joy’ (‘of Pentecost’ in Simeon A), for ten days in all, though there are obviously eleven days from Thursday to the next Sunday (Massacre B 7– 8, Braun 8, esp. 247.11–13, 18– 1915: 88; andDevos 1966a: 234/Bedjan 2, 241– 22). All the following martyrdoms of theGreat Massacre, including thatof Azad, aredated from theMonday totheSunday after Easter of 31 Shapur (Massacre B 1,Braun 1915: 83/ Bedjan 2, 241.7), notfrom Friday noonto thefollowing Sunday of 32 Shapur as in Massacre A.There is noreference totheshort recension’s second edict of 14Nisan 32 Shapur that launched theGreat Massacre, andthere is nobuild-up of persecution asseen intheshort recension, simply a failed attempt attaxation anda single edict. Notonlyis thestated chronology internally inconsistent, ranging asit doesfrom337 to344, buttheentire sequence is shifted backinto a single yearamidst theaftermath of the death of Constantine andthesiege of Nisibis, that is, Easter of 338.

III.5. The Value of the Long Recension Although manyhave accepted thenarrative andchronological structure of the long recension, it is obviously a later hagiographical pastiche, reworked, supplemented, andbarnacled with many later accretions. It hasconflated twoseparate Easter-tide persecutions andShapur’s waragainst Rome, launched uponthedeath of Constantine andmadefamous bythestories ofJacob ofNisibis (see above, no.27). Unfortunately it is this version of the martyr acts that previous scholars have used to date the martyrdom of Simeon andreinterpret Aphrahat, since it is only inthis recension that the Great Massacre is placed five years before 36 Shapur. In the short recension there are only four years (32 Shapur to 36 Shapur). The long recension is of great interest to the student of hagiography (like Wiessner 1967), butunfortunately for the historian it is practically worthless, corrupting andconfusing the narrative and providing uswith almost nothing of value that is notalready intheshort recension.

IV. The Date of 655 Sel. Almost nothing of value. Amidst these accretions, additions, andconflations one item does stand out as deserving of attention: the date of 655 Sel. (=35 Shapur = 4). One might be tempted to dismiss such a date, contradicting the short Sept. 343– 40), but it finds confirmation recension as it does (31 Shapur = 651 Sel. = Sept. 339– in the episcopal lists of Seleucia-Ctesiphon andrelated documents (and probably ultimately derives from them).

3. Commentary

259

IV.1. The Episcopal Lists Tradition gives Simeon a tenure ofeighteen years asbishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon.215 Hesucceeded Papawhohadremained a paralytic fortwelve years after thefamous synod of Seleucia.216 In order to determine thedates of these twoevents, Simeon’s succession andthesynod, wemust work these twofigures of eighteen andtwelve years backwards from the twodates our sources give us for Simeon’s death, 344 (=655 Sel. [35 Shapur]) and340 (=31 Shapur [651 Sel.]). Having done so wearrive at 637 Sel., 17Shapur, and625 Sel., 5 Shapur fromtheformer (344), and633 Sel., 13 Shapur, and 621 Sel., 1 Shapur from the latter (340). The first date of each pair (637/633 Sel. and 17/13 Shapur) should give us the approximate date of the death of Papa; the second of each pair (625/621 Sel. and5/1 Shapur) should give us the approximate date of the synod of Seleucia. The episcopal list of Saliba gives us 6 Shapur for the synod (the Latin translation incorrectly says 16 Shapur217) and 637 Sel., 18 Shapur for thedeath of Papa.218 There are twelve years between 6 and18 Shapur, though the Seleucid equivalent of the latter is actually 638, which is only seventeen years before 655. There are eighteen years between 637 and655 Sel. Saliba also states that Papawasconsecrated in558 Sel. anddiedafter seventy-nine 11 and15.4). This would puthisdeath in 637 Sel. It would years (pp. 8 and9/13.10– seem that the authentic information obtained by Saliba stated that the synod was held in 6 Shapur (= 314–15) andthat Papa died twelve years after the synod in 637 6). The incorrect 18Shapur wastherefore probably calculated bySaliba’s Sel. (= 325– source (6 + 12 = 18).219 These lists therefore support a late date for the death of Simeon andin fact give 655 Sel. as the date of his death, just as the long recension does.220 The lists of both ‛AmrandSaliba indicate thatPapawasstill alive atthetime of thecouncil of Nicaea (June-July 325 = 636 Sel.), but they state that he was too old to attend in person.221 This is supported by the Chron. Se‛ert (18, p. 277/277.5), which says that Papa could notattend ‘because of hisoldageandhisdifficulty inmoving’. EvenBar Hebraeus,

3; 61. See Chron. Se‛ert, 27, p. 304/304.2– 215 Forthis andwhatfollows, seeHiggins 1953: 48, 54– ‛Amr,p. 16/18.9– 10;andSaliba, p. 11/19.6– 7, forSimeon’s eighteen years. OnlyBarHebraeus deviates fromthis total, giving himthirteen years, butheis trying toreorder theentire chronolo61. For‛Amr gyof theperiod based onfaulty chronology; seebelow andHiggins 1953: 48, 54– ibn Mattāand alībāibn Yūannā , see Holmberg 1993 andthe references he provides. This article explains myapparent confusion over thestandard attributions of these names. 216 The figure of twelve years is explicitly stated in theActs of Miles (Assemani 1748: 73/73.10) 12),whoclaims thatitisincorrect; andisnoted byBarHebraeus (Chron. eccl., 2.10, p.32/31.10– 47, who see Higgins 1953: 48 andAssemani 1748: 82. For Papa, see Chaumont 1988: 137– rightly refuses to make anychronological conclusions since sheis notdealing with all theevidence andsomeof whatshedoes useis incorrect. 9, andHiggins 1953: 54 n. 28. 217 See Assemani 1748: 2, Assemani 1775: 8– 4. 218 Saliba, p. 9/15.3– 219 Thediscrepancy probably arises fromaconfusion ofordinal andcardinal numbers, thedifference between Papadied inhis twelfth year of paralysis andPapa diedafter twelve years of paralysis (see above n.4). 220 Saliba, p. 11/19.5. 221 ‛Amr, p. 13/15.12 (correctly dating thecouncil to 636 Sel.; p. 15.2), andSaliba, p. 9/14.20.

260

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

whootherwise reports a different tradition (see below), states that Papa was alive at the time of Nicaea, though he says that he attended in person (Chron. eccl. 2.10, col. 30/27.1fb–29.4).222 If Simeon hadbeen martyred any earlier than 655 Sel., this would bechronologically impossible, since eighteen years from654 Sel. oranyearlier date

would place Papa’s death before thecouncil. TheSyriac Service Books, probably relying either onthese episcopal lists orat least on the same tradition that they report, also give the date of the martyrdom as 655 Sel.223 The episcopal list found at the beginning of the chronicle of Elias of Nisibis quotes T imotheus catholicus’as its source for thedate of 20 Shapur (=640 Sel. = 9)‘for Papa’s death andcites 31 Shapur forthedeath of Simeon, thus leaving 328– only eleven or twelve years for Simeon’s episcopacy, instead of eighteen, which must be incorrect.224 The Chron. Arb. says that Bishop John of Arbela attended a synod to choose a newbishop for Seleucia in 640 Sel., since Papa haddied ‘shortly before’andthe seat wasempty. Heremained there for twoyears andthen went to Bet Huzaye. It waswhile hewasthere that thefirst persecution edict wasissued.225 Unfortunately there areeleven or twelve years between 640 Sel. (= 20 Shapur) and 31 Shapur, thedate of theedict, yettheChron. Arb. makes it seemlikejust overtwo years. It would seem that John did travel to Seleucia for a synod a few years before theedict of 31 Shapur, butmore than likely thedate andreason forthe synod were incorrectly imported from the same tradition asTimothy or from Timothy himself, whoever he was. The origin of this date is hardto pinpoint, however. It could, perhaps, derive from the standard account, noted above, that Papa died the year after Nicaea (which would be 637 Sel.). There wasa tradition, obscure to be sure, that claimed that Nicaea lasted forthree years. This is noted by, forexample, theChron. Se‛ert (18, p. 279/279.6) andthe Ecclesiastical History of Baradbeshabba ‛Arbaya (Brdbšb ‛rby), a writer of the endof the sixth century (212/212.5). Since Nicaea began in 636 Sel., three years plus oneyear would result in 640 Sel., the date given by theepiscopal list of Elias andthe Chron. Arb.

IV.2. The Chronicle of Arbela (i)

The Chron. Arb. states that the synod of Seleucia took place in the time of Sheri‛a, bishop of Arbela, andimplies that hewasa part of it. It also states that at that time Papa wrote to Bishop Sha‛ad of Edessa for assistance. The Chron. Arb. itself states 222 Inthesameplace BarHebraeus notes that somesaidthatSimeon wentinhisplace, theversion 7). In reality neither Simeon nor Papa attended the supplied by the other sources (col. 29.6– council. Nicaea wasthefourth century’s Woodstock: farmore were said tohave attended than actually did.

223 Kmosko 1907: 705 n. 1 andHiggins 1955: 33 n. 97. 5; andSyriac, 18 andArabic, p.45.24– 2/Syriac, p.45.16– 7 and31– 224 Elias, Opuschron. 1: 27.25– 6. 3 andArabic, p. 46.5– p. 46.2– 20. The Chron. Se‛ert 27 also states that there wasa synod to confirm 6/52.11– 225 Chron. Arb. 75– Papa’s successor, butgives nochronology (p. 296/296.10).

3. Commentary

261

that Sheri‛a died in the summer of 627 Sel. (AD 316) and the Chron. Edess. states that Sha‛ad became bishop at some point in or just after 624 Sel. (AD 312–13).226 Onlythedate deriving fromthelate chronology forSimeon’s martyrdom, 6 Shapur (AD 314–15 = 626 Sel.), is consistent with this evidence. The date of the synod derived from the episcopal lists must therefore be correct. Higgins also presents other, less important evidence thatsupports these late dates forthesynod andPapa’s

6). death (1953: 55– Apart from Bar Hebraeus (who was writing in the thirteenth century), no other reliable source contradicts this range of dates. IV.3. Bar Hebraeus

Bar Hebraeus places the synod of Seleucia nine years after thecouncil of Nicaea, Papa’s death in the next year, andthe martyrdom of Simeon thirteen years later. Since hedates Nicaea correctly to 636 Sel., his equivalent dates are AD334 (syn-

od), 335 (Papa’s death), and348 (Simeon’s martyrdom), which are obviously incorrect.227 Thirteen years before 31 Shapur is 18 Shapur, the date given by Saliba for the death of Papa (see above), which shows that Bar Hebraeus’ version ultimately derives from thestandard account, though it hasbeenrather seriously confused. The similarity of Papa’s death occurring one year after the synod of Seleucia in Bar Hebraeus andone year after Nicaea in the standard account also shows that Bar Hebraeus’version is grounded inthestandard account. Somehow, perhaps for doctrinal or ecclesiastical reasons, the synod has mistakenly been placed nine years after Nicaea rather than tenyears before it. Theother modifications were then undertaken by someone whodidnotknowthecorrelation between Seleucid dates and Shapur’s regnal years inorder to make theaccount consistent. Bar Hebraeus unfortunately accepted this account as more trustworthy than theothers heknew.

IV.4. The Chronicle of Se‛ert

The Chronicle of Se‛ert hasa version of Simeon’s martyrdom that dates the start of 7), asin thepersecution andthefirst siege of Nisibis to 31 Shapur (23, p.288/288.6– thelong recension, butassigns thearrest of Simeon to 650 Sel., 290 Ascension, and 5). This chronology is obviously corrupt and should 117 Sas. (27, p. 300/300.4– 5 (=Chron. 846 147.25– 8/ 3/4.2– 3fb; Chron. Edess. 5.1– 21, 48.4– 69, 71/46.4– 226 Chron. Arb. 68– 7 andBlum 1980: 21). See Wigram 1910: 50 n. 3 and55, as well asAssemani 1775: 6– 191.18– 25. Thedates cited mostoften inrecent scholarship (e.g. Fiey 1970: 72 and75) forthese events, 310and329, arewithout foundation: theformer derives fromnoancient source (itcould derive from twelve years of Papa’s paralysis andeighteen years for Simeon’s episcopacy calculated backfrom31 Shapur [340]) andthelatter depends uponElias andtheChron. Arb.forthedeath of Papa. 9 (synod), 31.8 2 (Nicaea), 29.8– 227 BarHebraeus, Chron. eccl. 2.10 and11,pp.30, 32, 36/29.1– 60. 17 (Simeon’s death). See Higgins 1953: 48, 54, 57– (Papa’s death), 35.15–

262

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

probably be set aside. More important, however, it states in the narrative that the persecution hadlasted six years inthevicinity of Nisibis andwasbeing hindered by Simeon’s support for the Christians, so he was arrested (27, pp. 299– 300/years: 299.7). Thesix years is peculiar, butsince, aswesawabove (no. 27), thefirst siege of Nisibis wasusually dated to 649 Sel. (≈1 Constantius ≈338) six years would take oneto 655 Sel. (≈7 Constantius ≈344). These six years probably also explain the discrepancy between 290 Asc. here and296 Cruc. inthelong recension, since Years from theAscension andYears from theCrucifixion areobviously the same system with different names.

