1 Greek names have been transliterated in such a way as to be as faithful as possible to original spellings while taking into account established usages for well-known individuals and places. When cited in the main text, both Armenian and Greek personal names drawn from the Armenian translation of the Chronika are transliterated in accordance with the system used by the Library of Congress for Eastern Armenian. In the English translation of the Eusebian Olympic victor list presented in Appendix 2, however, all Greek names, regardless of source, are presented in accordance with their original Greek form. This approach is intended to reproduce the Armenian text as closely as possible while providing a consistent English translation of the Eusebian Olympic victor list as a whole.Google Scholar

All translations of ancient sources, both Greek and Armenian, are our own. The English translations of the Armenian version of the Chronika are based directly on the Armenian text. We have, nonetheless, chosen to cite the Armenian version of the Chronika through reference to Karst's German translation rather than to Aucher's printed Armenian text, because the German translation is much more accessible, both in terms of readability and of availability, to most scholars. Citations of line numbers in the Greek version of the Eusebian Olympic victor list refer to the text printed in Appendix 1.Google Scholar

We would like to thank Cecilia Gaposchkin for undertaking a physical examination of CPG 2600 on our behalf and Nadezhda Kavrus-Hoffman for her comments on the provenience of CPG 2600. Thanks are also due to Sen Arevshatyan, Mark Golden, Alden Mosshammer, Michael Stone, and others too numerous to name, all of whom lent invaluable assistance. Responsibility for the views expressed here and for any errors or omissions is solely our own. This article was made possible in large part by the generosity of the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati, at which Paul Christesen worked in the summer of 2005 as a Margo Tytus Visiting Scholar.Google Scholar

2 On the textual evidence for Olympionikai, see Christesen, Paul, Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History, chap. 1 (forthcoming from Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar

3 A partial translation of the Eusebian Olympic victor list can be found in Robinson, Rachel Sargent, Sources for the History of Greek Athletics in English Translation (orig. publ. 1955; repr. Chicago, 1991), 52–55. An English translation of much of the Eusebian list can be found online at: http://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius1.html#193. One should note, however, that this translation is based on Petermann's Latin translation of the Armenian translation of the text. It is, therefore, rather remote from the Greek original. A recent French translation, based on Schoene's Greek text, can be found in Badinou, Panayota Olympiaka: Anthologie des sources grecques (Lausanne, 2000), 68–91.Google Scholar

4 Schoene, Alfred, ed., Eusebi Chronicorum libri duo, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1866–75).Google Scholar

5 Cramer, J. A., Anecdota Graeca e Codd. Manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1839–41), 2: 115–63.Google Scholar

6 Karst, Josef, ed., Die Chronik: Aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Commentar (Leipzig, 1911). For Karst's explanation of the reasons for preferring German to Latin in his translation, see ibid., xiii–xxxiii.Google Scholar

7 See Mosshammer, Alden, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg, PA, 1979), 58–60.Google Scholar

8 Aucher, Joannes Baptista, ed., Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopi Chronicon Bipartitum, nunc primum ex Armeniaco textu in Latinum conversum adnotationibus auctum Graecis fragmentis exornatum (Venice, 1818). Aucher is sometimes identified as Mkrtich' Avgeryan, the Armenian version of his name.Google Scholar

9 An excellent introduction to Eusebius's life and work can be found in Barnes, Timothy David, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, 1981), 111–20 and passim as well as Winkelmann, Friedhelm “Historiography in the Age of Constantine,” in Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, ed. Marasco, Gabrielle (Leiden, 2003), 3–41. Both Barnes and Winkelmann draw heavily on Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, which remains essential.Google Scholar

10 There were at least two different editions of the Chronika. The first, which Eusebius completed in 311, covered the period from the birth of Abraham (which Eusebius placed in the year corresponding to 2016 BC) to the death of the emperor Galerius (AD 311). Fourteen years later Eusebius produced another edition, which extended down to the vicennalia of Constantine (325). On the editions of the Chronika, see Burgess, R. W., “The Dates and Editions of Eusebius's Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica,” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 471–504.Google Scholar

