Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:42:47.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date, Purpose, and Historical Context of the Original Greek and the Latin Translation of the So-called Excerpta Latina Barbari

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

R. W. Burgess
R. W. Burgess*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Excerpta Latina barbari, also known as the Barbarus Scaligeri, is a peculiar and unfairly neglected text that has been compared to a Russian nested doll. It survives alone in Parisinus latinus 4884 of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, a manuscript of sixty-three folios, usually dated to the late seventh or early eighth century. The nature of the text demonstrates that it was translated from a Greek exemplar, usually dated to the second half of the first quarter of the fifth century, which was lavishly illustrated. Although spaces were left for illustrations in the Latin translation, no attempt was ever made to undertake them. Little is generally known about the origins or purpose of this Latin translation or the Greek original, in spite of a magisterial study by Carl Frick in 1892, and recent renewed interest in this text makes it imperative that it be subjected to a careful analysis in the light of modern paleographical research and a better understanding of the sources of its Greek exemplar.

Type
Research Article
Information
Traditio , Volume 68 , 2013 , pp. 1 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Fordham University 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Grafton, Anthony, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship , vol. 2, Historical Chronology (Oxford, 1993), 569.Google Scholar The following abbreviations will be employed: Frick, , Chron. min. = Frick, Carl, Chronica minora 1 (Leipzig, 1892); Mommsen, , Chron. min. = Mommsen, Theodor, MGH AA 9, Chronica minora 1 (Berlin, 1892).Google Scholar AA = Auctores antiquissimi; SRM = Scriptores rerum Merouingicarum; SS = Scriptores; SS rer. Germ. = Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarium; Epp. = Epistulae.Google Scholar Page and line citations to the Latin text in the form “236.21” are to the edition of Frick, Chron. min., 184–371. Since Mommsen's texts of the first and third sections of this text are much easier to cite than Frick's, I shall use Mommsen's entry numbers for those portions of the text instead of, and in some cases in addition to, Frick's page numbers. The only exception is the material between Mommsen's entries 257 and 258 (234.19–246.6), which Mommsen omitted (as is explained below). Section one: Mommsen, , Chron. min., 91–129 = §§1–315, and section three: Mommsen, , Chron. min., 274–85, 290–98 = §§11–329.Google Scholar

2 The major studies of this work are Gelzer, Heinrich, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1885–98), 2:316–29 (see n. 98 below); Frick, , Chron. min., lxxxiii–ccx, ccxxi–ccxxii (still the most important study, which includes a surprisingly useful and insightful back-translation into Greek on facing pages of the edition); Wachsmuth, Curt, Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte (Leipzig, 1895), 180–84; Hoeveler, Johann Joseph, “Die Excerpta Latina Barbari,” in Festschrift der dreiundvierzigsten Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner dargeboten von den höheren Lehranstalten Kölns (Bonn, 1895), 193–214 (= “Die Excerpta” 1); idem, “Die Excerpta Latina Barbari 2: Die Sprache des Barbarus,” Programm des königlichen Kaiser Wilhelm-Gymnasiums zu Köln 28 (1896): 1–29 (= “Die Excerpta” 2); Jacoby, Felix, “Excerpta Barbari,” RE (1909), 6:1566–76 = Jacoby, Felix, Griechische Historiker (Stuttgart, 1956), 257–62, and Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger, 560–69. The most recent analyses are Beatrice, Pier Franco, Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia: An Attempt at Reconstruction, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 56 (Leiden, 2001); Garstad, Benjamin, “Barbarian Interest in the Excerpta Latina Barbari,” Early Medieval Europe 19 (2011): 3–42; and Garstad, Benjamin, Apocalypse: Pseudo-Methodius; An Alexandrian World Chronicle, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 14 (Cambridge, MA, 2012), which contains very useful and detailed notes on the text, 321–35 and 347–87, though it appeared too late to be of use for this paper. A new introduction to, edition and translation of, and commentary on the third section of this text (described below) will appear in Burgess, R. W. and Kulikowski, Michael, Mosaics of Time: The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD, vol. 2, The Earliest Chronicles and the Consularia Traditions, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 34 (Turnhout, forthcoming).Google Scholar

3 Scaliger, Joseph Justus, Thesaurus temporum (Leiden, 1606), 2nd part, 44–70 and Thesaurus temporum, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam, 1658), 2nd part, 58–85. On 250 (= 1658, 411) he says, “In Excerptis Africani, quae barbarolatinus scriptor conuertit, haec diserte exponebantur. Sed idiota ille, quae intelligere desperauit, omisit: quae putauit intelligere, ineptissime reddidit” (“This is eloquently set out in the Excerpts from Africanus, which the writer of crude Latin translated. But that fool left out what he had no hope of understanding and rendered extremely poorly what he thought he did understand”). He also calls him an idiota on 269 (= 1658, 430). Elsewhere in the volume (1606, opposite 238, only), he comments on the translator's “et Graeci et Latini sermonis imperitia.” Gelzer called him a “stupid Übersetzer” (Sextus Julius Africanus, 1:244).Google Scholar

4 For the definitions of chronicle and chronograph, see Burgess, R. W. and Kulikowski, Michael, Mosaics of Time: The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD , vol. 1, A Historical Introduction to the Chronicle Genre from Its Origins to the High Middle Ages , Studies in the Early Middle Ages 33 (Turnhout, 2013), 20–35, 59–61, esp. 29–30, 61. Briefly stated, a chronicle is a work that reports brief, annually organized accounts of historical events in strict chronological order (a definition derived from Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenistic, and Roman chronicles), while a chronograph is fundamentally a collection of genealogies and regnal lists, usually in the form of a chronological outline of human history, to which or into which can be added any other sorts of texts that relate to chronology, such as lists of important historical events, episcopal lists, calendars, and consular lists, as well as analyses and discussions of that chronology (thus creating what we call an “annotated chronograph,” like the works of Julius Africanus and Syncellus).Google Scholar

5 Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger , 564 and n. 10.Google Scholar

6 For example, the original όρτυγομήτραι, πρωτοπάτωρ, πολυόλβιος, άρχιστρατηγός, ποδαλγικός, and πτολίαρχος have been left as ortygomitrae, protopator, polyolbus, archistratigus, podalgiuus, and ptoliarchus (224 n. 6, 234.25 + 280.20, 238.15, 248.9 + 272.16–17 + 324.8, 250.9, and 286.7); άρχοντες oi δια βίου (“archons for life”) has been translated as principes diabii as if diabii were a name or rank (298.8–10); the words χρονογραφία, τραγωδοποιός, άγαλματοποιός, and ύπομνηματογραφός, have been translated as textus chronicae (cf. chronografus for χρονογράφος, 246.1), cantoconpositor, statuasconpositor, and scribamemoratus (220.2, 266.7, 8, 268.4–5, and 270.27–28); and Ιχθυοφάγοι, Αστυπάλαια, Γυμνοσοφισταί, and Αναξαγόρας have been translated as Piscescomeduli, Astauetera, Nudisapientes, and Princeps Agoras (200.26 + 212.15, 204.3, 206.7, and 262.9–10). However, όρτυγομήτραι and πολυόλβιος were also translated into Latin, the first as coturnices, the second as multoditatus (I think the latter was a later replacement for the transliteration polyolbus, which was mistakenly kept). Twice άλλόφυλοι is translated as alienigeni (sic; 232.23 [§251, dat.]; 246.11 [§261, gen.]), but twice as allofyli (230.13 [§240, gen.]; 234.5 [§253, acc.]), which is a perfectly legitimate form in later Latin, but the variation is interesting. The rather more bizarre errors involving the Argonauts, Troy, and Aristophanes are described below (pp. 26–27 and appendix two). Other such errors include δς ούχ translated as Osuch and Όθων (Otho) translated as Stultus (= Νωθής) (294.27, and 326.5). See also Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 1, 201 and Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 2, 16.Google Scholar

7 For this, see particularly Frick, , Chron. min. , lxxxiii, lxxxv–lxxxvii; Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 2, 5–6; and Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger, 565–69. This fact was recognized immediately by all the early humanists who saw the manuscript.Google Scholar

