The Olympic Victor List of Eusebius Back

THE OLYMPIC VICTOR LIST OF EUSEBIUS: BACKGROUND, TEXT, AND TRANSLATIONAuthor(s): PAUL CHRISTESEN and ZARA MARTIROSOVA-TORLONEReviewed work(s):Source: Traditio, Vol. 61 (2006), pp. 31-93Published by: Fordham UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27832055 .

Accessed: 01/01/2013 18:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Fordham University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Traditio.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:06:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fordham

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27832055?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE OLYMPIC VICTOR LIST OF EUSEBIUS: BACKGROUND, TEXT, AND TRANSLATION

By PAUL CHRISTESEN and ZARA MARTIROSOVA-TORLONE

Sometime around 400 BC Hippias of Elis assembled the first cumulative

list of victors in the Olympic Games. In the centuries that followed the vic

tor list was regularly updated and widely circulated. The enduring popular

ity of Olympic victor lists, which the Greeks called Olympionikai, was due

to the fact that, by the fourth century BC, numbered Olympiads and the names of Olympic stadion victors became a standard means of identifying individual years. (The stadion, a footrace over a distance of roughly 200

meters, was the signature event of the ancient Olympics.) The Olympic vic

tor list thus became a basic chronological referent that was used by Greeks across much of the Mediterranean basin.1

Olympic victor lists remain documents of some importance. This is pri

marily because their Chronographie significance means that they are critical

to our understanding of the chronological underpinnings of Greek history. In

1 Greek names have been transliterated in such a way as to be as faithful as possible to

original spellings while taking into account established usages for well-known individuals

and places. When cited in the main text, both Armenian and Greek personal names drawn

from the Armenian translation of the Chronika are transliterated in accordance with the

system used by the Library of Congress for Eastern Armenian. In the English translation

of the Eusebian Olympic victor list presented in Appendix 2, however, all Greek names,

regardless of source, are presented in accordance with their original Greek form. This

approach is intended to reproduce the Armenian text as closely as possible while providing a consistent English translation of the Eusebian Olympic victor list as a whole.

All translations of ancient sources, both Greek and Armenian, are our own. The English translations of the Armenian version of the Chronika are based directly on the Armenian

text. We have, nonetheless, chosen to cite the Armenian version of the Chronika through reference to Karst's German translation rather than to Aucher's printed Armenian text,

because the German translation is much more accessible, both in terms of readability and

of availability, to most scholars. Citations of line numbers in the Greek version of the

Eusebian Olympic victor list refer to the text printed in Appendix 1.

We would like to thank Cecilia Gaposchkin for undertaking a physical examination of

CPG 2600 on our behalf and Nadezhda Kavrus-Hoffman for her comments on the prove nience of CPG 2600. Thanks are also due to Sen Arevshatyan, Mark Golden, Alden Moss

hammer, Michael Stone, and others too numerous to name, all of whom lent invaluable

assistance. Responsibility for the views expressed here and for any errors or omissions is

solely our own. This article was made possible in large part by the generosity of the

Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati, at which Paul Christesen worked

in the summer of 2005 as a Margo Tytus Visiting Scholar.



32 TRADITIO

addition, Olympionikai contain invaluable information about the historical

development of the Olympic Games and about Olympic victors and, as a

result, are regularly consulted by ancient historians. Well over a hundred

fragments from roughly twenty different Olympionikai have come down to

us, but there is only one extant, complete Olympic victor list. This is the list

of winners in the stadion at Olympiads 1-249 found in Eusebius's Chronika.2

Eusebius's version of the Olympic victor list survives both in the original Greek and in an Armenian translation that was executed ca. AD 450.

Despite its obvious significance, the last critical edition of the Eusebian

list is more than a century old, and an English translation of the entire text

has never appeared in print.3 Alfred Schoene published a comprehensive col

lection of the textual evidence for the Chronika between 1866 and 1875.4 This collection included a laudably careful transcription of the sole extant

manuscript copy (Codex Parisinus Graecus 2600) of the Greek text of the

Eusebian Olympic victor list along with numerous convincing emendations.

Schoene did not reproduce the Armenian text but did include a Latin trans

lation by Heinrich Petermann.