11 On the individual books in the Chronika, the format of the work, and its textual history, see Mosshammer, , Chronicle of Eusebius, 29–83 as well as Burgess's, R. W. “A Chronological Prolegomenon to Reconstructing Eusebius's Chronici Canones: The Evidence of Ps-Dionysius (the Zuqnin Chronicle),” forthcoming in the Canadian Journal for Syriac Studies. Mosshammer translates the title of the second book of the Chronika as Chronological Canons with an Epitome of Universal History both Greek and Nongreek.Google Scholar

12 Kastovr of Rhodes, an historian active in the first century BC.Google Scholar

13 Porphyry of Tyre, a philosopher active in the third century AD.Google Scholar

14 Diodorus Siculus, an historian active in the first century BC.Google Scholar

15 The translation of this particular phrase has been the subject of much dispute. See Croke, Brian, “The Origins of the Christian World Chronicle,” in History and Historians in Late Antiquity, ed. Croke, Brian and Alanna, M. Emmett (Sydney, 1983), 116–31.Google Scholar

16 On the use of Olympiads as the basis of a chronological system, see Ginzel, Friedrich Karl, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1906–14), 2:350–60 and Samuel, Alan Greek and Roman Chronology (Munich, 1972), 189–94.Google Scholar

17 On the early history of the Olympic victor list, see Christesen, , Olympic Victor Lists, chap. 1; Jacoby, Felix Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 14 vols. (Berlin, 1923–58), 3b1:221–28; and Jüthner, Julius Philostratos über Gymnastik (Leipzig, 1909), 60–70. Aristotle numbered the Olympiads for the first time.Google Scholar

18 Mosshammer, , Chronicle of Eusebius, 138–68 and Burgess, R. W. Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Stuttgart, 1999), 28–35.Google Scholar

19 See Christesen, , Olympic Victor Lists, chap. 4.Google Scholar

20 On Panodoros and Annianos, see Adler, William, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Washington, DC, 1989), 72–105 and Adler, William and Tuffin, Paul, eds., The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford, 2002), lv–lix, lxiii–lxix, and the bibliography cited therein. On the textual history of the Chronika, see n. 11.Google Scholar

21 The attribution of the CPG 2600 excerpts to Panodoros goes back to Alfred von Gutschmid. (Gutschmid's comments can be found in Schoene, , Eusebi Chronicorum, 1:242.)Google Scholar

His analysis of the extant fragments of Panodoros's work led Gutschmid to conclude that Panodoros had made heavy use of Sextus Julius Africanus, Dexippos, and Eusebius. The association of what Gutschmid believed to be all of Panodoros's main sources with the excerpts in CPG 2600 was for him decisive. The juxtaposition of Eusebius and Dexippos in the extract remains significant but is not nearly as decisive as the shared textual corruption detailed above, which is not mentioned by Gutschmid.Google Scholar

It is not clear whether Panodoros revised the entirety of the Chronika or only selected portions. Panodoros also wrote a lengthy chronographic study in some sort of association with Annianos. (It has long been thought that Annianos revised Panodoros's work, but there is now a growing body of thought that the reverse was true. On this view, see Blackburn, Bonnie and Holford-Strevens, Leofranc, The Oxford Companion to the Year [Oxford, 1999], 766, 776.) Panodoros's chronographic study is known largely through citations in the work of Synkellos. It seems to have been quite elaborate and to have included not only discussions of chronographic problems, but also tables of lunar and solar motion. It is possible that Panodoros revised only selected portions of the Chronika and incorporated them into his own chronographic study, so that there was but one work, which is the source of the excerpts in CPG 2600. This seems unlikely because the Armenian translators produced a complete text of the Chronika, and they used Panodoros's revised version in at least some places. If Panodoros did not revise the entirety of the Chronika, then the Armenian translators worked with both the original version and with Panodoros's revision in order to produce a complete text. This is, for present purposes, not a significant issue since the Olympic victor list in CPG 2600 almost certainly derives from Panodoros's work.Google Scholar

22 Synkellos refers to a list of stadion victors in the first 248 Olympiads. Either Synkellos erred in recalling the number of victors listed by Eusebius or the number in the relevant section of the text of the Eklogē Chronographias is corrupt.Google Scholar