8 Chron. Gol.: Bauer, Adolf and Strzygowski, Josef, Eine alexandrinische Weltchronik Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 51 (Vienna, 1905), 1–204, and Burgess, R. W. and Dijkstra, Jitse H. F., “The ‘Alexandrian World Chronicle,’ Its Consularia and the Date of the Destruction of the Serapeum (with an Appendix on the List of Praefecti Augustales),” Millennium 10 (2013), in press; Cons. Ber.: originally published in Lietzmann, Hans, “Ein Blatt aus einer antiken Weltchronik,” Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends , ed. Casey, Robert P., Lake, Silva, and Lake, Agnes K. (London, 1937), 339–48 and reprinted in his Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1958), 1:420–29, but now superseded by Burgess, R. W. and Dijkstra, Jitse H. F., “The Berlin ‘Chronicle’ (P. Berol. inv. 13296): A New Edition of the Earliest Extant Late Antique Consularia,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 58 (2012): 273–301 + Plate XIII; and Cons. Mars.: Bernhard Bischoff and Wilhelm Koehler, “Eine illustrierte Ausgabe der spätantiken ravennater Annalen,” in Medieval Studies in Memory of A. Kingsley Porter , ed. Koehler, Wilhelm R. W. (Cambridge, MA, 1939), 1:125–38. New introductions to, editions and translations of, and commentaries on all these texts will appear in Burgess, and Kulikowski, , Mosaics of Time 2. There is also the illustrated manuscript of the Chronograph of 354, which is in some ways similar to the eastern chronographs, on which see Salzman, Michele Renee, On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1990), and Burgess, R. W., “The Chronograph of 354: Its Manuscripts, Contents, and History,” Journal of Late Antiquity 5 (2012): 345–96.Google Scholar

9 For a detailed list, see n. 76 below. See Frick, , Chron. min. , lxxxiii–lxxxiv and the Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France (1904): 152–54 for a notice of a paper presented to the Société nationale by H. Omont concerning these captions, with a photograph of fol. 15v.Google Scholar

10 Schoene, Alfred, Eusebi Chronicorum libri duo , vol. 1, Eusebi Chronicorum liber prior (Berlin, 1875), Appendices, 177–239. The editions of Frick (Chron. min.), Beatrice (Theosophia, 75–134), and Garstad (Alexandrian World Chronicle, 142–308) are merely transcriptions of Schoene's edition (either directly or via Frick), as can be demonstrated by their repetition of Schoene's errors, though only Frick admits it (Chron. min., ccxxi). In his preface to the Liber generationis Mommsen says he saw and collated the manuscript (Chron. min., 84), but his edition of the third, consularia section of the text printed later in the same volume (I have not collated his text of the Lib. gen.) is so riddled with errors (on top of Schoene's errors) that one can only assume that he had a student transcribe Schoene's text and add the entry numbers (for even they suffer from corruptions). His edition of the consularia should therefore be avoided for the details of the text, even though it is still useful to cite its entry numbers (as it is for his edition of the Lib. gen.). Scaliger's edition is the most corrupt of all: in the consularia section of the text alone it suffers from over 150 simple and major errors and deliberate changes to the manuscript text, including missing entries and names. Part of this arises from the fact that it was edited from a transcription of the manuscript made for him in 1602 (Frick, Carl, “Joseph Justus Scaliger und die Excerpta Latina Barbari,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 43 [1888]: 123–27; Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 1, 204–13; and Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger, 564–65). A detailed analysis of the consularia section of this manuscript will appear in Burgess, and Kulikowski, , Mosaics of Time 2. Frick's edition nevertheless remains the standard edition of the work for citation and I shall continue that tradition.Google Scholar

11 See also Frick, , Chron. min. , lxxxvi n. 2 and Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 1, 202 n. 6 (continued from 201), who were not aware of this fact.Google Scholar

12 The translator has problems in general with ablatives absolute, usually preferring the nominative (which is normal: see Grandgent, C. H., An Introduction to Vulgar Latin [Boston, 1907], 47 §97 and Blaise, Albert, Manuel du latin chrétien [Turnhout, 1955], 75 §67). See also Frick, , Chron. min., 599 and Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 2, 26–27, 29.Google Scholar

13 This work is usually said to be the chronicle of Hippolytus, but in spite of the many convoluted arguments that have been attempted over the years, there is absolutely no connection between any chronicle that Hippolytus (whether one author or two) may have written — and there is little evidence that he did — and this work, apart from the date of 235, which is right at the very end of Hippolytus's reconstructed life. For this, see Burgess, and Kulikowski, , Mosaics of Time 1:366–71. The first half of a recension of the original Greek still survives in Matritensis 4701, a tenth- or eleventh-century manuscript of the Biblioteca nacional in Madrid. It cannot be emphasized too strongly, however, that this is not the Greek text of this work but a later recension of it, like the extant Latin translations, which are much earlier texts and from earlier manuscripts. The Συναγωγή was first published with the Latin parallels by Adolf Bauer (“Die Chronik des Hippolytos im Matritensis graecus 121,” TU NF 14 [1905]: 1–287) and then later republished by Helm, Rudolf (Die Chronik, Hippolytus Werke 4, GCS 46, ed. Bauer, Adolf and Helm, Rudolf [Berlin, 1955]). It contains the first part of the work to the end of the Diamerismos (on which see below) — that is, to the end of Mommsen's entries Lib. gen. I 229 and Chr. Alex. 201 (Chron. min., 112) = 218.22 — which is then followed by a recension of a completely unrelated work, found in no other witness to the Συναγωγή ДлLib. gen., called the Σταδιασμός της θαλάσσης (“The Measurement of the [Mediterranean] Sea”), which makes up the bulk of the text even though it breaks off long before its completion (Bauer-Helm, 43–69 [see Bauer, 243–76, by Cuntz, Otto]). The Latin texts of the Lib. gen. can be found in Mommsen (Chron. min., 89–140) as well as Bauer (that which parallels the Greek text only) and Bauer-Helm (only after the Stadiasmos), both of the latter with a numbering system different from Mommsen's. Along with the Latin text Bauer-Helm also includes a German translation of a partial Armenian witness.Google Scholar

14 The tradition that Mommsen labeled Lib. gen. I also contains a short series of interpolations, drawn chiefly from Ps.-Josephus and the Pentateuch (§§356–61, Chron. min., 135–37), which Bauer-Helm omits (135–36). Manuscripts B and F note a list of bishops as the last item in the table of contents (Lib. gen. I 20), but B breaks off at §331, before that part of the text, and although F does contain such a list, it is not original, being part of a long continuation added to the end of the Lib. gen. (see MGH SRM, 34–36; the text of the Lib. gen. ends at 33). Mommsen prints “Episcopi Romani” at the end of the emperor list (which survives only in F), but it has no manuscript authority (Chron. min., 138). If such a list of bishops ever appeared in a manuscript of the Lib. gen., it was clearly not original and is quite foreign to the original intent of the work.Google Scholar

15 For the many traditions of this work, see von Gutschmid, Alfred, “Zur Kritik des Διαμερισμός της γης,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 13 (1858): 377–408, and idem, “Untersuchungen über den Διαμερισμός της γης und andere Bearbeitungen der Mosaischen Vökertafel,” in Kleine Schriften des Alfred von Gutschmid , ed. Rühl, Franz (Leipzig, 1894), 5:585–717; and Bauer, and Strzygowski, , Weltchronik, 92–105, though they are quite outdated with respect to the relationships among the various witnesses. Scott, James M. (Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees, Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 113 [Cambridge, 2002], 135–58) convincingly argues for a Jewish source for the Diamerismos. Google Scholar

16 Introduction: §§24–34, Japheth: 35–67, Ham: 68–127, Shem: 128–89, conclusion: 190–205.Google Scholar

17 Lib. gen. I §§81, 115–16, 152, 156, 162, 182, 186, 216, 230, 238, 248, 269 (partial), and 289. Most of these omissions appear to be accidental (esp. those between 81 and 230 inclusive, from the Diamerismos), but others are more likely to be deliberate (e.g., 238, 248, 269) and in at least one case (216) the entry is a unique Spanish addition to part of the Lib. gen. I tradition (witnessed only by manuscripts BFO) and so never appeared in any other tradition. Likewise, the Chron. Scal. contains entries that appear to have fallen out of the traditions of Lib. gen. I: 133 (?), 187–89, 193.Google Scholar