IV.5. The Chronicle of Arbela (ii) This ‘late’chronology is also supported by the Chronicle ofArbela. The additions to the underlying Acts of Bishop John (for these, see above, III.3) have caused some

changes andalterations intheunderlying story, butthegeneral outline is clear. After the edict ordering the death of Christians andthe destruction of the churches on 6 Nisan 31 Shapur, nothing happened: ‘the sword that was about to massacre the Christians of our country waskept in the scabbard ... It was said that the king regrettedhaving given that cruel order for the persecution andwished to withdraw it’.228 The local Mobed, Pagrasp, hadmade anagreement with the city’s nobles that he would only kill Christians in Ilul (≈Sept.) during the vintage andharvest, and some doseemto have been killed, though their names were forgotten.229 Themajor drive against the Christians in Adiabene, the area with the highest concentration of Christians inPersia at thetime, began only after Pagrasp hadbeen replaced as Mobed by Peroz Tamshabor. This happened ‘inthefollowing year’(79.17–18/56.6).230 Unfortunately, the year is not specified, though the following narrative indicates that it was 35 Shapur, thus indicating a narrative compression like the one noted above concerning the death of Papa andthe edict, since the last mentioned date was 31 Shapur. The compression probably arose because of a lack of serious persecution between 31 and35 Shapur. The Chron. Arb. therefore indicates that there wasno major persecution in Arbela andits territory between the edict calling for the destruction of the churches in 31 Shapur andthe arrival of Peroz Tamshabor in 35 Shapur. Bishop John andhispriest Jacob were arrested in35 Shapur (=344) andheldfor [‘citadel, a year under torture at the otherwise unknown Hesna de-Badigar from seems missing to be 18). At something point this fortress’] dbdygr; 80/57.12– just deaths, of their date the or deaths theaccount since there is noreference totheir antecedent no with deaths) their of the day (apparently day ’ two references to ‘this (81.4 and 15/57.22 and58.9, with 81 n. 80). The following Acts of Bishop Abraham gives a different story. Peroz Tamshabor wassummoned to Bet Lapat by Shapur

(sn

18. 7/53.11– 13and53.16– 228 Chron. Arb.76– 5. This oddstatement must refer to some event or series of events 229 Chron. Arb. 79.15–17/56.2– only half remembered whentheoriginal document waswritten. nt, which means literally overtheturnof theyear’. 230 TheSyriac is lhpkt ... dš ‘

3. Commentary

263

andbrought John andJacob along tocurry favour withShapur. They were martyred almost immediately after their arrival, it seems, on 1 Teshrin II (=24 October). Unfortunately Tamshabor was then replaced as Mobed by an ex-general (82.11– 83.9/ 58.1fb– 59.20). In both versions of themartyr acts, thedeaths of John andJacob are followed by a pogrom that the Acts of Bishop John says lasted ‘until the end of the year’(81.15/58.9), but again the year is not specified, though by implication it is 36 Shapur.231 There is noother record in the martyr acts of such a pogrom, apart from the Great Massacre itself, andsince both are said to have taken place in 36 Shapur (following Aphrahat) they would therefore appear to be one andthe same, but the durations are different andthe months are confused. John’s successor, Abraham, was executed on 5 Shebat (=25 January).232 The surviving Syriac martyr acts of John andAbraham confirm thechronological information found intheChron. Arb., namely that John spent a year in prison andwas killed on 1 Teshrin II, andthat Abraham wasmartyred on 5 Shebat. They also mention the fourth andfifth years of persecution for thearrest of John andthemartyrdom of Abraham respectively (=35 and36 Shapur calculated from thestandard date of 31 Shapur for Simeon’s martyrdom; John: Bedjan 4, p. 128.8 andAbraham: 130.6). The Greek acts of Abraham also note the fifth year for Abraham.233 The Chron. Arb. thus indicates a lull after the edict of 31 Shapur, increased persecution against the Christians in 35 Shapur, anda great massacre in 36 Shapur, though thedetails areconfused. IV.6. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

Wecannowatlast turntotheContinuatio, which also supports thelate date indicated above, since 7 Constantius is AD344 and655 Sel. TheContinuatio is thusrecording the beginning of the persecution as it wasrecognized by the Christians of Persia themselves, thatis fromthemartyrdom of Simeon, just asthe ‘Years ofPersecution’ date from the martyrdom of Simeon, not the edict ordering the destruction of the churches.

IV.7. 14 Nisan andGood Friday

Andfinally, a fact that would be appreciated most by Paul Peeters, 14 Nisan 655 Sel. (Jewish reckoning) did in fact fall on Good Friday, 13 April 344,234 the same 231 Themajor problem here isthatinTeshrin II thePersian andSeleucid years hadonlyjust started. There seems nowayto explain thecomment. 232 Chron. Arb. 83/60.8 andPassio s. Abrami 2, p. 451. 2, 6; and131.2, andPassio s. Abrami 1, p. 450. 9; 130.1– 233 Bedjan 4, 128.8; 129.8– 234 Fora table of correlations of GoodFriday, Easter, ‘luna xiv’inNisan, andtheequivalent dates in theJulian andJewish calendars, see Table 6 in Appendix 3. Kmosko (1907: 698) provides a similar listing, butwithout theJewish equivalents. Interestingly enough, the Chron. Se‛ert says that Simeon wasmartyred oneither thethirteenth or thefourteenth of April (27; p. 304/304.3), a discrepancy thatprobably arises fromthefact thattheauthor could findbothaJewish dateand a Julian date inhissources.

264

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Julian date that is reported bySaliba inhisaccount of Simeon’s martyrdom: ‘Friday of theCrucifixion, 13Nisan, 655 of theeraof Alexander’(11.26– 7/19.5).

V. The Data Amidst all this confusing chronological evidence andconflation, I believe that the best attested andmost reliable data are as follows: an edict ordering the destruction

of thechurches waspromulgated on6 Nisan, 31 Shapur, 117 Sas. (=20 March 340; Chron. Arb., Aphrahat, Simeon A andB); Simeon was martyred in 655 Sel., 35 Shapur (=344; Continuatio, episcopal list, Simeon B, [Chron. Seen, Chron. Arb.]), a year inwhich GoodFriday fell onJewish 14Nisan (=344; Simeon AandB); a year passed between themartyrdom of Simeon andtheGreat Massacre (=345; Sozomen andMassacre A; [Chron. Arb.]); andtheGreat Massacre occurred in36 Shapur, 656 Sel. (=345; Aphrahat; [Chron. Arb.]). It is upon these data that we must construct a

narrative.

VI. A Reconstruction Shapur probably began his taxation drive against theChristians to assist in his war effort against theRoman Empire intheyears following hisfailure atNisibis (337).235 TheRoman emperor Valerian likewise stepped uphispersecution of theChristians in 258 to help fundhiswaragainst thePersians. Theshort recension implies that the Christians hadpreviously paid no or little tribute to Shapur (Sozomen, HE 2.9.2; 13). It is only the later Simeon A 6 and 10, coll. 725 and733/726.24 and 734.12– Simeon B that says that Shapur doubled the existing tribute (4, col. 789/790.1fb791.2). Resistance wasprobably high –in the acts Simeon pleads the poverty of andanedict ordering theconfiscation ofchurch treasures, thedestruction Christians – of thechurches, andthearrest anddetention of theclergy (notthewholesale massacre of Christians) wasissued on6 Nisan 31 Shapur, 117Sas., that is 20 March 340. All three versions of the martyr acts of Simeon (Sozomen, HE2.9.2; Simeon A 12, col. Simeon B 18, col. 817/818.4) specifically mention the confiscation of church treasures, so we can probably see this edict as an extension of Shapur’s attempts to wring wealth outof theChristians to continue hiscampaign against the Romans. In early 344, after Constantius’ major victory in the autumn of 343 at acity within Adiabene, thehighly Christianized northNineveh (see no.33, above) – western territory of Shapur’s kingdom, andonly eighty-five kmby unpaved road from Arbela –and amidst constant pressure from the Magi especially, whoportrayed all Christians, especially Simeon barSabba‛e, themetropolitan bishop of Se737/738.20;

235

‘Après unpremier décret exigeant sans ménagement des chrétiens des impôts très lourds, au titre de l’effort de guerre ou comme simple mesure d’exception, la persecution violente se déclencha’(Fiey 1970: 88); and‘Shapur II needed money forhisarmytoattack theRomans, so among histaxes those onChristians were doubled toprovide extra revenues’(Frye 1983: 139).

9. See also Peeters 1938: 124–

3. Commentary

265

leucia andfamily friend of Shapur, asnatural allies of andspies forConstantius and therefore traitors to Shapur andhis kingdom,236 Shapur actively moved against the Christians themselves, rather than their wealth, arresting andthen executing Simeon, their flamboyant andtroublesome leader, anda large number of other leading Christians (the acts say 103, including Gushtazad, Pusik, and his daughter). Other Christian leaders, like John of Arbela, whowasright on the frontier with Rome, were arrested andimprisoned. Themassexecution wasintended asanisolated actto strike fear into the hearts of theChristians andturn them away from the empire of Rome. Shapur would brook nodissent; when he wasat warall his subjects would support him and the state religion, Zoroastrianism. The short recension indicates that some considerable time passed before Shapur was finally driven to execute Gushtazad, Simeon, andtheothers, so theorder forthearrest of Simeon musthave been sent rather earlier in theyear, perhaps right after thefall of Nineveh thepreviousautumn. Simeon wasexecuted onGoodFriday after theothers hadbeenexecuted (14 Nisan 655 Sel. = 13 April 344). The executions of Pusik/Pusai237 and his daughter then followed (if they arenotjust hagiographical inventions). Thenextyear Shapur ordered thedeaths of all Christians andtheGreat Massacre ensued. The short recension says the date wasGood Friday, thus 5 April 345, and 14 Nisan, thus 3 April 345; the Chronicle of Arbela says it was 1 Teshrin II, which was24 October the previous autumn, still 344 byourreckoning butalready

9; 236 See, for example, Sozomen, HE 2.9.1; Simeon A 10, 12, and 13, pp. 736, 737, 740/735– 9/ 7, 77.7–13, 83.2– 7; andChron. Arb. 75.16– Simeon B 4, 11, 12, pp. 792, 805, 808/791, 806– 20. The Christians of Persia tended to live along the north-west 11, 53.22– 54.3, 59.12– 52.9– border areas with theEmpire in Adiabene andBet ‛Arabaye, areas that hadbeen converted by direct contact with theEmpire, andin areas further east andsouth where Roman prisoners of warhadbeen settled after Shapur I’s invasions of 252 and260, chiefly Bet Huzaye (Khuzistan/ Susiana), Mesene (Mayshan/Parthia), Bet Aramaye (Asuristan/Babylonia), andFars (Persis). The three chief early centres of Christianity were Ctesiphon, Adiabene, andKhuzistan, butby theearly fifth century, they hadsettled into six ‘provinces’, each with its ownmetropolis: Bet Aramaye with Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Bet Huzaye with Bet Lapat, Bet ‛Arabaye with Nisibis, Mayshan with Perat de-Mayshan, Adiabene with Arbela, andBet Garmai with Karka de-Bet Selok (Frye 1983: 139– 40, Asmussen 1983: 924–39, and Chaumont 1988: 56–74 and 164). These strong historical ties between theChristians of Persia andtheRomans would have made it very easy for those hostile towards theChristians toconvince Shapur that hislack of success 50; Wiandhis defeats were a direct result of Christian treachery; see also Labourt 1904: 46– 5; Block6; Brock 1982; Asmussen 1983: 933– gram 1910: 59– 63, 64– 4; Blockley 1989: 474– ley 1992: 15; andFiey 1970: 88: ‘Sapor ...se laisse persuader devoir dans les chrétiens deson empire unepossible cinquième colonne auprofit de l’ennemi romain’; andRist 1996: 40: ‘Es kannfürdievierhundertjährige Geschichte derChristen imPerserreich alsgeradezu klassische Regel gelten, daßsich Konflikte zwischen denGroßmächten RomundIran –zumeist kriegerischer Natur –stets auch negativ aufdieSituation derchristlichen Bevölkerungsminderheit in Persien auswirkten. Die Verfolgungen unter Sapur II. sowie Bahram V. haben hier ihren Ursprung.’There aresome excellent studies of therise of Christianity in Persia, especially in the 47; Blum 1980: esp. fourth century, including thefollowing: Hage 1973; Decret 1979: esp. 136– 60. Rist 1996 is an 15; andChaumont 1988: 137– 8, 11, 14– 5, 7– 31; Brock 1982: esp. 3, 4– 23– overview of thepersecutions of theChristians from thethird to the seventh centuries, andin21). cludes a section onearly Christianity (pp. 18– η ς . ο υ σ ίκ ῖο α υ ο σ ςandΠ 237 Forthese twoquite different names, seeJusti 1895: 256, s.v. Π

266

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

Eusebii

thenewyear intheChristian andPersian calendars. Thespurtothis last persecution edict wasmostprobably Shapur’s military failure andthedeath ofhissonduring the summer of 344 in battle against Constantius at Singara (see below, no. 37), about 125kmbyroadwestof Nineveh, close tohisChristian territory again. Hemusthave again blamed theChristians forhisterrible losses andsought revenge, a revenge that would ensure that there would be nosurvivors to support Constantius inthefuture. Probably the next year, Libanius described Shapur’s condition after theloss at Singara, an account proved, he claims, by reports of deserters from the Persian ranks (Or. 59.119), Buttheir king, of brilliant ability andnoble inhisbehaviour until histhreats, rent andtore out that headof hair which hewould previously adorn; hestruck hisheadfrequently andlamented theslaughter of hisson, lamented thedestruction of hisconscripts andweptoverhislandbereft of itsfarmers. Heresolved tocutoff theheads ofthose whohadfailed towinforhimthesuccess of theRomans (Or. 59.118; trans. Dodgeon, Vermes, andLieu, p. 191). Beheading was, aswehave seen, themethod usedagainst theChristians in thepersecutions. It maywell have been the death of a favourite or friend of Shapur’s that caused him to relent ten days later andput an end to the mass slaughter. Whatever the cause andhowever much later it wasShapur soon partially rescinded hisedict against all Christians, restricting it to church leaders. In this context the date of Teshrin II fortheGreat Massacre makes more sense historically than the next spring, but with such poor sources wecannot be certain. However it was, theexact connection between 14Nisan andGoodFriday inthecase of theGreat Massacre is obviously a hagiographical invention, a false parallel with themartyrdoms of theprevious year, since 14Nisan was3 April this year, andGood Friday was two days later, andthere was almost a month between 14 Nisan and Good Friday in 341, the stated date of the massacre (32 Shapur). The original compiler did not know the actual day of the month, only the (probably bogus) association with Easter, andthetwo(14 Nisan andEaster) were usually close enough. Thecorrelation between Shapur’s twomajor military failures inthis period and his increasingly violent persecution of the Christians is too exact to be fortuitous. Shapur wanted toensure either theloyalty orthefear of theChristians while hewas otherwise occupied onthefrontier. Whatever itsexact date, theGreat Massacre was designed no doubt to punish the Christians for the death of his son. The following year, 346, Shapur launched hisill-fated second siege of Nisibis. There is norecord of any specific action taken against the Christians following this failure, but 128 clergy were executed in January of 346, just before Shapur left for Nisibis (see below).

VII. Aphrahat, Dem. 14

It hasbeenclaimed that references to persecution inDemonstration 14,a synodical

letter written by Aphrahat in Shebat of 655 Sel., 35 Shapur (coll. 723 and 726/ 31 January 344 [see above, section II]) to the bish725.2; thus 2 January– 724.24– indicate that Simeon must have alSeleucia-Ctesiphon, ops, clergy, andfaithful of

3. Commentary

267

ready been martyred at thetime of writing,238 butthis problem is easily answered. Persecution is not an absolute; as wehave seen, it admits of degrees.239 Even the persecutions of Valerian andDiocletian began slowly andgrew in intensity, and neither of those reached the levels of ferocity seen in Persia. Obviously some kind of increasing pressure wasinflicted after Shapur’s humiliating failure at Nisibis in 337, andthis is reflected in manyof thesources (Simeon AandB, the Chron. Arb., Jacob of Edessa, Michael the Syrian, andthe Chron. Se‛ert). This was stepped upin 340 andfinally again in 344– 5. It is tothis earlier persecution that Aphrahat ever so briefly refers in sections 4 and21 of this Demonstration (quoted in full by Barnes 1985: 128). It is only in Demonstrations 21, 22, and23 that persecution becomes a major focus of his thought. I do not think that wecan avoid the conclusion that Simeon wasstill alive whenDemonstration 14 waswritten in Jan. 344, andthat the bloody persecution that followed his death hadnot yet begun. Kmosko sums upthe

case most succinctly: iure igitur et merito ibidem [Dem. 14] expectabuntur aliquae saltem allusiones adeuentus funestissimos, quiSeleuciae euenerunt,240 eomagis quodepistola Aphraatis adChristianos Seleuciae degentes directa fuerit. Nihil tarnen horum in hac epistola inuenitur ... Nec obstant allusiones ad diuersas calamitates, quas ibidem frequenter commemorat; annus enim quartus agebatur, quoecclesiae destrui coepere, nonergo mirum est, si probationes Ecclesiae inflictas recolat easque in poenam peccatorum ab ipsis principibus Ecclesiae commissorum accidisse statuat (1907: 701and703).

