Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:51:36.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Great Chronographer and Theophanes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

L. M. Whitby
L. M. Whitby*
Affiliation:
Merton College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At two places in the tenth-century manuscript of the Chronicon Paschale extracts from an anonymous chronicle have been added, with the attributions and At the first place a series of fourteen extracts, recording natural catastrophes and other disasters from the late fifth century to the mid-eighth century, is inserted in the context of the account of the Nika Riot. At the second place a single extract is inserted in the margin in the context of the account of Phocas’ deposition of Maurice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 8 , 1983 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1983

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. Vaticanus Graecus 1941, fol. 241v-242v and fol. 272v respectively; the text of the first series of extracts was published by Freund, A., Beiträge zur antiochenischen und zur konstantinopolitcmischen Stadtchronik (Jena, 1882), pp. 38–42 Google Scholar; the second extract is printed in the apparatus to the Bonn Corpus edition of the Chronicon Paschale, pp. 694–5. I have noted a few corrections to these texts, see notes 7, 10, 11, and 18 below. I am very grateful to Mr. N. G. Wilson of Lincoln College for his generous assistance with the palaeographical problems, and to my wife Dr. J. M. Whitby for general criticism and advice.

2. e.g. Gerland, E., B, VIII (1933), 100 Google Scholar; Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Munich, 1978), pp. 337 and 345 Google Scholar.

3. Cameron, A., Circus Factions (Oxford, 1976), pp. 322–9 Google Scholar; Maas, P., ‘Metrische Akklamationen der Byzantiner’ BZ, XXI (1912), 46–51 Google Scholar.

4. Cameron, op. cit., p. 325. John of Antioch cannot be considered even theoretically as a possible source: only three brief fragments survive from John’s account of Maurice’s reign, but the first fragment (218b, FHG V, p. 35) shows that John recorded a rather different version of the story of imperial treachery preserved in this extract of the Great Chronographer. According to John, Maurice did not manage to betray the army, since his treachery was discovered by the soldiers, and this imperial treachery arose from, rather than preceded, a dispute between Maurice and the army concerning Maurice’s betrayal of certain prisoners.

5. ed. C. de Boor, re-ed. P. Wirth (Stuttgart, 1972).

6. ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883–5).

7. Dindorf incorrectly read instead of for and with the comment that in V non satis apparet’.

8. Theophylact VII. 13.8.

9. cf. Theophanes, p. 290.9, where marks a change of source by Theophanes (from Theophylact to a different account of Maurice’s overthrow).

10. Dindorf read the last line as At this point the text is very abbreviated, but Mr. N. G. Wilson has suggested that the readings in the text above are more plausible than Dindorf’s.

11. Dindorf read and but the corrections suggested in the text above are fairly certain.

12. Cameron, op. cit., p. 324–6; Maas provided an accurate description of this section of the manuscript and a sketch of folio 242v (BZ, XXI (1912), 46).

13. Thus Maas, art. cit., 47.

14. This is printed in the Bonn edition of the Chronicon, p. 620.3–14.

15. Freund read this as

16. At folio 140v a list of Byzantine emperors down to the death of Constantine Monomachus (A.D. 1055) is inserted into the manuscript. P. Canart suggested that this list was in the same hand as the Great Chronographer extracts (Codices Vaticani Graeci, Codices 1745–1962 (Vatican, 1970) I, p. 716); it may, however, be possible to detect minor differences in the letter forms, which would indicate that the hands were different but probably contemporary.

17. I intend in a future article to examine the Akta and the Nika Riot.

18. See n. 1 above for reference. The following alterations to Freund’s text should be noted: extract 1, line 12, for extract 2, line 2, for extract 5, line 1, for extract 5, line 2, (?) for extract 10, line 5, (?) for extract 10, line 13, for extract 12, line 10, for extract 14, line 4, is spelt with double tau. I owe these readings to Mr. N. G. Wilson, who examined a photograph of the manuscript; I am most grateful to Mr. Wilson for pointing out these corrections to me, and for allowing me to note them in this article. A revised text of these extracts is printed below p. 17–20.

19. Extract 2 (an earthquake in Zeno’s reign), extract 3 (a shower of balsam in Anastasius’ reign), and extract 10 (the great plague of the sixth century).

20. Cramer, J. A., Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecae regiae parisiensis II p. 87–114 Google Scholar. On the Anecdota Cramer, see Freund, op. cit. (n. 1 above), p. 36 ff.

21. Since the Great Chronographer was one of Theophanes’ sources for the late sixth century, it might appear a reasonable supposition that he would also have been Theophanes’ source for this earlier period. It is possible that Theophanes only knew the Anecdota Cramer through the intermediary of the Great Chronographer, but the linguistic relationships between these three authors are indecisive: at some points Theophanes appears slightly closer to the Anecdota Cramer, at others to the Great Chronographer’s reworking of the Anecdota Cramer. There can be little doubt that Theophanes consulted Malalas directly, in view of the extent and closeness of his linguistic dependence.

22. Theophanes, p. 412.6–21; the most significant divergence is that Theophanes has used oratio recta for an indirect command in his source.

23. Nicephorus, , Breviarium, ed. Boor, C. de (Leipzig, 1880), p. 59.2–14 Google Scholar.

24. Theophanes, p. 422.28.

25. Theophanes, p. 422.29–424.3; Nicephorus, p. 62.24–64.9.

26. e.g. Theophanes p. 423.11–19 and Nicephorus p. 63.8–14, where the similarity of language indicates a common source.