18 The very end of the Diamerismos has been reworked (§§186–201), though, as has the conclusion (§§202–6).Google Scholar

19 §§2, 15, 203–6 (203 = 2 = Lib. gen. I 39; 204 = 15), 213, 215–16, 223, 225, 227–29, 265, and 264.16–18, 274.27–276.3, 280.5–10.Google Scholar

20 Among the larger additions are §§9, 13, 22, 166, 222–23, 226, 234, 239–40, 255–59, 261, 263–65, 267, 272, 277, 281, 284, 286, 289–91, and 295–315, the latter of which is mostly Persian history, and the first part of the new conclusion (258.22–280.13).Google Scholar

21 §§214, 224, 235, 238, 241, 244, 252, 254, 256, 262, 280, 283, 302, and 304, and 264.27–28, 266.4–14, 268.4–7, 16–27, 270.6–9, 10–19, 276.9, 278.28–29, 280.6–7. For these additions, see appendix one.Google Scholar

22 For the Persian and Ptolemaic lists, see Gelzer, , Sextus Julius Africanus (n. 2 above), 1:274 n. 2 and 2:154, 322, and 326; Frick, , Chron. min., clxiv, cxcv–cxcix; and especially Bauer-Helm, , Die Chronik, 178–87, which includes a chart (“Tabelle X”) comparing extant Ptolemaic lists, including Ptolemy's Canon, which correctly lists the Macedonian successors of Alexander as the first two kings of Egypt after Alexander's death, since Ptolemy, son of Lagus, was officially only a satrap of the Macedonian kings until he proclaimed himself king in 305. All later lists retroactively treat him as king from the death of Alexander. For convenience, however, I shall still refer to this as a list of Ptolemaic kings/Ptolemies, even though it begins with Macedonian kings. Only the Chron. Scal. and Eutychius (on whom see n. 101 below) reflect Ptolemy's Canon, and both derive from the same common source as the Chron. Scal., as we shall see. For the lists of high priests and Ptolemaic kings, see Burgess, R. W., “Another Look at Sosates, the ‘Jewish Homer,’” Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013): 195–217, at 200–208, 213–14.Google Scholar

23 See n. 21 above. The interpolations on 262.9–10, 266.4–14, 268.4–7, 270.6–9, 276.9, and 278.28–29 relate to Greek philosophy, literature, and intellectual achievement. The latter two, Menander and Sosates, appear because of their appeal to Alexandrian audiences. The information in 276.15–16, 20–22, and 278.13–14 relates to Jewish literature and history, and derives from the list of Jewish high priests (see Burgess, , “Sosates”). The last is a note that Cleopatra built the Pharos in Alexandria (280.6–7).Google Scholar

24 The Diocletianic Era (later called the “Era of the Martyrs”) was a chronological system used only in Egypt that counted years from the accession of Diocletian on 20 November 284. See Bagnall, Roger S. and Worp, Klaas A., Chronological Systems of Byzantine Egypt , 2nd ed. (Leiden, 2004), 63–87.Google Scholar

25 That both the Cons. Vind. post. and the Chron. Scal. end in 387 is nothing but a coincidence, since the former picks up again in 438 and eventually continues down to 539. The consularia of the closely related Chronographia Golenischevensis (on which see below) continue to 392.Google Scholar

26 ∗ = Proteuangelium; † = New Testament: §§45, 52, 63†, 68∗†, 75, 80∗ (based on an existing entry), 86∗†, 91∗, 100∗†, 106†, 110†, 112, 114†, 117† (based on an existing entry), 118†, 120† (partially based on existing entry), 121, and 149 (based on an existing entry).Google Scholar

27 §§45, 52, 63, 75, 80, 86, 106, 114, 118, 120, 121. Note that Mommsen's edition is missing two pairs of consuls between §§78 and 79 (= 338.7–8). “Rubellio” was one of the consuls of 29, the traditional Western date of the crucifixion, and although these consuls no longer appear, they probably did originally since the Cons. Vind. post. (see n. 120) has “Ruffio Gemino et Rubellio Gemino” as consuls at this point (§113, which is between 117 and 118 of the Chron. Scal.).Google Scholar

28 Like Rubellio the single consuls Augusto tertio decimo (§63 = 6 BC, but Augusto XIII = 2 BC) and Meura (112 = AD 27 but [Sillano et] Nerva = AD 28) appear within entries yet have no parallel in the extant consular list (though they do appear in the Cons. Vind. post.). The entry dated internally to consolato Asiatici et Siluani (110), the consuls of AD 46 (see §133), appears under Getulo et Barro, a combination of the consuls of AD 26 and 24. Lentulo et Siluano appears twice, six years apart, in §§45 and 52 (= 24/23 BC and 18 BC), and also appears in the consular list (§51). It is a mistaken combination of the consuls of 18 and 17 BC and was probably copied in the place of Lentulo et Cornifilo (Cons. Vind. post. 53).Google Scholar

29 §§331 n. 26 (not in Mommsen), 30, 96, 125, 130 (= Frick, Chron. min., clxiii. no. 164), 145, 160 (based on an existing entry and includes Vespasian, who is missing from the list on 326, though Titus has his consulates), 171, 174, 206, 209, 216, 251, 268, 273, 292, 305, and 316 (based on an existing entry).Google Scholar

30 ∗ = bishops of Alexandria: §§197∗, 198–99, 228∗, 258∗, 279, 286, 297, 300∗, 313∗, 325∗.Google Scholar

31 §§279, 281, 283, 285–86, 288, 290, 294, 296, 299, 302, 304, 307, 308, 312, 315, 318, 320, 324, and 327. See now Burgess, and Dijkstra, , “The ‘Alexandrian World Chronicle’” (n. 8 above) for the list of the augustales. Google Scholar

32 The Egyptian date is the correct date for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 Sept.), which correctly relates to this entry on Helena's discovery of the True Cross. The Latin date should read XVIII kal. Oct., not VIII kal. Dec., a perplexing difference.Google Scholar

33 Both the Consularia Vindobonensia priora (Cons. Vind. pr.) and Cons. Vind. post. (§278), witnesses to the original Latin text, give the date as XII kal. Aug. (21 July), which is correct, not X kal. Aug. (23 July), as here. 27 Epeiph is 21 July.Google Scholar

34 The few traces of section three in the Chron. Pasch. arise from the use of a different common source (see appendix one).Google Scholar

35 Frick does not mention the Anon. Matr. or the Chron. Gol. (on which see below), since they were discovered only later.Google Scholar

36 The unique use of Ptolemy's Canon for the Ptolemaic kings and the references to Menander (an extremely popular author in Egypt, to judge from the papyrus finds), the Alexandrian poet Sosates, and the construction of the Pharos (276.9, 278.28–29, and 280.6–7) all suggest an Alexandrian origin for section one, as does the constant reference to Alexander as conditor (as noted above).Google Scholar

37 Bauer, and Strzygowski, , Weltchronik (n. 8 above), 12–16 and 189–202, esp. 13 and 193.Google Scholar

38 See Burgess, and Dijkstra, , “The ‘Alexandrian World Chronicle’” for the detailed background to this problem and the most recent conclusions, as well as Guglielmo Cavallo, “Per la data e l'origine di P. Golenischev della ‘Cronaca universale alessandrina’: Una nota,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 49 (2012), in press.Google Scholar

39 This includes the new fragment published by Horak, Ulrike, Illuminierte Papyri Pergamente und Papiere , Pegasus Oriens 1 (Vienna, 1992), 1:97–102, no. 19 (P. Vindob. K 11.630).Google Scholar

40 The Chron. Scal. is missing the Μυσία δευτέρα/Μί/Mysia alia of the Chron. Gol./Lib. gen. I (§151 no. 11).Google Scholar