The major persecution wasonly launched with the arrest of Simeon. It is to this fierce persecution that themartyr acts, theContinuatio, andDemonstration 23 refer, andthere is nohint of it in Demonstration 14 of Jan. 344. Higgins 1951andPierre 1995 Furthermore, twoimportant studies of Dem. 14– –have shown not only that the situation described in this letter can only be applicable to the period before the serious persecution that began with the martyrdom of Simeon but also that the main figure referred to can only be Simeon, bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, who must therefore have still been alive in January of 344. Pierre’s work in particular hasilluminated a number of important aspects involving thesituation inthePersian church atthetime andhassuggested some of thereasons that mayhave led to the persecution, not least the growing political power of the 3; Barnes 1985: 86, esp. 82– 3; Nedungatt 1980: 71– 238 Onthis question, see Kmosko 1907: 701– 8; andesp. Higgins 1951 andPierre 1995. 127– 239 ‘Nothing, in the East, goes in orderly legal fashion, according to Western ideas; andpersecutions were not carried out in the regular Roman fashion. Further, a Firman is not so much a ); andtheresult of thoushalt donothing atall” decree asa permission (the standing order being, “ the Firmans of persecution issued by Sapor wasnot the setting of the machinery of law in motion against a religio illicita, inRoman wise, butsomething thatresembled muchmoreclosely theArmenian massacres of ourownday[1896], viz. thereleasing of a race hatred andfanaticism normally held in check, to do its will upon its objects. The slaughter that followed was assisted frequently rather thanregularly bytheGovernment officials’(Wigram 1910: 64). See 5. also Asmussen 1983: 933– 240 Notleast, onemight imagine, theexecution of twoof their bishops andover twohundred and thirty clergy andfaithful within the space of a fewyears. Such atrocities make the problems discussed by Aphrahat appear bycomparison petty, trivial, andincredibly insensitive.

268

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

bishops of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, especially Simeon, andthedisaccord andinfighting of the Christians themselves.

VIII. Conclusion Since thesequence of Persian martyrdoms starts withSimeon, the ‘Year of Persecution’chronology often usedinthemartyr acts musttherefore begin in344, aswesee intheContinuatio, not340. AsKmosko points out, there is a gapinthemartyr acts between theseventh andthefifteenth yearofthepersecution thatcould beexplained by the antedating of the earliest martyrdoms by four or five years (1907: 703–4). Themartyrdoms of John andJacob of Arbela mayhave occurred in November 344 and the martyrdom of Abraham in February 345; Tarbula/Tarbo/Pherbutha, the variously-named sister of Simeon, wasexecuted on5 Iyar (=24 April) 345;241 anda large group of martyrdoms would have taken place on 20 Shebat (=30 January) of 346, when 128 martyrs, whohadbeen imprisoned for five months (since August/ September 345), were putto death in Seleucia.242 The 120 Martyrs of Year 5 of the Persecution (probably the actual fifth year, not a corrected fifth year, as we have seen above) whowere mentioned by Barnes andBruns with regard to Aphrahat (noted above) would therefore havebeenmartyred on6 Nisan (=22 March) 348 and would have been unknown to Aphrahat, whowaswriting in 345. Since there wasa period of minor persecution after the edict ordering the destruction of the churches in 340 that was overshadowed by the horrific events of 5, after a time the separate events were conflated, with the result that the date of 344– Simeon’s martyrdom wasback-dated to 340 andpresented as the immediate result of Shapur’s first edict, since that seems to have beentheonly date that wasremembered withexact chronological references (31 Shapur and117 Sas.). Butif theedict wasissued on6 Nisan of 340, it is impossible that Simeon could havebeenexecuted in Karka de-Ledan onthefourteenth. Aswasseen above, all other evidence contradicts this date. Thenext andrather later steps in this process of conflation involved thelinkage of thefirst martyrdoms of 344 withtheGreat Massacre of 345, andthen the entire series with the first siege of Nisibis. Again, this is a perfectly natural process of simplification, from a string of separate events spread outover five or six years to a single series of actions within a single year. This conflation canbe seen mostclearly inthedating of theGreat Massacre, which inthelong recension is said to have lasted fortendays fromThursday until thenext Sunday, eventhough that is eleven days. In the short recension it started only at noon on Good Friday of 32 60; translation 9; text inBedjan 2, 254– 241 BHO 1149. Text andtranslation inAssemani 1748: 54– 92. Text also in Sozomen, HE 2.12, andthe Passio s. Pherbuthae, which in Braun 1915: 89– 6). gives thedate as5 April (6, p.444) asdoes theGreek martyr tradition (e.g. Synax. Sirm. 585– For a list of themore well-known martyrs of Years 2 to 7, see Kmosko 1907: 710 n. 1. 91; text inBedjan 2, 276– 81; translation 242 BHO1033. Text andtranslation inAssemani 1748: 88– 6; text andtranslation of the Greek in Mart. s. Sadoth. Šahdost, Simeon’s in Braun 1915: 93– successor, whohadbeenarrested andimprisoned withtheothers, wastaken toBetLapat, 35km east of Karka de-Ledan, andexecuted, probably inthesummer.

3. Commentary

269

Shapur anddidnotinvolve Gushtazad, Simeon, andtheothers, whohadbeen martyred a year earlier. Thus in the long recension everything is dated contextually to April 338 (or rather April 339 since it wasincorrectly believed that the first siege of Nisibis took place in 338/649 Sel.; see no. 27, above), with specific chronological reference to twoother, quite separate years, 340 and344. If theedict ordering thedestruction of thechurches, themartyrdom of Simeon, andtheGreat Massacre didindeed allhappen atthesametime, asthelongrecension claims, in 340 as Barnes maintains or 341 as Peeters maintains, wewould then be faced with the monumental coincidence of the chronologies around AD 344, 655 Sel., and35 Shapur, which would otherwise meannothing other than Year 4 or5 of the Persecution. Wewould also be faced with thepuzzling phenomenon of having the later evidence preserve a more accurate tradition than all the early, and, in two cases, contemporary, evidence. Andif thedateof 655 Sel. isjust anerror orfabrication, one would have to explain howit is that all the sources that err err in exactly the same way, providing dates that exactly correspond to the only twosurviving conwhose combined testimony alone temporary sources, Aphrahat andtheContinuatio – dates theedict against thechurches to 340, themartyrdom of Simeon to 344, andthe Great Massacre to 345. Such a coincidence of dates in three utterly independent groups of sources (Aphrahat, the Continuatio, and the episcopal lists discussed 300), is difficult in the exabove), not to mention the Chron. Se‛ert (27, pp. 299– treme to countenance.243 Given the obvious andnatural process of conflation that appears intheexisting martyr acts, I amconfident enough to state that theburden of proof rests with those whoclaim that the edict, the martyrdoms, andthe Massacre all date to a single year, be it 340 or 341.244

35. Salamis wasthus struck by a violent earthquake twice within eleven years, in 333 and 344. This is the earthquake described by Malalas; see above, no. 18. The Continuatio is the only source that gives the date of this earthquake.

36.

η , see no. 18, above. Theophanes indicates that the τεπ τ ώ θ For Eusebius’useof κα ; theformer ο υ ό π κ ισ original readἐπ , butChron. 724andJerome report ἐπ υ ισ κ είο ο π is correct, the latter careless misreadings (like ‘architect’ and ‘archdeacon’ in no. ι- being written -ι- in anearly Greek exem23), probably a result of itacism, i.e. -ε plar, andthe iota’s then being easily missed next to the pi, since in anuncial text 243 I have not included the long recension here since it wasprobably influenced by theepiscopal list, andis therefore notindependent. 244 Thedate of 344 for themartyrdom of Simeon is starting to be accepted bymore scholars; see, 2, Blum 1980: 29, andBlockley 18, Decret 1979: 141– for example, Pigulevskaja 1963: 117– 1992: 15.

270

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

there would notnormally have been accents.245 Fortwoexamples, see theapparatusforthewitnesses inChapter 2.1, above, where inno. 17ξ εν ο δ ο χ είο ιςis written as ξεν χ ίο ο δ ο ιςin MSS bdandin this entry ἐπ ισ κ ο π ε ίο υas ἐπ ισ κ ο π ίο υin MSS bdfg. If Michael the Syrian’s source hadmentioned that thebishop hadbeen saved hesurely would have mentioned it. A similar passage canbe found inthethird part of thechronicle of Ps-Dionysius, under theyear 810 Sel. (AD498– 9): ‘Inthe same year there was a violent andmighty earthquake. Nicopolis was destroyed by it, except for the church and the bishop’s house, and it buried all its inhabitants’ (trans. Witakowski, p. 3). The parallel with this entry is indeed striking. For this earthquake, of which the Continuatio is theonly source to preserve a record, seeGuidoboni 1989: 675, no. 129, dated to 343.

37. ν τ α π is paralleled from the Canones only once, συμβαλό ό ν ο λ ε λ εμ π ό λ α ν α έβ ν υ σ μ oν (123c = Chron. Pasch. 322.14). This is probably thebattle of Singara,246 though theauthor seems to knowvery little about it, including the fact that its conclusion was fought at night. This decidedly pro-Roman account probably derives fromofficial versions of theengagement circulated in the immediate aftermath. The only detailed accounts of the battle we 25B. If wecan assume that have are Libanius Or. 59.99–120 andJulian Or. 1.22D– myreconstruction of the Continuatio is complete, andI think for the most part it probably is, the mention of this battle in 344 andthe absence of a major battle between Persians andRomans in 348 is important support for Bury andPortmann’s redating of Singara to 344. The only source for the date of 348 is the common source of the Descriptio consulum s.a. 348 andJerome, 2361, anentry that wasadded fromoral information, at least four years after the event, if not more. Although in mybook I stated that the Eastern recension of theDescriptio began between 343 and346 inclusive (Burgess 6), it nowseems clear tomethat after theendof theGallic recension in 1993a: 194– 342 theDescriptio remained intheWest until themid-350s, between 353 and356. Theentries under theyears 350, 351, and353 areprobably contemporary additions made in Rome or Italy. The Constantinopolitan entries donotbegin until 356 (356, 357.1, 358.1, 359.2, 360, 361, andso on), which indicates that it wasin this year that it wastaken upinConstantinople andcontemporary events wereregularly added to it. Other ‘missing’events were added as well, i.e. thededication of Constantinople (330) andthe lynching of Hermogenes (342). The original Western post-consulate of 346 wasalso replaced with theEastern consuls at this time (see CLRE s.a. 346). 7, andAllen 1987: 90, Palmer 1980: 176– ι- to-ι-, seeGignac 1976: 189– 245 Onthesound shift of -ε 3. 70, 72– 69– 9 n.37; Downey 1961: 360–1; Portmann 1989: esp. 246 See Bury 1896: 305; Stein 1959: 138, 488– 9 and11 (where hemisdates mynos. 33 and37, andthus denies a connection with Singara); 7; andBarnes 1993: 220 and312 n. 17 Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 386 n.25; Blockley 1989: 476– (who also misdates Theophanes) andn. 19(though Jacob of Edessa’s note onthis battle derives notfromJerome butSocrates, HE2.25.5).

3. Commentary

271

Ascanbeseen fromthetext, entries that were derived from official’sources, such ascalendars andproclamations, contain exact dayandmonth ‘ dates (e.g. s.aa. 337 andfrom 350 to 389). Thenotice onthebattle of Singara does not, indicat332– ing that its source was not official. Furthermore, the battle is simply referred to as the ‘Persian night battle’, hardly the wayit would have appeared in any official announcement (see the official notices of battles preserved in years 314 and324). The obvious conclusion is that the entry on the battle of Singara wasadded either in c. 348 in the West on the basis of oral information about the battle received at that time or post 356, on the basis of someone’s memory of the event. Either waythe ultimate source is clearly unreliable. Since better andcontemporary sources indicate 344, notleast Julian (Or. 1.26B), whostates that Magnentius revolted (in January 350247) in the sixth year after the battle, the dubious testimony of the Descriptio must be set aside. Seealso no.3, above, fora perhaps ‘popular’remembrance of Constantius’rôle in this battle.

38. Leontius was ordained bishop of Antioch after the deposition of Stephen in the summer of 344 (see above, no. 31). OnLeontius’ ‘chastity’, see Chapter 1.4.3.

39. For this earthquake, see Guidoboni 1989: 675, no. 130 (dated to 344). The Continuatio is the only source to preserve thedate of this earthquake.

40. Michael andJerome show that Theophanes is an accurate witness to the original text. μ α ιrarely appears in the witnesses to the Canones; see, e.g., είο The verb σ η(147d = Anon. Matr. 42.15, and θ είσ η σ α ν(134a = Sync. 333.15) and ἐσ θ ἐσ είσ (σ η ), see no. 18. α ν ρ θ ά 174d= Sync. 394.5). For διεφ Forthese earthquakes, seeGuidoboni 1989: 675, no. 131(Dyrrachium, dated to 6, no. 54 (Rome andCampania, dated to 346). There are at least 345/6) and605– three inscriptions that refer to rebuilding undertaken after theconsiderable damage caused by what wasprobably a single earthquake. All three were found in Samnium, near the border with Campania andto the north, at Allifae (CIL 9.2338 = Guidoboni 1989: 145, no. 11 = Burnand 1984: 175, no. 6), Telesia (AE 1972.150 = 6, no. 12 = Burnand 1984: 176, no. 7), andAesernia (CIL Guidoboni 1989: 145– 9.2638 = Guidoboni 1989: 146, no. 13 = Burnand 1984: 176, no. 8). Other inscrip247 Kienast 1990: 314 andBarnes 1993: 101.

272

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

tions record similar rebuilding bythegovernor, Fabius Maximus (mentioned in the first twoinscriptions), perhaps for the same reasons (Guidoboni 1989: 155– 6, nos. 34). Obviously theeffects of theearthquake were notlimited to Campania but 23– were felt throughout central Italy (in addition to Rome and Dyrrachium), which appears to have been theepicentre. This wasclearly anextremely large earthquake and it is most interesting that the author was able to obtain information from so many different affected areas. The Continuatio is the only source to preserve the date of this earthquake.

41.

The Continuatio is the only source to preserve the date of what wasprobably the completion of themajor portion of this important rebuilding project; it could hardly have been achieved in a single year as theentry implies. Jerome’s comment onthe great expense required to rebuild the harbour is notmirrored in either Theophanes or the Chron. 724 andis probably a result of information he obtained in Antioch.248 42. Later evidence such as that quoted byDevréesse (1945: 196), aswell as theNotitia 8, Antiochena,249 Hierocles (716.6), Georgius Cyprius (979) (onwhich, see nos. 47– below), andthe many documents compiled inACOec, show that thecity generally continued tobe called Antaradus. InACOec it is only once called Constantia (2.5, p. 44.29) andHierocles follows Antaradus with anotherwise unknown Κ ω ν , α σ τ ίν α ν τ which show that the alternate name wasstill used onoccasion. The Continuatio is the only source to preserve a record of this renaming andrefoundation.

