The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK III 165
from the start of the reign of Diocletian up to the death of Zeno and
the proclamation of Anastasius 207 years have elapsed; and from
the sole rule of Augustus 532 years and 7 months; and from the
reign of Alexander of Macedon 832 years with a similar addition of 7
months; and from the Roman kings and Romulus 1052, also plus 7
months; and from the capture of Troy 1686 plus 7 months. 92 This
Anastasius, who had as his homeland Epidamnus, which is now called
Longinus (PLRE II. 689^90, s.v. Longinus 6) had been held captive by Illus for a decade
(cf. n. 87 above), but after his release in 485 he became magister militum praesentalis, and
was consul for a second time in 490.
Anastasius was crowned on 11 April; for the silentiaries, cf. ii n. 116 above. There had
been long deliberations about the succession, until eventually the senate entrusted the decision
to Ariadne; before the coronation, Anastasius had to give a promise of orthodoxy to
Patriarch Euphemius. There is a detailed narrative in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De
Cer. i.92.
92 Theophanes (136:16^20) also marks Zeno’s death with a computation which has one
common element with Evagrius, the years from Diocletian; Theophanes was more concerned
with the annus mundi (cf. Malalas 391:5^6), which was not part of Evagrius’ chronological
scheme. Some writers marked the start of the reign of their contemporary emperor
with a chronological calculation (Malalas on Justinian; Chronicon Paschale on Heraclius),
and Eustathius may well have provided the basis for Evagrius’ reckoning. On the other
hand, the early years of Anastasius’ reign were also a time of eschatological signi¢cance,
since on most calculations the world would soon reach its 6,000th year (Alexander,
Baalbek 118^20), which would also make a chronological summation relevant.
Of the dates, the calculation from the start of Diocletian’s reign (284) is accurate; that for
the sole of rule of Augustus would work out at September 43 BC, which is very close to the
beginning of the Second Triumvirate. The ¢gure for Alexander is suspect, since the interval
between the death of Alexander and the start of Augustus should have been 280 years, not
300; it is likely that either Evagrius, when drawing on Eustathius, or a copyist was distracted
by the Augustan ¢gure (532 giving rise to 832 instead of 812). It can be deduced that the
original version of Malalas agreed with the ¢gures for Diocletian and Augustus, but di¡ered
on Alexander (for which Malalas’ ¢gure is also suspect): see Je¡reys, Studies 116^18.
The calculation for the Roman kings and Romulus is more problematic, since it produces
the year 563 BC; in Malalas the interval between the overthrow of the kings and Augustus
was 482 years (464 consular years plus 18 years for Julius Caesar: 214:1^4; 215:21^216:2),
not 520 as here. At ii.16 (cf. ii n. 151 above) the ¢gure of 1303 years is given for the time
between Romulus and the end of the Western Empire in 476 (i.e. 828 BC for Romulus).
The date for Troy works out as 1197 BC; the most common calculation is equivalent to
1183 BC (R. Rutherford, Homer, Greece and Rome Surveys 26 [Oxford, 1996] 2); Malalas
synchronized the reign of Priam of Troy with that of David of Israel (91:1^2), which would
point to a date about half a century earlier than in Evagrius.
The fact that the last four dates all o¡er a ¢gure for years ‘plus 7 months’ is suspicious;
whoever made the calculations, not knowing the exact dates, decided that all these events