Varona


 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 2018 Patricia Varona 
 
 
 
 

Chronology and History in Byzantium 
Patricia Varona 

HRONOLOGY is not only the technique of measuring 
time, but also a traditional form of historical writing with 
a particularly venerable lineage. It was intensively culti-

vated in Antiquity and the Middle Ages until the emergence of 
modern historiography in the eighteenth century, when it 
definitively declined. It is also at the core and very origin of 
historiography, which provides chronological specifications to 
all types of stories using various sources as a basis for further de-
velopments. Although chronology is very ancient as a historical 
form, it developed greatly with the emergence of Christianity. It 
became an important vehicle of religious polemics, imposed and 
developed the chronological framework of the Bible with 
apologetic and polemic goals, and reached the very top of most 
cultivated historical forms. However, we are so permeated with 
the historiographical thought produced by nineteenth-century 
positivism that we have difficulties in recognising chronology as 
an important pre-modern form of historical writing using 
techniques, methods, and assumptions that can be seen as 
fundamental for the study of historiography.1 Yet our mentality 
is not the sole difficulty posed by the study of ancient and 
medieval historical chronology. 

Compared with historiography, chronological writing de-
velops against a wider background than human affairs, and it 
focuses on the order of events and the time intervals between 
them, rather than on their internal development, their meaning, 

 
1 See for this J. W. Johnson, “Chronological Writing: Its Concepts and 

Development,” History and Theory 2 (1962) 124–145; P. Daffina, “Senso del 
tempo e senso della storia: computi cronologici e storicizzazione del tempo,” 
RSO 61 (1987) 1–71. 

C 



390 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

or their causes. It is bound, therefore, to conceptions of historio-
graphical practice that radically differ from ours. It is well known 
that modern scientific historiography relegated chronology to 
the field of antiquarism—if not to cosmogony and theogony—
and made from what had been a living genre a dead	object of 
study. The duration of events or periods and their succession do 
not require a continous narrative to be properly presented, so 
chronology adopts formats radically different from those of 
history, such as tables and synoptic charts. Numbers are, of 
course, at the core of chronological writing, but they are particu-
larly susceptible to textual corruption. Mathematical astronomy 
is closely related to chronology, but it is outside of the formal 
definition of the historiographical genre. Chronology has been 
considered as the main historiographical technique of the 
Western middle ages; but what about the Greek-speaking world?  

To my knowledge, the only survey on Byzantine historical 
writing which pays attention to these texts is that of Karpozilos, 
including an interesting chapter on “short chronicles, their 
sources and prototypes.”2 Apart from this valuable contribution, 
Russian scholars have been the most concerned with these texts. 
The work of Samodurova is the best evidence I know for their 
importance and their extensive presence in the Byzantine manu-
script heritage.3 However, an important problem posed by their 
study is the lack of modern or reliable editions and quite often 
the lack of any edition at all. Within the field of Byzantine 
studies, the study of historical writing has focused on narrative 
genres and forms since the seminal work of Krumbacher. He 
rightly described several chronological forms as non-literary 
texts, but this assessment had a quite negative impact on the 
study of Byzantine chronological writing. In a brief chapter, 
 

2 “Σύντοµα χρονικά, οἱ πηγὲς καὶ τὰ πρωτότυπα τους,” in A. Karpozilos, 
Βυζαντινοὶ ἱστορικοὶ καὶ χρονογράφοι II (Athens 2002) 529–611. 

3 Z. G. Samodurova, “Малые византийские хроники и их источники,” 
VV 27 (1967) 153–161; “Краткая византйская хроника VI в. и её версии. 
К вопросу о протооригинале малих древних хроник,” in Вспо-
могательные исторические дисциплины 21 (1990) 238–247. 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 391 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

Krumbacher included many different works which in his opin-
ion shared a non-literary nature and a relative value because of 
their connection with major historical works, but he did not ana-
lyse or classify them.4 As these are non-literary works, Hunger 
excluded them from his handbook, and so did the few mono-
graphs on Byzantine historiography that came after it.5 As a 
consequence, there are no specific studies on Byzantine chrono-
logical writing after that of Gelzer—mostly outdated and focused 
not on Byzantine chronological writing but on reconstructing 
Africanus’ chronography from Byzantine evidence—although 
its use as a source by relevant chroniclers such as Theophanes 
Confessor has been often highlighted.6 

Chronological writing adopts different forms provided with 
their own specific characteristics. From the viewpoint of 
historical genres they can be considered as chronicle subgenres, 
because chronology is the structuring element of the chronicle 
genre, contrary to the predominantly narrative structures of 
historiography.7 Many medieval chroniclers, both Greek and 
Latin, worked in this mode, logically considering chronology to 

 
4 “Chronikenauszüge, geschichtliche Tabellen und Verwandtes,” in K. 

Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur2 (Munich 1897) 395–399. 
5 H. Hunger, Der hochsprachliche Profanliteratur der Byzantiner (Munich 1978). 

A. P. Kazhdan, A History of Byzantine Literature (650–850) (Athens 1999) 206, 
explicitly states that the work of George Syncellus “is not a literary work in 
the proper sense of the word. Rather, it belongs to what we may call scientific 
prose.” W. Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians (Basingstoke 2013), 
devotes a chapter to Syncellus without any particular treatment of chrono-
logical writing.  

6 H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie II.1 (Leip-
zig 1885). A “succint chronological compendium of rulers and the bishops of 
the five patriarchal sees” is the first source mentioned in the survey of 
Theophanes’ sources delineated by C. Mango and R, Scott, The Chronicle of 
Theophanes Confessor (Oxford 1997) lxxiv–lxxv. 

7 For the definition of the chronicle genre and its subgenres, I adopt the 
classification by R. W. Burgess and M. Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time I The Latin 
Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD (Turnhout 
2013) 8–62. A chronicle is an annalistic account of history, typically brief.  
 



392 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

be an essential aspect of historical writing.8 In this article I pro-
pose a review of the classification of these texts and an overview 
of the chronographical subgenre, focusing particularly on its 
functional aspects and on its historical contextualization. The 
extremely difficult problems posed by its tradition and trans-
mission should be matter for future research. 
1.  Antecedents and sources of Byzantine chronological writing: 

background and genres  
Chronographies are chronological compendia including 

mostly chronological summaries (supputationes), genealogies, or 
regnal lists.9 They are often confusedly called “short chronicles” 
or “succinct chronologies.” The form of pinax, catalogue, or 
list—which surely made up the most ancient form of the 
chronicle genre—was cultivated continuously since Antiquity 
and received a definitive impulse at the hands of the Hellenistic 
scholars, with a marked emphasis on its comparative element, 
which was taken up by Jewish and Christian chroniclers, and 
very especially by Eusebius of Caesarea.10 These lists present 
problems of definition and transmission which make it im-
possible to reconstruct a supposed original or genuine prototype, 
but they are essential as chronological sources and also reveal 
particular conceptions of history.11 

 
8 Among many others, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Castor of Rhodes, Eu-

sebius of Caesarea, the Venerable Bede, and James of Edessa. 
9 See Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time I 8–62. See also A. A. Moss-

hammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg 
1979) 85, where he distinguishes between a wider sense of “chronography” 
(record of historical events precisely dated in terms of absolute chronology) 
and a stricter sense (process by which the absolute dates of the events are 
established). 

10 It is what J. Howard-Johnston, “The Chronicle and Other Forms of 
Historical Writing in Byzantium,” in I. Afanasyev et al. (eds.), The Medieval 
Chronicle X (Leiden 2016) 1–22, at 2, calls “the list,” recognizing that it is truly 
the nucleus of the chronicle in its original form, as issued by Africanus and 
Eusebius, although in fact it is much earlier and even trascends historiogra-
phy.  

11 As recently observed by J. Dillery, Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 393 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

In his famous Περὶ χρονογραφιῶν, which was in fact a 
chronicle, Eratosthenes of Cyrene (ca. 285–194 B.C.) collected 
these lists, notably those of Olympic victors and Spartan kings, 
and combined them with a single abstract time line provided by 
the Olympiads, linearly numbered and subdivided into four-
year periods. For that reason Eratosthenes, a polymath with a 
mathematical and astronomical background, is justly recognized 
as the father of chronology, having attached for the first time 
Greek history to an absolute temporal grid from the fall of Troy 
to Alexander’s death. The chronological tools he used were 
mainly two, both with a long tradition in Greek historiography, 
the interval (διάστηµα) between major events and the syn-
chronism, both essential in bridging the gap between different 
chronological systems.12 After him, the advantages of a unified 
chronological system were increasingly evident, so his chro-
nology was improved and expanded backwards and forwards. 
Apollodorus of Athens and then Castor of Rhodes developed its 
expansion down to 61 B.C., when Castor finished his chronicle 
for the reigns of Assyria, Media, Lydia, Persia, Macedonia, 
Athens, and Sicyon, as of the reigns of Ninus and Aegialeus.13  

The lists included in the chronicles of Eratosthenes, Apollo-
dorus, and Castor preceded the most influential of these lists, the 
 
(Ann Arbor 2015) 56–58, particularly that of royal continuity and succession. 

12 For the concept of interval in Greek chronography see S. Mazzarino, Il 
pensiero storico classico III (Rome/Bari 1966) 436–438. Although the notion of 
synchronism is relevant already in Greek classical historiography, its sys-
tematization and diffusion are most often attributed to Timaeus: see D. 
Asheri, “The Art of Synchronization in Greek Historiography: The Case of 
Timaeus of Tauromenium,” SCI 11 (1991/2) 52–89. 