Schoene's continues to be the standard edition of the Eusebian Olympic victor list, but it is unsatisfactory in four different ways. First, Schoene did not make it easy for the reader to compare the two extant versions of the

Eusebian Olympic victor list. He printed the Greek text and Petermann's Latin translation in parallel columns. He did not, however, clearly mark the

many places where the Greek and Armenian versions diverge. This is prob lematic because the Armenian translation provides important readings that are helpful in emending the Greek text and preserves passages that dropped out of the Greek version during the transmission process. It is, therefore,

necessary to read the Greek and Armenian versions together in order to

make full and proper use of the Eusebian Olympic victor list. This can be done only with difficulty using Schoene's edition.

Second, the Greek text of the Eusebian Olympic victor list in Codex Pa risinus Graecus (CPG) 2600 includes a collection of stories about famous ath

2 On the textual evidence for Olympionikai, see Paul Christesen, Olympic Victor Lists

and Ancient Greek History, chap. 1 (forthcoming from Cambridge University Press). 3 A partial translation of the Eusebian Olympic victor list can be found in Rachel Sar

gent Robinson, Sources for the History of Greek Athletics in English Translation (orig. pubi. 1955; repr. Chicago, 1991), 52-55. An English translation of much of the Eusebian list can

be found online at: http://www.attalus.Org/translate/eusebiusl.html#193. One should note,

however, that this translation is based on Petermann's Latin translation of the Armenian

translation of the text. It is, therefore, rather remote from the Greek original. A recent

French translation, based on Schoene's Greek text, can be found in Panayota Badinou,

Olympiaka: Anthologie des sources grecques (Lausanne, 2000), 68-91. 4 Alfred Schoene, ed., Eusebi Chronicorum libri duo, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1866-75).



OLYMPIC VICTOR LISTS 33

letes that was appended by Panodoros, an Alexandrian monk who produced a revised version of the Chronika less than a century after Eusebius's death. Schoene was interested solely in the work of Eusebius and so omitted these stories. This material, which is of some interest, is at present accessed pri

marily through a printed edition of CPG 2600 published by J. A. Cramer in

1839.5 Cramer, in turn, simply reprinted the editio princeps that Joseph Sca

liger published in 1606 using a faulty copy of CPG 2600. Reliance upon a

seventeenth-century edition made from an imperfect copy of a manuscript is

obviously far from ideal.

Third, Petermann made his Latin translation for Schoene based on a

flawed printed edition and two different handwritten copies of the sole

extant manuscript of the Armenian Chronika (Codex E). He was unable to

locate the original manuscript, with the result that his translation is not based upon the soundest possible Armenian text.

Fourth, Latin is not an ideal choice for translating Armenian because the

grammar of the former is not sufficiently flexible to render the latter

adequately. When Josef Karst produced a new translation of the Armenian version of the Chronika in 1911, he rejected Latin and chose instead to

translate into German.6 Karst's German is widely considered to be superior to Petermanns Latin,7 but Karst printed only a German translation and

included neither the Armenian nor the Greek texts. Karst's translation is, as a result, not a suitable substitute for Schoene's edition.

A revised critical edition of Eusebius's Olympic victor list and an English translation are, therefore, desiderata. The goal of this article is to supply these desiderata. Our starting points were the printed editions of the Greek text produced by Schoene and of the Armenian text produced by Joannes

Baptista Aucher in 1818.8 We acquired photographic reproductions of the

key manuscripts (CPG 2600 and Codex E), checked and corrected the

printed editions, and referred to the Armenian version for assistance with

problematic sections of the Greek manuscript. We then produced an

updated version of the Greek text, including the supplemental stories about

5 J. A. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca e Codd. Manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, 4

vols. (Oxford, 1839-41), 2:115-63. 6

Josef Karst, ed., Die Chronik: Aus dem Armenischen ?bersetzt mit textkritischem Com

mentar (Leipzig, 1911). For Karst's explanation of the reasons for preferring German to

Latin in his translation, see ibid., xiii-xxxiii.

See Alden Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographie Tradition

(Lewisburg, PA, 1979), 58-60. 8

Joannes Baptista Aucher, ed., Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopi Chronicon

Bipartitum, nunc primum ex Armeniaco textu in Latinum conversum adnotationibus auctum

Graecis fragmentis exornatum (Venice, 1818). Aucher is sometimes identified as Mkrtich*

Avgeryan, the Armenian version of his name.



34 traditio

famous athletes, that offers revised readings and detailed notes about where

the Greek and Armenian versions diverge. This updated Greek text served as the basis for a complete English translation.