43. Jerome says the siege lasted three months (which is the 100 days of the third siege of 350; see below, no. 49); Theophanes andthe Chron. 1234 agree on seventy-eight days. Part of thedescription of thesiege given bytheChron. 1234 is also quoted by 9) andattributed to Ignatius of Melitene Michael the Syrian (7.4, p. 266/136a.6– (†1095).250 It didnotderive from the Continuatio, andthe Chron. 1234 andMichael must be deriving it independently (and perhaps indirectly) from Ignatius. For this siege, see Blockley 1989: 475. The Continuatio is the only source to preserve the date.

248 Onthe rebuilding of this harbour for Seleucia Pieria, the port of Antioch, see Downey 1961: 1 and361, andin general RE2A.1: 1184–1200, esp. 1192. 330– 249 Not.Ant.: Tobler andMolinier, 331; Gelzer, 247; Vailhé, 94 and145; Nau,215; andHonigmann, 73. OntheNot. Ant., see below, n. 258. 250 Onwhom, see Baumstark 1922: 291 andChabot 1934: 121.

3. Commentary

273

44. Eusebius uses the expression ἔκ λ ειψ ιςἡλ ίο υ(100bf = Sync. 286.13; opposite order, 111c = Sync. 305.16) anda similar expression, ἔκ λ ειψ ή(171d= Sync. ιςἡλ ια κ 385.27), but this entry is clearly modelled on entry 174d= Sync. 394.8–10: ἐγ έν ετ ο ῃτ ᾳ ῆ έρ ἕκ τ α ειψ λ ιςἡ ςἡμ ἔκ ςἐγ έν ὶν λ α ὺ ίο υ... κ ρ ετ ξὥ ο ,ὥ σ τ εκ α ὶἀ σ α τ έρ ςἐ ν φ ῆ α ν ῷ ν α ι, which is actually a quotation from Phlegon of Tralles (FGrHist ν α ρ ὐ ο

257 F 16).

Theophanes states thatthis eclipse occurred atthethird houron6 Daisios (arare detail before the fifth century). That would make it the total eclipse of 6 June 346; 2 andespecially Ginzel 1899: 211andMapXIII, which shows see Schove 1984: 51– that this eclipse was total along a narrow band running south-west to north-east from southern Cyrenaica to the northern tipof theCaspian Sea. Antioch lies in the very centre of this path of totality. This eclipse began at 5:19 amandended at 7:12 am, and totality lasted from 6:11 to 6:14. Since dawn was 4:14 that day the third hour is approximately correct.251 Even anobject asbright as Venus cannot be seen 1), so stars areunlikely to have until totality reaches about 98% (Newton 1972: 80– been seen anywhere outside thepath of complete totality, confirming thecentre of observation as Antioch. The recognition of this common source between Jerome andTheophanes solves the long-standing puzzle over what eclipse Jerome is refer6). ring to here (see Schove 1984: 53– The chronological agreement between Jerome andTheophanes suggests that theeclipse wasmisdated to 347 bytheContinuatio, butI amof theopinion that the entry wasoriginally dated to 346 andthat the regnal year marker for theblank year 347 hasbecome attached totheblock of text for346. This hasbeenexplained above inChapter 1.7. TheContinuatio is theonlysource topreserve a record of thiseclipse.

45. ρ η ό ςdonotmakesense here (‘dry’, ‘parched’, ‘rough’, μ ὐ χ Thenormal meanings of α ‘squalid’), buta lesser-known meaning of ‘dark’wasusedasearly as [Aristotle], de coloribus 793a andthat is what thewordmustmeanhere. 3 andGinzel This is theeclipse of Sunday, 9 October 348; seeSchove 1984: 52– 1899: 212 and Map XIII. The path of totality of this eclipse was to the north-east across theCaspian Sea. Calculations showthat theeclipse wasonly partial inAntioch (hardly 50%) andreached a maximum intensity at about 7:45 a.m. Dawnwas 5:38 a.m. that day, which would putthe eclipse in the third hour (an hour being only about fifty-three minutes at that time of year). It seems very unlikely that anyone could have noticed it in Antioch during the second hour of the day, though a careful observer mayhave seen it if thedayhadbeen foggy orovercast (which would have affected that person’s reckoning of time as well), butotherwise even themaximum 251 These calculations andthose forthefollowing eclipse (no. 45) wereobtained fromtheRedshift CD-ROM, which uses theJet Propulsion Laboratory’s DE102 programme for calculating the position of theplanets.

274

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

ona clear morning would nothavebeennoticed bypeople going about their 83) gives figures of 90– dayto daybusiness. Newton (1972: 79– 95% as thenormal magnitude at which people would notice aneclipse and80% as the lowest magnitude at which there would be ‘a reasonable probability’ that an eclipse would be noticed. Morethanlikely, however, newsof this eclipse came from another city that wascloser tothepathoftotality, just astheContinuatio’s earthquake reports originated innumerous far-flung locations. Theeclipse would have been more noticeable

eclipse

in Amida, Nisibis, or Constantinople, for instance (though still below Newton’s 80% figure). However, only west of Antioch didthe eclipse occur in the second hour, andsomewhere like Constantinople, where theeclipse reached its maximum about anhour anda half after sunrise, is a more likely location for theobservation. The Continuatio is theonly source to preserve a record of this eclipse. Surprisingly enough, norecord survives of theeclipse of Tuesday, 4 April 349, which was much more noticeable in Antioch than the one of 348 (maximum at 12:44 pm), being only just under Newton’s 80% totality. Again this suggests that that the notice of theeclipse of 348 wasnotbased oneyewitness observation.

46. γ ελ τ ν ια ίζ γ λ μ I have found only twoparallels to χρισ ε ιν εν ό ἐπ α ο ιandboth appear ρ ισ τ in Socrates’HE, having themeaning of ‘profess to beChristian’: χ ια ν ίζ ε ιν ... μ εν γ ο ειλ ά ... χ ς γ ρ ν ίζ γ ισ τ α ια έλ (1.36.2) andἐπ λ γ τ (7.13.17). Inthisentry, ε ο ε ιν η ἐπ γ έλ γ λ ω must carry its other sense of α however, the context clearly implies that ἐπ ‘promise’andχ ρ ισ τ ια ν ίζ mustbeinterpreted according toitsother later meaning ιν ε of ‘tobecome a Christian’.252The i nnovation’undertaken bythepagans, obviously ‘ (ἐ ν τ ) oftheir promise andbefore εῦ θ ε ν totheir religion, tookplace asaconsequence ο ) the church after the earthquake. The phrase τ ὺ ῄ they left (ἐ εσ α ν ςτύπ ξ ο υ ῆ ςτ ς τ ν ε ή α σ ςimplies that they received the inspiration for λ ρά π υ σ ο ε π ία σ η σ ςὥ λ κ ἐκ their newformof Christianity fromthat verychurch. If theywere already Christians (of whatever kind), therest of theentry would make nosense, norwould theauthor

θ ν ικ ο ί) whenhe first introduced them. The point have baldly called them p agans’(ἐ ‘ seems to be that the pagans sawthe church as a secure place of refuge in the earthquake andpromised tobecome Christian if allowed toseek shelter there. Some did, but their version of Christianity wasrather peculiar. Mango andScott (1997: 65), however, translate it as p rofessing tobe Christians’. Forthis earthquake, see‘Guidoboni 1989: 675, no.32, dated to 348/9.

47 and48.

Onthedistance figure inTheophanes, seeMango andScott 1997: 59: T heophanes ‘ that on to appears to have confused the distance from Constantia to Amida with Nisibis, giving 700 stades (131 km.) for the former and, at AM 5996, 56 stades for 252 Sophocles 1957: 1171 andLampe 1961: 1529.

3. Commentary

275

the total, which deBoor rightly emended to 506 stades (reading φ ζfor ν ) or 94.6 ζ km. The actual distances are [Constantia] –[Amida], 90 km. and[Constantia] – Nisibis, 133 km.’Unfortunately φ ζis 507 (as they correctly translate onp. 224), ν ʹ ζ ʹ is 57, andtheformer is notanemendation, it is thereading of b, thebest manuscript (onwhich, seeMango andScott 1997: xcv). It is difficult to tell whether Theophanes’comments on Amida’s walls andConstantia’s distance from Amida are original or not. They donot appear in anyother source, andthere are many of them, but since all ultimately derive from a single Syriac translation of the Continuatio, any later omission could be the result of a single original omission during translation (see Chapter 1.5). Furthermore, I cannot see howTheophanes could have known anything about these twocities orwhyhe would choose to addsuch comments here. Each phrase appears at the endof its respective entry, where omission would be most likely. I have included them in the reconstruction, butwithin brackets because of theuncertainty. Ascanbe seen from thesources noted in Chapter 1.3, there is a great discrepancy concerning thedate ofthefoundation andrenaming of Amida. It would bebest to quote translations of thesources in full andinchronological order, andthen proceed to ananalysis of thename anddate.

I. The Evidence Ammianus: This town[Amida] wasonce very small, butConstantius, while hewas 6] andat the same time as he built another still caesar [‘caesar etiamtum’, =335– town called Antoninupolis, enclosed it with strong towers andwalls to provide a safe place of refuge for the neighbourhood, andestablished in it an arsenal of engines torepel anyassault onthewalls. This madeit a formidable stronghold against theenemy andhedesired tohave it called after hisownname. [trans. Walter Hamilton, p. 160, corr. At 18.7.9 Ammianus refers to a ‘Constantina’, which Seyfarth and earlier editors have emended to ‘Constantia’].253 Chron. Edess.: (In) the year 660 [=349] Constantius, the son of Constantine, built the city of Amida. In the year 661 the same Constantius also built the city of Tella, which was previously called Antipolis.

Chron. Mar.: Again inthetime of Constantius, hegave anorder andTella wasbuilt in theregion of theeast andwascalled Constantina. Jacob of Edessa, Chron. [Under years 9– 349]: The 660th 12 of Constantius, =346– year of theGreeks. In this (year) Constantius built thecity of Amida in Mesopotamia. Some say that the city of Amida wasbuilt in the 658th year of the Greeks 2]: In Mesopotamia the city of 15 of Constantius, =350– [=347]. [Under Years 13–

Tella was built andcalled Constantia, which was once called . 253 In these texts round brackets () indicate words notpresent in theoriginal, pointed brackets indicate words restored byeditors, andsquare brackets [] indicate mycommentary.

276

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

Chron. 724: Also in Mesopotamia hebuilt thecity of Amida, which he named Augusta Constantina. Also in Osrhoene he built a city, which he called Constantina, which waspreviously called Antoninopolis. [The last item from the Continuatio, placed after therefounding andrenaming of Antaradus in 346, thus dating to 346–

50].

Ps-Dionysius, Chron.: [Atsometime after hisaccession in642 Sel., Constantine II] zelat in Mesopotamia, andhecalled it Constantinople, after his ownname. He also built Amida, a city of Mesopotamia [126.25– 7/169.24– 6]. Year 660: the cities Amida andTella were built Constantine 1/174.22– theyounger [129.30– 4]. Theophanes, Chron.: In this year Constantius built Amida with strong walls. He also founded Constantia, previously called Antonioupolis [sic], naming it after himself, it being 700 stades south of Amida. [4 Constantius=341.]

Chron. 819: In the year 660 Amida by Constantine, of Constantine theGreat, andin the year Tella de-Mauzelat wasbuilt. Chron. 846: NowConstantine, the eldest son of Constantine the Victorious, built the city of Amida, in the 660th year of theGreeks, andin the following year Tella de-Mauzelat wasbuilt.

Elias of Nisibis, Opus Chron.: Year 660: In this (year) Constantius built thecity of Amida. [The source is cited as Jacob of Edessa.] Michael the Syrian, Chron.: In Mesopotamia he enlarged Amida andcompleted it andhe named it Augusta. Andhe named Tella, which hadpreviously been called Antipolis, Constant. [This is placed just before the usurpation of Magnentius

in 350.] Life of Jacob theHermit: Whentheemperor Constantine, thesonof Constantine the Great, hadbuilt Amida, he loved it most of all the cities of his empire ... Because these regions wereonthePersian frontier, bands of Persians robbers wereconstantly invading these areas andplundering them... hebuilt there twogreat fortresses for the protection of these regions against the Persian robbers [i.e. Kiphas and Rhabdion].254

Chronicle of Se‛ert: [Constantius] built many cities in the west, andTella de-Mauzelat in the east andhe called it by his ownname. [No date or context.] Chron. 1234: At this time [after the second siege of Nisibis] in Mesopotamia the emperor built Tella de-Mauzelat, which is called Antipolis. Thus it wasbuilt in the year 668 [=357]. He also built the city of Amida in the year 668.

254 Themanuscript of this life waswritten in 1197 andtheaction takes place in thelate fourth and early fifth centuries. See Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 381 n.26.

3. Commentary

277

II. TheNames of Amida andConstantia, andthe Date(s) of their Refoundation Ammianus, ourearliest surviving source, says that therefortification andbuilding at Amida andConstantia were done whenConstantius wasstill caesar, andso implies a date of 335/6.255 The Chron. 724 places this entry after the refoundation of Antaradus in 346, thus clearly in accordance with the later dates from our other 1 Sel.=349–50). A date of 349– Syriac witnesses (660– 50 accords well with theLife of Jacob the Hermit, which is obviously speaking about Constantius as augustus. Theophanes, however, dates both to 341, which would putthem between thedeath of Constantine II andtheconsecration of theGreat Church inAntioch (nos. 29 and 30). AswesawinChapter 1.7, in virtually every place where Theophanes contradicts another source, he is incorrect, andthere is no reason to suspect or wayto explain such an error in the Syriac translation of the Continuatio. This entry has therefore beenremoved fromitsproper place inTheophanes, probably asa result of a confusion of notes byTheophanes orSyncellus. It is therefore a choice between c.