13 For the influence of the chronologies of Eratosthenes and Castor on later 
chronographers see E. Schwartz, “Die Königslisten des Eratosthenes und 
Kastor mit Excursen über die Interpretationen bei Africanus und Eusebius,” 
AbhGött 40 (1894/5) 1–96. For the relevance of Assyria in the establishment 
of the chronological framework of Graeco-Roman history, see R. Drews, 
“Assyria in Classical Universal Histories,” Historia 14 (1965) 129–142. This 
explains why Eusebius and Jerome placed Assyria in their first filum, while the 
later Armenian translation of Eusebius placed there instead Hebrew history.  
 



394 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

so-called Royal Canon attributed to Claudius Ptolemy (ca. 100–
ca. 170)—also called “astronomical,” “mathematical,” or “Ptol-
emaic”—and developed by Alexandrian astronomers following 
an ancient Babylonian practice.14 However, the Royal Canon is 
a regnal list not found in a historiographical work, but in a 
mathematical one. Mathematical tables contained in the 
Μαθηµατικὴ σύνταξις (Almagest) of Ptolemy were additionally 
included in a separate work provided with a handbook, the 
Πρόχειροι κανόνες (Handy Tables), which in turn usually included 
the Royal Canon (τὸ προκανόνιον τῆς τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐποχῆς 
βασιλείων χρονογραφίας) among other tables of different 
kinds.15 Originally compiled as a canon of Babylonian kings, it 
has been suggested to have been adapted and translated into 
Greek by the Greek-speaking Babylonian historian Berossos.16 
The Royal Canon was conceived for astronomical purposes, as 
it was used by astronomers to date singular astronomical phe-

 
14 See O. Neugebauer, “ ‘Years’ in Royal Canons,” in A Locust’s Leg. Studies 

in honour of S. H. Taqizadeh (London 1962) 209–212; L. Depuydt, “ ‘More 
Valuable than All Gold’: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and Babylonian Chro-
nology,” JCS 47 (1995) 97–117; M. Roueché, “Stephanus the Alexandrian 
Philosopher, the Kanon and a Seventh-Century Millennium,” JWarb 74 
(2011) 1–30; A. A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the 
Christian Era (Oxford 2008) 17–18, 174–178: R. Mercier, Ptolemaiou Procheiroi 
Kanones. Ptolemy’s Handy Tables 1b (Leuven 2011) 64–72.  

15 The extant Handy Tables, apart from the handbook of Ptolemy itself, 
included many tables incorporated into this tradition at different stages of 
transmission. In her edition, Ptolemaiou Procheiroi Kanones. Ptolemy’s Handy Tables 
1a (Leuven 2011), A. Tihon distinguishes between astronomical tables 
(original to Ptolemy), tables of the Byzantine age (which she attributes to 
Stephen of Alexandria), chronological tables (the Royal Canon, mentioned 
by Ptolemy, often accompanied by other chronological tools such as lists of 
consuls and hemerologies), geographical tables (lists of illustrious towns, men-
tioned by Ptolemy), and supplementary ones (varied material added over the 
centuries).  

16 For Claudius Ptolemy and his influence see A. Tihon, “L’astronomie 
byzantine,” Byzantion 51 (1981) 603–624. For Berossos as the likely inter-
mediary between the Babylonian tradition and the Greek one see Mercier, 
Ptolemaiou Procheiroi Kanones 69. 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 395 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

nomena, but it became an essential chronological tool because 
it provided absolute dates on an astronomical basis. It was 
particularly useful for converting regnal years to absolute dates, 
because it contained the names of the kings (1st column) with the 
length of each reign (2nd column). It also included the basics for 
synchronic chronologies, incorporating the kings of Babylonia, 
Persia, “Macedonia” (i.e. the Alexandrian Ptolemies), and 
Rome, not in parallel columns, but listed in succession—as well 
as the totals from the beginning of counting (years according to 
the era) (3rd column). The counting of years starts again from the 
reign of Philip Arrhidaeus, so the canon can be used both with 
the mathematical tables of the Almagest (based on the era of Na-
bonassar) and the Handy Tables (based on the era of Philip).17 In 
sum, by using the Royal Canon anyone could calculate the 
number of years (in the era of Philip) for any date, adding the 
regnal year of the ruler under whose reign the event occurred to 
the running total of his predecessor.18  

Thus, the Royal Canon was an important reference tool for 
history which remained useful regardless of debates about the 
era, a sequence of years reckoned from a definite point of time 
(ἐποχή) that provided the series in which the consular or regnal 
years must be grouped in order to obtain a time-line covering 
the whole of history until the present day, since the years of the 
era of Philip could be easily converted to years of any other era, 
most commonly to years of the era of the world, counting from 
Creation. The debate over the origins of humanity had been 
initiated by the Hellenistic chronographers of Alexandria and 
extended by the Jews, with the support of biblical traditions, giv-
ing rise to the establishment of an annus Adami.19 The Christian 
chronographers, for their part, undertook the task of under-

 
17 Theon of Alexandria incorporated into this chronological scheme the 

era of Diocletian. 
18 See Roueché, JWarb 74 (2011) 12–13. 
19 See B. Z. Wacholder, “Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World 

Chronicles,” HThR 61 (1968) 451–481. 
 



396 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

pinning a unified chronology of the history of humanity ab origine 
mundi and resolving some chronological doubts essential from 
their point of view, leading to the creation of the chronological 
system of the world eras, based on the calculation of the total 
length of history and of the Paschal date.20 Essential contribu-
tions to this debate were provided by Clement of Alexandria 
(192)—with the precedents of Tatian (post 177) and Theophilus 
of Antioch (ca. 180)—and also by Julius Africanus (ca. 170–240), 
Hippolytus (ca. 170–236), and Eusebius (ca. 260–339).21 From 
an eschatological point of view, Eusebius significantly opposed 
the approaches of his two most celebrated predecessors, Afri-
canus and Hippolytus, who had incorporated millenarianism 
into the Greek chronicle tradition and according to whom Christ 
had been born in A.M. 5500 and the world would exist for six 
thousand years.22 

In his Chronography, Eusebius collected and revised the work of 
Eratosthenes, Apollodorus, and Castor—as Julius Africanus had 

 
20 On the relationship between world era and Paschal computus see V. 

Grumel, La chronologie (Paris 1958); Mosshammer, Easter Computus; C. Philipp 
and E. Nothaf, Dating the Passion. The Life of Jesus and the Emergence of Scientific 
Chronology (200–1600) (Leiden 2011). 

21 H. Inglebert, Interpretatio Christiana. Les mutations des savoirs (cosmographie, 
géographie, ethnographie, histoire) dans l’Antiquité (Turnhout 2001) 302–342; R. W. 
Burgess, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Stuttgart 1999) 79–
84; M. Wallraff, “The Begininnings of Christian Universal History from 
Tatian to Julius Africanus,” ZAC 14 (2010) 540–555. 

22 Eusebius could invoke Scriptural arguments: “It’s not for you to know 
the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). 
Historiographical treatment of millenarianism seems to have been inaugu-
rated by Hippolytus in his Commentary on Daniel (ca. 204) and was popularized 
by Africanus. For more on this see R. Landes, “Lest the Millennium Be Ful-
filled: Apocalyptic Expectations and the Pattern of Western Chronography 
100–800 CE,” in W. Verbeke et al. (eds.), The Use and Abuse of Eschatology in the 
Middle Ages (Leuven 1988) 137–211, at 144–149. See also W. Adler, “Eu-
sebius’ Critique of Africanus,” in M. Wallraff (ed.), Julius Africanus und die 
christliche Weltchronistik (Berlin 2006) 147–157, esp. 154–155; O. Andrei, 
“Dalla Chronographiai di Giulio Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito’. Un dibattito 
sulla scrittura cristiana del tempo,” 113–146 in the same volume.  
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 397 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

done before him and probably using Africanus as the main 
source for their works23—summarizing the results in his Chronici 
canones by presenting them in parallel columns and using three 
chronological systems: the world era (from Abraham), the 
Olympiads, and the regnal years.24 Drawing on his Jewish and 
Christian predecessors, Eusebius’ work covered the whole of his-
tory from Abraham until A.D. 325.25 Contrary to their Western 
counterparts, Greek chronographers and chroniclers received 
the legacy of both syntaxeis of his work, but, as we shall see, they 
used them mainly as a compendium of regnal lists which 
preserved their chronological and practical value despite the 
controversy arising from Eusebius’ figures and his chrono-
graphical theses.26  

In the Chronographia, which Jerome (ca. 347–419) did not trans-
late into Latin, Eusebius analysed the different chronological 
systems and included summarized regnal lists (series regum) or-
ganized into five groups: Chaldeans, Hebrews, Egyptians, 

 
23 See M. Wallraff, Iulius Africanus Chronographiae. The Extant Fragments (Berlin 

2007) xxxi n.73. 
24 Castor is also credited with writing a chronography, a Kanon sum-

marizing his chronological data, which is mentioned by Eusebius. See P. 
Christesen, Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History (Cambridge 2007) 311–
322. As is well known, the only remains of the chronicle of Eusebius are 
Jerome’s Latin translation (of its second book, the Chronici canones), an 
Armenian translation, various Syriac epitomes, and a series of indirect 
testimonies in Greek, the importance and authenticity of which have been 
much discussed. 

25 For these precedents see in particular Wacholder, HThR 61 (1968) 451–
481, and L. Grabbe, “Chronography in Hellenistic Jewish Historiography,” 
Society of Biblical Literature: Seminar Papers 2 (1979) 43–68. For an introduction 
to Christian chronology and the different proposals see J. Finnegan, Handbook 
of Biblical Chronology2 (Peabody 1998). 