41 See Salzman, , On Roman Time , and Burgess, , “The Chronograph of 354” (n. 8 above).Google Scholar

42 Rouse, Richard and McNelis, Charles, “North African Literary Activity: A Cyprian Fragment, the Stichometric Lists and a Donatist Compendium,” Revue d'histoire des textes 30 (2000): 189–238, at 207.Google Scholar

43 See Burgess, and Kulikowski, , Mosaics of Time (n. 4 above), 1:99–131 for early Jewish and Christian apologetic chronography before the development of Christian chronicles, of which the first was the Chronici canones of Eusebius of Caesarea.Google Scholar

44 See Burgess, and Kulikowski, , Mosaics of Time 1:54–55, 179. On the other hand, the Chronicon paschale, a Greek chronicle based on a Greek translation of different Latin consularia (the Descriptio consulum), was composed in the second quarter of the seventh century in Constantinople.Google Scholar

45 Schoene, , Eusebi Chronicorum (n. 10 above), xv and Mommsen, , Chron. min., 83, 272, and, e.g., Frick, , Chron. min., ccxxi; Jacoby, , RE (n. 2 above), 1566; Bauer-Helm, , Die Chronik (n. 13 above), xiv; Beatrice, , Theosophia (n. 2 above), lviii; and Garstad, , “Barbarian Interest” (n. 2 above), 3 n. 1.Google Scholar

46 Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini antiquiores (Oxford, 1950), 5:13 no. 560. Garstad erroneously cites Lowe for the date of “seventh or eighth century” and then attributes the translation (and one assumes the manuscript) to the first half of the eighth century (“Barbarian Interest,” 3 n. 1, 22, 39, 40). In Alexandrian World Chronicle he broadens this to “eighth century” (xix, xxx, xxxi, xxxv). He does, however, accept Lowe's attribution of the work to Corbie (“Barbarian Interest,” 35–36, and Alexandrian World Chronicle, xxx).Google Scholar

47 Porcher, Jean, “Les manuscrits à peinture,” in L'Europe des invasions , ed. Hubert, Jean, Porcher, Jean, and Volbach, W. F., Univers des formes 12 (Paris, 1967), 105–206, at 202.Google Scholar

48 See Ganz, David, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance (Sigmaringen, 1990), 43, 46 (for duration of script use), and 133–34, as well as 43–48 on the Maurdramnus script in general. The common artist of Paris. lat. 4884, Amiens 18, and Paris. lat. 13025 had already been noted as early as 1972: Koehler, Wilhelm, Buchmalerei des frühen Mittelalters (Munich, 1972), 97.Google Scholar

49 Frick, , “Joseph Justus Scaliger” (n. 10 above), 123 n. 1; Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger (n. 1 above), 563; and the detailed description of the manuscript and its history by Cinato, Franck and Laffitte, M.-P., published in PDF form by the Bibliothèque nationale (“Chronica universalis Alexandrina latina sive Cronica Georgii Ambianensis episcopi, quae dicitur Excerpta latina Barbari Scaligeri” at http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ead.html?id=FRBNFEAD000009032), “[c]ette deuxième attribution erronée renvoie vraisemblablement à Victor, évêque de Tunnuna, un Africain (444–567?) auteur d'une chronique différente de celle-ci.” I shall refer to this document below as the “BN description” and quote the relevant information since there is no easy way to cite specific portions of its text, and the URL may change or disappear in the future. Isidore, , De uiris illustribus 38, states, “Victor Tunnunensis ecclesiae Africanae episcopus. Hic a principio mundi usque ad primum Iustini iunioris imperii annum breuem per consules annuos bellicarum ecclesiasticarumque rerum nobilissimam promulgauit historiam laude et notatione illustrem ac memoria dignam.” The exactly matching date and the reference to consuls make the identification with the text in Paris. lat. 4884 a reasonable hypothesis, though anyone who confused Turonensis and Tunnenensis cannot have been paying close attention to, or must have forgotten, ecclesiae Africanae. Victor's chronicle survived in a very few Spanish manuscripts until the sixteenth century, when all but one thirteenth-century manuscript disappeared (though copies of a few earlier manuscripts had been made by then). See de Hartmann, Carmen Cardelle, Victoris Tunnunensis Chronicon cum reliquiis ex Consularibus Caesaraugustanis et Iohannis Biclarensis Chronicon, CCL 173A (Turnhout, 2001), 13∗-45∗, 76∗-93∗ (manuscripts), 114–15∗ (knowledge of Victor).Google Scholar

50 See Delisle, Léopold, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la bibliothèque impériale (Paris, 1874), 2:432, no. 303, and 438, no. 232.Google Scholar

51 BN description, “il avait acquis plusieurs manuscrits provenant de Corbie.” Dupuy had had the manuscript since at least 1575, when he had shown it to Scaliger in Paris (Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger , 75 and 562).Google Scholar

52 BN description, “de la main d'un bibliothécaire de l'abbaye de Corbie.” Google Scholar

53 See Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger , 563–64.Google Scholar

54 Frick, , “Joseph Justus Scaliger” (n. 10 above), 123–24 n. 1; Wachsmuth, , Einleitung (n. 2 above), 181 n. 2; and Jacoby, , RE (n. 2 above), 1567, all of whom call the attribution “reine Hariolation,” as well as Mommsen, , Chron. min., 84 n. 1; Frick, , Chron. min., lxxxv; and Grafton, Joseph Scaliger, 563. For George and his background, see Levison, Wilhelm, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), 127–29 and Joanna Story, Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia, c. 750–870 (Aldershot, 2003), 55–92, esp. 55–56 and 88–90.Google Scholar

55 Story, , Carolingian Connections , 63–64, who expands on the importance of these words for the close relationship between George and Alcuin.Google Scholar

56 BN description, “L'évêque d'Amiens, dont le prénom était inhabituel en Occident à cette époque, était peut-être d'origine grecque.” Google Scholar

57 Porcher, , “Les manuscrits,” 202 and 380 (“Georges … [t]raducteur en latin d'une Chronique universelle“). This is also implied by the BN description.Google Scholar

58 Ep. 3 (MGH Epp. 4:19–29). On this letter, see Story, , Carolingian Connections , 58–59, 64–78.Google Scholar

59 Canon 17 of the Council of Tours (MGH Concilia 2.2:288). This is not the place to enter the debate over the transition from Latin to French, already complicated enough before the appearance of Roger Wright's famous Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France, ARCA 8 (Liverpool, 1982). On my understanding of the voluminous literature, no one would disagree that in the second half of the eighth century a local Gallic boy would have had to learn to read and write Latin as something distinctly different from what he spoke, even if it may not have been considered as a distinct language by his teachers. Whatever the multitude of problems with the orthography and grammar of the Strasbourg Oaths, sworn about sixty years later, they are clearly not Latin. That the translator's first language was not Greek, as Mommsen believed, is demonstrated by many misunderstandings of the original Greek text (see n. 6 above), particularly the error at 236.22–24, “illas nobilissimas feminas per magicas et ingenia maligna conuertens et auortiuos faciebat.” We can see from the rough parallel in Malalas 1.10 that the original verb must have been διέφθειρε, with the meaning that he was corrupting these women, as a surviving Greek-Latin glossary indicates (“deprauo, corrumpo, prauesco”). But just below that entry are three meanings for the related noun διαφθορά, two linked to the verb's meaning, “corruptus, corruptio interitus” and “stuprum” (διαφθορά παιδός ή παρθένου), the third, however, more clearly related to the Latin translation of the Chron. Scal., “hic abortus” ( Goetz, Georg, Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum [Leipzig, 1888], 2:275). The idea of abortion is actually in the άμβλωσις not the διαφθορά. The translator's glossary must have been similar. This, and the other misunderstandings presented in n. 6 above, are not the sorts of error that a Greek-speaker would have made. See Frick, , Chron. min., lxxxvii and Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger, 567.Google Scholar

60 “In the course of the preceding centuries [before the tenth century] people had become increasingly accustomed to using their own vernacular tongues for speech and the necessities of daily life. Latin — the language of religion, scholarship, and government — had to be taught in school. If a knowledge of Latin could be acquired only with effort, a knowledge of Greek was all the more elusive”; Kaczynski, Bernice M., Greek in the Carolingian Age: The St. Gall Manuscripts (Cambridge, MA, 1988), 1.Google Scholar