349 andc. 336. Thetrue date hinges onthename given to thetwocities: ‘Constantia’or ‘Constantina’? Ammianus, Jacob of Edessa, Ps-Dionysius,256 Theophanes, andtheChron. Se‛ert either state thatthenamewas‘Constantia’orimply it bysaying thatConstantius named it after himself (though Ammianus later seems to call theex-Antoninopolis ‘Constantina’). Ammianus andthe Continuatio (=Ps-Dionysius, Theophanes, and Chron. Se‛ert) explicitly state that Constantius named Amida andAntoninopolis after himself. Chron. Mar. andChron. 724 report ‘Constantina’. Theweight of theevidence falls with ‘Constantia’.257This is also thewayit is spelled with respect to theex-Antoninopolis in three places inTheophanes (145.14, 260.18, 340.23) and in the Notitia Antiochena, the Synecdemus of Hierocles (714.2; sixth century), and the Descriptio orbis Romani of Georgius Cyprius (894; c. 605).258 However, the city is otherwise called ‘Constantina’, from at least the endof the fourth century, 3, no. 44, andKauffirst at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (EOMIA 2.2: 442– hold 1993: 73, no.46 = Ruggieri 1993: 344, no.41), in Ammianus (see above), and 255 ForConstantius’location from 335, seeBarnes 1982: 85 n. 162, 198. Ammianus’testimony is 3; almost universally accepted; see, for example, Piganiol 1972: 63; Blockley 1989: 472– Matthews 1989: 54, 136; Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 154 (who are all strangely unaware of 90, 191); and Theophanes andthe Syriac sources, though see Dodgeon andLieu 1991: 189– evenMillar 1993: 209 (whoalso cites Chron. Edess.; seealso p.465). Theonlyexception I have 9, citing Chron. Edess. andTheophanes. discovered is Devréesse 1945: 300, whodates it to 348– 256 Ps-Dionysius’ ‘Constantinople’ is obviously just a guess based on the statement that ‘Constantine’named it after himself. 257 SeeRE4: 953. This formof thenameis accepted byDillemann 1962, whonever evenhints that there is a problem with the name. 258 FortheNot.Ant. thereferences to thevarious witnesses areTobler andMolinier, 332; Gelzer, ν ά . The Syriac version has T ella’ τ ια ν ν ω α τ σ 247; andVailhé, 94, 145; though Nau, 216, hasΚ ‘ ηeven though nomanuscript ίν τ ν σ ν τ α δat 1.21). Honigmann gives Κω (Honigmann, 73 n. Γ actually reports that reading. TheNot. Ant. dates from thesecond half of theninth century, but is based on a sixth century original that relied on even earlier material; see Devréesse 1945: 12, andtheworks cited in thebibliography under theNot. Ant., esp. NauandHonigmann. 305–

278

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

in the Notitia dignitatum, Or. 37.7, 22, 29, andthen by such authors as Theodoret, Theodorus Lector (HE 443, p. 124.23), Procopius, Menander Protector (20.1.26, 26.1.76, 138), Stephen of Byzantium (475.11), Joshua the Stylite, Theophylact Simocatta, Malalas, andeveninsomeplaces byTheophanes (134.3, 145.1, 292.10).259 The same is true inthemany subscriptions found inACOec 2 and4 (chiefly Chalcedon [451] andConstantinople [553]) written by bishops whomust have known thenameof their owncity (for a listing, seeACOec 4.3.3, pp.84– 5), though inmany cases theLatin versions of theGreek documents give ‘Constantia’. There seems to benoimportant variation intheGreek manuscript spellings sowedonotseemtobe dealing with confusion or corruption of the names by scribes, which is extremely common in all languages, Latin, Greek, andSyriac, as wecansee in theexamples cited above where ‘Constantius’ often becomes ‘Constantinus’, his elder brother, whofounds ‘Constantinople’ andwhere Antaradus/Constantia is called ‘Constantina’in Hierocles in no.42, above (though corruption inACOec is still possible: see ACOec 4.3.3, p. 83 fora ‘Constantia’in Arabia called ‘Constantina’at Chalcedon). Similarly, intheNot.dig. there areother cities called Constantia that appear correctly (Occ. 33.13, 34 [in Valeria onthe Danube] and37.9, 20; 42.34 [in Lugdunensis II]). It seems hard to reconcile theconflicting evidence, especially given the bishops’ownsubscriptions, except for the suggestion that thecity changed its name at some point after 361, andthat some people/lists continued to use the old form (including the Latin translators of the conciliar documents). Neither Antaradus nor Amida retained thenameConstantia; perhaps inthecase of Constantia theinhabitants altered thenamebetween 361andc. 381 rather thanrevert totheprevious one, seeking a link with the orthodox Constantine rather than theArian Constantius (see theexample of Arles, below). Whatever thelater nameof these cities, the Continuatio makes it quite certain that Constantius originally named them after himself.260 Aninteresting parallel canbenoted inthecase of Arles (Arelas) inGaul. While in Gaul in late 328 Constantine renamed Arles in honour of his sonConstantine, 8). whohadbeen born there in 316 (Barnes 1981: 66 andBarnes 1982: 43, 44, 77– Therenaming is dated by changes to themintmarks onthecoinage of Arles, which shift from PARL, P*AR, andvariants, to PCONST in late 328. (The P indicates ‘prima officina’; the ‘secunda officina’is denoted byan‘S’.) However,‘in ’early 450 thebishops of Arles andits diocese, whentrying toconvince Pope Leoof theecclesiastical importance of Arles intheir quarrel withVienne, note, ‘Haec [sc. ciuitas] in tantum a gloriosissimae memoriae Constantino peculiariter honorata est, utabeius uocabulo praeter proprium nomen, quo Arelas uocitatur, Constantina nomen acceperit’(Leo, Ep. 65, PL 54: 882). Upon the death anddamnatio memoriae of Constantine II in April of 340, however, themintmarks return to PARL. They then return to PCON, PCONST, andKONSTANT (with the -ANT in a ligature) in 353, 259 Forthesources forwhich I havenotgiven references, seenote 894 inGelzer’s edition ofGeorgius Cyprius, pp. 153– 4. 260 Modern scholarship tends to be split on the subject, those familiar with the fourth andfifth centuries favouring ‘Constantia’, those more familiar with thelater Byzantine period accepting ‘Constantina’ without a second thought. TAVO, onsuch mapsas B V 13,B VI 1, andB VI 4, accepts ‘Constantia’(though, strangely, onB V 13 it calls Antaradus ‘Constantina’).

3. Commentary

279

clearly indicating that Constantius renamed thecity Constantia whenhecelebrated his tricennalia there in November (Ammianus 14.5.1; with wrong month). However, neither name ever seems to have been used outside official contexts, as was probably also the case with Amida, and Arles is never called anything other than Arelas, Arelate, orciuitas Arelatensium, even though thePCON/KONT mintmark appears on bronze andsilver coinage right down to the last such coinage struck at 4 (Kent 1994: 361), though A R is thestandard themint fortheusurper John in423– mintmark for gold from the beginning of the fifth century (e.g. Kent 1994: 331, 339, 1, Bruun 1953: 48, Bruun 1966: 354). For this renaming, see Constans 1921: 100– 232, andKent 1981: 197, 198, 200. The bishop of Arles obviously believed that the city’s name wasstill Constantina, even though it wasConstantia. But in theyears after 361 thechoice between being named after Constantine theGreat, Constantine II, andConstantius II wasclear. Something similar maywell be involved with Constantia/Antoninopolis. Since this is so,thedate of therefoundation of Amida mustbeinthe340s since, as the Chron. 724 andMichael (and therefore the Continuatio) inform us, Constantius renamed Amida ‘Constantia Augusta’. Hecould nothave given it such a name while still caesar, since probably only anaugustus could confer such a title upon a city. Given the fact that the Continuatio waswritten almost forty years before Ammianus wrote his history, within a year of theevents themselves, andgiven Ammianus’complete confusion overthelocation anddescription of Amida (which hehad 2; see Matthews 1989: 55), wemustaccept the spent some time in himself, 18.9.1– testimony of the other witnesses andplace the refortification of Amida in 349, fol8 andthetwosieges of Nisibis. Furtherlowing theconstant Persian attacks of 343– more, wehave evidence fromtheContinuatio that these instances of renaming were part of a pattern in the mid-to late-340s: Constantius renamed Salamis in 344 and Antaradus in 346 (and then Arles in 353). I suspect that Ammianus, or his source, confused or associated the refortification of Amida in 349 with the first capture of Amida in336 (see above, no.3). Doesthis thenmeanthatAmmianus wasnotonthe eastern frontier in 349? Wenowmustascertain theexact dates of these refoundations (see Chapter 1.5). All sources that give a date, with the exception of Ammianus, Theophanes, and Chron. 1234, agree that Amida wasrebuilt in 349. The error in the latter (668 Sel.) is clearly a mistake for 660 Sel. The sources are, however, split over the date of Constantia’s refoundation. Ammianus, Ps-Dionysius (twice, from different sources), Theophanes, andthe Chron. 1234 all state that bothcities were rebuilt either at thesame time orinthesame year. The Chron. Edess., Chron. 819, Chron. 846, and probably Jacob of Edessa date therefoundation of Amida to 349 andConstantia to 350 (660 and661 Sel.). Chron. Mar., Elias, andChron. Se‛ert only mention onecity (none giving a date for Constantia) andChron. 724 andMichael the Syrian donot explicitly indicate the year. The best evidence indicates that the refoundations belong to the same year. Even though Ammianus erred in his date, the tradition he reports clearly closely linked the tworefoundations, andas a result both were misdated. His account makes more sense if the rebuilding of both hadbeen accomplished atthesame time, rather thanoverthespace of twodifferent summers. Theophanes, too, haserred inhisdates, buthedates bothto thesame year andboth were

280

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

Eusebii

misplaced. If they hadbelonged to separate years it would have been less likely for both to have beenmisplaced at thesametime. The Chron. Edess., Chron. 819, and Chron. 846 areotherwise clearly related tooneanother (see also no.27 onthedeath of Jacob of Nisibis) andsotheir evidence allultimately derives froma single erroneous source. Jacob, too, is probably relying on the former, though he clearly had other sources, which heexplicitly mentions. Theearlier date he mentions, 658 Sel. (=347), is obviously a confusion with therenaming of Antaradus in 346. If Malalas does indeed refer to Constantia in a garbled passage that discusses Constantine’s rebuilding a ‘Maximianopolis’ in Osrhoene as ‘Constantina’ (13.12, p. 323.14–19), it would seem that Antoninopolis hadhadits name changed at least once before, probably somewhere in the290s during Galerius’Persian campaigns (the identification is accepted byODB497, s.v. Constantina); nodoubt it hadrevertedto its older form after Galerius’death in311. Malalas also states thatthis city had been recently captured by the Persians (at the same time as Amida in c. 336?) and had suffered severe damage from an earthquake before being rebuilt.261 Malalas also refers, like Theophanes (and hence the Continuatio?), to the rebuilding of the walls, which hadcollapsed. Given Malalas’confusion withnames noted above (nos. 7 and18), there is a strong likelihood thatthis is indeed ‘Constantia’, butits rebuildinghasbeen shifted to thereign of Constantine because of thename ‘Constantina’. There is norecord of battle in 349 (see Blockley 1989: 477 andBarnes 1993: 220), so perhaps Constantius took theopportunity to fortify thefrontier during a lull inthe fighting.262

III. WasConstantia inOsrhoene orMesopotamia? The Chron. 724 states that Constantia was in Osrhoene, not in Mesopotamia, as Amida was. Ps-Dionysius, Jacob of Edessa, andthe Chron. 1234 state that it wasin Mesopotamia. They also knowthat it wascalled Tella de-Mauzelat (asdotheChron. Edess., Chron. Mar., Chron. 819, Chron. 846, Michael, and Chron. Se‛ert), which indicates that all later Syriac sources (butnottheChron. 724) ultimately relied upon a common source that called Constantia T ella’andplaced it in Mesopotamia (see Chapter 1.5). This epitomator corrected‘’ or ‘updated’what he read in the Syriac translation. Weknowfrom later‘evidence, such as theNotitia dignitatum attheend of the fourth century (Or. 36; with Jones 1964: MapIV) andProcopius in the sixth century (Wars 1.22.3) that Constantia wasnotonly in Mesopotamia buthadeven been the seat of the duxMesopotamiae.263 Malalas, when discussing the ex-Maximianopolis (noted above), also says that Constantia was in Osrhoene, though the date of his source is unknown. 261 There wereearthquakes in341, 344, and349thatcould havecaused thisdamage. Perhaps itwas thelatter that prompted therefoundation. 262 Constantius isattested inAntioch on1April 349, Singara andEmesa inthesummer, andperhaps inConstantinople on3 October (Barnes 1993: 220 and312 n. 18), sohehadtheopportunity to doso. 8. For its importance in the early sixth 263 See also Jones 1964: 1438 andDillemann 1962: 107– 3, 159, 213, 216. century, see Greatrex 1998: 31, 35, 98, 100–

3. Commentary

281

Theearliest evidence wehave forthecity’s ecclesiastical province, theacts of the Council of Constantinople (381; cited above), places it in Mesopotamia under the metropolitan jurisdiction of Amida. Before 363 Nisibis would probably have been the metropolis of the province; Jacob is usually said to have been the first metropolitan bishop, sotherise instatus musthave happened between 329 and337, since Jacob died in 337 (see no. 27, above) andMesopotamia was still a single ecclesiastical province under Edessa in 329 (EOMIA 2.2: 231). At some point before themiddle of thefifth century, however, thechurches of Constantia andHimeria(onwhich, seethenote inGelzer’s edition of Georgius Cyprius, pp. 155– 6) were removed to thejurisdiction of Edessa andbecame part of the newecclesiastical province of Osrhoene, a late-developing territory, whose boundaries followed the Khabur River north andwest from Circesium.264 After theCouncil of ConstantinopleConstantia is always listed asbeing inOsrhoene inecclesiastical contexts (such as bishops’ subscriptions to councils and the Not. Ant., Hierocles, and Georgius Cyprius).265

Given the intrinsic uncertainties of provincial boundaries in this sort of territoandtherelative unimportance of Constantia before 363, it maywell nothave been known to those wholived outside the city to which province (either civil or ecclesiastical) Constantia actually belonged. Malalas’ultimate source andthe author of the Continuatio obviously thought that it belonged to Osrhoene. However, it could originally have been inOsrhoene, butthen been shifted to Mesopotamia after thelegion atNisibis (I Parthica; Not.dig., Or.36.29) wasrelocated there in 363–on 9, accepted byLee 8)267 andLightfoot 1988: 108– which, see Dillemann (1962: 107– 1993: 53 and ODB 497, s.v. Constantina –probably the same time that the dux Mesopotamiae wasrelocated there as well. The presence of a legion would have prompted quite anupgrade in the city’s civil andecclesiastical status, which could have prompted theappointment of a bishop, whoobviously would nothave existed in theearly days of its refoundation as a frontier fortress. This would have been the situation in 381. In the early fifth century, however, Constantia andHimeria were reclaimed by Edessa andbecame part of the ecclesiastical province of Osrhoene. Since Edessa wasthe metropolis of a single province of Mesopotamia in 325 and 329, we can probably see these changes as a result of the growing prestige and influence of Nisibis andthen Amida in the middle andlate fourth century, each gaining in its turn metropolitan status, andthen Edessa’s eventual reassertion of its ‘rightful place’in the vacuum caused by the loss of Nisibis in 363.268 Differences 3, between ecclesiastical andcivil boundaries arenotunusual: seeJones 1964: 881– ry266

300, andtheNot. Ant.: Honigmann 1925: 88. 264 See Devréesse 1945: 290, 299– 265 This confuses Dillemann (1962: 108) who thinks only in terms of geographical and administrative divisions, notecclesiastical divisions as well. 20 andElton 1996b: 127. 266 See Elton 1996a: 19– 267 However, Dillemann believes that Constantia reverted to Osrhoene whenthe garrison left in 540, citing Procopius’deaedificiis. However, Procopius makes it quite clear that heconsiders 6, 2.7, and2.8.1. Only the that Constantina (as he calls it) wasin Mesopotamia: deaed. 2.1– cities enumerated in2.7 are inOsrhoene andConstantina is described in 2.5. 268 See Devréesse 1945: 290 and299.