26 See D. J. Wilcox, The Measure of Times Past. Pre-Newtonian Chronologies and 
the Rhetoric of Relative Time (Chicago 1987) 107. See P. Varona, 
“Chronographical Polemics in Ninth-century Constantinople. George Syn-
kellos, Iconoclasm and the Greek Chronicle Tradition,” Eranos 108 (2018) 
117–136, for the polemics concerning Eusebius’ chronographical theses. 
 



398 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

Greeks, and Romans, following Africanus’ model. On the other 
hand, the Chronici canones were tables containing the complete 
chronology of some 2400 years of history of the main peoples of 
Antiquity, displayed on double pages in the initial part of the 
account, in columns arranged by the sequence of years (fila 
regnorum) and with brief historical notes between them, a sort of 
summary of the Chronographia in visual format.27  

In the first part, the fila regnorum would be only four—Hebrew, 
Assyria, Sicyon, and Egypt; as of 1204 ab Abrahamo they would 
have been extended to nine—Media, Judah, Israel, Athens, 
Rome, Sparta, Macedonia, Corinth, and Egypt;28 but in the last 
part of the work, with the disappearance of the Hellenistic 
monarchies, the columns were reduced to a single one, that of 
Rome. The left column presents the succession of monarchies in 
a way that resembles Ptolemy’s Royal Canon—Assyria, Media, 
Persia, Macedonia, Rome, according to the theory of the trans-
latio imperii, already very popular in Greek historiography.29 The 
synoptic format of the Canones became meaningless once the 
chronicle genre lost its apologetic function, since its main pur-
pose was to compare the historical development of civilizations.  

From the fourth to eighth century a series of chronographers 
and computists continued Eusebius’ work and questioned his 
chronological arguments,30 carefully studied by the leading 

 
27 For a reconstruction of this format see Mosshammer, The Chronicle of 

Eusebius 27. See also A. Grafton and M. Williams, Christianity and the Trans-
formation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge 
[Mass.] 2006). 

28 In fact, Eusebius collected the history of nineteen reigns of Antiquity—
Assyrians, Hebrews, Sicyonians, Egyptians, Argives, Athenians, Mycenaeans, 
Latins, Lacedemonians, Corinthians, Medes, Macedonians, Lydians, Roman 
kings, Persians, Ptolemies, Antigonids, Seleucids, Roman emperors—syn-
chronously coinciding up to a maximum of nine. See Burgess, Studies in 
Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography 21. 

29 See U. Roberto, Le Chronographiae di Sesto Giulio Africano (Rome 2011) 
114–120, for the likely influence of Africanus in disseminating this idea.  

30 It is possible that in the fourth century some of them epitomized and 
combined the works of Africanus and Eusebius. See W. Adler, “The Origins 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 399 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

scholars of the work of Eusebius and its transmission, such as 
Diodorus of Tarsus (†390), Panodorus (fl. 395–408), Annianus 
(fl. 388–412), Andronicus (fl. 527–565), or James of Edessa 
(†708).31 Evagrius Scholasticus attributed a computation in-
cluded in his account of the rise of Anastasius (491) to Eustathius 
of Epiphaneia, author of a chronicle epitome up to 503. In this 
computation he refuted Annianus’ calculations, perhaps in order 
to ward off the chiliastic effects of Alexandrian chronology, 
which situated the start of the sixth millennium under the reign 
of Anastasius by dating Creation at 5492 B.C., in line with 
Malalas.32 The computations included in a fragment analysed 

 
of the Proto-Heresies: Fragments from a Chronicle in the First Book of Epi-
phanius’ Panarion,” JThS 41 (1990) 472–501. 

31 For Diodorus of Tarsus, briefly mentioned by Elias of Nisibis and James 
of Edessa, see M. Debié, L’écriture de l’histoire en syriaque (Leuven 2015) 224–
225; Suda s.v. Διόδωρος. For Africanus and the Alexandrian chroniclers see 
Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus 190–297; W. Adler, Time Immemorial. Archaic His-
tory and its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus 
(Washington 1989) 72–105; and Mosshammer, The Easter Computus. For gen-
eral critiques of Eusebius see Adler, “Eusebius’ Chronicle and Its Legacy,” in 
H. W. Attridge and G. Hata (eds.), Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (Detroit 
1992) 467–491, at 484–486; and W. Witakowski, “The Chronicle of Eu-
sebius: Its Type and Continuation in Syriac Historiography,” Aram 11–12 
(1999–2000) 419–437, at 433–437. For the mysterious Andronicus, see Debié 
324–326 and 516–520, who considered him a possible candidate for the 
translation of Eusebius into Syriac; and D. Serruys, “Les canons d’Eusèbe, 
d’Annianos, et d’Andronicus d’après Élie de Nisibe,” BZ 22 (1913) 1–36, at 
28–35. According to Elias of Nisibis, Andronicus used Annianus for his 
Paschal tables but disagreed with the exact dates in Annianus and Eusebius 
for the biblical patriarchs. See K. Van Bladel, The Arabic Hermes. From Pagan 
Sage to Prophet of Science (Oxford 2009) 140 and n.76, for this and for why it is 
more likely that he wrote in Greek than in Syriac, pace Witakowski 435–436. 
James of Edessa accepted the Paschal tables of Annianus and Andronicus and 
joined them in their criticism of Eusebius (Van Bladel).  

32 Evagrius HE 3.29. For Eustathius in general see P. Allen, “An Early 
Epitomator of Josephus: Eustathius of Epiphaneia,” BZ 81 (1988) 1–11; B. 
Croke, “Byzantine Chronicle Writing,” in E. Jeffreys, B. Croke, and R. D. 
Scott (eds.), Studies in John Malalas (Sydney 1990) 27–54, at 35–36; R. 
Blockley, “The Development of Greek Historiography: Priscus, Malchus, 
 



400 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

by Pauline Allen, an epitome of Flavius Josephus preserved in 
the Paris.gr. 1555A and attributed to Εὐσταθίου ἐπιφανέως 
συρίας, seem to confirm the chronological reputation of Eu-
stathius, in accordance with Malalas’ description, ὁ σοφώτατος 
χρονογράφος, but he says this also of Diodorus, Pausanias, 
Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Africanus, Eusebius, and the un-
known Domninus and Nestorius, among others.33 Although 
there is minimal evidence regarding this, we should consider the 
possibility that Eustathius created a strictly chronographic work 
from which subsequent chroniclers would remove its most tech-
nical parts, adapting them as a source of historical breviaries. 

It is essential to link the regnal lists with the consular fasti in 
order to fully identify the chronological sources of Byzantine 
historiography and to trace their development. Eusebius’ Chro-
nici canones were not only translated into Latin by Jerome, as is 
well known, but were adapted and continued by him between 
326 and 378 with the help of other materials, including con-
sularia.34 Part of the material from the Latin chronicles that 
followed his work also originated from consularia, one of the 
most important historical sources for the fourth and fifth 
centuries.35 The consularia have been defined as a chronicle sub-

 
Candidus,” in G. Marasco (ed.), Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity 
(Leiden 2003) 289–316, at 289–290; W. Treadgold, “The Byzantine World 
Histories of John Malalas and Eustathius of Epiphania,” The International 
History Review 29 (2007) 709–745, at 725–745, and The Early Byzantine His-
torians (New York 2007) 114–120; D. Brodka, “Eustathios von Epiphaneia 
und das Ende des Weströmischen Reiches,” JÖB 56 (2006) 59–78.  

33 Paris.gr. 1555A ff. 5–7; Malalas 16.9.15; Allen, BZ 81 (1988) 1–11. See 
recently P. Van Nuffelen, “Malalas and the Chronographic Tradition,” in L. 
Carrara et al. (eds.), Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas: Quellenfragen (Stuttgart 
2017) 261–272, for a reinterpretation of the preface of Malalas as real evi-
dence of the Greek chronography of the fourth-fifth centuries. 

34 For Jerome’s chronicle see R. W. Burgess, “Jerome Explained: An Intro-
duction to his Chronicle and a Guide to its Use,” AHB 16 (2002) 1–32.  For 
Eusebius see Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius; Burgess, Studies in Eusebian 
and Post-Eusebian Chronography.  

35 See S. Muhlberger, The Fifth-Century Chroniclers (Leeds 1990) 23–47, for 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 401 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

genre of a sub-literary kind and of Latin origin, characterized by 
the extremely concise presentation of the historical events, fol-
lowing the fasti pattern, in the style of expanded fasti structured 
by consular dates. They were, in sum, chronicles using consul-
ships as the only system of dating.36 They converged with the 
emergence of the Latin chronicle that was inaugurated by 
Jerome, and over the fourth century they were, in parallel with 
Jerome, the most important expression of the Latin chronicle 
tradition. As we shall see, they were also one of the main chrono-
logical sources for both the Greek and Latin chronicles, sources 
which we know mostly indirectly via the chronicles.37  

The popularity of these consularia in Constantinople, which 
received them from Rome on the occasion of the Constantinian 
refoundation, has been sufficiently demonstrated. They were 
continuously copied and updated since approximately 370, and 
also translated into Greek, updated and continued into the early 
sixth century. As attested by the Paschal Chronicle,38 the last 
historical work having its chronology based on consular dates, at 

 
an introduction, and the forthcoming work by Burgess and Kulikowski, 
Mosaics of Time II The Earliest Chronicles and the Consularia Traditions.  

36 See R. W. Burgess, The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantino-
politana (Oxford 1993), esp. 175–207, and Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of 
Time I 60, 173–187; R. S. Bagnall et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (At-
lanta 1987) 47–57; J. Rüpke, “Geschichtsschreibung in Listenform: Beamten-
listen unter römischen Kalendern,” Philologus 141 (1997) 65–85. More briefly, 
see R. W. Burgess, “Consularia and Fasti,” Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle 
I (Leiden 2010) 486. 