We have also endeavored to supply a full array of relevant background information. There is a host of complex issues surrounding the textual his

tory of the Chronika. These issues bear directly on many scholarly uses of

the Eusebian Olympic victor list and are sufficiently esoteric as to merit

detailed consideration. Since the Chronika is of interest to scholars with a

wide range of specialties, we have also made a concerted effort to explicate

key names and terms.

The following discussion is divided into three parts. The first part treats

the purpose and structure of the Chronika in general and the Olympic victor

list in particular. The second part examines the textual history of the

Chronika. The third part outlines the divergences between the Greek and

Armenian versions of the Eusebian Olympic victor list. The updated version

of the Greek text is presented in Appendix 1, the English translation in

Appendix 2.

Eusebius's Chronika and the Eusebian Olympic Victor List

Eusebius was born ca. AD 260, probably in Caesarea in Palestine. Cae sarea was at that time the site of an important school of biblical studies run

by Pamphilos. Eusebius was Pamphilos's pupil, and the two became so

closely associated that Eusebius added the patronymic Pamphili to his name. After being elected bishop of Caesarea in 313 or 314, Eusebius played a prominent role in the ecclesiastical politics of the eastern empire until his

death sometime between 337 and 340.9 Eusebius produced several apologetic works in which he sought to vindi

cate Christian beliefs and to refute pagan philosophy and religion. He was

particularly interested in showing that the events recounted in the Bible

considerably antedated anything recorded in Greek, pagan writings and that

the Bible was, as a result, an older and more trustworthy source. To this

end, he compiled a Chronographie study, the a.10 The Chronika con

9 An excellent introduction to Eusebius's life and work can be found in Timothy David

Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, 1981), 111-20 and passim as well as Fried

helm Winkelmann, "Historiography in the Age of Constantine," in Greek and Roman His

toriography in Late Antiquity, ed. Gabrielle Marasco (Leiden, 2003), 3-41. Both Barnes and

Winkelmann draw heavily on Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, which remains essential. 10

There were at least two different editions of the Chronika. The first, which Eusebius

completed in 311, covered the period from the birth of Abraham (which Eusebius placed in

the year corresponding to 2016 BC) to the death of the emperor Galerius (AD 311). Four

teen years later Eusebius produced another edition, which extended down to the vicennalia

of Constantine (325). On the editions of the Chronika, see R. W. Burgess, "The Dates and




sists of two books, each of which has its own preface and title. The first

book is known as the a a (Chronographia) and the second as the a e a e a a a E e a ?a

-

?a or more simply as a e (Chronikoi Kanones).n The Chronographia contains brief treatments of a number of different

time-reckoning systems used in the ancient Mediterranean and provides the

lists of kings and magistrates on which those systems were founded. The

section on Greek chronology includes a list of stadion victors in Olympiads 1-249. The Chronikoi Kanones consists of a lengthy table in which major events in both sacred and secular history between the years 2016 BC and

AD 325 are briefly described and dated. The Chronikoi Kanones uses num

bered Olympiads as one method of dating events, but it does not include the names of Olympic victors. We are, as a result, primarily interested here in

the Chronographia. The opening words of the Chronographia make the purpose of this book

clear:

I have perused the manifold volumes of the histories written by our fore bears, what the Chaldaeans and Assyrians report, also what the Egyptians severally write, whatever the Greeks relate, ostensibly accurately just as if that were possible. This material includes the reigns of kings and the Olym piads, i.e., what is passed down about the athletes, and certain great deeds

performed by non-Greeks and Greeks, by Arians and non-Arians, as well as

various astonishing armies, generals, wise men, heroes, poets, historians, and

philosophers. I have synchronized all these things, especially insofar as they are really useful and important in producing a treatment in the form of a

compressed summary. I have laid the ancient history and chronology of the Hebrews taken from Holy Scripture alongside the aforementioned things, so that we can discover how long before the salvific Incarnation were Moses and the Hebrew prophets who came after him. I have also brought into con

sideration everything that has been prophesied under the influence of the

Holy Spirit, so that we can easily recognize at what time Moses and the

prophets lived in comparison to those who were called heroes among the several peoples, either Greek or non-Greek, and how much time there is from

the beginning to the first of the Hebrew prophets as well as all those who became leaders among the Hebrews afterward, one succeeding the other.