282

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

whodiscusses similar examples of such discrepancies in the better-recorded sixth century. Such a situation would explain thesingle ecclesiastical province of Mesopotamia at Nicaea in 325 when there seem to have been two civil provinces.269 Though in the ecclesiastical province of Osrhoene from around theearly fifth century, Constantia would have remained inthecivil province of Mesopotamia. In this case, the Syriac epitome that stated that Tella wasin Mesopotamia wasthinking about the civil province. The latest scholarship on the boundaries of the Roman Empire in this area, TAVO, places Constantia in Osrhoene in the late Roman and early Byzantine period (B V 13, B VI 1, andB VI 4). However, these civic boundaries follow exactly the path of the ecclesiastical boundaries (see the mapin Not. Ant.: Honigmann 1925: 88) andhence are probably based to a great extent on the ecclesiastical evidence. We can nowsee that the frontier that waspreviously thought to have been fortified against the Persians by Constantine andConstantius in the wake of early Persian aggression in 335 and336, andin preparation for Constantine’s invasion of 337, wasinfact left openandunrepaired during more thana decade of warbetween Rome andPersia. Andif Procopius cantrusted (which is nota given) Constantius’ repairs to Constantia were poorly conceived, cheaply undertaken, andhastily completed (de aedificiis 2.5.2– 4). Fergus Millar has recently said with regard to Ammianus’account of Constantius’ refortification of Amida, ‘Ammianus ... must be our best witness to this final stage of the evolution of the military structure of Roman Mesopotamia, before the loss of its eastern section in 363’(1993: 209). This is no longer true.

49. For Nisibis in general, andthethird siege in particular, see Lightfoot 1988. The grounds for including this last entry are notas strong as for the above entries, since thechief source is theChron. Pasch., butI think a case canbe made. The strongest reason forincluding it is thevirtually identical wording between theshort introductory phrase in the Chron. Pasch. (the only part of the narrative that I am discussing here andquoted in the reconstruction) andthe descriptions of this andthe two earlier sieges in the other witnesses to the Continuatio: ε σ ο Μ ῇ ε θ ντ λ ῆ ὺ ε ςἐπ ιλ σ α ιςὁΠ ρ νβ ῶ σ ω ά π ερ Chron. Pasch. (first siege): Σ α ρ γ ς μ ἐ ξ ἡ ν ... ὴ ʹ τ ὐ θ ρ κ ί α α α σ α ς α α π κ ὶ , ι ν β ή ᾳ σ π ρ ω θ ι ο ν Ν ί σ τ ὴ ν μ ί π ο τ α ῇ ντ ὼ θ ελ εὺ ιλ α ςἐπ σ νβ ῶ σ ρ ιςὁΠ ερ π ά ω Chron. Pasch. (third siege): Σ ... ν ι β ι σ ί ʹ Ν τ ὴ ν ρ ρ α ς έ μ ἡ α ς σ ί Μ θ μ εσ α π τ κ ο ο α α ρ ίᾳ α α ὶπ ,κ ῇ θ ετ λ ῆ εύ , ἐπ ιλ σ α ς νβ ῶ η σ ς ρ , ὁΠ ερ ώ β α Theophanes (first siege): Σ α γ ςξ μ έρ ἡ ὴ ν ʹ... τ ναὐ ε ρ θ ισ εκ ά α ὶπ ,κ ιν α ή ίβ ισ σ ω νΝ ρθ π ο Μ μ εσ ίᾳ π τ ο ο α ῇ ντ ὼ θ ελ , ἐπ εύ ς α ιλ σ νβ ῶ σ η ς , ὁτ ρ ερ ῶ β νΠ ώ α Theophanes (second siege): Σ η α μ ἐρ ςο ἡ Ν ν ʹ... ε ισ ισ θ ά ιν ρ εκ ίβ π α Μ εσ μ ίᾳ π ο τ ο α ιν ίβ ισ νΝ ὴ ,τ ν ῶ σ ὺ ερ ε ςΠ ιλ σ α η ςπ ά λ ιν ρ , ὁβ β ώ α Theophanes (third siege): Σ θ α εσ κ θ ρ α ε ὶς π α ... 269 See Barnes 1982: 221.

3. Commentary

283

Jerome (first siege): Sapor rex Persarum Mesopotamia uastata, duobus ferme mensibus Nisibin obsedit. Jerome (second/third siege): Rursum Sapor tribus mensibus obsidet Nisibin. Chron. 724 (first siege): Shapur, theking of thePersians, came toMesopotamia in order to capture Nisibis. Hebesieged it for sixty-six days. The second reason forincluding this entry is that Jerome’s entry forthesecond siege looks like the entry for the third siege (236h). He says that the second siege, which lasted seventy-eight days, lasted three months, while the first siege, which was sixty-three days, he says was almost two months. If sixty-three days is ‘almost two months’, then seventy-eight days can hardly be three months. Three months (that is, c. ninety-two days) is obviously the length of the final siege (100 days270). ά λ ιν , usedto deFurthermore, Jerome uses ‘rursum’, which mirrors Theophanes’π scribe the third siege. Jerome seems to have confused the two accounts at some point during composition, which would notseem to have been difficult, given that all three siege notices were virtually identical.

270 So says theChron. Pasch. Julian (Or. 1.28D; Or.2.62D) says it wasfourmonths oralmost four months, probably through inclusive reckoning.

284

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii Appendix

1:

A Guide to theSyriac andArabic Transliterations Usedin this Work In the following table I have provided the Syriac/Arabic transcriptions followed by theGreek andEnglish equivalents that they mostoften represent in theSyriac and Arabic words that appear in this volume. Where these equivalents do not exist I

havegiven anEnglish approximation where possible. Since thistable isonlyintended forreaders whohave nofamiliarity withthese twolanguages, certain subtleties and details have beenignored andI have placed theletters inEnglish alphabetical order. Transliteration ‛

Greek

/ε α

English a / glottal stop

a short guttural sound not found inGreek orEnglish; tobesharply differentiated from the

b (Syriac) b (Arabic) d g (Arabic)

h (Arabic)

k (Syriac)

k (Arabic) l

m n p q

β ,π

δ

γ ‛

χ

χ

κ λ μ ν

/φ π

κ

r s

ρ

σ/ ς

b b, p d g j h ch as in loch kh k k l

m n p k

r s

emphatic

š t (Syriac) t (Arabic) ṭ (Arabic)

w y

z

θ τ τ θ υ/ υ/ o / ω ο

ι ζ

sh t, th t emphatic

th u/ o

i zβ

s

t

Appendix 2, Part 1: 350 The Bishops of Antioch, 313– All figures areyears, except those indictaed by ‘m’(= months) = notcovered * = mentioned – = notmentioned § = ‘a short time’†= after Eustathius r = called Romanus Bishop

Chron. Theoph. Niceph. Zonaras Chron. Chron. Eutych. Agap. M. Syr. Theod. Philost.

724 Vitalis Philogonius Paulinus

Eustathius

syn.

846

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

7m

5

5

5

5†

4

18

18

18

8

Eusebius Euphronius

Flacillus Stephen

* * * * *

3

3

8

8

12

3

* *

5

8

vacancy

Eulalius

Soz.

Nicetas

HEMS M. Syr list

* *

8

Socr.

* 6 m†

8

*

8

8

*

*

Commentary

13

1

11

8

8

23

2

6

6

1+m

12

12

12

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

3

5

5

5

* *

§

*

list

*

* *

*r

*r

*r

*

*

*

* * *† *

*

*

*

*

?

* * ?1 – *

8 285

3

* * * *

* * *

286

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

Appendix 2, Part 2: Consolidated Bishop Lists for Studies

All dates are approximate. †= Studies 1 and2 * = Study 1

1 and2

Otherwise Study

2

i. TheBishops of Antioch Tyrannus

Vitalis Philogonius Paulinus vacancy Eustathius Eulalius (Eusebius) Euphronius Flacillus Stephen

13 years

6 years 5 years

313* 301–

3 months?

313–c. 319 20 Dec. 323 c. 319– early to mid324 early 325 late 324– Oct./Dec. 328 early 325– Oct./Dec. 328– early 329

c. 15months

early-mid-329 mid329–late 330

c. 7 months c. 6 months 3 y., c. 8 m

8 months? 5– 11 years

3 years

late 330–pre 1 Oct. 341 pre 1 Oct. 341–summer 344

ii. The bishops of Alexandria 11 years

Peter Achillas Alexander Athanasius

c. 6 months 15years 45 years

Gregory

6 years

25 Nov. 311† mid-300– 13 June 313 late 312/early 313– mid313–17 April 328 2 May373 (in exile 8 June 328– 362) 346, 356– 337, 339– 335– 26 June 345 22 March 339–

iii. TheBishops of Jerusalem Zabdas Hermon Macarius Maximus

2 years

? 20 years 16years

301* 299– 309/310 or 313* 301– 313/4–c. 332 348 c. 332–

3. Commentary

287

Appendix 3: The Dates in Syriac Martyr Acts

by Raymond Mercier

This appendix presents a discussion of thecalendars that oneneeds to consider in the context of the dates in the Syriac martyr acts, followed by a review of the proposals made by Higgins

in this connection.

1. Calendars 1.1. Luni-solar calendars

Theterm luni-solar canbeunderstood inoneof three ways inthepresent context: 1.The continuation of theBabylonian calendar, in theform that maybe called Parthian’. ‘ 2. The Jewish calendar. 3. The Christian Computus. These three areconceptually related, inthesense thatthemonth inevery case is assumed to begin withthereal NewMoon. Historical relations among themarereal enough butcannot be adequately documented. 1.1.1. Babylonian

The ancient Babylonian calendar is reasonably well understood andis well tabulated.1 Weareable tocompute it inthesense that weknowthesequence of intercalary months and we can calculate also the time of the visibility of the lunar crescent, at least to within a day. We know that the year began in the spring, with the month Nisan. The intercalation appears to have been designed so that the spring equinox never fell later thanthefirst dayof Nisan. Where hitherto regnal years hadbeen used, in the period following Alexander the Great the Seleucid Era wasintroduced into the Babylonian calendar, the first year of which began on2 April/1 Nisan 311 BC. The Macedonian calendar, originally luni-solar with an autumn NewYear, wasreplaced by an autumn version of the Babylonian calendar, starting six months earlier than in the spring form, the first year starting on6 Oct./1 Dios 312 BC. Theintercalated months were Addaru II and Ululu II, placed after Addaru andUlulu. Thecorrespondence between Macedonian andBabylonian months is shown in the following table.

1

Parker

andDubberstein 1956.

288

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii Table

1: The Babylonian Months andtheir Macedonian Names Babylonian

Macedonian

Nisanu Aiaru Simanu

Artemisios Daisios Panemos

Duzu Abu

Loös

Ululu Tashritu Arahsamnu Kislimu Tebetu Shabatu Addaru

Gorpiaios Hyperberetaios

Dios Apellaios Audynaios Peritios Dystros Xanthicos

1.1.2. Parthian Some time towards the beginning of the first century ADwe find the Babylonian calendar continued withanautumn NewYear, butwiththemonth names displaced, so that the first month is nowHyperberetaios. This form is also known with Aramaic month names, indeed very nearly the same month names that are used in the Jewish calendar. This is less well attested thantheearlier forms, butis supported by Greek andAramaic inscriptions atPalmyra andDuraEuropus, as well asbya series of Parthian coins, noted notonly forbearing theMacedonian month names, butfor indicating that certain years hadembolismal months.2 The equivalence between Macedonian andAramaic month names is well attested among the inscriptions, as well asbyJosephus. This formwill here becalled ‘Parthian’. Apart fromtheshift in

thesequence of Macedonian month names, it mayberegarded as a direct continuation of the earlier Babylonian calendar. The Aramaic month names are obviously the Aramaic equivalents of the earlier Akkadian month names. The intercalated months arenowDystros II andGorpiaios II. Thecorrespondence withtheBabylonian months is shown in the following table.

2

SeeLeRider 1965 anddeCallatay 1994 fortheproof of theautumn NewYear; Neugebauer and vanHoesen (1959: 54) for a lunar date ina horoscope atDura; Cumont (1926: 347), whocites ο ό ιμ λ ςfromtwoinscriptions atDura; andHillers andCussini (1996: 443) forthe ρ ο aΔ ύ σ τ ςἐμβ Aramaic-Greek equivalence, identical to that of Josephus.

289

3. Commentary Table

2: Correlation of Babylonian,

Parthian’, andJewish Months ‘

Babylonian

Macedonian

Aramaic

Tashritu Arahsamnu Kislimu Tebetu Shabatu Addaru Nisanu Aiaru Simanu

Hyperberetaios

Teshri

Dios Apellaios Audynaios Peritios Dystros Xanthicos Artemisios Daisios Panemos

Kinū n3 Kislev

ebet Shebaṭ

Adar Nīsan

Iyar Sīvan Qinyan

Jewish Tishri

Mareshvan Kislev ebet Shebaṭ Adar Nisan Iyyar Sivan Tammuz

Duzu Abu

Loös

Ab

Ab

Ululu

Gorpiaios

Ilul

Elul

1.1.3. Jewish

TheJewish calendar is defined notonly now, butsince at least thetenth century, by a collection of integer based algorithms, that is precise formulae, which make the calendar independent of observations. It is in many ways similar to the Parthian calendar. The month names are little different from the common Aramaic names andaregiven in theabove table. That thecalendar stands in some historical relation with the Babylonian is beyond question, butthere are many unsolved problems. In particular thebasis of intercalation differs, andis defined bytherequirement that the spring equinox should occur not later than the Full Moon of Nisan, 15 Nisan, the first dayof Passover. The Babylonian calendar inits original form, of course, more than satisfied this requirement. At one stage in the development of the calendar there were rules for the calculation of times of equinoxes andsolstices, so weinfer that this muchastronomy wasatonetime actively required, butwehave only a very incomplete grasp of that phase, after which the fully algorithmic version was fixed. During the Parthian period, if we mayjudge by the coins andcontemporary inscriptions, the calendar that we here refer to as Parthian was in regular use, so providing a luni-solar calendar useful, in particular, to theJews. It would seem that this calendar wasdiscarded from official Persian usage from the beginning of the Sasanid period, leaving the Jews to adapt it to their ownneeds. It is perhaps only from this time that we have a quite specifically Jewish calendar. Mahler4 anda number of other historians of the subject, argue that it wasfixed some time in thefourth century, inthecontext of theTalmudic academies, although it seems tomethateventually elements fromIslamic astronomy of theninth century came to be included. In the following discussion Jewish dates will be computed by theuseof the fixed Jewish calendar, andindeed there is noother wayto doit. 3

4

Alternatively Marheshvan 79. Mahler 1916: 469–

inPalmyrene

inscriptions; Hillers andCussini 1996:

443.