37 The Descriptio consulum is a list of consuls from 509 B.C. to A.D. 468, 
including numerous historical annotations. It survives in the ninth-century 
manuscript containing the chronicle of Hydatius. See Burgess, The Chronicle of 
Hydatius 175–186. Its first recension is considered the most ancient evidence 
for the existence of consularia in the manuscript transmission. Its Con-
stantinopolitan recension has been traced back to at least the beginning of 
the decade of 350, given that as of 356 entries related to events in Con-
stantinople were included in the text. 

38 The title is misleading, because this work is not a “paschal chronicle” in 
itself, that is, a chronicle structured as a paschal table. 
 



402 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

least until the seventh century Greek chronicles relied in part on 
consularia, as this type of source provided them with essential 
chronological data. However, the relevance of these sources and 
their definition itself in the context of the Greek chronicle 
tradition have been masked by their interpretation as “city 
chronicles.”39 Scholars have pointed out that the Paschal Chron-
icle, the Fasti Hydatiani,	and the chronicle by Marcellinus share 
serious mistakes not expectable in official registers, mistakes also 
shared by the so-called Fasti Heracliani, which is the largest con-
sular list coming from an Alexandrian source.40 

The Fasti Hydatiani owe this title to their misattribution to 
Hydatius, due to being transmitted after the chronicle by Hy-
datius in its codex unicus, to the parallels between the two texts, 
and to their Hispanic component.41 They are, in fact, what 
Mommsen called Consularia Constantinopolitana and Burgess has 
preferred to call Descriptio consulum because of their manuscript 
title, and they should be recognized not exactly as a parallel text 
of the Paschal Chronicle, but as one of its most important sources, 
a chronological one. It is evident that the version of the Descriptio 
 

39 The existence of these “city chronicles” has been defended by E. Jeffreys, 
“Malalas’ Sources,” in Studies in John Malalas 213; B. Croke, “The City 
Chronicles in Late Antiquity,” in G. Clarke et al. (eds.), Reading the Past in Late 
Antiquity (Canberra 1989) 165–204, and Count Marcellinus and his Chronicle 
(Oxford 2001) 177–186. See also M. Whitby and M. Whitby, Chronicon 
Paschale 248–628 AD (Liverpool 1989) xxi–xxii. Against this view see Burgess, 
The Chronicle of Hydatius 183–186, on the 19th-century origin of this un-
necessary hypothesis, and Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time I 223 n.83, 
360–361, on the identification of these supposed urban chronicles with 
consularia.  

40 MGH AA XIII.3 386–391. See n.36 above and Bagnall et al., Consuls of 
the LRE 57; A. Cameron, “The Consuls of A.D. 411–412 Again,” BASP 18 
(1981) 69–72, at 69; Whitby and Whitby, Chronicon Paschale xiv. It was shown 
long ago that the extant manuscript of the Fasti Hydatiani derives from a 
private copy and not from officially maintained public records: O. Seeck, 
“Studien zur Geschichte Diocletians und Constantins. II. Idacius und die 
Chronik von Constantinopel,” Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 35 (1889) 601–
635. 

41 See Burgess, The Chronicle of Hydatius 199–202.  
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 403 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

used as a source by the author of the Paschal Chronicle was a later 
recension of it, even though we are not able to identify or 
reconstruct it on the basis of a sole manuscript from the ninth 
century.42 Its relevance as a source for the Paschal Chronicle was 
recognized by Hunger, echoing Mommsen and Gelzer, but is far 
less noticeable in recent scholarship.43 Thus, from the point of 
view of its main chronological source, the Paschal Chronicle can be 
considered as an expanded version of the Descriptio consulum. 

As we have seen, regnal lists were the main chronological 
material for centuries, but as a consequence of Diocletian’s re-
forms, which introduced consular dating in official documents 
in Egypt, astronomers felt the need to supplement the Royal 
Canon with consular lists.44 The first list combining regnal and 
consular years is attributed to Theon of Alexandria (ca. 335–ca. 
405) and conventionally known as Fasti Theonis Alexandrini, cover-
ing the years 138 to 372.45 Late antique Greek chronographies 

 
42 See Burgess, The Chronicle of Hydatius 179. Mommsen already identified 

the parallels with the Paschal Chronicle and attributed them to a common 
source: MGH AA IX.1 205–247, with the two texts printed in parallel 
columns. It is impossible to know whether the author of the Chronicon Paschale 
and Marcellinus used the same recension of the Descriptio or two distinct ones 
(Burgess and Kulikowsi, Mosaics of Time I 179–180). 

43 Gelzer, Sextus Julius 156–170; Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur I 
329: “Als Quellen des Chronicon Paschale kommen neben Sextus Julius 
Africanus insbesondere Eusebios von Kaisareia, die Fasti consulares, alexan-
drinische und antiochenische Ostertafeln sowie Märtyrerakten und auch 
Epiphanios von Kypros … in Betracht.” On the other hand, J. Howard 
Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crisis. Historians and Histories of the Middle East in 
the Seventh Century (Oxford 2010) 39–40, considers that the Paschal Chronicle has 
two main sources, a “city annals” and Malalas. In addition to the Bible, the 
Church Fathers, Eusebius, or Malalas, Treadgold, confusingly, claims that 
the Paschal Chronicle “also had two sources of at least partly official character,” 
a list of Roman consuls and a lost chronicle “sometimes called the ‘City 
chronicle of Constantinople’,” also used by Marcellinus (The Early Byzantine 
Historians 345).  

44 See for this Mosshammer, The Easter Computus 174–178. 
45 Ed. H. Usener in MGH AA XIII.3 359–381. It is a list without historical 

entries. Theon incorporated into the chronological scheme received and 
 



404 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

of Egyptian origin, often called “Alexandrian chronicles,” in fact 
appear to be largely consularia, as is the case of the fol. vi of the 
Golenischev papyrus, the so-called “Berlin chronicle,” or the 
third and last part of the Excerpta Latina Barbari, all recently edited 
or analysed.46 The latter work—known since Scaliger as Excerpta 
Latina Barbari—is in fact a chronography, a compendium of 
chronological lists—and not a “world chronicle” or a “universal 
chronicle”—except for its third and last part, identifiable as 
consularia.47 It has been clearly established that it is a copy of a 
Latin translation made in the eighth century from an illustrated 
Greek original compiled in Alexandria in the late fifth or early 
sixth century. This Greek original consisted of three parts, as 
reflected in the Latin translation: a partial version of the original 
of the so-called Liber generationis (entitled Συναγωγὴ χρόνων καὶ 
ἐτῶν ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσµου ἕως τῆς ἐνεστώσης ἡµέρας), several 
lists of kings coming probably from the work of Julius Africanus, 

 
reworked by Claudius Ptolemy the era of Diocletian, conceived to preserve 
the practical use of the Egyptian calendar, based on regnal years. 

46 This heading can cover (see Bagnall et al., Consuls of the LRE 52–57) the 
Excerpta Latina Barbari (see below), the Fasti Theonis, the Fasti Hydatiani, the Fasti 
Heracliani, the Chronicle of Marcellinus, the Paschal Chronicle, the Fasti 
Golenischevenses (edited by Bauer and Strzygowski), and the Fasti Berolinenses 
(edited by Lietzmann). See Burgess and Dijkstra, “The ‘Alexandrian World 
Chronicle’, its Consularia and the Date of the Destruction of the Serapeum,” 
Millennium 10 (2013) 39–114, and “The Berlin ‘Chronicle’ (P. Berol. inv. 
13296): A New Edition of the Earliest Extant Late Antique Consularia,” ArchPF 
58 (2012) 273–301. See also Burgess, “The Date, Purpose, and Historical 
Context of the Original Greek and the Latin Translation of the So-called 
Excerpta Latina Barbari,” Traditio 68 (2013) 1–56. Croke, Count Marcellinus 151, 
claims that the Fasti Golenischevenses and the Fasti Berolinenses could be related 
to any of the Alexandrian redactors of Eusebius (i.e. Panodorus and An-
nianus), but that claim seems to be a suggestion of 19th-century philology, as 
shown in the introduction to A. Bauer and J. Strzygowski, Eine alexandrinische 
Weltchronik (Vienna 1905) 82–92. See against this view D. Serruys, BZ 22 
(1913) 1–36. 

47 Eusebii Chronicorum I 177–239, in C. Frick, Chronica minora I (Leipzig 1892) 
184–371. See the recent translation by B. Garstad, Apocalypse of Pseudo-
Methodius. An Alexandrian World Chronicle (Cambridge [Mass.] 2012) 142–395. 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 405 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

and a Greek translation of a recension of the Consularia Vindo-
bonensia posteriora.48 The Συναγωγὴ χρόνων included in the 
Matritensis BN 4701 (ff. 51r–82v) is another version of the Alex-
andrian original of the first of the three parts making up this 
compendium,49 whose Latin recension—the	 Excerpta Latina 
Barbari—has been incorrectly identified with the chronography 
that concludes the “Tübingen Theosophy.”50 This chronogra-
phy, mentioned by Mango, is not in fact preserved, but we are 
informed of its existence by the prologue of the epitome of the 
theosophy contained in Tübingen’s celebrated manuscript.51 

The longest of these lists combining regnal and consular years 
are the Fasti Heracliani, attributed to Stephen of Alexandria, 
covering the years 222 to 630.52 In 541 the last consul held the 

 
48 See Burgess, Traditio 68 (2013) 1–56. 
49 Burgess, Traditio 68 (2013) 8 n.13, and n.46 above. The Matritensis BN 

4701 (olim 121) contains: (1) the so-called Anonymus Matritensis (ff. 1–29v), 
dated between 848 and 886; (2) a Byzantine series regum extended to 1453 by 
Constantine Laskaris (ff. 29v–31v); (3) a version of the chronography attrib-
uted to patriarch Nicephorus (32r–50v); (4) the Συναγωγὴ χρόνων (ff. 51r–82v), 
often incorrectly identified (following its editor, Adolf Bauer) with the original 
of the lost chronicle of Hippolytus of Rome (see 418 below). The Anonymus 
Matritensis was also edited by A. Bauer, Anonymi chronographia syntomos e codice 
Matritensi Nº 121 (Leipzig 1909). For a recent description of the manuscript 
see I. Pérez Martín, “Geography and Chronography in Tenth-Century Con-
stantinople: The Manuscript of the Stadiasmos (Madrid, BN, Mss/4701),” 
GeogrAnt 25 (2016) 79–97. 