23 This play is typically known as the Christus Patiens and is now thought to have been written in the eleventh or twelfth century. See Tuilier, André, ed., La Passion du Christ, tragédie (Paris, 1969), 12–18, 38–47. For information on CPG 2600, including a list of contents, see Cramer, Anecdota Graeca (n. 5 above), 2:115–16 and Omont, Henri Auguste Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1898), no. 2600.Google Scholar

24 On the production of Greek manuscripts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see Vranoussis, Leandros, “Post-Byzantine Hellenism and Europe: Manuscripts, Books and Printing Presses,” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 2 (1986): 1–71, at 1–15. See also Bennett, H. S. “The Production and Dissemination of Vernacular Manuscripts in the Fifteenth Century,” The Library 3–4 (1946–47): 167–78.Google Scholar

25 On Souliardos, see Gamillscheg, Ernst, Harlfinger, Dieter, and Hunger, Herbert, Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten, 800–1600, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1981–97), 1a:155–56, 2a:148–49, 3a:173–74; Vogel, Marie and Gardthausen, V. Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1909), 318–20; and Vranoussis, “Post-Byzantine Hellenism,” 1–13. The quotations from Souliardos's colophons are taken from Vranoussis and come from Mutinensis α T.9.6 (40) (C85 [IIIC6]) and Toledo Kapitelsbibliothek 45.30, respectively.Google Scholar

26 On Leonardo Aretino, see Black, Robert, “Leonardo Bruni,” in the Oxford Companion to Italian Literature, ed. Hainsworth, Peter and Robey, David (Oxford, 2002), 86–87.Google Scholar

27 Many of the capital letters are written in red ink. We are grateful to Nadezhda Kavrus-Hoffman for noting the significance of the rubrication in CPG 2600.Google Scholar

28 Most of the watermarks are incomplete because they are in the gutter of the manuscript, and no exact matches for some of the visible watermarks exist in the standard handbooks. Folios 83–90 are watermarked with a bell and cross, which precisely matches Briquet 4060, thus indicating that this paper was produced in Venice in 1491. Other, more tentative matches suggest production in Venice in the last decade of the fifteenth or the first decade of the sixteenth century. There was a substantial regional trade in paper in Italy at this time, so it is entirely possible that Souliardos used Venetian paper while working in Florence or Bologna. The watermark identifications were made by Francis Vian in 1975 and are recorded in the Bibliothèque Nationale's fiches on CPG 2600. (The fiches do not include the name of the person responsible for the watermark identifications. Vian's hand in this work is evident from an article by Enrico Livrea, at whose request Vian examined CPG 2600. See Livrea, Enrico, “Versa una nuova edizione di Trifiodoro: Una lettera inedita di J. F. Boissonade ed il Parisinus Gr. 2600,” Studi classici e orientali 28 [1978]: 49–68, at 65.)Google Scholar

29 The Bibliothèque Nationale's fiches for CPG 2600 date the manuscript to the last decade of the fifteenth or first years of the sixteenth century, though without providing a systematic discussion of the dating evidence.Google Scholar

30 On Vergèce, see Hoefer, M., “Ange Vergèce,” in Nouvelle biographie générale depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à nos jours, avec les renseignements bibliographiques et l'indication des sources à consulter, ed. Hoefer, M. 46 vols. (Paris, 1855–66), 45:1105–6. CPG 2600 is listed as number 152 in Vergèce's catalog. The Greek manuscripts in the royal (and later national) library were repeatedly renumbered. CPG 2600 has previously been identified with the shelfmarks 152, 1082, 1296, and 3244.Google Scholar

31 Manuscripts in most medieval libraries were filed on the basis of format, size, and title. Vergèce's catalog included the information necessary to locate a manuscript in general terms, and the description of the binding helped make it easier to identify the specific manuscript for which one was searching.Google Scholar

32 For the text of Vergèce's note, and information on the acquisition of Greek manuscripts by the French royal library in the sixteenth century, see Omont, Henri Auguste, Catalogues des manuscrits grecs de Fontainebleau sous François I ^er et Henri II (Paris, 1889), i–xxiii and 55.Google Scholar