290

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

1.1.4. Computus

Computus, if wemayuse the Latin term for the whole complex of procedures usedbyChristians to fix thedate of Easter, wasinits formative stage in thesecond tofourth centuries. Asis well known it wentthrough a long development before accepting theBabylonian nineteen-year cycle, after a number of simpler and cruder intercalation cycles hadbeen attempted. It seems that astronomical activity in Alexandria andelsewhere wasnotstrong enough to persuade theearliest Christians to makeimmediate useof thenineteen-year cycle inthedetermination of Easter. It would have been more natural, inanycase, tofollow Jewish practice infixing the date of Passover. In that case, we may infer that the Jews likewise in the early Christian period hadnot adopted that cycle. It is hard to estimate what influences operated between Christians andJews inthis matter, butinfluences there musthave been, if only because the twocommunities were trying to solve the same problem, andcertainly observed each other. The aimof theComputus wasto fix thedate of Easter. Forthis purpose a lunisolar calendar wasdevised, so as to fix the time of Passover in such a waythat the spring equinox would fall notlater than 14Nisan, a date always referred to as luna xiv.5 This luni-solar calendar wasa purely technical construction, used only by the calculator, whowould then convert luna xiv to a date in the Julian calendar. This sequence of lunar months as such wasnever a public calendar, but in spite of this people have persisted in treating Syriac dates in themartyr literature that are stated to be ‘lunar’, or are suspected to be such, onthe assumption that they were computed according to the Computus; this was so with Assemani, Nöldeke, Peeters, and Higgins.6

The Christian

1.2. Non-luni-solar Calendars 1.2.1. Persian The Persian calendar in the Sasanid period presents many problems in spite of its rather simple form. The Egyptian calendar, twelve thirty daymonths, with an added h), provided thetemplate, andthis wasundoubtedly five epagomenal days (andargā adopted in Iran during the Achaemenid period. In the later Sasanid period there were evidently alterations to thepositions of theepagomenal days, whenthey were moved from the end of the twelfth month Isfandarmudh to the end of the eighth month Aban. Since thelength of theyear is 365 days, thePersian calendar is outof step with the seasons, falling back by about one dayevery four years. The much reported intercalation of one month every 120 years is to be regarded as legend, according to the careful arguments of de Blois.7 According to his results we have, however, to distinguish twostages, early andlate Sasanid, with a transition around

5

6

7

Passover starts ontheevening of thefourteenth, whenbyJewish reckoning thefifteenth begins, butforsome reason Christians aimed their calculations atthefourteenth. Aphrahat is ina sense anexception to this, with his insistence on the fifteenth; see Bert 1888 andNeusner 1971 on Aphrahat’s Demonstration 12. E.g. Assemani 1748: 60 andpassim, Nöldeke 1879: 424, Peeters 1943: 131and 142, andHiggins 1955: 3 andpassim.

De Blois 1996.

291

3. Commentary

AD500. In every case the year begins with the month Farvardin. In theearly form the epagomenal days are placed after the twelfth month Isfandarmudh; in the late form they areplaced after theeighth month Aban. Theyears were regnal until after theendof theSasanid period, since whenthey were counted from 21 June AD632 (Farvardin

1), theYazdgerd Era.8

1.2.2. Julian

WhentheJulian calendar wasintroduced intotheEastern Empire it wassubjected to a number of modifications. Atthevery least thenames of themonths werereplaced by Macedonian or Syrian names, even when the lengths of the months were unchanged.9 In its simplest form theSeleucid Erawasused, with themonth names as shown in the following table. The year began with Teshri I (or Hyperberetaios), with theyears counted from 1 Teshri I 312 BC. Table

3: TheJulian Calendar

Latin

Syrian

Macedonian

October November December Ianuarius Februarius Martius Aprilis Maius Iunius Iulius Augustus September

Teshri I Teshri II nI Kanū n II Kanū Shebaṭ dar Ā Nīsā n r Iyā azīran Tā mmuz

Hyperberetaios

Dios Apellaios Audynaios Peritios Dystros

Xanthicos Artemisios Daisios Panemos

Ā b

Loös

Ilul

Gorpiaios

2. The Jewish Calendar andthe Syriac Martyr Acts 2.1. Introduction. Thenumerous Syriac texts relating thesufferings anddeaths of Christian martyrs in Syria andMesopotamia frequently note the date of the death. While the date in Syriac accounts that areof western orJacobite origin is generally Julian, inthetexts of eastern or Nestorian origin, with which weare solely concerned here, there are special difficulties. Ineither case themonth names aregenerally those of theSyrian calendar. Onthose occasions when the calendar is named, it is either ‘Greek’ or ‘Macedonian’, from which onecanassume the Seleucid Era, if notnecessarily the 8 9

In oneinstance, intheaccount of Simeon barSabba‛e, theyear 31of Shapur II is given asyear 117 of the Kings of Persia, so apparently counted fromAD223. Themanyvariations aredescribed bySamuel 1972, Chapter VI.

292

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

of months. Noother calendar type is named, with the sole exception of the act of the martyr Giwargis, where the date is given notonly in the Greek style, butalso in thePersian calendar. Theyearis indicated inoneof various ways, theSeleucid era, theregnal yearof theking, ora yearcounted fromthebeginning of thegreat persecution under Shapur II. In addition to thenumbered dayinthemonth, theweekday is sometimes given, andis of course theprincipal aidfixing theinterpretation of thedate. Frequently the ), a phrase appended to the date. For date is said to be ‘by the moon’ (bedesahrā example thedeath of Šahdost is given as‘day20 inthemonth Shebat, bythemoon’, the year in this case being indicated only as the second year of thepersecution.10 Onoccasion the date can be interpreted as Julian. For example, the death of Mahdok can be shown to have been Sunday 12 Kanun II 9 Shapur,11 of which the Julian equivalent is Sunday 12 Jan. AD318. Furthermore, Pethion’s date is given clearly asFriday 25 Teshri I 9 Yazdgerd, which is Friday 25 Oct. 446.12 In the account of the martyrdom of Mar Giwargis,13 the date of his death is given correctly according tothePersian calendar: ‘theBlessed Martyr wascrowned in the year 926 of the Greeks onthe fourteenth dayof Kanun II, that is by Persian reckoning year 25 of King Chosrau bar Hormizd and the Persian month Mihrmā h zā d rū z.’ The Greek date is equivalent to 14 Jan. 615, while the day in the myā Persian month Mihris given bythenameof thepresiding angel of thetwenty-eighth d.Thereign of Chosrau II Parwīz, sonof Hormizd IV, began on27 June day, zā myā 590 (Farvardin 1), so the time of the martyrdom is in the twenty-fifth year of the reign. This is the only instance so far known when the martyrdom was recorded according to the Persian calendar. In fact it is not often that one can with confidence identify a date in this way. More often than nottheinformation is insufficient, usually because theweekday is missing. Moreover themanuscript tradition ispoor, withmanyinconsistencies either within the text or between copies. In this context Higgins14 developed arguments for a radical reinterpretation of thedates. Hisconclusions have never beenaccepted by the scholarly community butthey have never been refuted either, andnoone has succeeded in offering an alternative explanation for the dates that he believed he wasable to explain. Higgins’hypotheses will be set forth in section 3 below, but before embarking on a review of his work, we should look in detail at the bestknown example of ‘lunar’dating inthemartyr acts. Theresults of this analysis will then be applied to other recorded dates for verification. Julian system

2.2. Martyrs of Karka deBet-Selok Oneof theclearest examples of theproblem of eastern Syriac dates is presented by theaccount of thepersecution begun intheeighth year of thereign of Yazdgerd II, whose accession is dated from 9 Aug. 438, that is Farvardin 1, taking the Persian 10 Bedjan 2, 280. 11 Higgins 1955: 6 andBedjan 2, 1, 31, 34. 12 Higgins 1955: 7 andCorluy 1888. 13 Hoffmann 1880: 15, Bedjan 1895: 563, andBraun 1915: 277. 14 Higgins 1939, Higgins 1951, Higgins 1953, andHiggins 1955.

3. Commentary

293

as early Sasanid. Thus theeighth year began on7 Aug.445, again Farvardin 1. A large group of martyrs mettheir deaths ontwosuccessive days, Friday 24 Ab and Saturday 25 Ab. This was followed a month later by the martyrdom of Tahmyazdgerd onMonday 25 Ilul.15 Whatever the choice of calendar, these dates mustfall after 7 Aug.445. Thefirst date, 24 Ab,is described as ‘Friday which is the sixth week after the Fast of the Apostles’,16a most important point, which will be calendar

discussed below. Nöldeke studied the problem presented by these dates, andwasthe first to observe that because 25 Ilul is a Monday, Ab would have to have thirty days, thus ruling outAugust anda Julian solution. Heinferred correctly that thecalendar must be lunar andcalculated the date 2 Aug. 446 as that of lunar day 24. He left the problem there, instead of continuing with thecalculation of thedate 25 Ilul, andso did not observe that the Computus dates after all did not work. The months Ab and Ilul, on any interpretation, lie near the beginning of the Persian year, so that a persecution begun in theeighth year might have culminated early in that year ornear theendof it. In the following table weshow therefore the possible equivalents in those twoperiods.

3; Hoffmann 1880: 43; 6 and 530; Mösinger 1878: 71– 35; dates on pp. 525– 15 Bedjan 2, 505– Braun 1915: 179; Nöldeke 1879: 424. līe; Mösinger 1878: 71 andBedjan 2, 525. tar awmdeš et debā bā t deītehšbā m ‛rū t deš 16 beyō

294

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii Table

4: Dates of Martyrs at Karka deBet-Selok

At the beginning of the eighth year of Yazdgerd II, AD 445 Calendar

Date

Julian equivalent

Persian equivalent

Parthian Parthian

24 Loös/Ab 25 Gorpiaios/Ilul

Tues. 14 Aug. Thurs. 13Sept.

8 Urdibihisht

Julian Julian

24 Ab 25 Ilul

Fri. 24 Aug.

18Farvardin

Tues.

20 Urdibihisht

Computus Computus

lunar day 24 lunar day 25

Mon. 13 Aug. Wed. 12 Sept.

7 Farvardin 7 Urdibihisht

Jewish Jewish

24 Ab 25 Elul

Mon. 13 Aug. Thurs. 13 Sept.

7 Farvardin

25 Sept.

8 Farvardin

8 Urdibihisht

At the endof the eighth andbeginning of the ninth year of Yazdgerd II, AD 446 Calendar

Date

Julian equivalent

Persian equivalent

Parthian Parthian

24 Loös/Ab 25 Gorpiaios/Ilul

Mon. 2 Sept. Wed. 2 Oct.

27 Farvardin 27 Urdibihisht

Julian Julian

24 Ab 25 Ilul

Sat. 24 Aug. Wed. 25 Sept.

18Farvardin 20 Urdibihisht

Computus Computus

lunar day 24 lunar day25

Fri. 2 Aug. Sun. 1 Sept.

1 Andargah (year 8) 26 Farvardin

Jewish Jewish

24 Ab 25 Elul

Fri. 2 Aug. Mon. 2 Sept.

1 Andargah (year 8) 27 Farvardin

Since the required weekdays are Friday andMonday, the only solution is offered by the last pair of Jewish dates. This means that the slaughter occurred at the beginning of the five epagomenal days, a major period of Zoroastrian festivity.17 If thePersian calendar werecalculated according tothelate Sasanid form, thelast two dates would be 1 Farvardin and2 Urdibihisht, respectively. It is important next toconsider therelation withthe ‘Fast of theApostles’. This will be considered in terms of what weknow nowof the Jacobite andNestorian liturgies, bearing inmindof course that theyear 446 antedated thedevelopment of thedivision between Jacobite andNestorian. Thedetails ofbothliturgical calendars areprovided byGrumel.18 Bar Hebraeus tells usthat theJacobite fast began onthe first Friday after Pentecost andcontinued upto thefeast of SS Peter andPaul on29 June,19 while adding that thefast intheNestorian Church continued forthefull fifty 17 Boyce 1983: 806.

18

19

Ve Grumel 1958: 337– 43. Note that inthelist of Sundays intheJacobite liturgy, p. 338, ‘IIe – VIe ...’. dimanches après la Pentecôte’, should read ‘IIe – A Roman date is appropriate since they were martyred inRome onthis day, reportedly inAD 67.

3. Commentary

295

days, that is until the seventh Friday after Pentecost.20 We see that in the following table Friday 2 Aug.is inthesixth weekafter theweekwhich includes 29 June. Thus if thefast atthattime extended toaround 29June, wehavea full agreement withthe statement ‘Friday which is the sixth week after the Fast of the Apostles’. Table

Sun. Fri.

30 June

Sat.

29June

5 July 7 July 14 July

21 July 28 July

2 Aug.

5: Liturgical Calendar (AD446)

Liturgy

Jewish date

Week

SS Peter andPaul

19Tammuz 20 Tammuz

first second

25 Tammuz

second

27 Tammuz

third

5 Ab

fourth

12 Ab

fifth

19 Ab

sixth

24 Ab

sixth

VI Sunday

after Pentecost Feast of the Holy Apostles I Sunday after week of Apostles II Sunday after week of Apostles III Sunday after week of Apostles IV Sunday after week of Apostles Martyrdom at Karka

The Jewish calendar andthe Computus were both in their formative stages in this period. However theprocedures of theComputus wereclosely linked withAlexandria, andpossibly notevenreceived bytheSyriac Church inMesopotamia. Many of these Aramaic Christians were formerly Jews, andthe Church wassituated in a cultural environment inwhich theJews played a prominent role. Here wasnotonly

the newenergetic presence of rabbinical Judaism, butanolder Jewish community relying more onthewritten tradition.21 IntheJewish Academies of southern Mesopotamia, where theRabbis developed whatwastobecome theBabylonian Talmud, they were concerned inparticular withfixing theluni-solar calendar forJewish purposes. Christians in theregion seeking the date of Passover hadnoneed to rely on the developments in Alexandria, with a Jewish community so close at hand who could provide the answer immediately through their owncalendar. Oneshould not therefore be surprised to find that luni-solar Syriac dates turn outto be in line with the Jewish calendar.

20 21

5. Assemani 1721: 304– Neusner 1971: 2. Neusner (1971: 150) argues that Aphrahat’s awareness extend to theRabbinic/Pharisaic developments, which henever refers to.

of theJews didnot

296

2. The Continuatio

Antiochiensis Eusebii

2.3. Simeon barSabba‛e Bothrecensions of theActs of Simeon barSabba‛e indicate that hediedon 14Nisan when it was a Friday.22 The Act, in the long recension, also states that Gushtazad, his companion, died the daybefore, that is, Thursday of the Great Week, 13 Nisan, by the moon.23 Kmosko tried to use this information by searching in the possible range of years to find onein which luna xivwasa Friday.24 That is, heassumed that ‘by the moon’ meant by the lunar day in the Computus. He drew up a table as follows; here it is extended by anadditional column to showtheequivalent to luna xivin theJewish calendar, as well as thedates of Easter andGoodFriday. Table

Sel.

649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656

6: Table of luna xiv, Easter andGoodFriday, with Jewish Equivalents

AD 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345

luna xiv

week-

Jewish

day

equivalent

21 Mar. Tues. 9 Apr. 29 Mar. 17 Apr. 5 Apr. 25 Mar. 13 Apr. 2 Apr.

Mon. Sat. Fri. Mon. Fri. Fri. Tues.