50 See Burgess, Traditio 68 (2013) 5 n.10 and 39–41, against P. F. Beatrice, 
Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia: An Attempt at Reconstruction (Leiden 2001), who 
reproduces the text of Schoene for that part of his edition (75–134). 

51 Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia 2.18: Χρονικὸν συντοµώτατον τέθεικεν 
ἀπὸ Ἀδὰµ ἕως τῶν Ζήνωνος χρόνων, ἐν ᾧ καὶ διισχυρίζεται µετὰ τὴν συµπλή-
ρωσιν τοῦ ἑξακισχιλιαστοῦ ἔτους γενήσεσθαι τὴν συντέλειαν. Mango and 
Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes lxvii and n.62, affirmed that this type of list is 
not recorded in Greek before the ninth century, except for a chronology of 
Adam to Justinian copied in Marc.gr. 1 (s. IX) (ff. 162v–163) and “a short 
chronology from Adam to Zeno also formed part of the so-called Tübingen 
Theosophy, whose original was composed in c. AD 500.”  

52 The attribution dates back to the editor, H. Usener, MGH AA XIII.3  
 



406 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

office before it was assumed by the emperors.53 This institutional 
development of consulship can easily explain why both consular 
dating and consularia as chronological sources fell into disuse in 
Byzantium. Later Byzantine chronography will be based on the 
regnal lists transmitted essentially by the most venerated late 
antique chronographers—Africanus and Eusebius—combined 
with the era of the world, which provides the starting point of 
the historical timeline. Regarding the end of history, there will 
be a recurrent appearance of the millenarian scheme. 
2.  Development of Byzantine chronological writing: 

the chronographical genre 
Ptolemy’s legacy was best resumed in Constantinople precisely 

by Stephen of Alexandria, considered the first Byzantine astron-
omer and professor of mathematics under Heraclius (610–641). 
He apparently wrote the first Byzantine handbook of astronomy, 
a commentary to the Handy Tables inspired by the celebrated 
Small Commentary on Ptolemy’s Handy Tables by Theon of Alex-
andria.54 Stephen also developed the chronological implications 
of his mathematical-astronomical work, including in his com-
mentary additional chapters on chronology and computistic that 
sometimes have been attributed to Heraclius himself.55 His work 

 
388–410. The Fasti Heracliani are preserved in Leidensis BPG 78, 55v–63v, 
following the Royal Canon. 

53 Although the last recorded consul seems to be Constans II in 632, E. 
Stein, “Post-consulat and αὐτοκρατορία,” AIPhO 2 (1933/4) 869–912, sug-
gested that the office existed until the ninth century, when Leo VI abolished 
the institution before 899 (Nov. 94). Peter of Alexandria seems to be the only 
source for the emperor’s consulships between 630 and 886.  

54 The attribution, which dates back to Usener (De Stephano Alexandrino 
[Bonn 1880]), remains problematic. See the recent edition by J. Lempire, Le 
commentaire astronomique aux Tables faciles de Ptoleḿeé attribue ́à Stéphanos d’Alexandrie 
(Leuven 2016). 

55 On Stephen see Tihon, Byzantion 51 (1981) 607–608; W. Wolska-Conus, 
“Stéphanos d’Athénes et Stéphanos d’Alexandrie. Essai d’identification et de 
biographie,” REB 47 (1989) 5–89; Tihon, “Le calcul de la date de Pâques 
dans Stéphanos-Heráclius,” in B. Janssens et al. (eds.), Philomathestatos. Studies 
in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts presented to Jacques Noret (Leuven 2004) 625–
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 407 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

on computistic should be analysed in the context on an impor-
tant debate raised in seventh-century Constantinople, involving 
also the author of the Paschal Chronicle, George the Monk and 
Presbyter, and Maximus the Confessor, with significant implica-
tions for historical chronology concerning the era of the world.56 
In 638/9 George wrote a treatise that would be essential in the 
formation of the so-called Byzantine era (5509/8 B.C.).57 About 
two years later, Maximus (580–662) wrote a treatise in defense 
of the Alexandrian calculations, considered to be the Byzantine 
standard at the time and the referent of the “ecclesiastical tra-
dition” (ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοσις).58 The historical context of 
this controversy and its chronographical dimension remains to 
be studied.59 This chronological debate had its parallel in the 

 
646. This work was an adaptation to the Christian world of Theon’s 
commentary on the Handy Tables by Ptolemy, entitled Στεφάνου, µεγάλου 
φιλοσόφου καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέως διασάφησις ἐξ οἰκείων ὑποδειγµάτων τῆς τῶν 
προχείρων κανόνων ἐφόδου τοῦ Θέωνος (Vat.Urb.gr. 80). 

56 Computistic is the science and mathematical-astronomical technique of 
the creation of calendars applied to theological and liturgical problems, 
especially the calculation of Easter, and thereby converted into a discipline 
characteristic of Medieval learning. See F. Wallis, “Number Mystique in 
Early Medieval Computus Texts,” in T. Koetsier and L. Bergmans (eds.), 
Mathematics and the Divine: A Historical Study (Amsterdam 2005) 183–184. For 
computistic chronology see in particular Philipp and Nothaf, Dating the 
Passion. For Byzantine chronology in general Grumel, La chronologie, remains 
unsurpassed. 

57 Ed. F. Diekamp, “Der Mönch und Presbyter Georgios, ein unbekannter 
Schriftsteller des 7. Jahrhunderts,” BZ 9 (1900) 14–51, 24–33. 

58 PG 19.1217–1280. Maximus’ treatise can be interpreted as a response to 
the innovations proposed by George in terms of arithmetic convenience. See 
J. Lempire, “Le calcul de la date de Pâques dans les traités de S. Maxime le 
Confesseur et de Georges, moine et prêtre,” Byzantion 77 (2007) 267–304, and 
Mosshammer, The Easter Computus 245 and 281–282. Although George and 
Maximus propose distinct world eras, both were based on Alexandrian 
chronology (see Lempire 299–300). 

59 According to Lempire, Byzantion 77 (2007) 303–304. To my knowledge, 
only N. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 59–60, has given credit 
to the preface of Theophylact Simocatta, which appears to imply that the 
 



408 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

West, where it would become the subject of discussion in the 
Synod of Whitby (664), culminating in The Reckoning of Time (725) 
by Bede,60 his defense of the Alexandrian computation of 
Dionysius Exiguus. 

Stephen is also credited with the oldest extant version of the 
Royal Canon—from the Babylonian Nabonassar (747 B.C.) to 
the Byzantine Phocas (602–610)—the updating of which made 
full sense after Justinian, who had issued a decree on compulsory 
dating by regnal years, consulships, and indictions (Nov. 47, of 
31 August 537).61 After Stephen, the Royal Canon continued to 
be regularly updated. It was not the preservation of any original 
work what mattered, but its usefulness as a chronological (and 
astronomical) tool. However, in addressing the development of 
Greek chronography after Stephen’s time we face the problem 
of the lack of manuscripts dated to this period and of chrono-
graphical works composed between the Paschal Chronicle and 
George Syncellus. To overcome this problem, we can turn to 
manuscript notes that can be dated to this period and to the 
chronological sources used by Syncellus at the beginning of the 
ninth century.  

In her studies on the transmission of the Handy Tables, Anne 
Tihon has identified many uncial manuscripts from the ninth 
century, which in one case include notes from the eighth century 
(Leidensis BPG 78, copied under Leo V, 813–820). Tihon argues 
 
patriarch Sergius (610–638) founded a chair of history and another of 
philosophy which would be taken over by Stephen. See the clear explanation 
of the mathematical-astronomical aspects of the controversy by Tihon, in 
Philomathestatos 625–646, and the attempt to clarify the historical context by 
J. Beaucamp et al., “Temps et histoire, I: Le prologue de la Chronique 
paschale,” TravMém 7 (1979) 223–301. 

60 Considered the first textbook on computistic, having a place for both the 
didactic as well as the polemic. See the introduction by F. Wallis to her trans-
lation: Bede. The Reckoning of Time (Liverpool 1999). I adopt the main thesis of 
Mosshammer, The Easter Computus, regarding the contribution of the re-
nowned Dionysius Exiguus. 

