Condicio optima est ultimi: The Concept of Historical Cycle and Evagrius Scholasticus’ List of Ancient Historians
p. 449-461
Texte intégral
“Più si studia e si scopre in storiografia antica,
più si è colpiti dal formidabile potere della tradizione”1
1Thucydides’ first book famously includes a section describing the fifty years between the end of the Persian Wars and the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, the so-called Pentecontaetia (Thuc. 1.89-117). This narrative portion of Thucydides’ work is meant to fill the gap between Herodotus’ Histories and his own history of the Peloponnesian War. Moreover, with the methodological chapter at 1.22 – where his own historical narrative is defined as a possession for all times in contrast to a showpiece for a single hearing – Thucydides apparently stood in direct polemic against Herodotus2. Already in the first two extant Greek historians, who are at the same time the first representatives of Western historiography, it is possible to discern two of the most characteristic features of classical historiography: the polemic, which is meant to set an authoritative voice compared to a predecessor3, and the continuation of the narrative from the point at which a predecessor has interrupted his own history. This second feature has been labelled ciclo storico (“historical cycle”) by L. Canfora4. Modelled on the epic cycle, the historical cycle aims ideally at creating a uniform and continuous narrative from one author to another covering the widest possible time span5. The aim of this article is to explore the pervasiveness of the concept of historical cycle in Late Antiquity focusing on a passage in the fifth book of Evagrius Scholasticus which contains an impressive list of secular and Christian authors.
Evagrius and the historical cycle
2Evagrius Scholasticus was born in Epiphania in Coele-Syria, a small town in the valley of the Orontes river, in 535/5366. His family was certainly well-off since he was able to pursue an extended and expensive education. After learning the basics of Greek language – reading and writing – together with arithmetic, he almost certainly moved around 550 from his hometown to Antioch to further his education in Greek literature and rhetoric studying the classical authors. The last stage of his training probably brought him to Constantinople, where he pursued the five years of legal studies obtaining the qualification of scholasticus (the other major centre for legal education in the Greek East, Berytus, was devasted by an earthquake in 551 and never recovered)7. He returned to Antioch to pursue a legal career and came to be attached to the Patriarch of Antioch, Gregory, a very influential figure in the second half of the vi century. Evagrius’ education and social standing allowed him to become acquainted with members of the imperial family. He died in or not long after 5948.
3Evagrius is the author of a history of the Church from the first Council of Ephesus in 431 to his own time, the twelfth year of Maurice’s reign (593/594) (Euagr., HE, 6.24 [240.22-24])9. When he composed his ecclesiastical history, he was very much aware of being part of an historiographical tradition that began with Eusebius of Caesarea (Praef. [5.7-14]):
Εὐσεβίῳ τε οὖν τῷ Παµφίλου, Σωζοµενῷ τε καὶ Θεοδωρήτῳ καὶ Σωκράτει ἄριστα πάντων πεπόνηται ἥ τε εἰς ἡµᾶς ἄφιξις τοῦ φιλανθρώπου θεοῦ, ἥ τε εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάβασις, ὅσα τε τοῖς θεσπεσίοις ἀποστόλοις ἀτὰρ καὶ µάρτυσι διαθλεύουσι κατώρθωτο, ἢ εἴ τι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἀξιόλογον ἡµῖν ἤ καὶ τηνάλλως ἔχον, πέπρακται, µέχρι τινὸς τῆς Θεοδοσίου βασιλείας.
“Now Eusebius son of Pamphilus, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Socrates have elaborated better than everyone else the arrival amongst us of the benevolent God, the ascent to heaven, all the accomplishments both of the venerable Apostles as well as of the Martyrs who contended to the end, or anything else indeed done by others which for us is praiseworthy, or indeed otherwise, up to a point in the reign of Theodosius”10.
4The four predecessors mentioned by Evagrius in this passage represent our extant iv- and v-centuries authors of histories of the Church11. The Church History of Eusebius of Caesarea, the initiator of the tradition12, was continued by Socrates (c. 380-450): the general structure of his work relies on the classical tradition of the Greek historians and on the concept of historical cycle, that is the continuation of a predecessor’s history13. The fact that Eusebius’ and Socrates’ Church histories represent a single unity is also emphasized by their manuscript tradition: the codex Laurentianus Plut., 70.7 contains both works in succession, a tangible image of the historical cycle14. Just like Thucydides, Eusebius had more than one continuator, the ultimate indicator of success. Following Socrates’ example, both Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393-460) and Sozomen (c. 400-450) wrote the history of the Church from the age of the emperor Constantine15. The Church histories of Socrates, Theodoret and Sozomen were compiled in a single historical narrative, the Historia Tripartita, by Theodor Lector in c. 520, and a Latin translation was fostered by Cassiodorus and produced by Epiphanius sometime after 540, possibly around 56016. In the ix century, Photius of Constantinople recorded in sequence his reading notes of the Church histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Evagrius, Sozomen and Theodoret (Phot., Bibl., codd. 27-31). The authoritative sequence of historians is as much the intention of the authors as the outcome of the needs and concerns of later readers17.