(1.1-24 Karst)

Editions of Eusebius's Chronici Ca?ones and Historia Ecclesiastica" Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 471-504.

11 On the individual books in the Chronika, the format of the work, and its textual his

tory, see Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, 29-83 as well as R. W. Burgess's "A Chrono

logical Prolegomenon to Reconstructing Eusebius's Chronici Ca?ones: The Evidence of Ps

Dionysius (the Zuqnin Chronicle)," forthcoming in the Canadian Journal for Syriac Studies.

Mosshammer translates the title of the second book of the Chronika as Chronological Can

ons with an Epitome of Universal History both Greek and Nongreek.



36 TRADITIO

Eusebius then discusses the difficulties involved in establishing accurate

dates and the need to examine each time-reckoning system individually before integrating all of them into a single chronology. This statement of

methodology is followed by a summary of the contents of the Chronogra

phia:

Having perused the books of our forebears, on account of the things that have been discussed above, I will first lay out the chronology of the Chal daeans, then that of the Assyrians, then the kings of the Medes, then the

kings of the Lydians, and after that those of the Persians. And from there

moving to another place, I will lay out the entire chronology of the Hebrews, in order. After this, third in order, I will lay out the chronology of the Egyptian dynasties. To this I will also add the chronology of the Ptolemies, who, after Alexander the Macedonian, ruled over Egypt and

Alexandria. After this, starting anew once again, I will show, one after the

other, the means by which Greeks reckon their history, first those who ruled over Sicyon, and those who ruled over the land of the Argives, and those indeed who ruled over the city of the Athenians, from the first to the last, those who ruled in Lacedaemonia, and those who ruled in Corinth, and

lastly those from other regions who came to dominate the sea. I will also include the list of Olympiads, which is written up by the Greeks. Thereupon, after compiling and putting all of this together in a proper fashion, I will further deal in succession with the first kings of the Macedonians and the Thessalians, and after that those of the Syrians and of the Asians, who came to power after Alexander. After that, I will assemble, each in a distinct part and separated from one another, those who, starting from Aeneas, after the

fall of Troy, ruled over the Latins, who were later called Romans. Next after

these comes the series of kings who descend from Romulus, who built the

city of Rome, and those who one after the other became emperors starting from Julius Caesar and Augustus, as well as the consuls, who served on an

annual basis in between the kings and the emperors. (3.3-31 Karst)

Eusebius closes the preface with a note that he will rearrange this material in the Chronikoi Kanones in a fashion that will make it possible to compare and contrast it more easily and quickly.

There are, as Eusebius indicates in the preface, five distinct subdivisions

in the Chronographia, dedicated to the Chaldaeans (under which heading Eusebius puts the Assyrians, Medes, Lydians, and Persians [4-34 Karst]), Hebrews (ibid., 34-62), Egyptians (ibid., 62-80), Greeks (ibid., 80-124), and

Romans (ibid., 125-43). The contents of the section on the Greeks are struc

tured in the following fashion (the section titles are Eusebius's):

The Greeks. How the Greeks Reckon Ancient History (80.7-124.29) Introductory Note (80.7-18) Epochs of the Greeks (80.19-81.14) From Kastovr,12 on the Sicyonian Kingdom (concludes with a list of

Kastovr of Rhodes, an historian active in the first century BC.




Sicyonian kings, 81.15-83.14) From Kastovr, on the Argive Kingdom (concludes with a list of

Argive kings, 83.15-85.28) From Kastovr, on the Athenian Kingdom (concludes with a list of

Athenian kings, life- and decennial-archons, 85.29-89.2) From Porp'iwriw's13 History of Philosophy (intervals between key

epochs, 89.3-10) Olympiads of the Greeks (89.11-103.33) From Diodor's14 Book, on the Corinthian Kings (concludes with a

list of Corinthian kings, 104.1-105.10) Kings of the Lacedaemonians, from Diodor's Book (concludes

with a list of Lacedaemonian kings, 105.11-106.27) From the Excerpts of the Writings of the Same Diodor, on the

Times of the Thalassocrats, Who Ruled the Seas (106.28-107.16) Macedonian Kings (concludes with a list of Macedonian kings

down to Alexander the Great, 107.17-109.7) From Porp'iwriw, A Philosopher Against Us15 (on Macedonian

kings after Philip, concludes with a list of kings from Philip Arrhidaios to the end of the Macedonian kingdom, 109.8-114.17)

Thessalian Kings (concludes with a list of Thessalian kings and

generals, 114.18-116.33) Asian and Syrian Kings (concludes with a list of Antigonid and

Seleucid kings, 117.1-124.29)

These lists have an overt chronological function. For example, they spe

cify the number of years individual rulers held power and highlight key syn chronizations between different systems of time-reckoning.