61 Three versions of the Royal Canon were edited by Usener, MGH AA 
XIII.3 447–455, but not that contained in Vat.gr. 1291 (16v–17r).  
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 409 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

that these notes do not prove that the Tables were actually read 
and used for astronomical purposes during this period, since 
they are attached only to the chronological tables, such as the 
Royal Canon. Therefore, the notes are a clear evidence for the 
use of the Royal Canon as a chronological tool in the eighth 
century. It has been suggested that the oldest version of the 
Handy Tables including the Royal Canon was updated in the 
eighth century, which has been associated with a revival of 
Byzantine astronomical activity but not with chronicle writing.62 
In Laur.gr. 28/48, from the fourteenth century, the Royal Canon 
concludes with Leo III (716–740), suggesting that it was updated 
short after this reign.63 It is widely assumed that astronomy was 
cultivated in the Byzantine Empire even during the so-called 
Dark Ages, but its implications for chronology and history have 
not been explored. Paul Magdalino significantly relates seventh-
century astronomy to the official concern with the paschal calen-
dar and the chronology of world history, but although he clearly 

 
62 Vat.gr. 1291 has been dated to 753/4 by D. H. Wright, “The Date of the 

Vatican Illuminated Handy Tables of Ptolemy and Its Early Additions,” BZ 
78 (1985) 355–363; to shortly after 802–811 by T. Janz, “The Scribes and 
the Date of the Vat. gr. 1291,” Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 10 
(2003) 159–180; to 813–820 by P. de Nolhac, La Bibliothèque de Fulvio Orsini 
(Paris 1887) 168–169; and to 829–842 by I. Spatharakis, “Some Observations 
on the Ptolemy Ms. Vat.Gr.1291: Its Date and the Two Initial Miniatures,” 
BZ 71 (1978) 41–49. In her edition (34), Tihon accepts the manuscript date 
proposed by Janz, based precisely on the royal list. For his part, Roueché, 
JWarb 74 (2011) 1–30, accepts the proposal of Wright, arguing for a revival 
of astronomy in the Iconoclast period. See I. Ševčenko, “The Search for the 
Past in Byzantium around the Year 800,” DOP 46 (1992) 279–293, at 279 n. 
2, where he opts for 741–775 (he claims that Wright developed his own 
hypothesis). He also affirms that this manuscript contains the only correct list 
of emperors between Heraclius and Justinian II (among what he calls “early 
catalogues,” 287). 

63 A. Tihon, “L’astronomie byzantine à l’époque iconoclaste (VIIIe–IXe 
siécles),” in P. L. Butzer and D. Lohrmann (eds.), Science in Western and Eastern 
Civilization in Carolingian Times (Basel 1993) 181–203, at 192–193 and “Les 
Tables Faciles de Ptolémée dans les manuscrits en onciale (IXe–Xe siècles),” 
RevHistTextes 22 (1992) 47–87. 
 



410 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

sees the paschal calendar as an instrument of religious harmony, 
he surprisingly affirms not to understand the reasons for studying 
chronology insofar as it deals only with the past.64 

Its Constantinopolitan transmission during the eighth century 
can explain how the Royal Canon came to George Syncellus at 
the beginning of the ninth century. He is the first chronographer 
who is known for sure to have used the Royal Canon after its 
updating by Stephen, although it is possible that it was used also 
by the author of the Paschal Chronicle (συνᾴδει δὲ ταῦτα καὶ τὰ 
προταττόµενα παρὰ τῶν ἀξιολόγων ἀνδρῶν ἐν τῇ τῶν φωστήρων 
ψηφοφορίᾳ, “this is consistent with the prior determinations of 
reputable men in the calculation of the heavenly bodies”)65 and 
it has left its imprint in computations such as that of the ninth-
century Χρονογραφεῖον σύντοµον preserved in Vat.gr. 2210, 
which could be based on earlier prototypes and sources.66 Syn-
cellus refers to the Canon as a widely-known chronological tool 
already handled by the Alexandrian critics of Eusebius, Pano-
dorus and Annianus, on whose work the chronography of Syn-
cellus himself is in turn our best source of information.67 Adler 
and Tuffin concluded that Panodorus’ excessive dependence on 
“pagan scholars,” in a reference to the Royal Canon, was the 
reason why he failed in calculate the most important historical 

 
64 P. Magadalino, L’orthodoxie des astrologues. La science entre le dogme et la 

divination à Byzance (Paris 2006) 37. 
65 Chronicon Paschale 711.3–4 Dindorf; transl. M. and M. Whitby. 
66 See Roueché, JWarb 74 (2011) 11, 15. For the chronographical com-

pilation included in this manuscript see 416–418 below. 
67 It is widely believed that Panodorus must be credited with having in-

corporated the Royal Canon into the Christian chronographical tradition, 
but we really have no evidence that he was the first Christian chronographer 
to use it, because in fact Syncellus attests only his own lack of confidence in 
pre-Christian chronography. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus 226, claimed that 
Panodorus was the first to use the Royal Canon to fix the dates of Cyrus and 
Alexander. A slightly later likely candidate might be the compiler of the 
Greek original of the Excerpta Latina Barbari, who reveals the use of the Royal 
Canon in its second part, concerning the list of Alexandrian Ptolemies (see 
Burgess, Traditio 68 [2013] 3, 11, and nn.22, 45, 49).  
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 411 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

date from a Christian perspective, that of the Incarnation, which 
Panodorus situates in A.M. 5493 and Syncellus in A.M. 5500.68  

Syncellus also mentions an “ecclesiastical computation” (ἐκ-
κλησιαστικὴ στοιχείωσις) which he uses as a source in combina-
tion with the “astronomical canon.”69 Adler and Tuffin believe 
that this “ecclesiastical computation” would be a list that, while 
overlapping the “astronomical canon,” i.e. the Royal Canon, ex-
tended the absolute chronology of the Christian era and that of 
the history of the church and reconciled it with the Christian 
chronographical tradition, “a work unknown either to Africanus 
or to Eusebius.”70 If they are right, this computation would be 
part of a chronological work unknown to us, but obviously 
earlier than Syncellus. Nevertheless, the “ecclesiastical computa-
tion” might not have been an expanded list of kings and patri-
archs, but a mere calculation according to the Alexandrian era 
of Incarnation, an indispensable chronological complement to 
the Ptolemaic lists or to any others from a Christian point of 
view. By “ecclesiastical” Syncellus refers to a computation—a 
time reckoning—of impeccable Christian orthodox credentials. 
That excludes Eusebius, whose calculations were based on anni 
Abrahami, not Adami, and who was suspect of heterodoxy.71 In 
contrast, Syncellus relied heavily on the Alexandrians, and the 
computation of Annianus was considered in his age as a chrono-
graphical standard and as an exponent of the “ecclesiastical 
tradition,” as we have seen.72 Although Syncellus follows the 
“ecclesiastical computation,” he does not ignore the Royal 

 
68 W. Adler and P. Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos (Oxford 2002) 

lxiii, and Sync. 35.31–36, 376.26–378.18, 396.12–397.7–10 (ed. A. A. 
Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chronographica [Leipzig 1984]). 

69 For example Sync. 246.19–247.29. 
70 Adler and Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos xlv–xlvi. 
71 See n.26 above. 
72 As his authorities, Syncellus mentions Hippolytus, Annianos, and Maxi-

mus Confessor (381.23–382.4). See Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus 226–229 and 
247–249. He identifies the “ecclesiastical computation” with Annianus’ 
computation, but Serruys, BZ 22 (1913) 1–36, showed that they were clearly 
different. 



412 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

Canon as a reference tool, discussing it and comparing it with 
his own chronology. This could be explained because the Royal 
Canon, as mentioned above, maintained its usefulness regardless 
of the era that was used, to which the years of Nabonassar or 
Philip could be easily converted, which in turn explains why it 
was updated and handed down for centuries until reaching Syn-
cellus.  

As we have seen, regnal lists and calculations of the world 
era—mostly on a computistic basis—were the foundations of 
Byzantine historical chronology, but it is necessary to distinguish 
between actual contributions to chronography understood as a 
field of study and the mere transmission or copying of texts. In 
order to properly distinguish between them, we need to define 
different chronological parameters.73 The most significant 
chronological parameters are	ἐποχαί, intervals, time frames, and 
synchronisms, all important and preserving their comparative 
value regardless of the debates on the era, which extended over 
centuries. Further studies could focus on secondary chrono-
logical parameters and also on precise names and dates con-
necting the lists. In addition, the many examples of Byzantine 
chronological writing that have come down to us differ in 
content and structure, elements pertinent to the definition of 
genre.74 On the basis of their chronological parameters and their 

 
73 To delve into these issues a detailed study of these texts should be carried 

out, with due attention to the problem of their transmission, but this falls far 
beyond the scope of this article. 

74 Emphasis has been placed recently on the need to distinguish between 
actual chronicles and other chronicle sub-genres with which they are often 
confused, citing some of the distinct variants: “Old Testament genealogies, 
regnal lists … and/or episcopal lists …; the many similar but much later 
Byzantine compendia of multiple regnal and patriarchal lists; and chrono-
logical calculations (computationes and supputationes)”( Burgess and Kulikowski, 
Mosaics of Time I 29–30). R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. A Survey and 
Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Princeton 
1997) 434–437, devotes a brief section to the so-called “short chronologies,” 
designating the first with the conventional title of “Short Chronology ad 
annum 818.” 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 413 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

genre, we will discuss here some relevant examples of Byzantine 
chronological writing from the ninth and tenth centuries.75 	

A Χρονογραφικὸν σύντοµον has been attributed to patriarch 
Nicephorus (806–815), although this attribution might be based 
on his prestige as champion of orthodoxy and his reputation as 
author of a historical breviary.76 It was edited by De Boor, but 
his edition was based on Vat.gr. 977 (tenth century) and without 
attention to four older manuscripts, as highlighted by Mango.77 
In the Vat.gr. version—as well as in that of Oxford, Christ 
Church, Wake 5 (late ninth century)—it consists of the following 
series regum: chronology of the Old Testament from Adam to the 
Babylonian captivity; kings of Persia; Ptolemies; Roman em-
perors to Michael II (820–829); Roman empresses; kings from 

 
75 It would be interesting to probe further into their categorization as based 

on the Greek examples, and the history of the lists and their transmission in 
Greek in connection both with the Latin tradition and with other fields of 
literature and knowledge such as astronomy. 