61 As noted by Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 1 (n. 2 above), 200. Both Hoeveler and Frick published detailed analyses that allow one to examine in quite some detail the peculiarities of the translator's Latin: Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 2 (n. 2 above) and Frick, , Chron. min., 599–625. They are invaluable aids. One can find just about all the translator's errors described in Grandgent, , Vulgar Latin (n. 12 above) and Blaise, , Manuel (n. 12 above). For the rather wild Latin of the Cosmographia and its pseudonymous author, see Herren, Michael W., The Cosmography of Aethicus Ister, Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 8 (Turnhout, 2011), lxxviii–xcix; and for Fredegarius, see Collins, Roger, Fredegar, Authors of the Middle Ages: Historical and Religious Writers of the Latin West 4 no. 13 (Aldershot, 1996), 111–12 with bibliography.Google Scholar

62 Other examples include such things as nouns with the original Greek endings (Frick, , Chron. min. , 604–5 and Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 2, 21–23), the use of ille for (Frick, , Chron. min., 611; also very rarely ipse and iste, 613; Hoeveler, , “Die Excerpta” 2, 25), regnare with the genitive (Frick, , Chron. min., 620), and “ut ne” for (625).Google Scholar

63 For his ability to read Greek, which might at first seem surprising in this place and time, see below.Google Scholar

64 See n. 6 above for some of the more interesting examples as well as Frick, , Chron. min. , lxxxv–lxxxvii. For evidence for the use of a Greek-Latin glossary, see above, n. 59, and Frick, , Chron. min., lxxxvii. For the use of Greek glossaries, dictionaries, and grammars in Carolingian Francia, see Dionisotti, A. C., “Greek Grammars and Dictionaries in Carolingian Europe,” in The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks: The Study of Greek in the West in the Early Middle Ages , ed. Herren, Michael W., King's College London Medieval Studies 2 (London, 1988), 1–56. See appendix two, below, for a discussion of one famous example of apparent mistranslation, “sun” for “Troy,” which is not what it is often portrayed to be.Google Scholar

65 See appendix one for a list of Old and New Testament passages. One specific example will suffice. In a caption he writes “ortygomitrae id sunt coturnices” (224 n. 6), transliterating όρτυγομήτραι and then translating it with the word used in the Latin Old Testament, coturnix, a quail (Exod. 16:13), even though όρτυγομήτραι are not quails. The extant glossaries have the correct translation, ορτυξ/coturnix (Goetz, , Corpus Glossariorum , 117 and 387).Google Scholar

66 For examples of some of the problems students had learning Greek in the late seventh and early eighth century in Canterbury, not unlike what we see here, see Lapidge, Michael, “The Study of Greek at the School of Canterbury in the Seventh Century,” in Herren, , The Sacred Nectar, 169–94, at 188–89. For a short study, with examples, of the Latin translation of Josephus's Greek Antiquitates Iudaicae undertaken by unknown friends of Cassiodorus in the mid-sixth century, see Blatt, Franz, The Latin Josephus, vol. 1, Introduction and Text: The Antiquities, Books I–V (Copenhagen, 1958), 17–22.Google Scholar

67 Metathesis has caused the swap of the delta and the mu. There are a few examples of metathesis in this text (see Frick, , Chron. min. , 614), and Frick also notes an example of metathesis and some other confusions of letters in names that must have appeared in the common source since they are shared by both the Chron. Scal. and the Chron. Pasch.: Νηραία for Ρηναία (metathesis), Άσπορες for Άστορες(pi for tau), Τάλλων for Γάλλων, and Ταράμαντες for Γαράμαντες (tau for gamma; Chron. min., civ). So not only was the Greek exemplar corrupt but its source was as well. This shows that in spite of the illustrations, these manuscripts were not the products of high-level scriptoria, but were cheaply and quickly produced (on which see below).Google Scholar

68 The latter change is the above-named itacism, where all the long vowels and diphthongs end up sounding like iota. See Frick, Chron. min., lxxxvi and 610 (i for η, particularly in names), e.g., ritor for ρήτωρ (266.8, 10, 268.7), Itas feras for είτα Σφαΐρος (282.21), Attosai et for Άτοσσα ή και (282.26), Ifestum for “ (286.3), isargus for εις Άργος (288.21), Pedes Casandrus for παίδες Κασάνδρου (310.9), and Salinai et for Σαλίνα ή και (324.5). Note also the famous example in appendix two, below, and the Ortygomitrae for όρτυγομήτραι (see nn. 6 and 65 above, and 76 below). In general, see Browning, Robert, Medieval and Modern Greek (Cambridge, 1983), 25–26 and 56–57 and Gignac, Francis Thomas, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, 1, Phonology, Testi e documenti per lo studio dell'antichità 55 (Milan, 1976), 183–324, 330–33, and specifically for itacism, 235–42 and 330, and confusions between ∊ι and ι, 189–91; αι and ∊, 191–93; and ω and º, 275–77.Google Scholar

69 See the sensible comments of Frick in defense of the translator, whose Latin he says is no worse than that of Gregory of Tours (sixth century) or Virgilius Maro grammaticus (seventh century) (Chron. min., lxxxv). See also the comments of Noble on the poor translation of the contemporary acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), a far more important document than this chronograph: “the Latin translation was hastily and poorly done. It seems that someone with connections to the papal court, a modest knowledge of Greek, and glossaries on his desk prepared the Latin version” (Noble, Thomas F. X., Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians [Philadelphia, 2009], 160).Google Scholar

70 See Ekonomou, Andrew J., Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752 (Lanham, MD, 2007); McCormick, Michael, “Byzantium and the West, 700–900,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History , ed. McKitterick, Rosamond, vol. 2, c. 700–c. 900 (Cambridge, 1995), 349–80, esp. 357–59 on Greek trade with the West and Francia, 363–67 on the involvement of Byzantium in the West in the eighth century, and 373–77 on the influence of Greek culture in Rome and Francia; Berschin, Walter, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages from Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa (Washington, 1988), 86–92 on the importance of Greeks and Greek in Rome in the late seventh and eighth centuries; Costambeys, Marios and Leyser, Conrad, “To Be the Neighbour of St Stephen: Patronage, Martyr Cult, and Roman Monasteries, c. 600–c. 900,” in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300–900 , ed. Cooper, Kate and Hillner, Julia (Cambridge, 2007), 262–87, at 271–73 on the Greek monasteries; Sansterre, Jean-Marie, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et carolingienne (milieu du VIe s.–fin du IXe s.), Mémoires de la classe des lettres de l'Académie royale de Belgique, 2e série, vol. 66, fasc. 1 (Brussels, 1983) for Greek monks in Rome at this time and their influence (see 36 for Paul's monastery), esp. 62–76 on language, 174–86 on books, and 186–205 on culture; and Brubaker, Leslie and Haldon, John, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: A History (Cambridge, 2011), 317–20, for a description of an important Greek manuscript copied in Rome ca. 800. For iconoclasm in the East, see Gero, Stephen, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, CSCO 384, subsidia 52 (Louvain, 1977), esp. 111–42 and 166–68, and Brubaker, and Haldon, , Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 156–286, esp. 168–76, 250–51, 256–60, 266–68, 280–84 for its effects on the West; and for iconoclasm in Francia, see Noble, , Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. Google Scholar

71 For the study of Greek at St. Gall, see Kaczynski, , Greek in the Carolingian Age (n. 60 above), which discusses such matters as orthography, alphabets, grammars, glossaries, and the specific kinds of Greek texts studied and copied. In general, see Berschin, , Greek Letters, 106–56 and Riché, Pierre, “Le grec dans les centres de culture d'occident,” in Herren, , The Sacred Nectar, 143–68, at 146–50. Because of the presence there of Theodore and Hadrian, Greek monks who had arrived in Britain from Rome and Naples in 669, Canterbury was a major center of Greek learning at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century. It was probably in Canterbury that the other major Greek-to-Latin historical translation of this period was undertaken, the so-called Laterculus Malalianus, which in part derives from the sixth-century breviarium of Malalas. For a detailed study of this work (often referred to as the Chronicon Palatinum, a name no more appropriate than Laterculus Malalianus), see Stevenson, Jane, The “Laterculus Malalianus” and the School of Archbishop Theodore, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 14 (Cambridge, 1995), and for an analysis of a collection of glosses from the Canterbury school and what it tells us about the understanding (and misunderstanding) of the translation of Greek and Latin by the teachers and the students, see Lapidge, “The Study of Greek.” Google Scholar