33 On Scaliger's life and career, see Grafton, Anthony, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1983–93), 1:101–33, 227–29, 2:60–144, 270–75, 361–436, 491–613, and passim, and Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius (n. 7 above), 38–41.Google Scholar

34 For the details of this part of Scaliger's career, see Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger, 2: 536–59.Google Scholar

35 A second, posthumous edition appeared in 1658. The Thesaurus Temporum included a register of Olympic victors compiled by Scaliger. This register was written in Greek and was modeled on similar registers in ancient sources. It was, as a result, frequently mistaken for an authentic, ancient Olympic victor list up through the mid-nineteenth century. On this subject, see Grafton, , Joseph Scaliger, 2: 536–59.Google Scholar

36 Cramer, , Anecdota Graeca (n. 5 above), 2: 115–63.Google Scholar

37 The original edition of Rutger's work was published by Brill. It was reissued by Ares in 1980 (Rutgers, Johannes, Sextus Julius Africanus: Olympionicarum Fasti).Google Scholar

38 Schoene, , Eusebi Chronicorum (n. 4 above), 1:xii.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., 1:ix.Google Scholar

40 See the bibliography cited in nn. 9 and 11 above. See also Burgess, R. W., “Jerome Explained: An Introduction to His Chronicle and a Guide to Its Use,” Ancient History Bulletin 16 (2002): 1–32.Google Scholar

41 Etmekjian, James, History of Armenian Literature: Fifth to Thirteenth Centuries (New York, 1988), 69.Google Scholar

42 On the historical background to the development of Armenian literature, see Etmekjian, , History of Armenian Literature, 9–47. On the genesis of Armenian literature, see Arevshatyan, Sen “Hnaguyn haykakan t'argmanut'yunnerě ev nrants'patmashakut'ayin nshanakut'iuně” (“The Most Ancient Armenian Translations and Their Historical and Cultural Significance”), Patma-banasirakan Handes 1 (1973): 23–37; Arevshatyan, Sen Formirovanie filosofskoi nauki v drevneî Armenii [The Formation of Philosophical Scholarship in Ancient Armenia] (Yerevan, 1973), 34–83; Etmekjian, History of Armenian Literature, 69–81; and Ter-Pétrosian, Lévon Ancient Armenian Translations, trans. Krikor Maksoudian (New York, 1992), 3–46.Google Scholar

43 On the date of the translation of the Ecclesiastical History, see Arevshatyan, , “Hnaguyn,” 26–27 and Ter-Pétrosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 5.Google Scholar

44 Arevshatyan, , Formirovanie filosofskoi nauki, 136–37, 214–15.Google Scholar

45 In the preface to his History, Lazar writes that, “I have perused many works of the former historians of Armenia. After lengthy reading I culled from them the manifold changes …” (2.2, trans. Robert Thomson). Lazar's Armenian phrasing closely echoes the first sentence of the Armenian version of the Chronika. This indicates that Lazar read the Chronika in Armenian and hence that the Chronika had already been translated by the late fifth century. On this point, see Zarbhanalyan, Garegin, Matenadaran Haykakan T'argmanut'yants ‘Nakhneants’1 (Dar IV–XIII) (The Early Armenian Translations of the Matenadaran [IVth to XIIIth centuries]) (Venice, 1889), 442. It is, however, possible that this sentence was a later interpolation, on which point see Sanspeur, C. “Le fragment de l'Histoire de Lazare P'arpi, retrouvé dans le ms 1 de Jérusalem,” Revue des études arméniennes 10 (1973/4): 83–109 and Thomson, Robert W., ed., The History of Lazar P'arpec'i (Atlanta, 1991), 34 n. 9. On Lazar, see Arevshatyan, Formirovanie filosofskoi nauki, 141–94, esp. 192–93; Hairapetian, Srbouhi A History of Armenian Literature (Delmar, NY, 1995), 123–27; and Thomson, History of Lazar P'arpec'i, 1–31.Google Scholar

46 On Movses Khorenats'i, see Avdalbegyan, Tadevos, Hayagitakan Hetadzotut'yunner (Armenian Inquiries) (Yerevan, 1969), 102–31; Arevshatyan, Formirovanie filosofskoi nauki, 18–21, 149–94, 233–41, 254–66; Hairapetian, History of Armenian Literature 139–58; and Thomson, History of Lazar P'arpec'i, 1–61. A list of the places in the History of the Armenians where Movses uses the Chronika can be found in Thomson, History of Lazar P'arpec'i, 32–34.Google Scholar