27. Theophanes, p. 423.1–4 and p. 424.1–3, and Nicephorus p. 64.5–9; the language of these denunciations is different, and there is nothing to indicate that they were derived from a common source.

28. Nicephorus, p. 64.21 ff.

29. Nicephorus, p. 65.8–23; his concluding sentence, reproduces the last sentence of the Great Chronographer’s extract with only the substitution of for

30. Theophanes, p. 426.14–26.

31. Theophanes, p. 426.26–29.

32. The following hypothesis might account for the abridgement of extracts 12 and 13, and for the chronological dislocation of extract 14 (which appears to be complete). Extracts 12 and 13 are the last two extracts copied onto folio 242r of the Chronicon Paschale manuscript, and the scribe may have been compressing his material in the belief that folio 242r was all the space available for these extracts. However, the scribe turned the page, realised that two-thirds of folio 242v was lying empty, and so copied out in full extract 14, an extract that he had previously decided to omit on grounds of lack of space.

33. Leo p. 133.8–10; 133.11–134.23; 136.11–12, 16–20; 137.20–138.1 (Bonn edition), preserve information that is not in Theophanes.

34. Translation by van Esbroeck, M. in Bedi Kartlisa, XXXIV (1976), 74–96 Google Scholar; at p. 76, Van Esbroeck noted the similarity to Leo.

35. Alexander, P. J., The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1958), pp. 158–162 Google Scholar.

36. Theophanes, p. 423.1–4 and 424.1–3; Nicephorus, p. 64.5–9.

37. Leo, p. 184.9–20.

38. Theophanes, p. 443.18–22; Nicephorus, p. 76.5–14.

39. e.g. the references to the iconoclast Leo III as (Theophanes, p. 396.8, 18), in his fight against the (Theophanes, p. 395.23); God and the Virgin both assist Leo (p. 396.16–18).

40. Mango, C., ‘Who wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes?’, ZRVI, XVIII (1978), 9–17 Google Scholar.

41. The clearest discussion is still that by Brooks, E. W., ‘The Sources of Theophanes and the Syriac Chroniclers’ BZ, XV (1906) 578–87 Google Scholar; see also Pigulevskaja, N., ‘Theophanes Chronographia and the Syrian Chronicles’ JÖBG, XVI (1967), 55–60 Google Scholar, and Proudfoot, A., ‘The Sources of Theophanes for the Heraclian Dynasty’ B, XLIV (1974) at 405–20 Google Scholar. With regard to this eastern source, it is worth noting that the Great Chronographer (extract 12) recorded the Palestine earthquake of A.D. 746, information that Theophanes (p. 422.25–28) might otherwise have been expected to have derived from the eastern source.

1. On the earthquake at Constantinople, cf. Anec. Cramer, p. 112.11–18 and Theophanes, p. 125.29–126.5 (also Leo Gramm., p. 116.21–117.1, and Cedrenus, p. 618.16–22; CSHB); these accounts do not mention the tidal wave, shooting stars, or boiling sea. Malaias, p. 385.3–5 and Chron. Pasch., p. 605.16–18 have similar but briefer notices, though Malalas, p. 385.5–8 also records damage in Bithynia (cf. Leo Gramm., p. 117,1–2).

2. No parallel passages.

3. No parallel passages.

4. cf. Malalas, p. 419.5–421.21, a very detailed account that was used by Cedrenus, p. 640.17–641.21, and more briefly by Theophanes, p. 172.11–19 (also Georgius Monachus, p. 626.8–15, ed. de Boor, and Leo Gramm., p. 123.19–24).

5. On the earthquake at Antioch, cf. Malalas, p. 442.18–443.7 and Theophanes, p. 177.22–33 (also Georgius Monachus, p. 643.4–10, Leo Gramm., p. 126.1–5, and Cedrenus, p. 646.5–15); on the winter, cf. Theophanes, p. 177.33–178.5 (also Cedrenus, p. 646.15–19).

6. cf. Malalas, p. 436.17–437.2 and Theophanes, p. 216.17–22; Georgius Monachus, p. 626.15–19, Leo Gramm., p. 123.24–124.2, and Cedrenus, p. 641.21–23, record the same information but place it in Justin I’s reign.

7. cf. Anec. Cramer, p. 112.19–27, and Theophanes, p. 181.26–31 (also Leo Gramm., p. 126.6–17 and Cedrenus, p. 647.11–17).

8. cf. Anec. Cramer, p. 113.24–30, Malalas, p. 486.23–487.5, and Theophanes, p. 222.25–30 (also Cedrenus, p. 656.2–5).

9. cf. Malalas, p. 482.12–13, Theophanes, p. 224.11–13 (also Cedrenus, p. 656.16–18).

10. No parallel passages.

11. cf. Anec. Cramer, p. 114.14–22, Malalas, p. 489.19–490.5, and Theophanes, p. 232.27–233.3 (also Cedrenus, p. 676.20–677.19).

12. cf. Nicephorus, p. 62.24–64.9 and Theophanes, p. 422.25–424.3 (also Cedrenus, vol. II, p. 7.17–9.1).

13. cf. Nicephorus, p. 64.21–22, 65.18–23, and Theophanes, p. 426.14–29.

14. cf. Nicephorus, p. 59.2–14, and Theophanes, p. 412.6–16 (also Georgius, Monachus, p. 744.11–16, Leo Gramm., p. 180.6–16, and Cedrenus, p. 801.9–22).