5The content of Evagrius’ work is thus described by Photius: “a Church history in six books, which begins where the histories of Socrates and Theodoret ended and goes on till the twelfth year of the reign of Maurice”18. At the end of his preface, Evagrius clearly emphasised his intention to continue the narrative of his predecessors: “I will begin, with divine assistance, from the point where the aforementioned authors concluded their narratives” (HE, Praef. [6.4-5]: ἄρξοµαι δέ, τῆς θείας ἡγουµένης ῥοπῆς, ὅθεν οἱ λελεγµένοι µοι τὴν ἱστορίαν ἀπέλιπον). When Evagrius completed his work, he was not aware of being at the same time the carrier of a long-standing tradition and the last representative of late-antique church historians.
Evagrius’ list of ancient historians (HE, 5.24)
6Evagrius’ fifth book ends with a chapter of paramount interest for students of ancient historiography. The index – the product of later copyists, not of the author himself – records the following summary of this chapter: “On the history in succession preserved up to our time” (HE, 5 index 24 [194.14]: Περὶ τῆς καθ’ εἱρµὸν ἱστορίας µέχρις ἡµῶν σωζοµένης”)19. The actual text of the chapter covers two pages in the Bidez & Parmentier edition of Evagrius (217.29-219.28). The content can be divided into three distinct groups: 1) historians of the Church and authors related to the Christian tradition; 2) historians dealing with Greek history; 3) historians of Rome and the Roman empire.
720
1) Christian tradition | 2) Greek history | 3) Roman history |
Eusebius | Charax of Pergamon (103)1 | Dionysius of Halicarnassus |
Theodoretus | Ephorus of Cyme (70) | Polybius of Megalopolis |
Sozomenus | Theopompus of Chios (115) | Appian of Alexandria |
Socrates | …καὶ ἄλλοις ἀναρίθµοις | Diodorus Siculus |
Moses (Old Testament) | Cassius Dio | |
Flavius Josephus | Herodian | |
Nicostratus of Trapezos (98) | ||
Dexippus of Athens (100) | ||
Eusebius (101) | ||
Arrian of Nicomedia | ||
Asinius Quadratus (97) | ||
Zosimus | ||
Priscus of Panion | ||
Eustathius of Epiphania | ||
Procopius of Caesarea | ||
Agathias | ||
John of Epiphania |
8Eusebius, Theodoret, Sozomen and Socrates, Evagrius’ predecessors as historians of the church, have already been discussed in the previous section (HE, 5.24 [217.29-218.2]), while “archaic and profane history has been preserved in sequence” by two eminent figures in the Christian tradition: Moses, who is here considered the author of the Old Testament, and Flavius Josephus. According to Evagrius, “Moses initiated history and narrative”, defined as ἱστορία and συγγραφή: the first term is related to historical enquiry as outlined initially by Herodotus, while the second is associated with writing down the narrative of historical events (HE, 5.24 [218.3-11])21.
9The role of Moses and Josephus is not exceptional in Late Antique and Byzantine conceptions of history. John Malalas, an older contemporary of Evagrius, states that he has relied on the “Hebrew books written by Moses”, together with a series of other historians, including Eusebius of Caesarea, to compose his Chronography (Mal., Chron., praef. [Slavonic text])22. Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636), a couple of decades younger than Evagrius and writing on the Western fringes of what was once the Roman empire, includes in his Etymologies a list of the first authors of histories which resembles the beginning of Evagrius’ list: “Moses was the first to write a history on creation” (Isid., Etym., 1.42: Historiam autem apud nos primus Moyses de initio mundi conscripsit), followed by Dares the Phrygian, Herodotus, Pherecydes23.
10Josephus was a highly esteemed author in Late Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages (Jos., AJ, 18.63-64)24. This was partly due to his account of the Jews, a people that acquired a prominent role in the history of Christianity and hence in later Greek and Roman historiography, and also to the so-called Testimonium Flauianum, the controversial passage in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities where Jesus is mentioned, his deeds are listed, and he is referred to as the Messiah25. Josephus’ works enjoyed a widespread circulation both in the Greek East and in the Latin West from the iv century onwards. Jerome writes in 398 to Lucinius Betticus that he was not able to produce a translation of the Jewish Antiquities because of its excessive length, even though his friend heard rumours that the great man was working on it (Hier., Ep., 71.5). The Latin translation of Jewish Antiquities and Againt Apion was later promoted at Vivarium by Cassiodorus, while the translation of the Jewish Wars must predate Cassiodorus (Cassiod., Inst., 1.17.1)26. The earliest author to quote extensively Josephus’ controversial passage related to Jesus Christ is Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History (Eus., HE, 1.11.7-9), a model historian for Evagrius: it is thus not surprising to find Josephus as an eminent authority at the beginning of Evagrius’ list. Josephus appears even today as a prominent author for anyone interested in the world of the New Testament: this is apparent both in scholarly works and in popular books such as Emmanuel Carrère’s The Kingdom27.
11After the initial section on the historians of the Church and on Moses and Josephus, Evagrius lists those who have recorded the events related to “the Greeks and the ancient barbarians in their struggles between themselves or against each other”: this is a phrasing that echoes both Herodotus’ preface and Thucydides’ closing of the Pentecontaetia28, even though the expression “ancient barbarians” (τῶν ἀρχαίων βαρβάρων) is somewhat puzzling: it detaches the Persians, Libyans or Scythians described by ancient historians from those contemporary to Evagrius’ audience. It is well known that late-antique and Byzantine historiography tended to adopt a classicizing stance when dealing with ethnographic accounts: it perpetuated classical nomenclature for neighbouring (barbarian) peoples, hence Scythians for Huns, Massagetae for Goths, Parthians for Persians, and so on29.