47 See, for instance, Hairapetian, , History of Armenian Literature, 139–58 and Ter-Pétrosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 19.Google Scholar

48 The inconsistencies are discussed in detail in Toumanoff, Cyril, Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington, DC, 1963), 330–34. See also Thomson, History of Lazar P'arpec'i, 56–61 and Toumanoff, Cyril “On the Date of the Pseudo-Moses of Chorene,” Handes amsoryaw: Baroyakan, Usumnakan, Arvestagitakan 75 (1961): 467–76. For a summary of the scholarly debate, see Etmekjian, History of Armenian Literature, 138–52.Google Scholar

49 Karst, , Die Chronik (n. 6 above), xxxvi–xxxvii. The date suggested by Karst has been widely accepted in non-Armenian scholarship, including Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius (n. 7 above), 59–60.Google Scholar

50 Aucher, , Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis (n. 8 above), vi–ix. The date suggested by Aucher has been widely accepted in the Armenian scholarship. See, for instance, Arevshatyan, “Hnaguyn,” 27; Hairapetian, History of Armenian Literature, 82–87; and Ter-Pétrosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 5–6.Google Scholar

51 Aucher, , Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis, vi–ix. See now also Avdalbegyan, Hayagitakan Hetadzotut'yunner, 112–31.Google Scholar

52 Karst and Schoene both believed this supposition was possible but unprovable (Karst, , Die Chronik, xxxvi and Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum [n. 4 above], 2:xlvi).Google Scholar

53 Peculiarities in the Armenian indicate that the Chronika was translated directly from the Greek. On this subject, see Arevshatyan, , “Hnaguyn” (n. 42 above), 27. On the use of Panodoros's version of the Chronika as the source text for the Armenian translation, see the lucid (but still complex) discussion of the issues in Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, 59–60, 76–79. On Panodoros, see the bibliography cited in n. 20 above.Google Scholar

54 See Ter-Pétrosian, , Ancient Armenian Translations, 18–19. Ter-Pétrosian also points out that these travels were advantageous in another way. There were in the fifth century no bilingual dictionaries. When the Armenian translators ran into serious difficulties, such as complicated expressions or ambiguous words, they consulted living dictionaries, Greek and Syriac vardapets, who could only be found on-site at major libraries.Google Scholar

55 On the participation of multiple Armenian scholars in the translation of individual Syriac and Greek works, see Ter-Pétrosian, , Ancient Armenian Translations, 18–19.Google Scholar

56 The designations used here are loosely based on those established by Petermann in his edition of the Armenian Chronika. Codex E was moved from Tokat to Samaxi to Jerusalem to Istanbul and thence to the patriarchal seat of Echmiatsin in Armenia. When Petermann was working with the Chronika, the manuscript had recently been sent to Echmiatsin, but he was erroneously informed that it had been sent back to Jerusalem. He received a partial transcription of the manuscript from the librarians at Echmiatsin and came to the reasonable but mistaken conclusion that there were two separate manuscripts, one at Echmiatsin, which he designated as Codex E, and one in Jerusalem, which he designated as Codex G. He also had access to an apograph of Codex E that was brought to the Mechitarist library at Venice by P. Nerses. He designated this copy as Codex N. Karst perpetuated the confusion about the number of manuscripts, and it has persisted to this day. (All of these points and the relevant bibliography are treated in detail below.) In the interests of clarity, we have explicitly designated the copies as apographs and have avoided using “G” as an identifier. The 1790 copy of Codex E is too flawed to be of much use. Petermann also saw an unfinished copy of Codex E that Aucher began while in Istanbul.Google Scholar

