Chronicles

Eusebius did not only create the genre of ecclesiastical history. He can also lay claim to inventing the chronicle, a tabular exposition of human history set out on a year-by-year basis. To construct his chronicle Eusebius was able to utilize and extend a long tradition of Jewish and Hellenistic chronography, especially the works of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, and combine it with an emerging understanding of how to calculate and explain the chronology of the Christian message, particularly in the researches of Hippolytus and Julius Africanus (Inglebert 2001: 464-493). A new perspective resulted. Eusebius began his chronicle with Abraham, thereafter marking off each tenth ‘‘Year of Abraham’’ but also using the Olympiad dating inherited from the Hellenistic chronographers down to the year 325 (originally to ca. 311: Burgess 1997). The chronicle was a complex document structured on successive and parallel ancient kingdoms that were set out across the page until he reached the point where Rome became a single entity, having absorbed what had earlier been the Assyrian, Greek, and Macedonian realms. Between the table of years in the middle of the page was included the text of historical entries for particular years (e. g., ‘‘Sophocles and Euripides were well known’’). These so-called ‘‘canons’’ constitute what we normally label the ‘‘chronicle’’ of Eusebius. However, he prefaced the canons with a discussion of the different sources of information from which they were compiled and with extracts of regnal and other lists which underpinned the ‘‘chronicle’’ (Mosshammer 1979; Croke 1983a).

Eusebius’ bold and striking chronicle involved an apologetic chronology and eschatology, illustrating the unity of history under God’s providence. As Augustine advised (Doct. Christ. 2.14), establishing and elucidating the chronological sequence of biblical events saved Christian scholars a lot of trouble. The chronicle’s usefulness was quickly established. Over time, Eusebius’ chronicle was continued and adapted by later Christian scholars. It was clearly popular at Alexandria, where a continuation was produced in the fourth century (reconstructed by Burgess with Witakowski 1999: 113-306), where in the early fifth century Panodorus addressed what he considered Eusebius’ defects especially by reworking Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology to fill the gap between Adam and Abraham, and where Annianos sought to establish 5500 as the correct date for the creation of the world (Adler 1989,1992). Their works have not survived, nor has the late fourth-century continuation and revision of Eusebius by Diodorus of Tarsus.

Eusebius provided the exemplar for subsequent Armenian and Syriac chronicles (Inglebert 2001: 333-342), just as he did for those writing in Latin and Greek. Among the latter the major work was the Chronographia of John Malalas, who first wrote in the 530s at Antioch and updated his work at Constantinople after the death of Justinian in 565. Recent research on Malalas (Jeffreys with Croke and Scott 1990; Jeffreys 2003) has centered on interpreting his chronicle as a whole, thereby delineating its chronographical core and its strong connections with contemporary literary and intellectual culture. Malalas probably modeled himself on earlier lost chroniclers (Croke 1990) in constructing a detailed narrative organized, in the later books, by successive imperial reigns. The chronicle of Malalas exerted considerable influence on the later Byzantine chronicle tradition, as well as on the Syriac and Slavonic traditions. The earliest of the extant chronicles to use Malalas was the Chronicon Paschale in the seventh century, followed by a long gap.

The influence of Eusebius’ chronicle on western historiography was arguably greater than in the East, assisted no doubt by the importance accorded it in the two key manuals for medieval readers, namely the Institutiones of Cassiodorus (sixth century) and the Etymologies of Isidore (above, p. 572). In ca. 380 the chronicle was edited and translated into Latin by Jerome, who added extra entries related to Roman history which he considered Eusebius had treated too cursorily, then he continued the work down to 378 (Inglebert 1996: 217-280; Burgess 2000). Jerome’s chronicle became the stem of all western chronography and chronicle writing for well over a millennium. As with Eusebius’ chronicle, Jerome’s was easy to adapt. In fact, the author himself even made alterations to later copies of his work.

Jerome’s chronicle was copied and utilized immediately by, among others, Paulinus of Nola (Epp. 3.3, 28.5) and Augustine in his City of God. The chronicle was itself continued, simplified, and adapted by successive authors (Cardelle de Hartmann 2000). In Cassiodorus’ guide to monastic reading he singled out two for particular mention, Prosper and Marcellinus (Inst. 1.16), which explains why so many manuscripts of their chronicles have survived. Prosper produced several versions of his chronicle (to 433, 445, and 455). His focus was on theology and included engaging with heresies (Muhlberger 1990: 73-135). Marcellinus, an official of the general Justinian during the reign of his uncle Justin (518-527), wrote his continuation of Jerome in 518/9 and updated it in 534 (Croke 1995, 2001a, 2001b). He was preoccupied with recording events at Constantinople and in his native Illyricum. The chronicle displays a strong orthodox standpoint, plus support for effective military resistance to the invading Goths, Huns, Bulgars, and others. There are several anonymous continuations of Prosper in manuscripts of his chronicle, while Marcellinus was continued by another writer to the early 550s or so (Croke 2001a: 216-236).

The most renowned of Prosper’s continuators was Victor of Tunnuna, an African bishop writing in exile in Constantinople in the late 560s, who was himself continued by John of Biclar, once resident in the imperial capital but writing in Spain (Cardelle de Hartmann 2002). Jerome’s chronicle was also continued separately by others, most notably by Hydatius in Spain (Burgess 1993) and Marius of Avenches (Favrod 1993), as well as two Gallic chroniclers known, by the year the chronicle ends in the relevant manuscript, as the ‘‘Chronicler of 452’’ (Muhlberger 1990: 126-192; Burgess 2001a) and the ‘‘Chronicler of 511’’ (Burgess 2001b). All these chronicles adapt the format of Jerome and Prosper to suit their circumstances by, for example, employing regnal years (Prosper, Hydatius, Chron.452, John), years of Christ (Prosper), consuls (Marcellinus, Victor, Marius, John), indictions (Marcellinus), or Olympiads (Hydatius, Chron.452). Recent studies of individual chroniclers have highlighted their significant literary and educational background. The writers of chronicles were generally scholars, bishops, and bureaucrats. They wrote for their peers and saw themselves as providing a useful summary of events, generally linked to the wider story of human history. We now have a fuller understanding of their chronological systems, their sources and how they were deployed, as well as their world view, their particular local emphases, and their understanding of providential causality in events. Above all, the late antique chronicles are no longer dismissed as inferior historiographical narratives reflecting the limited horizons of authors and readers.

After three hundred years, by the early seventh century the chronicle had become the most popular historiographical genre throughout the Christian world, from Ireland to Persia, although the ‘‘chronicle’’ nomenclature and the boundaries of the genre had become fluid. Chronicles were being written, copied, and extended by writers in Latin, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. Several known chronicles are completely lost. Except for Jerome, Prosper, Marcellinus, and to a lesser extent Hydatius, most of the late antique chronicles are preserved in a single manuscript. In addition, there are other extant chronicle fragments and excerpts preserved in manuscripts and papyri, dating from the fifth to the fifteenth century. Given the chronicle’s intrinsic flexibility and adaptability, each manuscript was potentially a unique chronicle. Recent research has revolutionized understanding of the chronicles, not least because of the attention to particular chronicle manuscripts. It has provided the basis for further investigations into the relationship between chronicles in Greek and Syriac, Greek and Latin, as well as for comprehensive study of the chronicle genre as a whole.