12What is really striking is that Evagrius does not name Herodotus at all in the list of those who wrote of the deeds of Greeks and barbarians: instead, he quotes Charax of Pergamon, Ephorus of Cyme, Theopompus of Chios, “and innumerable others” (HE, 5.24 [218.31-219.7]: καὶ ἄλλοις ἀναρίθµοις). It would be fruitless to speculate on these innumerable others: the expression suggests a lack of interest for an age that modern historians are accustomed to call archaic and classical30. Evagrius was evidently not interested in Greek history. His real interest laid in the domain of Roman history “including in itself the whole history of the world” (HE, 5.24 [218.17-18]: αἱ δὲ κατὰ Ῥωµαίους πράξεις πᾶσαν κοσµικὴν ἱστορίαν ἐν ἑαυταῖς περιλαµβάνουσαι), which has been recounted by a number of historians quoted by Evagrius: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Polybius, Appian, Diodorus Siculus, Cassius Dio and Herodian. These authors integrate and continue each other forming a single unity that covers most of the history of Rome from its foundation to 238, the end of Herodian’s work. It has been argued that a Greek reader in the early Roman Empire, having at his disposal Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities, and the historical works of Polybius and Posidonius “would at last have a continuous and reliable history of Rome written for him in Greek and by Greeks from the foundation down to the late Republic”31. Such a statement also rings true in the vi century.
13The authors from Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Herodian are all (at least partially) extant, which shows that their histories were significant enough for the Byzantines that they preserved their texts. The same cannot be said of Nicostratus of Trapezos and Dexippus of Athens who ended their historical works with the capture of Valerian by the Persians (260), and the reign of Claudius II (268-270) respectively (HE, 5.24 [218.31-219.7])32. Following Dexippus, a certain Eusebius is mentioned: his history went “from Octavian, Trajan and Marcus to the death of Carus” (HE, 5.24 [219.7-9]: καὶ Εὐσέβιος δὲ ἀπὸ Ὀκταβιανοῦ καὶ Τραιανοῦ καὶ Μάρκου λαβὼν ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Κάρου κατήντησεν)33, whose short reign ended in 283 during a campaign against the Sasanians. This Eusebius, known from Evagrius and a couple of passages from a manuscript in Paris, has been mistakenly identified with Eusebius of Caesarea in some works of reference34. However, there are several issues that exclude this possibility: 1) Eusebius of Caesarea is always referred to as Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παµφίλου by Evagrius; 2) if we were dealing here with the author of the Church History, the stress on Roman emperors to mark the beginning and end of his history would not be intelligible; 3) the fact that this Eusebius ended his work with Carus (282-283) is incompatible with the end of Eusebius of Caesarea’ Church History, i.e. the reign of Constantine. An identification with Eusebius of Nantes, known through a humanistic catalogue of writings by Ausonius, has been proposed in recent years by H. Sivan, but this suggestion is based on very thin grounds35. Even if the identification of the author and composition date of the work remain elusive, it is fairly certain that the Eusebius mentioned by Evagrius wrote his work in Herodotean fashion in the age of Diocletian36.
14In Evagrius’ conception, the narratives of Nicostratus, Dexippus and Eusebius overlapped with each other, covering most of the Roman imperial age (i-iii centuries ad). Further additions to this sequence are Arrian of Nicomedia and Asinius Quadratus. Given Evagrius’ lack of interest for Greek history, it is likely that he is here referring to Arrian’s Parthica, instead of the Anabasis of Alexander. Just like Arrian, Asinius Quadratus was also the author of a history of Rome’s war against the Parthians37. A couple of generations before Asinius Quadratus, Lucian of Samosata wrote the pamphlet How to Write History with the aim of mocking Greek authors of histories of the Roman wars with the Parthians in the 160s. He famously stated that “there is not a single person who is not writing history: they are all our Thucydideses, Herodotuses and Xenophons” (Luc., Hist. conscr., 2: οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐχ ἱστορίαν συγγράφει· µᾶλλον δὲ Θουκυδίδαι καὶ Ἡρόδοτοι καὶ Ξενοφῶντες ἡµῖν ἅπαντες)38. It seems that the vogue of imitating the language and style of classical Greek historians for the history of the Parthian wars did not go out of fashion even in the iiird century. Arrian and Asinius Quadratus as well as Dexippus and Eusebius were all, at different degrees, imitators of Herodotus, which clearly shows the persistence and extension of the Herodotean model for history-writing.
15After Asinius Quadratus, Evagrius mentions Zosimus and Priscus “the rhetor”39. Both authors formed the basis of Evagrius’ narrative. Even though he openly attacks Zosimus for being “one of those from the accursed and foul worship of the Hellenes”, he used his narrative at first hand (see HE, 3.40 [139.6-7])40. It seems surprising that Evagrius does not mention Zosimus’ source Eunapius, the continuator of Dexippus’ history41. Priscus, on the other hand, is highly praised and referred to explicitly numerous times42. After Zosimus and Priscus, Evagrius refers to “other (authors)” (ἕτεροι), a possible reference to Malchus, Priscus’ continuator43. The list ends with Procopius44, his continuator Agathias45, and Agathias’ continuator John of Epiphania, Evagrius’ relative: vi-century secular historians clearly embraced and extended the concept of historical cycle46.