57 Codex E is both paginated and foliated. We have chosen to use page numbers as referents.Google Scholar

58 On the Armenian manuscripts of the Chronika, see Aucher, , Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis, ix–xiv; Ch'ugaszyan, Babken Geōrg Dpir Palatets'i Keankhě ew Gortsunēut'ean Taregrut'iwn, 1737–1811 (Chronological Data on the Life and Activities of Geōrg Dpir Palatets'i, 1737–1811) (Yerevan, 1994), 89; Djanachian, M. “Les Armenistes et les Mekhitaristes,” in Armeniaca: Mélanges d'études arméniennes, ed. Djanachian, M. (Venice, 1969), 383–445, at 399–400; Drost-Abgarjan, Armenuhi “Ein neuer Fund zur armenischen Version der Eusebius-Chronik,” in Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik, ed. Wallraff, Martin (Berlin, 2006), 255–62; Eganyan, O. Zeyt'unyan, A., and Ant'abyan, P., eds., Mayr Ts'uts'ak Hayeren Dzeragrats' Mashtots'i Anuan Matenadarani (The Main Catalog of the Manuscripts in the Mesrop Mashtots' Matenadaran) (Yerevan, 1965–70), 1904; Mommsen, Theodor “Die armenischen Handschriften der Chronik des Eusebius,” Hermes 30 (1895): 321–38; Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, 41–60; Petermann, H. “Die armenischen Übersetzungen der armenischen Chronik des Eusebius,” Monatsberichte der königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1865): 457–62; and Petermann, H. in Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 2:xlv–lvi.Google Scholar

59 Codex E appeared in an 1863 catalog of manuscripts in the Echmiatsin library with the shelfmark 1684. The catalog erroneously dated it to AD 1695, evidently due to confusion with the preceding entry, which referenced a copy of Eusebius's, Ecclesiastical History. (See Mommsen, , “Die armenischen Handschriften der Chronik,” 322 n. 1.) Careful examinations of photographic reproductions by both Karst and the authors of this article confirm that there is nothing in the manuscript which supports a seventeenth-century date for Codex E.Google Scholar

60 Aucher published a line drawing of the seal, which can be found on page 134 of volume 2 of his edition of the Chronika. For the dates of the Armenian patriarchs in Armenia itself and at Jerusalem, see Burgess, Michael, The Eastern Orthodox Churches: Concise Histories with Chronological Checklists of their Primates (Jefferson, NC, 2005), 63–68, 179–82.Google Scholar

61 Samvel is sometimes identified as Samuel of Ani.Google Scholar

62 Aucher, , ed., Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis (n. 8 above), vi–ix.Google Scholar

63 Petermann in Schoene, , Eusebi Chronicomm, 2:xliv. Petermann also identified several places where Samvel Anets'i gives dates and names drawn from the Chronika that are slightly different from those found in Codex E. He was, as a result, dubious that Samvel used Codex E.Google Scholar

64 On the history of the Armenian church during this period, see Mécérian, Jean, Histoire et institutions de l'église arménienne (Beyrouth, 1965), 109–15.Google Scholar

65 A date much later than the fourteenth century is problematic because Aucher dated the handwriting to the twelfth century.Google Scholar

66 The texts of these notes are supplied by Petermann. The Armenian calendar is based on an era that begins with the equivalent of July 11, 552. See Richards, E. G., Mapping Time: The Calendar and Its History (New York, 1999), 159.Google Scholar

67 Petermann, (in Schoene, , ed., Eusebi Chronicorum [n. 4 above], 2:1–li) supplies details about Apograph N, which is written on paper and consists of 302 pages. The first 230 pages contain the Chronika, the remainder is devoted to the chronicle of Samvel Anets'i. There is also a note on page 230 of Codex N indicating that the chronicle of Samvel was attached to the end of Eusebius's Chronika at the request of Minas, patriarch of Jerusalem. This presents some difficulties since Minas became patriarch of Jerusalem in 1697 (see n. 60). It is, therefore, rather odd to find a description of Minas as archbishop of Amida and a date of 1696 on the final page of the manuscript (p. 302). Some of the answer may lay in difficulties in converting Armenian dates into the Julian equivalents, on which see the previous note.Google Scholar

68 Dpir is sometimes identified as Gevorg Dpir Ter-Hovhannesyan. On Dpir's rediscovery of Codex E, see Ayvazian, Abraham, Shar hay kensagrowt'cants', 3 vols. (Istanbul, 1893), 1:11–73.Google Scholar