Eusebius included a list of Olympic stadion victors in the Chronographia because the most widely used time-reckoning system in ancient Greece was

based on numbered Olympiads and the names of stadion victors. This sys tem took the first Olympiad, which was placed in the year corresponding to 776 BC, as an epoch and numbered Olympiads from that point. Individual

years within Olympiads were identified either by the numbers one through four or by the names of annual eponymous officials in Athens or Rome.16 The following passages from Diodorus Siculus give a good idea of how this

system worked:

13 Porphyry of Tyre, a philosopher active in the third century AD.

14 Diodorus Siculus, an historian active in the first century BC.

15 The translation of this particular phrase has been the subject of much dispute. See

Brian Croke, "The Origins of the Christian World Chronicle," in History and Historians in

Late Antiquity, ed. Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett (Sydney, 1983), 116-31. 16

On the use of Olympiads as the basis of a chronological system, see Friedrich Karl

Ginzel, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, 3 vols. (Leipzig,

1906-14), 2:350-60 and Alan Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (Munich, 1972), 189-94.



38 TRADITIO

When this year had passed, Theophilos held the archonship in Athens, Gaius

Sulpicius and Gaius Quintius were appointed consuls in Rome, and the 108th

Olympiad was held, in which Polykl?s of Cyrene won the stadion [348 BC]. During the magistracies of these men . . . (16.53.1). (Approximately 100 lines of text follow, describing events that took place in this year.)

In the archonship of Themistokl?s at Athens, Gaius Cornelius and Marcus

Popilius succeeded to the office of consul [347 BC]. During the magistracies of these men. . . .

(16.56.1)

The names of stadion victors were, strictly speaking, superfluous, since

the year in which an Olympiad fell could be calculated on a purely numer

ical basis. (The 50th Olympiad, for example, came 196 years after 776.) The names of stadion victors were nonetheless typically included along with

Olympiad numbers, for two reasons. First, when Hippias of Elis compiled the earliest version of the Olympic victor list, he used stadion victors as epo

nyms and did not number the Olympiads.17 There was, as a result, an estab

lished tradition of identifying Olympiads using stadion victors. Second, num

bers in Greek manuscripts were habitually expressed using alphabetic numerals. These numerals were easily corrupted, particularly since papyrus texts needed to be constantly recopied. This greatly multiplied the possibil

ity that, for example, ' could be mistaken for ', thus changing an Olym

piad number from thirty-four to fourteen. The pairing of a stadion victor

with an Olympiad made it possible to cross-check Olympiad numbers, pro vided one had a complete list of Olympic stadion victors. This accounts for

the presence of just such a list in the Chronographia. The Olympic victor list found in CPG 2600 is the product of a compli

cated process of compilation and composition that commenced when Euse bius copied excerpts of a preexisting Olympionikai and that ended when

Panodoros produced a revised and expanded version of the Chronika. In

tracing the development of this particular version of the Olympic victor list, it is helpful to keep in mind that it consists of three distinct parts: introduc

tory comments, a catalog of stadion victors, and stories about famous ath

letes.

For a long period of time it was assumed virtually without question that

Eusebius took his Olympic victor list from the Christian chronographer Sex tus Julius Africanus. Alden Mosshammer and Richard Burgess have shown

that Eusebius in fact copied most of his Olympic victor list from an

excerpted version of a historical chronicle written by Cassius Longinus in

17 On the early history of the Olympic victor list, see Christesen, Olympic Victor Lists,

chap. 1; Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 14 vols. (Berlin, 1923-58), 3bl:221-28; and Julius J?thner, Philostratos ?ber Gymnastik (Leipzig, 1909), 60-70. Aristo

tle numbered the Olympiads for the first time.




the early third century AD.18 The excerpted version of the Olympic victor list that Eusebius copied consisted of a brief historical introduction probably originally written by Longinus (lines 8-36 in Appendix 1) and a catalog of

stadion victors in Olympiads 1-249. Eusebius added a note explaining his rea

sons for including an Olympic victor list in the Chronika (lines 1-7) and some

observations on the Chronographie dimensions of the Olympics (lines 37-47).19 Sometime around 400 Panodoros, a monk with considerable expertise in