72 Codex Carolinus 24 (MGH Epp. 3:529): “Direximus itaque excellentissime praecellentiae uestrae et libros, quantos reperire potuimus: id est antiphonale et responsale, insimul artem gramaticam, Arist<ot>olis <et> Dionisii Ariopagitis <opera>, geometricam, orthografiam, grammaticam, omnes Greco eloquio scriptas, nec non et horologium nocturnum.” olis++Dionisii+Ariopagitis+,+geometricam,+orthografiam,+grammaticam,+omnes+Greco+eloquio+scriptas,+nec+non+et+horologium+nocturnum.”>Google Scholar

73 A similar interest in the chronology of the Old Testament can be found in the seventh- and eighth-century chronicle epitomes of Isidore (615, 626, and ca. 635) and Bede (703 and 725), and a different translation of the Συναγωγή χρόνων και ετών can be found at the beginning of book one of Fredegarius (= Lib. gen. I), which was compiled not long after 660. Two other important manuscripts of the Liber generationis can be dated to about the same time as the Chron. Scal.: G, St. Gall 133, to the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century, and B, Berlin, Phillipps 1829, to the second quarter of the ninth. A different translation of the Συναγωγή from 334 (= Lib. gen. II) was discovered in Francia in the late eighth century and first recopied in the early ninth (see Burgess, , “The Chronograph of 354” [n. 8 above], 350, 363–68, 391–94).Google Scholar

74 We know from the Cons. Vind. that the section from ca. 100 to 296 contains mostly consuls with only five entries, describing the duo augusti in 161, a persecution, and the martyrdoms of Perpetua and Felicitas, Lawrence, and Cyprian, which would require only five major illustrations, though the surviving text of the Chron. Scal. indicates that there were almost certainly other entries and illustrations that do not appear in the Cons. Vind. There are twenty-five emperors or sets of emperors between 100 and 296 in the list at the end of section two, and each of these would be present in this missing section. One quire (= eight folios = sixteen pages) at thirty-one lines per page — the first two quires are ruled thirty lines per page, the rest thirty-one — gives a total of 496 lines. We are missing approximately 200 consular pairs, which elsewhere usually take a single line but sometimes two, so we could estimate 250 lines. The regnal introductions before ca. 100 usually take between three and four lines each, thus about eighty-five lines in total. The death notices are longer after 296, but we have no idea where this tendency begins. The five entries would fill between ten and fifteen lines since they are very short. Pictures in the consularia section are usually about twelve lines high, so we should estimate about sixty lines. In total, then, we can account for about 405 of the 496 lines from these known parallels, thus about three pages short of a full quire.Google Scholar

75 The eighth and last quire is specially made up of seven folios (two bifolia and three singles) glued and stitched together, obviously intended to mirror the last folio of the Greek. The first quire is sixteen folios; the rest are eight: see Schoene, , Eusebi Chronicorum (n. 10 above), xv–xvi.Google Scholar

76 There is a space for an illustration, with no surviving caption, on fol. 1r. Captions then first appear for pictures that illustrate identical lists in the text above: fols. 6r (provinces = 198 n. 9) and 6v (islands = 199 n. 15), 8r (provinces = 203 n. 24 = Chron. Gol. IIv), 8v (missing: blank space instead of captions for islands; see 204 n. 5 = Chron. Gol. IIr), 10r (provinces = 208 n. 7), 12r (islands = 212 n. 23, 214 n. 2) and v (cities = 214 nn. 7, 14), 13r (islands = 215 n. 15), 14r (mountains = 218 n. 10). These are followed by captions for more straightforward illustrations of events and people mentioned within the text: fols. 14v (arbor uitae fluens aquas and Maria et flumina conuenientes in semet ipsis dant uoces), 15v (uox domini, Abraham, altarium, Isaac, arbor sabec, and oblatio), 16r (Mare rubrum and filii Israhel transeuntes Rubram mare), 16v (ortygomitrae [id sunt coturnices], columna nubis, columna ignis, manna, Aaron, uox domini, Moyses, and populus Ebreorum), and 17r (populus Ebreorum transeuntes Iordanem). The text in square brackets at 16v has been added by the translator to explain his transliteration of όρτυγομήτροα (see n. 6 above). No further captions appear. For the captions in the Chron. Gol., see Bauer, and Strzygowski, , Weltchronik (n. 8 above), 29 and 119–25. There are also descriptive headings on the top of 9r, 12r, 12v, 13r, 13v, 14r, 14v, 20v, 27r, 28r, 29r, 29v, 30v, 32r, 33r, 33v, 35r (section one); 37r, 39r∗, 39v∗, 40v∗, 41r∗, 41v∗, 45v∗, 46r∗, 48r∗ (section two); 49v and 61v (section three); and footers at 38r∗, 39r, and 40r (section two). Most are simply intended to describe the content of the page, but some belong in the text and have mistakenly been written as headers (marked ∗ above).Google Scholar

77 Ganz, , Corbie (n. 48 above), 43.Google Scholar

78 See n. 51 above.Google Scholar

79 This list is completely corrupted, both with respect to the names and the years; it is too short by five names and includes a name from the Roman king list (Tarquinius) and Remus, who was never a king of Alba Longa. For more on this list, see Burgess, R. W., Roman Imperial Chronology and Early Fourth-Century Historiography: The Regnal Durations of the So-called Chronica urbis Romae of the Chronograph of 354, Historia Einzelschriften (Stuttgart, 2013, in press), chap. 3.Google Scholar

80 For the date of Fredegarius, see Collins, , Fredegar (n. 61 above), 81–83, and Collins, Roger, Die Fredegar-Chroniken, MGH Studien und Texte 44 (Hanover, 2007), 25–27. In the former, Collins argues for a date in the second half of the seventh century and perhaps even the early eighth (between 659 and 714 at the extremes), but in the later work he adopts a less specific “after ca. 660.” Google Scholar

81 Klippel, Maria, Die Darstellung der Fränkischen Trojanersage in Geschichtsschreibung und Dichtung vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance in Frankreich (Marburg, 1936).Google Scholar

82 The background is well set out by Ewig, Eugen, “Troiamythos und fränkische Frühgeschichte,” in Die Franken und die Alemannen bis zur “Schlacht bei Zülpich” (496/97) , ed. Geuenich, Dieter, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 19 (Berlin, 1998), 1–30.Google Scholar

83 The origin of this etymology was no doubt Isidore, who wrote ca. 635, “Franci a quodam proprio duce uocari putantur. Alii eos a feritate morum nuncupatos existimant. Sunt enim in illis mores inconditi, naturalis ferocitas animorum” (Etymologiae 9.2.101).Google Scholar

84 Pippin married Bertrada in the mid-740s and died in 768. Their children with known birth dates were born between 748 and 759, so Rothaide's birth probably occurred in the 750s.Google Scholar

85 See Herren, , Cosmography (n. 61 above), xxxi–xxxii, lv–lxxviii.Google Scholar

86 Herren, , Cosmography , 202–4.Google Scholar

87 For Childebrand and his new edition of Fredegarius, which may even have been retitled Historia uel gesta Francorum and was ca. 768 continued by Childebrand's son, see Collins, , Fredegar (n. 61 above), 91, 112–17, and Collins, , Fredegar-Chroniken, 4–7, 82–145. For the insertion point, see Fredegarius, , Chron. 2.4, MGH SRM 2:45. See also the separate edition of this Historia of Dares by Gaston Paris in Romania 3 (1874): 129–44.Google Scholar

88 See, e.g., Wallraff, Martin with Roberto, Umberto, Pinggéra, Karl, and Adler, William, Iulius Africanus Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments , GCS NF 15 (Berlin, 2007), 173 n. 8.Google Scholar