69 On the history of the Mechitarists, see Almond, J. C., “Mechitarists,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York, 1907–12), 10:102–3 and Janin, R. “Mékhitaristes,” in DThC, ed. Vacant, A. Mangenot, E., and Amann, É. 15 vols. (Paris, 1909–50), 10:498–502.Google Scholar

70 Dpir had inserted interpolations in the 1790 apograph based upon the Greek fragments of the Chronika published by Scaliger. Aucher detected the interpolations and insisted upon an exact copy of the original manuscript. Zohrab is sometimes identified as Yovhannēs Vardapet Zohrabean.Google Scholar

71 Mai, Angelo and Zohrab, Joannes, eds., Eusebii Pamphili Chronicorum canonum libri duo: Opus ex Haicano codice a Johanne Zohrabo collegii Armeniaci Venetiarum alumno (Milan, 1818).Google Scholar

72 Dr. Gevorg Abgarjan started work on a new edition of the Armenian Chronika in the 1980s but died before bringing it to completion. The project has now been entrusted to his daughter, Dr. Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan of Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Her edition will include the Armenian text of Codex E, a critical apparatus, and an updated version of Karst's German translation and will appear in the Griechische christliche Schriftsteller series at some future date. It will also include an important new collection of excerpts from the Armenian Chronika discovered by Dr. Gevorg Abgarjan in a Matenadaran manuscript (2679) that dates to 981. See Drost-Abgarjan, , “Ein neuer Fund” (n. 58 above). Drost-Abgarjan, Dr. has informed us by personal communication that there is no Olympic victor list in Matenadaran 2679.Google Scholar

73 See Chookaszian, B. L. (Babken Ch'ugaszyan), The Mashtots Matenadaran: A Guidebook, trans. Abdalian, A. (Yerevan, 1980), 8.Google Scholar

74 It was originally catalogued in the Echmiatsin library with the shelfmark 1684, before being moved to the Matenadaran. In the late nineteenth century it bore the shelfmark 1725.Google Scholar

75 Petermann's translation appears in volume 1 of Schoene, , ed., Eusebi Chronicorum.Google Scholar

76 Mommsen, , “Die armenischen Handschriften der Chronik” (n. 58 above).Google Scholar

77 Karst made this explicitly clear in a short note he published in Theologische Literaturzeitung (26: 827–28) in 1911. In that note he offered no defense of his ideas but promised to address the issue in a future publication. He never did so.Google Scholar

78 Dr. Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan reaches a similar conclusion about Karst's work with the Armenian manuscripts of the Chronika in her forthcoming article, “Ein neuer Fund.” Neither we nor Dr. Drost-Abgarjan were aware of each other's researches until just before both “Ein neuer Fund” and this article went to press. We were gratified to find that she shared our reading of the evidence, and we are grateful to Dr. Drost-Abgarjan for sending us an advance copy of her article.Google Scholar

79 The following chart summarizes the relevant examples:Google Scholar

80 The ethnic for the stadion victor in the 219^th Olympiad, Stephanos of Cappadocia, is not transliterated but translated into the Armenian word Ð (qwuhp).Google Scholar

81 It is, therefore, a little ironic that one of the latest known Olympic victors was an Armenian, Varazdat, who won a victory in boxing sometime after 378. See Khorenats'i, Movses, History of Armenia 3.40 and Moretti, Luigi Olympionikai (Rome, 1957), no. 944.Google Scholar

82 In the entry for the 142^nd Olympiad in the Armenian version, Kapros is said to have won the stadion and the pankration (as opposed to the palē and pankration in the Greek version). The scribe seems to have become confused due to the similarity between Kράτβς and KάpIρος and duplicated the word stadion.Google Scholar

83 See Ter-Pétrosian, , Ancient Armenian Translations (n. 42 above), 18–19.Google Scholar

84 Crowther, Nigel B., “Greek Equestrian Events in the Late Republic and Early Empire: Africanus and the Olympic Victory Lists,” Nikephoros 8 (1995): 111–23. On the history of the Olympic Games during the Roman period, including the complex fate of the hippic contests, see Scanlon, Thomas Eros and Greek Athletics (Oxford, 2002), 40–63.Google Scholar