16Before concluding with the sequence Procopius-Agathias-John of Epiphania, Evagrius refers to another author from Epiphania, Eustathius: “All these things have been excellently abridged by Eustathius of Epiphania in two volumes, the first from the capture of Troy and the other down to the twelfth year of the emperor Anastasius” (HE, 5.24 [219.14-16]: ἅπερ ἅπαντα Εὐσταθίῳ τῷ Ἐπιφανεῖ ἐπιτέτµηται πανάριστα ἐν δύο τεύχεσιν, ἑνὶ µὲν ἀπὸ [Gleye : codd. ἕως] ἁλώσεως Ἰλίου, τῷ δὲ ἑτέρῳ ἕως δωδεκάτου ἔτους τῆς Ἀναστασίου βασιλείας)47. Eustathius has been recognized as Evagrius’ source for the list of historians from Charax to Asinius Quadratus48, which suggests that he did not read or consult the many secular writers he included in his list at HE, 5.24. In fact, there is no evidence that he employed their narratives (apart from Zosimus and Priscus) to write down his own history: even if some of them are only known from indirect tradition, most of their histories dealt with a chronological frame that did not pertain to the topic of Evagrius’ Church History. On a negative note, we might retain that the list is actually only a boast of shallow knowledge: it is almost certainly not a catalogue of his own library. However, it is still significant that he included such an impressive list of secular authors in a work on the history of the Church.
Evagrius’ knowledge of Latin historiography and his legal education
17There is a last point that needs to be made on the list of historians in Euagr., HE, 5.24 related to something that is surprisingly lacking: Latin historiography. In fact, even if Evagrius is interested almost exclusively in Roman republican and imperial history, he does not mention a single Latin historian throughout his Church History. Other near-contemporary authors, such as the civil servant and antiquarian John Lydus and the chronicler John of Antioch, did in fact have access to a fairly great number of Latin texts. John Lydus mentions Sallust and Suetonius, while the polymath M. Terentius Varro as well as Pliny the Elder are quoted repeatedly in all three of his extant works49. John of Antioch, at the beginning of the vii century, employed Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res gestae and Eutropius’ Breuiarium as sources for his chronicle50. One should also consider the presence of Western expatriates in Constantinople in the 540s, including pope Vigilius, Petronius Nicomachus Cethegus and the Senator Cassiodorus51.
18There might, however, have been a different attitude towards Latin language and Latin texts in the capital and in other cities of the empire in the vi century. Evagrius probably pursued his studies in Constantinople and apparently visited the capital at least once while serving under the patriarch Gregory52, but did he have at least a working knowledge of Latin? The answer needs to be sought in the context of his legal education. Which brings us to another important question: was knowledge of Latin still a prerequisite for pursuing legal studies in the second half of the vi century?
19Evagrius was acquainted with the Justinianic Code, since he mentions it explicitly as Ἰουστινιανοῦ κῶδιξ ὠνόµασται just before quoting extensively the Greek text of a Theodosian edict of 17 February 448 condemning the heretic archbishop Nestorius53. There are other instances where Evagrius could have cited the text of the Justinianic Code, both Latin and Greek, but did not do so54. It is worth pointing out to a constitution of Justinian of 534 (CJ, 1.27.1.4 Krüger) wrongly attributed to Justin I in Euagr., HE, 4.14 (164.1-2): ὧν καὶ Ἰουστίνου διάταξις µνηµονεύει. It is possible that Evagrius read the Latin text of this constitution, but the quotation could also derive from Greek lecture courses with summaries and/or translations of Latin legal texts55. In summary, not even HE, 4.14 (164.1-2) is testimony of Evagrius’ knowledge of Latin: the only uerbatim quotation of the Justinianic Code in Evagrius’ Church History is in Greek and does not in any way display a knowledge of Latin.
20It is hence possible, as recently determined by S. Corcoran, that already during the reign of Justinian knowledge of Latin in legal contexts was limited, whereas after his death it seems that laws were mainly promulgated in Greek: “From 535, most surviving legislation, as known principally from the Novels, is in Greek. There is little doubt that Greek was on its way to predominating and eventually monopolizing imperial law-making, and to becoming the sole language of Roman law in the Empire”56. A comparison with the life and deeds of an older contemporary of Evagrius, the advocate and poet Dioscorus of Aphrodito (c. 520-585), is instructive. He acquired classical education and legal training in the 530s or early 540s, possibly in Alexandria. He wrote wills and petitions in Greek, with occasional integrations of Latin legal technical words transliterated in Greek and sometimes in Latin, with evident spelling errors57. The conclusion is that he managed to operate on a relatively high level within the administration of vi-century Egypt with little knowledge of Latin58. The same might be applied to Evagrius: he does not show any sign of interest for Latin historiography and no direct knowledge of the Latin texts in the Justinianic Code. However, it is still reasonable to assume, given his legal education, that he had a superficial knowledge of the language. This conclusion does not entail that he had access to or any interest in Latin historiography: it is still possible that its exclusion is not the product of ignorance, but rather a deliberative choice.
21The omission of Latin historiography from his list, as well as Evagrius’ exclusive interest in Greek historiography, need now to be set in a diachronic cultural and intellectual context.
On coming after: continuity in Greek historiography
22Evagrius consciously places himself at the end of a historiographical chain which began with the church history of Eusebius of Caesarea on the one hand, with Moses and Josephus on the other hand. Just like Xenophon in the iv century bc, Evagrius declares at the end that the subsequent events were left for those who wanted to collect and record them (HE, 6.24 [240.24-25]: τῶν ἑξῆς τοῖς βουλοµένοις ἐκλέγειν τε καὶ γράφειν καταλιµπανοµένων)59: neither Xenophon nor Evagrius, as far as we know, ever obtained the successors they wished for.