89 See Wallraff, et al., Iulius Africanus , 173 n. 7, who quotes this list as a fragment of Africanus (F58). The facts, first, that the Spartan king list starts about eighty years after the Trojan War, so Menelaus cannot ever have been a part of the list, even though he was a Spartan king — cf. Eusebius, , Chron. can. 591 (Menelaus), 61 (capture of Troy), and 66 (the first Spartan king) — and, second, that there is no other suggestion in any ancient source that a Menelaus was ever king with Agesilaus are sufficient grounds to give one pause, but the clinching argument is that both kings have separate regnal years and numbers, which proves it cannot be a joint reign and therefore the “Ce-” cannot be hiding a vowel-shifted καί: cf. 290.15 for the reign of Atreus and Thyestes and 326–28 for the numerous examples in the list of Roman emperors where joint rulers have a single number and single set of regnal years.Google Scholar

90 Ball, R., “‘Menelaos’ in the Spartan Agiad King-list,” Classical Quarterly , n.s. 27 (1977): 312–16.Google Scholar

91 See, for example, Mango, Cyril, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome (London, 1980), 192, who says, “all the early Christian and Byzantine systems, except that of Eusebius, attempt to come as closely as possible to this figure,” and “Chronology,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium , ed. Kazhdan, Alexander P. (Oxford, 1991), 1:449, “All Byz. era calculations were based on … the world era of Julius Africanus (Incarnation in 5500).” Google Scholar

92 This is in section three. Lib. gen. II 148 (Mommsen, , Chron. min. , 131) likewise reports 5,500 as the number of years between Adam and the birth of Christ, while Lib. gen. I 313–15 has a total of 5502 (5738 – 206 – 30 = 5502), but the Chron. Scal. makes no reference to either in its version of the Lib. gen. (section one).Google Scholar

93 Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1993), 48.Google Scholar

94 Garstad, , “Barbarian Interest” (n. 5 above), esp. 25, 39–40, and Garstad, , Alexandrian World Chronicle (n. 5 above), xviii–xix, xxii–xxiii, xxv–xxxiv. See also Garstad, Benjamin, “The Excerpta Latina Barbari and the ‘Picus-Zeus narrative,’” Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik 34 (2002): 259–313. See also appendix three below.Google Scholar

95 Schoene, , Eusebi Chronicorum (n. 10 above). The errors that appear in the consularia section of Schoene's edition (the only section I have collated) are as follows, where the number is Mommsen's entry number, the first citation is the manuscript reading, and the second is Schoene's: 11 Caesar] Cesar; 49 Seuero] Seuerio; 68 mihi] mei (this has been taken over from Scaliger's edition); 86 Zacharias] Zaxarias; 90 Cuntilliano] Cyntilliano; 100 Symonem] Symeonem; 104, 173, 184 IIII] IV (it is in these three entries, and these three only, that the manuscript's IIII is written as IV); 112 babtizatus] baptizatus; 162 agusto] augusto; 205 nobile] nobili; 246 Constante] Costante; 252 Constantio] Constantino; 253 Constantio] Constantino; 264 Constantio] Constantino; 269 anno] anni; and 307 Hadriano] Adriano.Google Scholar

96 See n. 13 above.Google Scholar

97 Kroll, Wilhelm, Historia Alexandri Magni (Pseudo-Callisthenes) , vol. 1, Recensio uetusta (Berlin, 1958).Google Scholar

98 Here and below passages from the Chron. Scal. that are quoted by Wallraff et al. (Iulius Africanus [n. 88 above]) as a primary witness to Africanus are noted with an asterisk next to both Frick's page numbers and Wallraff's fragment/testimonium references. Those that are quoted as secondary witnesses just below the main text under the heading “Exc. Barb.” are marked with an obelus. See in particular the short account of the Chron. Scal. as a witness to Africanus in Wallraff, et al., Iulius Africanus , xxxvi–xxxviii. The major starting point for the study of the Chron. Scal. and Africanus is Gelzer, , Sextus Julius Africanus (n. 2 above), 2:316–29 as well as 1:41, 44, 96, 104, 118–19, 177–78, 258 n. 4; Italian digression: 1:82–83, 224–28, 235, 239–45; king lists: 1:137–60, 191–204, 209–22, 272 n. 2, 275–76; 2:55–56. However, Gelzer had no established methodology for making source attributions and proceeded with an unwarranted certainty of approach that led from demonstrable proof to plausible supposition to possibility to outright guesswork. He never faced up to the fact that most minor Byzantine historiography was anonymous (and therefore without authorial authority), tralatitious, and the result of frequent compilation and recompilation from multiple sources. See particularly the comments of Wallraff, et al., Iulius Africanus, liv–lv and Mosshammer, Alden A., The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg, PA, 1979), 147–48. For an early understanding of the use of Africanus by the compiler of the Chron. Scal. see Frick, , Chron. min., clxv–clxxi, cxci–cci.Google Scholar

99 Helm, Rudolf, ed., Die Chronik des Hieronymus: Hieronymi Chronicon , 3rd ed., GCS, Eusebius Werke 7 (Berlin, 1984). No doubt there are other interpolations from Eusebius that have not yet been identified.Google Scholar

100 Sophocles, , 109p ; Heraclitus, , 111e ; Anaxagoras, , 111d ; Herodotus, , 113e ; Melissus, , 113d ; Euripides, and Protagoras, , 113e; Socrates, labeled incorrectly as a “rhetor” as a result of 114e, “Socrates plurimo sermone celebratur” (probably not “Isocrates rhetor” from 117d or 119f, since those entries are out of sequence for this block of names); Phidias, 113g; Theaetetus, 114b; Democritus and Hippocrates, 114d (perhaps copied from previous reign: see Anon. Matr. 36.15–37.2; for which, see n. 102); Thucydides, , 115b; Empedocles, Gorgias, Zeno, and Parmenides, 114d; Socrates (copied from previous reign — see Anon. Matr. 36.16–37.1 — and not from Eusebius, but located here because of 114e); Pericles, 115c; Eupolis and Aristophanes, 115d. The parallels found in the Anon. Matr. for this sequence of interpolations (listed below) prove that Alden A. Mosshammer was correct when he claimed that all these names, assigned by Gelzer to Africanus (Sextus Julius Africanus [n. 2 above], 1:177–78), and still assigned to Africanus by Wallraff without comment (F81b), were an interpolation from Eusebius (The Chronicle of Eusebius, 151–53).Google Scholar

101 The Chronicon Paschale is a Greek chronicle written ca. 630. See Dindorf, Ludwig, ed., Chronicon Paschale , Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1832) and Michael, and Whitby, Mary, Chronicon Paschale, 284–628 AD, Translated Texts for Historians 7 (Liverpool, 1989). The Naz˙m al-jawhar — usually called the Annales in English — of Eutychius patriarch of Alexandria, is an Arabic chronicle that extended from Adam down to 935. See Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien; ausgewählte Geschichten und Legenden kompiliert von Sa 'īd ibn Bat˙rīq um 935 AD , ed. Breydy, M., CSCO 471–72 (Louvain, 1985). See Frick, , Chron. min., lxxxix–xc, cxc–cxcv, cxcviii–cxcix, cciii. He refers to this common source as the Chronicon mundi Alexandrinum and to the author as the Chronographus Alexandrinus. Google Scholar

102 Bauer, Adolf, ed., Anonymi Chronographia syntomos e codice Matritensi no. 121 (nunc 4701) (Leipzig, 1909). The parallels for the list of Jewish high priests appear below under section two. For the close connections between the Anon. Matr. and Africanus, see Wallraff, et al., Iulius Africanus, 1. Parallels to the Anon. Matr. are noted in T16m∗, T28b†, T36†, F73†, F81b, F87, F89†, F95, F96† (using the symbols ∗ and † as noted above). Africanus (and Eusebius) are named at 3.9–4.1. The slightly corrupted synchronism of the first year of Moses and the flood of Ogyges (11.16–12.8) provides further evidence that the ultimate source of these additions was Julius Africanus.Google Scholar