13 Nisan 14 Nisan 15 Nisan 14 Iyyar 12 Nisan 13 Nisan 14 Nisan 13 Nisan

Easter

26 Mar. 15 Apr. 30 Mar. 19 Apr. 11 Apr. 27 Mar. 15 Apr. 7 Apr.

Good

Jewish

Friday

equivalent

24 Mar. 16 Nisan 13 Apr. 18 Nisan 28 Mar. 14 Nisan 17 Apr. 9 Apr. 25 Mar. 13 Apr. 5 Apr.

14 Iyyar 16 Nisan

13Nisan 14 Nisan 16 Nisan

Fromtheweekdays of luna xivKmosko concluded that theyears 341, 343, and 344 were possible, andby subsequent arguments he excluded 341 and343. If we look instead for the years in which 14 Nisan is a Friday, only 340 and 344 are allowed. The above study of the Actdescribing the martyrs of Karka deBet-Selok prepares us, in anycase, to accept theJewish calendar.

2.4. Forty martyrs of Persian Chaldaea Another instance of theuseof theJewish calendar is provided bytheaccount of the forty martyrs.25 The year is given as the thirty-third year of the persecution under Shapur II, andthe date of oneevent as ‘Friday 16 Iyar, by themoon’. Years of the persecution are the subject of some confusion, since they are sometimes counted from340, sometimes from344. IntheJulian calendar 16Iyar is a Friday intheyears 368, 374, and385. In theJewish calendar 16 Iyyar is a Friday in the years 373, 376, 377, 379, and383. The thirty-third year would be either 372 or 376, andit appears that theJewish calendar wasused, making thedate Friday 22 Apr. 376.

22 23 24 25

Bedjan 2, 206; Simeon A, p. 765, Simeon B, p. 958. Bedjan 2, 177. TheGreat Week is theweek preceding Easter. Kmosko 1907: 698. 47 andAssemani 1748: 144. Bedjan 2, 325–

297

3. Commentary

2.5. Jacob thepriest andAzadthedeacon The Jewish calendar is also confirmed by the date of the deaths of the priest Jacob andthe deacon Azad.26 This was in the thirty-second year of the persecution and happened on 14Nisan whenit wasa Friday, theweekday being specified astheday of the ‘Crucifixion of ourSaviour’. In theJulian calendar 14 Nisan is Friday in the

366, 377, and383; intheJewish calendar 14Nisan is Friday in364, 371, 378, and381. TheJewish calendar is applicable if theyears of persecution were counted from 340, making thedate Friday 15 Apr. 371.

years

3. Higgins’Hypothesis 3.1. Introduction

Asa result of themanyperceived difficulties in theeastern texts Higgins proposed an altogether radical reinterpretation of those dates that could not be read as Julian.27 Hisarguments andmotivation began with hisstudy of historical problems in thelate Sasanid period. Hebegan byproposing a solution tothevarious problems in thePersian calendar, centred onthesupposed 120-year intercalation andthedifference of five days between the Sasanid andthe otherwise identical Armenian and Soghdian calendars. His reconstruction of the history of the intercalation wasthe subject of trenchant criticism by Peeters,28 and in any case is superseded by the work of de Blois, noted above. Hethen sought to confirm his view of the changes in the Persian calendar by reexamining the dates in themartyr acts. Forthis purpose, hemade theassumption that the calendar used in those dates wasin fact Persian, butthat in the acts Syrian names replaced theoriginal Persian names. This substitution wasdone, hesupposed, according to the following list. Table

7: Persian-Syrian equivalents

Persian

Syrian

Farvardin Urdibihisht Khordad

Nīsā n

Tir Murdadh Shahrivar

Mihr Aban

(Higgins)

r Iyā

azīran Tā mmuz

Ā b

Ilul Teshri I Teshri II

Bahman

Kanū nI Kanū n II Shebaṭ

Isfandarmudh

Ā dar

Adhar

Dai

26 Bedjan 4, 137– 41; the year is given on p. 137, the date on 141.

27 First putforward in Higgins 1939 andelaborated in Higgins 1955. 28 Peeters 1943.

298

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis

Eusebii

ThePersian yearbegins withFarvardin, butalthough theSyrian yearbegins (as a rule) with Teshri I, Higgins fixed his system by associating Farvardin with Nisan, etc., sodefining whathechose to namethe Perso-Syriac’calendar. This results in a ‘ bizarre association of seasons with the Syrian month names; in the year 400, for example, Farvardin/Nisan began inthemiddle of August, whereas theSyrian Nisan began inmid-April andtheJewish Nisan inmid-March. Inhisinterpretation of texts inwhich seasons arenoted, this hypothesis doesgreat violence totheobvious sense, since in these texts themonths have their usual seasonal associations. Forexample, inthetale of the 120martyrs, they were imprisoned inthefifth year of thepersecution (ca AD 348) for six months during the whole winter, andthen executed in

Nisan, although according to Higgins Farvardin/Nisan fell at the beginning of September.29 Higgins, typically, supposes that aneditor has tampered with the text, and writes of this account, ‘the text should, of course, read “ summer” .’30There are, besides, many references in the acts to 14 Nisan as the dayof the Crucifixion, and evenHiggins didnotaccept that Easter fell intheautumn. There is a further difficulty inthat inhiscalculations of Persian ‘equivalents’he naturally madeuseof hisrevised Persian calendar, andthese differ sometimes from thePersian dates that follow fromdeBlois’reconstruction of that calendar. While he admitted that a number of dates in the acts were indeed Julian, he tended to become quite carried away with enthusiasm for his discovery, so that in theendheevenclaimed that All authentic dates ineastern Syriac works composed downto 451 A.D. arePersian‘’.31

3.2. Higgins’Claims for Success Higgins claimed thathis ‘Persian’hypothesis wassuccessful ininterpreting thedates of the following martyrs: Bassus, Berikiesu‛, Mihrsapor, Malka, andthe martyrs of Karka deBet-Selok, andwewill nowreview these claims. 3.2.1. Martyrs of Karka deBet-Selok Higgins’argument leads himto interpret ‘Friday 24 Ab’as 24 Murdadh which, in the early Sasanid form of thePersian calendar, is Friday 28 Dec. 445.32 Since the Persian months have thirty days, 25 Ilul falls ontheMonday asrequired. However, this puts the date in quite the wrong position in relation to the Fast of the Apostles. On the other hand the Jewish dating satisfies all the conditions.

3.2.2. Bassus

The various texts agree on the passage which reports the date as year 699 by the 6).33 Not only Greeks, Friday 11 Iyar, in the seventy-sixth year of Shapur (Sel. 695– years. seventy for reigned Shapur that accepted are theyears inconsistent, butit is 5. 9; Bedjan 2, 291– 29 Braun 1915: 97– 30 Higgins 1955: 10. 31 Higgins 1955: 17. 32 Higgins 1955: 7. 507; see p. 474 for the year 699, 76 Shapur, andp. 476 for thedate, Friday 11 33 Bedjan 4, 471– Ilul.

3. Commentary

299

Higgins takes the date to mean 11 Urdibihisht in theSeleucid year 699, 1 Oct. AD 387, which is indeed a Friday.34 According toJulian andJewish calendars, thenearest dates which fit theweekday, are Jewish: 11 Iyyar 4147 (SE 698): 16 Apr. 387 is Friday Julian: 11 Iyar SE 700: 11 May 389 is Friday It is safest toconclude that thetext, orthetextual tradition, is confused.

3.2.3. Berikiesu‛ Higgins reports theyear as 663, butthis is anerror for 662.35 Thedate in thetext is Thursday 12 Nisan 662. Higgins finds 12 Farvardin/Nisan in 663, which is Thursday. However, in 662 thedayis Wednesday. According toJulian andJewish calendars, Jewish: 12 Nisan 4111 (SE 662) is Wednesday Julian: 12 Nisan SE 662 is Friday We have therefore noexact solution byanyof the available means. 3.2.4. Mihrsapor

In year 2 of Varahran, Mihrsapor wasconfined from Abuntil 10Teshri I; hediedon a Saturday inTeshri I.36It is notstated in so many words that theSaturday wasthe same dayas 10Teshri I. There is, moreover, uncertainty about theyear of accession of Bahram V Gor, a problem discussed by Nöldeke in connection with this act.37 However, accepting Nöldeke’s conclusion, year 2 began on 13 Aug. 421 / SE 732, andthat is notchanged whenweusetheearly Sasanid calendar. Jewish: 10 Tishri is Saturday in theyears 4178/728 and4185/735 Julian: 10Teshri I is Saturday in theyears 726 and737 Higgins calculates for 10 Mihr/Teshri I to find Saturday 18 Feb. 422. 3.2.5. Malka

The date is Thursday 21 Nisan 626, fourteenth. The meaning of ‘fourteenth’is unclear.38 TheJulian calendar provides theclear interpretation Thursday 21 April 315. However, Higgins argued that ‘fourteenth’must mean the fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost. In this wayhehoped to calculate thedate as 21 Farvardin, Thursday 29 Sept. 315. The preceding Sunday wasthe twenty-fourth Sunday after Easter. He hoped toevade eventhis discrepancy byproposing thatthefourteenth ‘wasevidently inserted in our text by some late redactor, whohadno notion of the true meaning of Nisan 21’. He would go to any length to justify his reading against the plain meaning of thetext, andin this case waseven willing to suppose that ‘it needoccasion nosurprise if in 315 thefeast [Easter] wascelebrated inMesopotamia onMay 8’. 34 This thefirst dayof theSyrian year; there isagain 11Urdibihisht attheendofthesameyear, 30 September 388, butthat is a Saturday.

35 Bedjan 4, 166. 9; seep.535 for2 Bahram, p. 535 fortheinterval of confinement, andp.539 for 36 Bedjan 2, 535– hisdeath ona Saturday inTishri I. 21. 37 Thedifficulties arereviewed byNöldeke 1879: 419– 69; see p. 467 for death onThursday 21 Nisan 626. 38 Bedjan 5, 421–

300

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii

3.3. Julian or unresolved dates according to Higgins. Apart from these dates, Higgins considered others, which he found to be Julian or which hecould notresolve. Inhistesting healways tried thelunar date asdefined by the Computus, andin these his calculations are always correct, in contrast to the Computus dates given by Assemani. Higgins quite definitely decided that none of thedates were ‘lunar’, in spite of themany that were said to be ‘bythemoon’. Among the dates which Higgins cannot clarify heconsiders Abdal-Masi, Anahid, Augin, Jacob Intercisus, Mahdok, Pethion, Qardag, andSaba. Wereview these, apart from Mahdok andPethion, which have already been discussed (above, 2.1). 3.3.1. Abdal-Masi Thedate given inthetext is Alexander 701Friday 27 Tammuz.39 Higgins makes no sense of this, having tested it against Julian, Computus, and‘Persian’. However it is clear as a Jewish date, Friday 27 Tammuz 4150, 26 July 390.

3.3.2. Anahid

The text has ‘in the month Haziran onday 18, that is the month Isfandarmudh, on Friday in year 9 of Yazdgerd King of Kings’.40The Syrian 18 Haziran 758 is Wednesday, andthis month does notoverlap Isfandarmudh, so the suggested Persian equivalent does nothelp. Higgins arrives at Friday 25 July 447. According to his Perso-Syriac calendar this is 18 Isfandarmudh, but that does not agree with the early Sasanid version usedin ourargument. Nowwehave to take 18 Isfandarmudh as Sunday 20 July 447, so that Higgins’ argument fails also. The corresponding Jewish and Julian dates are respectively 18 Sivan 4207 and 18 June 447, both Wednesday. The given date andits equivalent Persian month remain unexplained. 3.3.3. Augin The text does not give the weekday, only the date 21 Nisan 674.41 As it happens, 21 Nisan in both Julian andJewish calendars in that year is Monday. Higgins sought support fromthelater liturgical calendar, ina rather tortuous andinconclusive argument.

3.3.4. Jacob Intercisus

The texts disagree about theyear. The texts printed by Assemani andBedjan open bygiving 732 (= AD421) as2 Bahram (=Bahram V Gor) andclose bygiving 732 as 1 Bahram.42 Moreover in the account of the martyr Piruz, 733 is given as 1 Bahram.43 Thedate of thedeath is given asFriday 27 Teshri II. There arealso Greek and Latin recensions.44 According to the Greek versions the year is that in which the Bedjan 1, 201; there is some doubt about thedate, which is given in some texts as 25. Bedjan 2, 603. Bedjan 3, 477. Bedjan 2, 539 and557 respectively. ‘Martyred inyear 733 bytheGreeks, that is year 1 of Varahran King of Persia, on5 Elul bythe Greeks’, Bedjan 4, 253; Nöldeke 1879: 422 haddiscussed thesame passage. 44 Devos 1953.

39 40 41 42 43

3. Commentary

301

emperors were Honorius andTheodosius (i.e. 408– 23). Withsomuchdisagreement andconfusion, however, about a martyr whose very reality seems to be have been confined to thepius imagination it doesnotseemtobeverycritical whether thedate is clarified. Inanycase it maybenoted that 27 Oct422, Syrian 27 Teshri I 734, is a Friday. We can at least agree with Higgins, in that no clear conclusion is to be drawn.

3.3.5. Qardag

The date is given merely as a Friday 49 Shapur the King.45 Higgins confidently asserts that this was the thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost ‘according to the Acts’. It is not the Act that provides this, butonly a tenuous conjecture by Feige,46 so that there is really nothing to discuss. 3.3.6. Saba

The account of MarSaba given by Higgins wasbased essentially on Hoffmann’s translation.47 The text as edited by Bedjan48 is evidently from a different recension of the same tale, butagain from anincomplete manuscript. However, in both there are the same fragmentary remarks, enough to show that theyear is AD362, while stating merely that Saba died on 16 Ab andAnastasia on a Saturday in Teshri II. Fromthis nothing canbe inferred about thecalendar, although Higgins proceeds to argue that the calendar is Julian,49 butthe argument depends entirely onhis use of his Perso-Syriac calendar, andis without value.

4. Conclusion While a number of the dates in the acts remain unresolved, many which resisted earlier approaches canbe understood whenthe date is interpreted according to the Jewish calendar. The use of theJewish calendar in this context is quite natural, and it is surprising that it hasnothitherto been considered. The dates that remain unresolved generally involve texts that showinconsistencies, perhaps the result of corrupttextual transmission oreventheresult of legendary composition, notunknown in thelives of the saints. Higgins’proposal of the Perso-Syriac calendar is unsuccessful andunjustified. Hisarticles show sometimes penetrating criticism, andthe actual calculations were performed carefully, butintheendhisattempt atreading thedates intheacts simply fails.

506; the date is on p. 508; see also Abbeloos 1890. 45 Bedjan 2, 442– 46 Feige 1890: 5.

47

8. Hoffmann 1880: 22–

49. 48 Bedjan 4, 222– 8. 49 Higgins 1955: 27–

302

2. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii Appendix 4: Table of Chronological Data for Entry 34

notexplicitly stated, butderived from data provided () years AD(usually autumn of oneyear to autumn of next) Aphrahat Great Massacre Destruction of churches

Continuatio Antiochiensis Persecution of Christians

Short Recension Year of martyrdoms Gushtazad martyred Simeon martyred Great Massacre

Long Recension Year of martyrdoms Gushtazad martyred Simeon martyred Great Massacre

656 Sel. = 36 Shapur (344– 5) 40)>