23The ancients were obsessed with assigning a protos heuretes, an inventor, to specific fields of knowledge and certain techniques. It might entail a mythical figure, a historical character, or a community (polis, tribe, ethne, etc.), both Greek and barbarian. This so-called theory of invention goes back to the archaic age, even if it might be assumed that it became an actual topos in v century bc: Herodotus provides evidence for such an approach when he assigned the creation of writing to Cadmus and the Phoenicians, the invention of geometry to the ancient Egyptian and astronomy to the Babylonians60.
24Notwithstanding this long and fortunate tradition, another opposing view emerged in Roman cultural circles in the early imperial age. Seneca the Younger seems to react against the common Greco-Roman praise of the protoi heuretai (Ep., 79.6):
Multum interest utrum ad consumptam materiam an ad subactam accedas: crescit in dies, et inuenturis inuenta non obstant. Praeterea condicio optima est ultimi.
“It makes a difference if you deal with a matter that has already been exhausted, or with one that needs to be investigated: the topic grows each day, and what is already discovered does not prevent for further discoveries. Besides, he who comes last is in the best position”.
25Literary works build on each other to make space for new approaches and interpretations, which opens up exciting possibilities, in literature as well as in other fields of knowledge. Even words, Seneca claims, when arranged in a different way, show a new face. The words, phrases and expressions of previous authors do not belong to anyone, but are simply “common good” (sunt enim publica), and are expected to be exploited by potential orators, historians, and poets61. Seneca offers here a praise of coming after in ancient literature, while at the same time providing a counterpart to the general idea of decline in literature and culture62.
26Quintilian, only a generation younger than Seneca, discusses at length Greek and Latin literary genres in his Institutes of Oratory, with a focus on imitation (imitatio) and its significance for the education of the orator (Inst., 10.1.37-104)63. In order to produce something new, valuable and enduring, Quintilian argues, one needs to rely on the previous tradition and at the same time build something original and innovative: “Nothing grows out of imitation alone. If we are not allowed to add to previous achievements, how can we hope for our ideal orator?” (Inst., 10.2.8-9: Nihil autem crescit sola imitatione. Quod si prioribus adicere fas non est, quo modo sperare possumus illum oratorem perfectum?, transl. D. A. Russell). The previous works of literature form the basis on which contemporary authors can construct their own works, looking backwards and forwards at the same time. This literary and cultural phenomenon is easily discernible in historiographical texts, especially when their authors set out to continue one or more predecessors64.
27Evagrius Scholasticus’ Church History reflects this attitude and transcends the boundaries of genre and chronology. On the one hand, he attacks pagans for their laughable mythical stories related to the gods (HE, 1.11 [19.13-20.19]), and condemns Zosimus for his tendentious history of Constantine (HE, 3.40 [139.6-7]: see above). On the other, apart from the list of historians in HE, 5.24, he quotes a significant number of ancient authors displaying his classical education: Homer, the poet par excellence; “the wise Plato”; Herodotus; Thucydides, “one of the wise pagan men”; Plutarch65. On the foundation of Antioch, where he spent most of his life, Evagrius includes an impressive number of authorities (HE, 1.20 [29.3-7]):
εἴ τῳ περισπούδαστον ταύτας εἰδέναι, ἱστόρηται περιέργως Στράβωνι τῷ γεωγράφῳ, Φλέγοντί τε καὶ ∆ιοδώρῳ τῷ ἐκ Σικελίας, Ἀρριανῷ τε αὖ καὶ Πεισάνδρῳ τῷ ποιητῇ, καὶ πρός γε Οὐλπιανῷ Λιβανίῳ τε καὶ ’Ιουλιανῷ τοῖς παναρίστοις σοφισταῖς.
“If anyone is curious to know about these, it has been narrated comprehensively by the geographer Strabo, Phlegon and Diodorus of Sicily, as well as Arrian and the poet Pisander, and furthermore Ulpian and Libanius and Julian the superlative sophists”.
28Even though these sources were not probably directly employed by Evagrius, it is still significant that he chooses to quote them: it probably means that his audience was somehow acquainted with Strabo66, Diodorus and the rest, and possibly had access to their texts. Not only does Evagrius mention secular authors, but he even quotes the emperor Julian, the great foe in Christian apologetic writings, as a supreme sophist! The reference is probably to the satirical essay Beard-heater (Misopogon), written in February or March 363, where Julian expressed his anger against the people of Antioch. It has been noticed that Evagrius (like Sozomen) feels more obliged than previous authors of Church histories to display his profane learning67.
29In the domain of historiography, he both praises his predecessors in the history of the Church and places himself as the heir to the secular tradition of Greek historiography with the list he inserts in HE, 5.24, and with the extensive use of profane historians throughout his work. It is from this favourable position of last historian in a sequence of authors that Evagrius sets out to write his own Church History. In Seneca’s words: conditio optima est ultimi.
Notes de bas de page
1 Momigliano [1969] 1975a, 53.
2 For the ancient commentators’ see the Thucydides scholia: Schol. Thuc., 1.20.3, 1.21.1, 1.22.4. Cf. Nünlist 2009, 227; Priestley 2014, 200. Not everyone agrees that Thucydides’ methodological chapter targeted Herodotus: see Baragwanath & de Bakker 2012b, 3 n. 5 with further references.
