Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T15:43:57.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the ‘List of Thalassocracies’ in Eusebius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. K. Fotheringham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

All students of Eusebius will feel grateful to Mr. J. L. Myres for his attempt in the last volume of this Journal to discover the original text underlying the list of thalassocracies, preserved in the Chronica of Eusebius, and to reassert its value as historical evidence. The problem that Mr. Myres has set himself is rendered difficult not only by the general obscurity in which the sources of early Greek history are shrouded and by our almost total ignorance of the history of many of the thalassocrats during the period assigned to them in the list, but by the complicated questions of textual criticism which surround the Chronica, and which this problem raises in a particularly aggravated form. While not venturing to follow Mr. Myres through the wealth of historical learning, which he has brought to bear upon the subject, I have thought that I might be able to contribute something by bringing my own studies in the Chronica into relation to the general question.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 27 , November 1907 , pp. 75 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1907

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For convenience of reference, Mr. Myres's table is repeated on p. 76 of this article.

2 Among the instances cited by Schöne are the differences in the dates of Roman bishops, on which much has been written. I am convinced that the peculiar dates of the Armenian version are simply due to scribal errors, and do not go back to Eusebius himself. See Mr.Turner's, C. H. article on the Early Episcopal Lists, Journal of Theological Studies (1900), i. 185 Google Scholar.

3 The Armenian version also omits the column of Median kings, although this column is essential both to the chronological system of the work and to the arrangement of columns and spaces, as preserved in Jerome. The omission of the Mycenaean column would not in itself dislocate any of the other columns.

4 From the position of the thalassocracies in relation to neighbouring events in Syncellus, we get a vague indication of their position in the text of Eusebius which he had before him. This will be found useful in determining Eusebius' date for the Aeginetans.

5 P. 2, ll. 28–30 (Schöne).

6 So the Bodleian manuscript. The Fleury fragments have 860.

7 ‘Tumultuarium opus.’ P. 1, l. 14 (Schöne).

8 So the Bodleian and Berlin manuscripts (MO).

9 So the Armenian version and Syncellus. Jerome has ‘Cyzicus.’

10 See the table in Smith, , Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, i. 531 Google Scholar.

11 c. Ap. i. 17, 18.

12 i. 13.