76 Ed. C. de Boor, Nicephori patriarchi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica 
(Leipzig 1880) 79–135. The so-called Anonymous Matritensis likely bears the title 
of χρονογραφία σύντοµος because it is based on Nicephorus’ work. Drawing 
on this source, the anonymous author includes many synchronisms between 
sacred and secular history, aiming to locate, in the frame provided by 
Nicephorus’ chronological data, the ancient kings of Egypt, Assyria, or 
Greece, the euhemeristically interpreted gods and heroes of Greek 
mythology, the foundation of some important cities, and the major poets and 
philosophers of the ancient Greek world. The compiler of this text, working 
under Basil I (867–886), slavishly followed Nicephorus’ supposedly original 
computations. His aim was not to provide a new chronology but to complete 
an existing chronology with synchronisms, mostly deriving from Eusebius’ 
Canones. Therefore, it is not a genuine chronological work. 

77 C. Mango, Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople. Short History (Washington 
1990) 2–4, and for the manuscript transmission and text editions G. Morav-
csik, Byzantinoturcica (Berlin 1958) 456–457; M. E. Colonna, Gli storici bizantini 
dal IV al XV secolo (Naples 1956) 87–89. Together with the works of Syncellus 
and Theophanes, the Χρονογραφικὸν σύντοµον was translated into Latin by 
Anastasius Bibliothecarius and its success in the Slavic world was even 
greater. For the text of Anastasius’ Latin translation see the edition of The-
ophanes by De Boor, Theophanis chronographia II (Leipzig 1885) 36–59. 
 



414 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

the ten tribes of Israel in Samaria; high priests of the Jews; Con-
stantinopolitan patriarchs to Theodotus (815–821); popes of 
Rome; patriarchs of Jerusalem; patriarchs of Alexandria; patri-
archs of Antioch; the canon of the Bible. Other versions such as 
that of the London BM Add 19390 (early tenth century) —as well 
as in that of the Moscow Hist. Mus. 231 (A.D. 932) and Jerusalem 
Patr. (tenth century)—include only five lists: Biblical, Persian, 
Ptolemaic, Roman, and Constantinopolitan patriarchs. Since 
this text has not received any particular attention apart from the 
editors of Nicephorus’ works, De Boor and Mango, it is impos-
sible to know which came first, the expanded or the abbreviated 
version. In any case, the work is a chronograph—a compendium 
of regnal lists—that, as edited by De Boor, includes at least two 
different computations, one supposedly original and a later sup-
putatio based on different chronological parameters.78 This 
supputatio diverges from the most frequent sequence of time 
frames of pre-exilic biblical history (Adam-Flood, Flood-Abra-
ham, Abraham-Exodus, Exodus-First Temple, First Temple-
Captivity) and uses the building of the Tower of Babel as a 
chronological milestone (Flood-Tower, Tower-Abraham). 
These time frames have no parallel in any other supputatio except 
the one found at the end of De Boor’s edition of George the 
Monk, which includes practically identical time frames and 
intervals.79 On the other hand, this supputatio mentions an event 
in the life of Abraham that is not usually taken as a chronological 
landmark because the Bible does not give any indication of when 
it occurred, the so-called second covenant.80 Both supputationes 
give the interval 950 for the time frame “Flood-Abraham,” 
which is not found in any other chronography under considera-
tion here, although it is nearer to Africanus (940) and Eusebius 

 
78 Ed. de Boor 84–85 and 102, respectively. There is no supputatio in Lon-

don BM Add 19390. 
79 Ed. C. de Boor, Georgii Monachi chronicon (Leipzig 1904) 804. 
80 Ἀβραὰµ τῶν διχοτοµηµάτων: Gen 15:1–21. 

 



 PATRICIA VARONA 415 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

(942) that to the Septuagint (1072) and later chronographers.81 
On the other hand, the supposedly original computation of 
Nicephorus, as edited by De Boor, gives the interval Flood-
Exodus of the Septuagint as 3689, a Eusebian figure, even 
though the total must be 3819.82 Was this kind of irresponsible 
use of Eusebian dates—and amending of the Septuagint chro-
nology—what infuriated Syncellus?83 This brief review of 
Nicephorus’ supposed chronography according to the chrono-
logical parameters described above allows us to suppose that the 
extant versions of this work seem to be the incoherent product 
of a compiler not particularly versed in chronological matters 
and that De Boor’s edition cannot be taken as the reconstruction 
of any original product of chronological learning.	

In sharp contrast, Syncellus’ is the learned work of a true 
chronographer. Apart from a few inconsistencies of detail—
attributable to its likely unfinished state, its considerable length 
and complexity, as well as to its transmission—his chronography 
as a whole is conceived as a polemic against Eusebius and also 
can be seen as an effort to distinguish Africanus’ chronographi-
cal tradition from Eusebius’, traditions which Syncellus had 
good reason to regard as undesirably intertwined. He had also 
the clear will to distinguish between these two traditions from 
the point of view of doctrinal orthodoxy, which he associated 
 

81 The mistake 950 instead of 940 is attributable to confusion of letters. 
82 This was corrected by a later copyist, edited in parallel by De Boor, but 

he too was wrong in writing, in an exactly opposite sense, that ἀπὸ δὲ Ἀδὰµ 
κατὰ τοὺς οʹ ἔτη ͵ γχπθʹ, κατὰ δὲ ἄλλους ͵ γωκθʹ, “from Adam according to the 
Septuagint, 3689 years; according to others, 3829 years.” For its part, Lon-
don Add MS 19390, preserving a supposedly older version of the chronogra-
phy, gives slightly different figures equally wrong: ἀπὸ δὲ Ἀδὰµ ἔτη ͵γχοθʹ 
(3679) κατὰ τοὺς Ἑβδοµήκοντα. Only two of these mistakes—3829 instead of 
3819 and 3679 instead of 3689—are attributable to confusion of letters. 

83 According to strictly chronological parameters, I find untenable the attri-
bution of this chronography to George Syncellus as it has come to us, as has 
been suggested by J. Signes, “Theophanes at the Time of Leo VI,” in M. 
Jankowiak and F. Montinaro (eds.), Studies in Theophanes (Paris 2015) 159–176, 
esp. 169–176. 
 



416 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

with the Alexandrian critics of Eusebius and in the second in-
stance with Africanus.84 In terms of genre, Syncellus’ work is an 
annotated chronography emulating the renowned works of 
Africanus and Eusebius.85 Its main controversial point is the date 
of the Incarnation, as expected from a (Christian) theological 
perspective, even more after Iconoclasm. Syncellus not only 
included regnal lists and supputationes, but also analysed and com-
mented on the work of his most famous predecessors, producing 
an exceptional example of a genre which the later tradition 
mostly reduced to lists of names and numbers.86 If not in terms 
of formal genre, given its state as a scholarly tract of technical 
knowledge and difficult reading, Syncellus’ work left a clear im-
print in later Byzantine chronological writing, which incor-
porated his computations.87 

The so-called Vatican chronicle is in fact a chronography 
compiling different chronological writings in Vat.gr. 2210 (ff. 
163r–187v), which have been dated between Michael III (842–
867) and Basil I (867–886).88 It is a good example of Syncellus’ 
worst suspicions about the lack of ἀκρίβεια in chronological 
matters. The first text bears the title of Χρονογραφεῖον σύντοµον 
ἐκ τοῦ Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παµφίλου πονηµάτων. It includes a sup-
putatio from Adam until Michael III and Theodora according to 
the Septuagint (63.1–34), another one according to Akylas’ 
Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (64.1–13), a chrono-
logical note on the Olympic era (64.14–22), and another one 

 
84 For the Alexandrians Panodorus and Annianus see n.31 above.  
85 See Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time I 227–230. 
86 Syncellus’ chronography is in fact the most important witness of the 

other two, which are preserved, fragmentarily, through the indirect tradition 
(Africanus) or translations (Eusebius). 

87 See below on the Συναγωγὴ χρόνων preserved in Matrit. BN 4701. 
88 It was edited by A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus 

I.2 (Rome 1825) 1–39, and by A. Schoene, Eusebii chronicorum libri II I (Berlin 
1866–75) 58–102. See Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus 329–345, who dated it to 
854. Ševčenko, DOP 46 (1992) 284–287, gives it the misleading title Vatican 
chronicle. 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 417 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

about a famous synchronism between the Olympiads and the 
Passion according to Phlegon of Tralles (64.23–65.5), recorded 
both by Africanus and Eusebius. After two brief chronologies of 
Israel plunderings (65.6–41 and 65.42–67.50) and two excerpta 
about the translatio imperii (68.1–22) and about the chronology of 
the Gospels (68.23–37), we find a compendium of lists including 
all the patriarchates, beginning with the Popes of Rome, and 
also a significant number of regnal lists: Chaldea and Arabia, 
Assyria, Egypt, Sicyon, Argos, Mycenae, Athens, Lacedaemon, 
Corinth, Latium, Rome (kings), Media, Macedonia, Alexander’s 
successors in Egypt and Syria, Lydia, Babylonia, Persia (Achae-
menids), Israel (kings, high priests and kings under the Romans), 
Persia (Sasanians) and Muslim caliphs (68.38–97.23).89 The last 
text is a brief chronography taken from the works of Epiphanius 
of Salamis, including only an Old Testament chronology and 
the regnal lists of Persia, Egypt, and Rome-Byzantium (97.24–
102.45).90 Strong similarities in format and content between this 
last brief chronography and the Royal Canon have been 
noticed.91 This text seems to have been attached to the chrono-
logical writings in the manuscript during the reign of Basil I 
(867–886), but its core could be traced back to an earlier period 
as we see from its sources. The Χρονογραφεῖον itself uses the era 
of Philip as chonological landmark, revealing the influence of the 
Royal Canon. Since it was composed under Michael III, it might 
be taken as evidence that Syncellus was not very succesful in 
banishing Eusebius and “pagan scholars” from Byzantine chro-
nography. 