3 See Marincola 1997, 225-236.
4 Canfora 1971.
5 An overview on the historical cycle in classical historiography, especially in relation to the canons of Greek historiography, in Matijašić 2018, 123-127, 192-194 with further references.
6 All dates are ad, unless otherwise stated.
7 However, see Scheltema 1970, esp. p. 101-102 on the decline of the teaching of law in Constantinople after the death of Justinian (cf. also Corcoran 2017, 112).
8 For the biography of Evagrius: Chesnut 1977, 207-208; Carcione 1998, 5-8; PLRE, IIIA, 452-453; ODB, II, 761; Whitby 2000, xiii-xv; 2003, 480-495; Sabbah et al. 2011, 7-11. On Gregory of Antioch see Liebeschuetz 2001, 137-168, esp. 153. Antioch in Late Antiquity: Liebeschuetz 1972, Liebeschuetz 2015, 341-369, and, for an archaeological perspective, Brands 2016. Evagrius’ wealthy background is not exceptional in the landscape of vi-century provincial authors: cf. Rapp 2005, 382.
9 Evagrius was also the author of a book of “reports, letters, decrees, speeches, discussions and other similar things”, initially issued in the name of Patriarch Gregory (see Euagr., HE, 6.24 [240.29-33]: πεπόνηται δὲ ἡµῖν καὶ ἕτερον τεῦχος, ἀναφορὰς, ἐπιστολὰς, ψηφίσµατα, λόγους τε καὶ διαλέξεις, καὶ ἕτερα ἄττα ἔχον· τῶν ἐµπεριεχοµένων ἀναφορῶν ὡς ἐπίπαν ἐκ προσώπου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεουπόλεως συντεθειµένων): all of this material, possibly resembling Cassiodorus’ Variae, is now lost. Here and in the following pages, I quote Evagrius’ text with reference to both book + chapter and, in brackets, page + line of the Bidez & Parmentier edition (1898).
10 Translations of passages from Evagrius’ Church History rely on Whitby 2000, sometimes modified; other translations are my own, unless otherwise stated.
11 Cf. Van Nuffelen 2018.
12 On Eusebius’ place in the history of historiography Van Nuffelen 2018, 162-163.
13 See Momigliano [1969] 1975a, 52; Maraval & Périchon 2004, 18.
14 Porciani 2011, 88. This is also evident with the triad Herodotus-Thucydides-Xenophon’s Hellenica in some manuscripts preserved in the Marciana Library in Venice: see Matijašić 2018, 193-194. On historical cycle and manuscript tradition in general Canfora 1995, 191.
15 Chesnut 1977; Mazza 1980; Rohrbacher 2002, 108-134.
16 Cassiodorus refers explicitly to the translation in Inst., 1.17.1, the section dedicated to Christian historians. Cf. Scholten 2015, who, however, does not discuss Theodor Lector’s work; on the latter’s compilation: Hansen 1995, ix-xix. Cf. also Jacob & Hanslik 1952, ix-xi. According to Nautin 1994, Theodor Lector’s aim was not to produce an epitome of the histories of Theodoret, Socrates and Sozomen: instead, their works were included in a wider history of the Church from the time of Jesus to 518.
17 Van Nuffelen 2018, 164 emphasizes that the perception of ecclesiastical history as a continuous narrative from Christ to the end of times is the product of the choices of later generations, but this does not do justice to Socrates’ as well as Evagrius’ claims to be the continuators of the Church histories of their predecessors (see below).
18 Phot., Bibl., cod. 29, 6a27-30: ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία ἐν τόµοις ἕξ, ἀρχὴν ποιουµένη τὸ τέλος τῆς Σωκράτους καὶ Θεοδωρήτου ἱστορίας, καὶ κατιοῦσα µέχρι τῆς βασιλείας Μαυρικίου, ἔτος δωδέκατον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ διανύοντος.
19 The index (πίναξ) to Book 5 and those to the remaining books were probably added by later copyists: it is, however, notable that the πίναξ to Book 1 was added by the late-Byzantine historian Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos: see the apparatus criticus in Bidez & Parmentier 1898, 1. Cf. also Whitby 2000, 1 n. 1.
20 Numbers in brackets refer to Jacoby’s Fragmente (FGH), as well as to the re-edition of fragmentary Greek historians in Brill’s New Jacoby (BNJ) which maintains Jacoby’s numeration.
21 Cf. Festugière 1975, 440.
22 See the English translation in Jeffreys et al. 1986, 1. Cf. Adler 2017.
23 Cf. Barney et al. 2006, 67; Racine 2016, 203-204. On Dares, mentioned in Hom., Il., 5.9 as a priest of Hephaestus, see FGH, 51; BNJ, 51 (Isidore’s passage is recorded as T 2). Beschorner 1992 is rightly sceptical on the existence of a Greek text of Dares: Isidore possibly confused him with the Cretan Dictys, the author of Ephemeris belli Troiani. Cf. also Clark 2018 “A new German translation of Dares/Dictys”, in: Brodersen 2019.
24 On Josephus’ reception in antiquity and the Middle Ages Schreckenberg 1972.
25 On the controversy surrounding the Testimonium Flauianum different views are expressed by Whealey 2003; 2016; Olson 2013; Kletter 2016, 368-369; Mason 2017.