Chronographie matters, produced a revised version of Eusebius's Chronika. With the help of his contemporary Annianos, Panodoros reformatted the

Chronika so that the dates it contained could be more easily compared with

those found in other Christian chronographies.20 Panodoros also made

changes to the content of the Chronika. Of particular importance in the

present context is that he added a series of stories about famous athletes to the end of the Olympic victor list he found in the Chronika. Either Euse bius or Panodoros also added some comments to the entries for some Olym

piads in the victor catalog. The Olympic victor list transmitted in CPG 2600 is the revised version

produced by Panodoros. This is evident from lines 482-88:

Up to this point we find a register of Olympiads. Eusebius [records] these

things. Other chronographers, including Dexippos the Athenian, also make note of the series of Olympiads and those who were victorious in those

Olympiads. ... Since the register of Olympiads cited above makes no mention of many famous athletes, we will speak of a few of the many.

The referent of "we find" (e e ) is not specified, but it should be

understood as Panodoros using the first person plural or Panodoros and

Annianos. There is, as we will see, a nearly identical corruption in the entry for the 36th Olympiad in both the Olympic victor list as transmitted in CPG 2600 and in the Armenian translation of the Chronika. The Armenian

Chronika was based on the revised version of Panodoros (see below), which

in turn means that the Olympic victor list in CPG 2600 must derive from

the same source.21

18 Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, 138-68 and R. W. Burgess, Studies in Eusebian

and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Stuttgart, 1999), 28-35. 19

See Christesen, Olympic Victor Lists, chap. 4. 20

On Panodoros and Annianos, see William Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Wash

ington, DC, 1989), 72-105 and William Adler and Paul Tuffin, eds., The Chronography of

George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford,

2002), lv-lix, lxiii-lxix, and the bibliography cited therein. On the textual history of the

Chronika, see n. 11. 21

The attribution of the CPG 2600 excerpts to Panodoros goes back to Alfred von

Gutschmid. (Gutschmid's comments can be found in Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 1:242.)



40 traditio

Although both the excerpts in CPG 2600 and the Armenian Chronika derive from Panodoros's edition, the Greek and Armenian versions of Euse

bius's Olympic victor list are not identical. The Armenian translation is

shorter but includes material not found in the Greek version, primarily in

the notes attached to the entries for individual Olympiads. The two versions

must, as a result, be studied together. In order to do so effectively, it is first

necessary to review the rather complicated textual history of the Chronika.

The Textual History of Eusebius's Chronika

Although the original text of the Chronika does not survive in anything like its entirety, we do possess extensive fragments of Eusebius's Greek as

well as translations of varying degrees of completeness in Latin, Syriac, and

Armenian. The two key sources of fragments of the Greek text are the

Eklog? Chronographias of Georgios Synkellos (ninth century AD) and CPG 2600. The Eklog? Chronographias is a Chronographie study that draws heav

ily on the Chronika. Synkellos mentions (233.5-8) but does not reproduce Eusebius's list of stadion victors.22 Fortunately, the Greek text of the Euse

bian list of stadion victors is preserved in CPG 2600.

His analysis of the extant fragments of Panodoros's work led Gutschmid to conclude that

Panodoros had made heavy use of Sextus Julius Africanus, Dexippos, and Eusebius. The

association of what Gutschmid believed to be all of Panodoros's main sources with the

excerpts in CPG 2600 was for him decisive. The juxtaposition of Eusebius and Dexippos in the extract remains significant but is not nearly as decisive as the shared textual cor

ruption detailed above, which is not mentioned by Gutschmid.

