The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

lii
EVAGRIUS
usually capable of reproducing it,but this still left plenty of scope for error
or imprecision. 94 There is only one complicated synchronism, and this is
explicitly attributed to Eustathius, who had used it to mark the start of
Anastasius’ reign: Anastasius is dated by reference to Diocletian,
Augustus, Alexander the Great, Romulus and the capture of Troy
(iii.29), a combination which re£ects the variety of historical and cultural
perspectives that were relevant to Eustathius. Evagrius attempted a
partial imitation to mark the accession of his contemporary emperor,
Maurice, though this is marred by an error in regnal years, since Evagrius
managed to duplicate the period of joint rule between Justin II and
Tiberius, and by the loss from the manuscripts of the ¢gure for the years
from Romulus (v.23). The choice of the years from Romulus might seem
strange for an eastern Roman historian, but this calculation was also
used, appropriately enough, to mark the deposition of the last Roman
emperor, Romulus Augustulus (ii.16), another passage for which
Eustathius is the most obvious source (even if the precise date is corrupt).
Evagrius clearly appreciated its Roman and imperial connotations, and
so followed Eustathius’ practice when constructing his own formula.
The two main dating systems employed by Evagrius are the Antiochene
Era and regnal years, though neither occurs frequently. The Antiochene
Era, often used in conjunction with Macedonian months, is
naturally associated with information derived from Malalas: it is used
to date the earthquake of 468, in conjunction with a regnal year and an
indiction (cf. 3.33: appointment of Severus), Justin I’s accession (iv.1),
the deposition of Severus (iv.4), and Justinian’s appointment as coemperor
(iv.9). 95 The quake of 588 is also dated by its Antiochene year
(vi.18), information for which Evagrius must take full responsibility; it
would appear that the city still used its o⁄cial dating Era and Macedonian
months. Regnal years are more common, being supplied by
Eustathius and Procopius, as well as Malalas (e.g. iii.37, iv.16, 19), and
calculated by Evagrius himself for contemporary events (v.17, 23; vi.24).
Evagrius also reckoned back from the year of composition to date the
Plague (iv.29), a formula which is not immediately comprehensible
94 Though he failed to report accurately Malalas’ date for the 458 earthquake at Antioch
(ii.12 with notes).
95 This follows what Evagrius has marked as the conclusion of his text of Malalas (the
526 quake: iv.5), but could easily have been calculated from the Malalas-based date for
Justin’s accession.