103 See Frick, , Chron. min. , clxviii–clxix.Google Scholar

104 See above, n. 8.Google Scholar

105 Thurn, Ioannes, ed., Ioannis Malalae Chronographia , Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35 (Berlin, 2000). This is only a hint of the many parallels to be found in Malalas (see nn. 109 and 113 below). See also the more detailed parallels below for the Italian digression.Google Scholar

106 The parallel with the Chron. Scal. here shows that Malalas or his source has skipped the Athenians and Beloch: “Eretheus Athineis regnauit, Hilochus autem Assyriis regnauit, Petessonsius autem Farao in Egypto” = έβασίλευσεν των Ασσυρίων Έρεχθεύς, των δε Αιγυπτίων έβασίλευσεν Πετι,σσώνιος. See Frick, , Chron. min. , clxviii.Google Scholar

107 See Frick, , Chron. min. , clxviii.Google Scholar

108 For some unknown reason Frick quotes the early parallels from the Chronicon Paschale (which used Malalas as a source).Google Scholar

109 See Studies in John Malalas , ed. Jeffreys, Elizabeth, Croke, Brian, and Scott, Roger, Byzantina Australiensia 6 (Sydney, 1990), 134–35 and 171, 177, 198–99.Google Scholar

110 Eusebius's Chronographia was the first volume of the two-volume work that was his chronicle. The second volume was the better-known Chronici canones. The Chronographia survives in an Armenian translation and a few fragmentary and secondary Greek witnesses, of which the largest is an anonymous compilation published in Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis , ed. Cramer, J. A. (Oxford, 1839), 2:118–63. For the Armenian translation, see the German translation by Karst, Josef in Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen Übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar, Eusebius Werke 5, GCS 20 (Leipzig, 1911), 1–143. The ninth-century chronography of George Syncellus is also a witness to Eusebius's, Chronographia. See Mosshammer, Alden A., Georgii Syncelli Ecloga Chronographica (Leipzig, 1984).Google Scholar

111 The Breviarium Vindobonense is a potted history of the rulers of the territory that was to become Rome and of Rome itself from Picus to Licinius. It is found in the same Vienna manuscript that contains an important illustrated text of the Chronograph of 354 (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 3416, fols. 62r–65v, 70r) and so has always been considered a part of that work, though apart from its appearance in the Vienna manuscript, which includes other texts that were never a part of the Chron. 354, there is no evidence to support that hypothesis (see Burgess, , “The Chronograph of 354” [n. 8 above], 381–87). It appears in Mommsen, , Chron. min., 143–48 as part of the Chron. 354 under the title Chronica urbis Romae, though it is not a chronicle by any definition of that word, but a breviarium or précis history that is little more than an annotated list of kings and emperors (see Burgess, Roman Imperial Chronology [n. 79 above], chap. 1).Google Scholar

112 This concerns the list of kings only. There are no important parallels in the content.Google Scholar

113 Note also the parallels between this material and Malalas, whose sources would therefore derive from Africanus: Jeffreys, et al., Studies in John Malalas , 124–38 passim, which treats material from both section one and section two.Google Scholar

114 I was misled by the analysis of Jacoby into thinking that this section derived almost entirely from Eusebius's, Chronographia (R. W. Burgess, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography, Historia Einzelschriften 135 [Stuttgart, 1999], 31–32 n. 11).Google Scholar

115 The three lists of high priests in the Chron. Pasch. closely parallel the source used for the list of high priests in the Chron. Scal. There is a parallel between these lists in the Chron. Pasch. and Syncellus, who names Africanus as his source, and so Africanus is probably the common source: Chron. Scal. 322.19–20 = Chron. Pasch. 346.9, 358.1, 391.7† = Africanus F85a (252).Google Scholar

116 See Frick, , Chron. min. , clxxxvi and Jouanaud, Jean-Louis, “Barbarus, Malalas et le bissextus: pistes de recherche,” in Recherches sur la chronique de Jean Malalas , ed. Beaucamp, Joëlle et al., Monographies du centre de recherche d'histoire et civilization de Byzance 15 (Paris, 2004), 1:165–80.Google Scholar

117 These two slightly different lists include the high priests as well as the associated historical notes that obviously were a part of the original source. To this group can be added the list in the unpublished manuscript BN, Parisinus graecus 1773, briefly quoted by Gelzer, , Sextus Julius Africanus (n. 2 above), 2:175 and an unpublished Armenian translation briefly quoted by Bauer-Helm, , Die Chronik (n. 13 above), 188 (“A”), which is the only other text to mirror the list in section two. Gelzer (2:174), followed by Frick, (Chron. min., clxv), Bauer-Helm, , Die Chronik, 189, and Cohen, Shaye J. D. (“Sosates the Jewish Homer,” Harvard Theological Review 74 [1981]: 391–96 at 394–95) believe that Eusebius's, Demonstratio euangelica is the source for the Chron. Scal.'s list of high priests, but the differences between them and the additional material in the Chron. Scal. make this impossible. They are all relying on various altered recensions of the same earlier text, which I believe derived ultimately from Julius Africanus (see Helm, Rudolph, “De Eusebii in Chronicorum libro auctoribus,” Eranos 22 [1924]: 3–40). See also Bauer-Helm, , Die Chronik, 188–92 and Burgess, , “Another Look at Sosates” (n. 22 above), 200–208, 213–14.Google Scholar

118 Schoene, , Eusebi Chronicorum (n. 10 above), Appendix IV, 63–102.Google Scholar

119 See n. 110 above.Google Scholar

120 This is the text that Mommsen called the Fasti Vindobonenses posteriores (Chron. min., 263–64, 274–82, 284–98, 301–4, 330–34). A new introduction to, text and translation of, and commentary on this work will appear in Burgess, and Kulikowski, , Mosaics of Time 2. For the relationship between the Chron. Scal. and the Cons. Vind. post., see Burgess, R. W., “‘Non duo Antonini sed duo Augusti’: The Consuls of 161 and the Origins and Traditions of the Latin Consular Fasti of the Roman Empire,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 132 (2000) = Chronicles, Consuls, and Coins: Historiography and History in the Later Roman Empire (Farnham, 2011), Paper XV: 259–90, at 260 n. 9, 264 n. 19, 280, and 290; and Burgess, R. W., “The Passio S. Artemii, Philostorgius, and the Dates of the Invention and Translations of the Relics of Sts Andrew and Luke,” Analecta Bollandiana 121 (2003) = Chronicles, Consuls, and Coins, Paper XI: 5–36, at 24–28. For a detailed description of what consularia are and how they form a distinct subgenre of chronicles, see Burgess, and Kulikowski, , Mosaics of Time (n. 4 above), 1:35–58, 60.Google Scholar

121 See also Frick, , Chron. min. , cci–ccx.Google Scholar

122 Strycker, Emile de, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques , Subsidia hagiographica 33 (Brussels, 1961). On this text, see Gelzer, , Sextus Julius Africanus (n. 2 above), 2:326–28 and Frick, , Chron. min., ccviii and the notes at the foot of 337–47.Google Scholar

123 Theophanis Chronographia 1, ed. de Boor, Carl (Leipzig, 1883; repr. Hildesheim, 1963).Google Scholar

124 See n. 68 above.Google Scholar

125 According to Mosshammer's apparatus criticus, Ps.-Symeon contains the same text as Syncellus. For Ps.-Symeon, an unpublished breviarium found in BN, Parisinus graecus 1712, see Wahlgren, Staffan, Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon , Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 44/1 (Berlin, 2006), 46∗, 87–89∗.Google Scholar

126 Adler, William and Tuffin, Paul, The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford, 2002), 70.Google Scholar

127 Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World , ed. Talbert, Richard J. A. (Princeton, 2000), 51 G4 and 56 C1–2.Google Scholar

128 TLG gives thirty-nine instances of “Ιλιον/”Ιλιος έάλω/ήλω.Google Scholar

129 Note Scaliger's comment, τό “Ιλιον ήλω υπό Αχαιών, поп ήλιος “ήλώθη” (Scaliger, , Thesaurus temporum [1606], second part, 53 and [1658], second part, 67 [both n. 3 above], seen most easily in the margin of Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum [n. 10 above], 196, fol. 20b.5).Google Scholar