26 On Latin translations of Josephus’ works Levenson & Martin 2016, esp. p. 323-324 on this passage of Cassiodorus.
27 For scholarly works Mason 2003. Carrère 2014 tells the story of how a small religious sect and how this sect built a global religion, Christianity: Flavius Josephus’ narrative is exploited throughout the book to get an alternative view from the stories preserved in the New Testament.
28 Compare Euagr., HE, 5.24 (218.13-14): Ἑλλήνων τε καὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων βαρβάρων πρὸς ἑαυτούς τε καὶ πρὸς ἐκείνους διαγωνιζοµένων, with Hdt., preface: µήτε ἔργα µεγάλα τε καὶ θωµαστά, τὰ µὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέµησαν ἀλλήλοισι, and Thuc. 1.118.2: ταῦτα δὲ ξύµπαντα ὅσα ἔπραξαν οἱ Ἕλληνες πρὸς τε ἀλλήλους καὶ τὸν βάρβαρον ἐγένετο.
29 See Cameron & Cameron 1964, 321; Moravcsik 1966; Hunger 1969-1970; Kulikowski 2018, 144. On ethnography in Byzantium Kaldellis 2013, 1-25.
30 Cf. Canfora 1995, 249.
31 Thus Balsdon 1971, 18. Cf. also Hose 1998-1999.
32 Apart from Evagrius’ passage, Nicostratus is an otherwise unknown author. On Dexippus Martin 2006; Mecella 2013; Kulikowski 2018, 145-146 (with previous references).
33 The phrasing of Evagrius’ text is unusual: the participle of λαµβάνω would require an object. Cf. the observations in BNJ, 101.
34 HGM, 201-204; FGH, 101; Festugière 1975, 442 n. 77; Allen 1981, 239; Hose 1998-1999; BNJ, 101. Wrong identification with Eusebius of Caesarea: Whitby 2000, 287 n. 86; BNJ, 98 T 3.
35 Sivan 1992. Contra, with very good arguments, Zecchini 1999, 335-336. Cf. also Callu 1994, 76-79.
36 Baldwin 1981; Goukowski 1996; BNJ, 101.
37 Cf. Callu 1994, 73-75.
38 On Lucian’s How to Write History Porod 2013; Free 2015.
39 In this context, the term ῥήτωρ means advocate or barrister, rather than teacher of rhetoric. In the vi century both Procopius and Agathias are called ῥήτορες, and both are known to have been active practitioners of the law: Cameron & Cameron 1966, 15-16; Cameron 1970, 4 n. 6; Baldwin 1977, 296-297.
40 Evagrius goes on to criticize Zosimus in a fairly long passage: HE, 3.40-41 (139.7-144.19).
41 Cf. Momigliano [1969] 1975a, 52.
42 See Euagr., HE, 1.17 (26.25-31); 2.1 (36.10-11); 2.5 (51.6-27); 2.14 (65.23-31); 2.16 (66.13-67.4). On both Zosimus and Priscus in Evagrius see Allen 1981, 239-240; Whitby 2000, xxvi-xxvii. Priscus’ fragments are discussed and translated in Blockley 1981-1983.
43 See Girotti 2005, 356 n. 11.
44 See Allen 1981, 171-187. For the use of Procopius by Evagrius Whitby 2000, xxviii-xxxi, who shows some scepticism on Allen’s assertion that Evagrius considered himself the heir to the secular historiographical tradition.
45 Evagrius, writing in the 590s, declares elsewhere that Agathias’ History “has not yet reached us” (HE, 4.24 [171.21-22]); since Agathias died shortly before 582 and must have composed his work previous to that date (see Cameron 1970, 10-11), this remark by Evagrius gives us a glimpse on the limited circulation of secular texts in the late-vi century. Cf. Wilson 1975.
46 Procopius’ Histories covered principally the reign of Justinian until 552, which is where Agathias began his History, covering the years until 559. The work of John of Epiphania is known only from an excerpt preserved in a Vatican manuscript: FHG, IV, 273-276; HGM, 375-382.
47 I have preferred Gleye’s correction of ἕως with ἀπό (Gleye 1896) which makes Eustathius’ work begin with the destruction of Troy and the fleeing of Aeneas, rather than with the Creation, as most of the translations and commentators believe (Whitby 2000, xxvi; Festugière et al. 2014, 280-281): it is highly unlikely that Eustathius began with the Creation, since it was, after all, a secular work of history which apparently used a great number of pagan historians (see ODB, II, 753-754).
48 See Whitby 2000, xxvi. The late-Byzantine historian Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos stated that Eustathius was one of Evagrius’ main sources (PG, 145.608AB). In fact, Eustathius is quoted repeatedly by Evagrius: Persian wars of Theodosius II (1.19 [28.14]); career of emperor Zeno (2.15 [66.7]) and other events related to his reign (3.24-27 [122.1-124.18]); synchronism for the start of Anastatius’ reign (3.29 [125.13-23]); Persian siege of Amida (3.37 [135.27-136.7]). On Eustathius FHG, IV, 138-142; HGM, 353-364; Benjamin 1909; Brodka 2017. Besides being the author of a universal history, it seems that the same Eustathius also wrote an epitome of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities: this short text is preserved in the codex Parisinus gr. 1555A (xiii-xiv century, f. 5-7) with the title Εὐστατίου Ἐπιφανέως Συρίας Ἐπιτοµὴ τῆς Ἀρχαιολογίας Ἰωσήπου; cf. Allen 1988. Since Evagrius mentions Josephus as an authoritative author (HE, 5.24 [218.10-11]: “Josephus composed an extensive history, useful in all respects”, πολλὴν δὲ καὶ Ἰώσηπος ἔγραψεν ἱστορίαν, χρειώδη ἐς ἅπαντα τυγχάνουσαν), it is possible that Josephus presence at the beginning of Evagrius’ list is due to Eustathius, who probably employed Josephus to write down his own chronicle (again, see Brodka 2017). Treadgold 2007, 715 claims that Eustathius of Epiphania “was one of the most learned and sophisticated historians Byzantium ever produced” and that half of his text “survives today in an almost unaltered form under the name of John of Antioch”, but his conclusions cannot be proved and appear to be pure speculation (a detailed refutation of Treadgold’s views in Mecella 2017).