It is not clear whether Panodoros revised the entirety of the Chronika or only selected

portions. Panodoros also wrote a lengthy Chronographie study in some sort of association

with Annianos. (It has long been thought that Annianos revised Panodoros's work, but

there is now a growing body of thought that the reverse was true. On this view, see Bon

nie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year [Oxford,

1999], 766, 776.) Panodoros's Chronographie study is known largely through citations in the

work of Synkellos. It seems to have been quite elaborate and to have included not only discussions of Chronographie problems, but also tables of lunar and solar motion. It is pos sible that Panodoros revised only selected portions of the Chronika and incorporated them

into his own Chronographie study, so that there was but one work, which is the source of

the excerpts in CPG 2600. This seems unlikely because the Armenian translators produced a complete text of the Chronika, and they used Panodoros's revised version in at least

some places. If Panodoros did not revise the entirety of the Chronika, then the Armenian

translators worked with both the original version and with Panodoros's revision in order to

produce a complete text. This is, for present purposes, not a significant issue since the

Olympic victor list in CPG 2600 almost certainly derives from Panodoros's work. 22

Synkellos refers to a list of stadion victors in the first 248 Olympiads. Either Synkellos erred in recalling the number of victors listed by Eusebius or the number in the relevant

section of the text of the Eklog? Chronographias is corrupt.



OLYMPIG VICTOR LISTS 41

CPG 2600 is a manuscript of 304 folios, which was written on paper sometime around AD 1500. This manuscript contains an array of texts,

mostly in Greek, on disparate subjects, including (in the following order) a

collection of short works on grammatical matters such as irregular verbs, the Rape of Helen by Kolothos (ca. AD 500), the Sack of Troy by Tryphio d?ros (ca. AD 400), the Hero and Leander of the grammatician Mousaios

(ca. AD 500), a collection of sayings by Pythagoras, elegiac poems of Solon, the sayings of Cato translated into Greek, the Homeric Battle of Frogs and

Mice (Batrachomyomachia), a Latin translation of the Battle of Frogs and Mice by Leonardo Aretino (also known as Leonardo Bruni, ca. 1370-1444), Saturnalian Letters ascribed to Lucian, a collection of prophecies about

Christ, brief notes on a certain insigne peculiar to men born in Crete,

excerpts from Eusebius's Chronika (including the Olympic victor list), Con

cerning Heresies by Joannes Damascenus (ca. 700), an anonymous work on

synods, an anonymous dialogue on the papacy, excerpts from On the Incar nation by Athanasios (ca. 350), excerpts from the Chronikon of Hippolytos (ca. 225) pertaining to the genealogy of Jesus's mother, and excerpts from a

tragedy called the Passion of Christ ascribed to Gregory the Theologian (ca. 350).23 The excerpts from the Chronika appear on folios 192-218. Plate 1 shows folios 204v-205r, which contain the end of the prefatory material and the beginning of the catalog of stadion victors.

In the second half of the fifteenth century hundreds of manuscripts, CPG 2600 among them, were produced to satisfy the hunger of Western Euro

peans for Greek texts. Fourteenth-century Italian scholars such as Petrarch

helped revive the study of Greek in Western Europe. Greek manuscripts were, nonetheless, relatively rare even in the great libraries of Italy prior to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. When the Ottomans seized Constanti

nople, substantial numbers of manuscripts were removed from the city and

brought west, where they were valuable commodities. Western rulers,

nobles, and churchmen became avid collectors, and Byzantine scholars and scribes who had fled Constantinople began producing new copies of Greek texts to meet the resulting demand. In some cases these men were driven

by financial considerations, in other cases by a love of learning and the desire to preserve the Greek cultural heritage.24

23 This play is typically known as the Christus Patiens and is now thought to have been

written in the eleventh or twelfth century. See Andr? Tuilier, ed., La Passion du Christ,

trag?die (Paris, 1969), 12-18, 38-47. For information on CPG 2600, including a list of con

tents, see Cramer, Anecdota Graeca (n. 5 above), 2:115-16 and Henri Auguste Omont,

Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Biblioth?que Nationale (Paris, 1898), no. 2600. 24

On the production of Greek manuscripts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see

Leandros Vranoussis, "Post-Byzantine Hellenism and Europe: Manuscripts, Books and

Printing Presses," Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 2 (1986): 1-71, at 1-15. See also H. S.

Bennett, "The Production and Dissemination of Vernacular Manuscripts in the Fifteenth

Century," The Library 3-4 (1946-47): 167-78.



42 TRADITIO

CPG 2600 was written by Michael Souliardos, one of the most prolific copyists of the fifteenth century. He was born sometime around 1450 in

Naufplion in the P?loponn?se. During the last quarter of the fifteenth cen

tury and early years of the sixteenth he worked in Crete, the P?loponn?se, Florence, and Bologna. In a colophon to a manuscript he copied in Bologna, Souliardos states that this is the one hundred and fiftieth manuscript he has transcribed:

a, e a a , a a a ? a a a , a

' a a a a .