 
89 Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus 330, who considers this text a most negli-

gible work, nevertheless remarks the great number of lists included, which 
only can be compared with the number of the lists found in Eusebius, the 
Excerpta Latina Babari, and Syncellus. He wrongly analyses it as a unit. 

90 Adler, JThS 41 (1990) 472–501, has suggested that Epiphanius might 
have used as source a work combining Africanus and Eusebius which through 
his own work or that of Malalas could have exerted a great influence on later 
Byzantine chronography. 

91 Roueché, JWarb 74 (2011) 11, 15. 
 



418 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

For its part, the Συναγωγὴ χρόνων contained in Matritensis BN 
4701 (olim 121) is a tenth-century version of a third-century 
Greek chronography already translated into Latin as Liber genera-
tionis, originally conceived as a guide to Old Testament chronol-
ogy.92 As we have seen, we have a partial version of this lost 
third-century work in the compilation known as Excerpta Latina 
Barbari. There is no evidence of its relation to the chronicle 
apparently written by a Hippolytus—to my knowledge, there is 
no textual evidence of this chronicle at all—although Bauer’s 
edition was based on the contrary premise, that Matritensis BN 
4701 contains the Greek original of the beginning of Hippolytus’ 
chronicle, and this view has exercised an enormous influence.93 
In this tenth-century version we find an abbreviated and inter-
polated chronography, deleting most of the lists and expanded 
instead with geographical information provided by the dia-
merismoi and the stadiasmoi. In the initial part, which provides the 
necessary introduction to biblical history, we find Syncellus’ cal-
culations of the interval between Adam and the division of the 
Earth (A.M. 2767, p.44 Bauer). 

Karpozilos believes all these works to be a product of the ninth 
century, with Mango and Sevčenko.94 He also considers their 
content to be derived from the fourth/fifth-century Greek proto-
type of the Excerpta Latina Barbari and its later adaptations. He 
finds no proof of their reelaboration during the so-called Dark 
Ages and identifies two turning points in their content, the reign 
of Anastasius (491–518) and the mid seventh century, which 
often occasion substantial gaps in the content or coincide with 
(the beginning of) later up-datings. He includes a classification of 
these works, distinguising between three basic types: universal 
 

92 See Burgess, Traditio 68 (2013) 8 n.13. Ed. A. Bauer, Die Chronik des Hip-
polytos im Matritensis Graecus 121 (Leipzig 1905), repr. A. Bauer and R. Helm, 
Hippolytus Werke IV Die Chronik (Berlin 1955). 

93 See n.49 above and Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time I 366–371. 
94 See n.2 above, and C. Mango, “The Tradition of Byzantine Chro-

nography,” HarvUkrSt 12/3 (1988/9) 360–372; Ševčenko, DOP 46 (1992) 
279–293. 
 



 PATRICIA VARONA 419 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

chronicles, short chronicles (with names and supputationes), and 
local chronicles. To the first type he assigns the Excerpta Latina 
Barbari, Peter of Alexandria’s chronicle, and the Anonymus 
Matritensis; to the second, the short chronography attributed to 
Patriarch Nicephorus, the Συναγωγὴ χρόνων edited by De 
Boor,95 and the Χρονογραφεῖον σύντοµον included in Vat.gr. 
2210. The third group (local chronicles) is beyond the scope of 
this article. He also adds that the chronological tables included 
in many manuscripts may belong to a fourth type. 

For her part, Samodurova identifies another different three 
types of Byzantine “short chronicles”: short compendia of recent 
history (χρονικὸν νέον), universal chronicles (χρονικὸν παλαιόν), 
and chronological notes or lists of dates restricted to the sum-
ming up of the years from Creation or other historical milestones 
(ψῆφος ἐτῶν), that is, supputationes. In her opinion, the difference 
between the first two types lies largely in the structuring prin-
ciple, which in the first type is annalistic and in the second 
onomastic. According to its content, she further divides the 
second type into four groups: those chronicles beginning with 
Adam, those beginning with Abraham, those beginning with the 
Chaldean and Assyrian monarchies followed by the other an-
cient reigns until Rome and Byzantium, and compendia of 
regnal lists including the duration of the reigns and the most 
important events attached to them.96 

I believe that the classifications of Karpozilos and Samo-
durova both need revision in light of the most recent research on 
the chronicle genre and tradition, as they are based on unclear 
notions of the genre and on an imprecise use of terms. In both 
classifications there is a persistent tendency to call “chronicles” 
what are in fact “chronographies” and to describe as “universal” 
the compendium of regnal lists of the ancient empires which 
characterized the chronographical genre since the Hellenistic 
period. Thus, the work of Peter of Alexandria and the Anonymus 

 
95 Nicephori patriarchi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica (Leipzig 1880) 218–

226 
96 Samodurova, VV 27 (1967) 153–161, at 155–158. 



420 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

Matritensis are not universal chronicles, but chronographies. Nor 
is the Excerpta Latina Barbari a universal chronicle, but a chronog-
raphy. For its part, the Χρονογραφικὸν σύντοµον attributed to 
the patriarch Nicephorus is in fact a short chronography, a com-
pendium of regnal and episcopal lists, and not a universal chron-
icle as described by Samodurova. The onomastic structuring 
principle noticed by her is characteristic of the chronographic 
genre, while the annalistic one is typical for the chronicle. As to 
the Συναγωγὴ χρόνων edited by De Boor and the Χρονο-
γραφεῖον σύντοµον included in Vat.gr. 2210, the first is a short 
chronography ending with a supputatio, as we have seen, and the 
latter a “chronographic compilation” made up of three different 
texts of a chronographic kind without a clear chronological ar-
rangement between them—two supputationes accompanied by a 
chronological note, a short chronography, and another chro-
nography even shorter.  
3. Conclusions 

Byzantine studies have largely neglected chronological writing 
because of their subliterary nature. The focus on historiographi-
cal narrative can be also associated with the supposed scarcity of 
proper chronicles—i.e. texts chronologically structured with a 
minimum of narrative—and with the prevailing view of histori-
ography as a source for history and not as an object of study in 
itself. However, chronological writing is not only a source for 
history, but a manifestation of historical culture. From the view-
point of Christian historical thought, it bears essential infor-
mation about important facts. The ancient kings characterized 
by Mango as “ghostly presences” of “pagan prehistory” were 
certainly associated in Byzantine culture with moral virtues, de-
cisive events, particular periods, and important analogies (or 
polarities), among other things.97 And chronological writing also 
had a practical and an antiquarian function. 
 

97 Mango, HarvUkrSt 12/3 (1988/9) 372. See the construction of syn-
chronisms in Hellenistic historiography on a didactic or moral basis (Asheri, 
SCI 11 [1991/2] 52–89), or the self-identification of Byzantium with Israel (P. 
Magdalino and R. Nelson, “Introduction,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium 
[Washington] 2010 1–38). 



 PATRICIA VARONA 421 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

Byzantine chronological writing was based on the Hellenistic 
chronographical tradition—halfway between astronomy and 
history—as it was received and reworked by Christian chro-
nographers. From their precedents, Christian chronographers 
took the regnal or consular lists and synchronized them with 
biblical history, establishing a chronology for the whole history 
from Creation which incorporated their particular notion of 
world era—whether millenarian or not. Different chronological 
proposals were made, among which those of Africanus and 
Eusebius stood out. Neither of their chronographical works has 
come down to us, but Byzantine chronographies incorporated 
their series regum or worked on them. Their legacy permeated 
virtually all Byzantine chronological writing, but it is extremely 
difficult to assess in the present state of research, in the absence 
of reliable editions and studies of Byzantine chronographies. 
The Royal Canon, relatively well studied as an independent list, 
shows that particularly renowned examples of regnal lists could 
be uninterruptedly updated over centuries. Even though we do 
not have manuscripts dated to the seventh and eighth centuries, 
the sources of later chronographies and the evidence of the pre-
served manuscripts suggest that chronographic texts were reg-
ularly copied and updated. The late eighth century and the early 
ninth seem to be a particularly important period in the history 
of Byzantine chronological writing. If Late Antiquity was the age 
of the expansion of Christianity, with apologetics playing a 
major role in Christian literature, the eighth and ninth centuries 
were a time of major conflicts within Christianity that gave new 
life to the Greek chronicle tradition—Syncellus and Theophanes 
—creating the need for a new chronological framework that was 
free of unorthodox connotations. The chronicle genre and its 
chronological subgeneres—in particular chronography—
adopted then a new literary function, replacing apologetics with 
polemics.  

Controversy might have invalidated the chronological argu-
ments of the first book of Eusebius’ chronicle in their original 
terms, but the Greek chronicle tradition took advantage of his 
series regum to continue developing historical chronology in 



422 CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN BYZANTIUM 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 389–422 

 
 
 
 

various formats and structures, constantly correcting, expand-
ing, updating, and annotating them. A long and rich tradition 
behind George Syncellus can explain how he undertook such an 
ambitious revision of the Eusebian chronology at the beginning 
of the ninth century. To do so he must have had powerful 
reasons, textual resources, and outstanding precedents to analise 
and criticise. His work would have been meaningless if Eusebius 
had not been read and known in any form in the Greek-speaking 
world. Byzantine chronological writing	deserves a detailed study 
in its own right. A great deal of research remaims to be done in 
this very interesting field which is related to, among others, 
mathematical astronomy, narrative historiography, Christian 
polemics, and historiographic thought.98 
 
July, 2018  Dept. of Classical Philology 
 Univ. of Valladolid 
 Valladolid, Spain 
 varona@fyl.uva.es 

 
98 This article has been produced with the support of the research project 

FFI2016-79611-P, funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Uni-
versities (Government of Spain).