49 On John Lydus’ knowledge of Latin Maas 1992, 3-4, 11, 21, 25-28. Sallust is quoted in Lyd., Mag., 2.13, Suetonius in Lyd., Mag., 24.19 and 92.6. For Varro’s and Pliny’s quotations see the appendix “authorities cited by Lydus” in Maas 1992, 133-134. On Pliny the Elder’s Natural History in John Lydus Mastandrea 2012.
50 See Roberto 2005, xx with n. 16 for further references.
51 Cf. Mastandrea 2011, esp. p. 210; Bjornlie 2013, passim. See also PLRE, II, 265-269 (Cassiodorus); 281-282 (Cethegus); 1166 (Vigilius).
52 Specifically in 588: see Euagr., HE, 6.7 (225.27-226.34). Cf. Whitby 2000, xiv.
53 See Euagr., HE, 1.12 (20.27-30) quoting CJ, 1.1.3 Krüger: the edict was originally issued in the Acts of the First Council of Ephesus (ACO, 1.1.4, no. 138 [66.12-14 Schwartz]) which is Krüger’s source for the edition of CJ, 1.1.3. The same text was also included in the Collectio Tripartita: van der Wal & Stolte 1994, 12-13. On legal thought in the vi century: Humfress 2005; Stolte 2017.
54 Euagr., HE, 3.39 (136.32-137) on the chrysargyron, where he prefers to summarise the facts, instead of reporting the Greek text of CJ, 11.1 Krüger. Euagr., HE, 3.8 (108.9-11) refers to a Latin constitution of the emperor Zeno now in CJ, 1.2.16 Krüger. In the latter case, Evagrius’ source is the Church History of Zachariah Scholasticus (Whitby 2000, xxiii-xxv). Cf. also Dovere [1992] 2009, esp. p. 15-17.
55 On Greek lecture courses in the sixth century Corcoran 2017, esp. p. 105-110.
56 Corcoran 2017, 111. Cf. Nocchi Macedo 2019, van Bochove 2019, and Roberto 2019.
57 See Mac Coull 1988, 9-15 for Dioscorus’ education; p. 50-51 for his legal texts, and Latin misspellings.
58 Corcoran 2017, 116.
59 For Xenophon see HG, 7.5.27: ἐµοὶ µὲν δὲ µέχρι τούτου γραφέσθω· τὰ δὲ µετὰ ταῦτα ἴσως ἄλλῳ µελήσει. Cf. Grigolon 2002; Rood 2004b; Tuplin 2007b.
60 For Cadmus and the Phoenicians Hdt. 5.58; Egyptians and Babylonians: Hdt. 2.109. See Kleingünther 1933; Thraede 1962, 166-170; Matijašić 2018, 12-13.
61 See again Sen., Ep., 79.6: Parata uerba inuenit, quae aliter instructa nouam faciem habent. Nec illis manus inicit tamquam alienis. Sunt enim publica.
62 Cf. Hunter 2008, 8-26.
63 Cf. Steinmetz 1964; Flashar 1979b; Heldmann 1982; 131-146; Rosenmeyer 1985.
64 Cf. Marincola 1997, 15.
65 Homer: Euagr., HE, 1.11 (20.10-11); 1.15 (25.4); 1.20 (29.1); 5.6 (201.29-30); 5.19 (215.2-3). Plato: HE, 1.21 (31.6-7). Herodotus: HE, 2.8 (55.24-25), while there are other instances where Herodotus is probably alluded to, such as HE, Praef. (5.20-22) and 5.21 (216.28-217.3). Thucydides: HE, 1.7 (14.14-16); 3.39 (137.1-3); 4.29 (177.6-8). Plutarch: HE, 6.1 (222.23-223.2), even though the quotation of Plutarch is indirect and comes from Damophilus of Bithynia, a ii-century author of On the Life of the Ancients (Περὶ βίου ἀρχαίων, where ἀρχαίων stands for the Roman Republican age); for Damophilus’ fragments, not included in Jacoby’s FGH see FHG, III, 656; cf. Schwartz 1901. On the Greek Church historians’ attitude towards Hellenism Allen 1987.
66 On Strabo’s reception in antiquity, see Sørensen 2017, even though the Evagrius passage quoted above is not discussed.
67 Thus Allen 1987, 380.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Architecture romaine d’Asie Mineure
Les monuments de Xanthos et leur ornementation
Laurence Cavalier
2005
D’Homère à Plutarque. Itinéraires historiques
Recueil d'articles de Claude Mossé
Claude Mossé Patrice Brun (éd.)
2007
Pagus, castellum et civitas
Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire sur le village et la cité en Afrique romaine
Samir Aounallah
2010
Orner la cité
Enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie gréco-romaine
Anne-Valérie Pont
2010