In Bologna, a city in Italy, I wrote out this book without pay, along with

many others, to the number of 150, on behalf of my country and my people.

Souliardos's emphasis on being motivated by philhellenism rather than

acquisitiveness is repeated in the colophon to another manuscript, this one

copied in Florence in 1496, in which he writes that he worked a , a

' a ("not for the sake of money, but on behalf of

my country"). Souliardos's manuscripts survive in considerable numbers, with twenty-five examples extant in Paris alone.25

There are many indications that Souliardos copied CPG 2600 in Italy at the very end of the fifteenth or very beginning of the sixteenth century. Leonardo Aretino, who was responsible for the Latin translation of the Bat tie of Frogs and Mice in CPG 2600, lived in Florence in the first half of the fifteenth century. The inclusion of this text is a strong indication that Sou liardos was in Italy when he wrote CPG 2600.26 The manuscript is rubri

cated, which also points to Italy as its place of production.27 Watermarks

show that the manuscript contains paper from several different sources, not all of which can be traced, but at least some of the paper was produced in Venice sometime around 1491.28 Souliardos worked in Florence and Bologna

25 On Souliardos, see Ernst Gamillscheg, Dieter Harlfinger, and Herbert Hunger, Reper

t?rium der griechischen Kopisten, 800-1600, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1981-97), la:155-56,

2a:148-49, 3a:173-74; Marie Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mit

telalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1909), 318-20; and Vranoussis, "Post-Byzantine Hel

lenism," 1-13. The quotations from Souliardos's colophons are taken from Vranoussis and

come from Mutinensis a T.9.6 (40) (C85 [IIIC6]) and Toledo Kapitelsbibliothek 45.30, respectively.

26 On Leonardo Aretino, see Robert Black, "Leonardo Bruni," in the Oxford Companion

to Italian Literature, ed. Peter Hainsworth and David Robey (Oxford, 2002), 86-87. 27

Many of the capital letters are written in red ink. We are grateful to Nadezhda Kav

rus-Hoffman for noting the significance of the rubrication in CPG 2600. 28

Most of the watermarks are incomplete because they are in the gutter of the manu

script, and no exact matches for some of the visible watermarks exist in the standard

handbooks. Folios 83-90 are watermarked with a bell and cross, which precisely matches

Briquet 4060, thus indicating that this paper was produced in Venice in 1491. Other, more

tentative matches suggest production in Venice in the last decade of the fifteenth or the




beginning in 1486 and had returned to Naufplion by 1509. A date of ca.

1500 for CPG 2600 cannot, therefore, be far off.29 Both the source text Souliardos used for the excerpts from the Chronika

found in CPG 2600 and the early history of the manuscript are unknown.

We can, however, be certain that CPG 2600 had entered the French royal

library at Fontainebleau by 1552. It was examined and cataloged in the

mid-sixteenth century by Ange Verg?ce, a Greek who worked in the royal

library at Fontainebleau as a calligraphier and copyist for Fran?ois I and his successor Henry II.30 During the years 1549-52 Verg?ce went through each of the Greek manuscripts in the royal library and wrote a detailed note at

the head of each, in which he described the manuscript's size, binding, and

contents.31 These notes were subsequently recopied and compiled into a

comprehensive catalog.32 CPG 2600 does not, however, appear in a catalog of the royal library from 1518. Fran?ois I invested a great deal of time and

money expanding the limited collection of Greek manuscripts that he inher ited from his predecessors. He began buying such texts in 1529. Most of the Greek manuscripts acquired by Fran?ois came from Italy, and there can be little doubt that CPG 2600 was purchased in Italy for the French royal

first decade of the sixteenth century. There was a substantial regional trade in paper in

Italy at this time, so it is entirely possible that Souliardos used Venetian paper while work

ing in Florence or Bologna. The watermark identifications were made by Francis Vian in

1975 and are recorded in the Biblioth?que Nationale's fiches on CPG 2600. (The fiches do

not include the name of the person responsible for the watermark identifications. Vian's

hand in this work is evident from an article by Enrico Livrea, at whose request Vian

examined CPG 2600. See Enrico Livrea, "Versa una nuova edizione di Trifiodoro: Una

lettera inedita di J. F. Boissonade ed il Parisinus Gr. 2600," Studi classici e orientali 28

[1978]: 49-68, at 65.) 29

The Biblioth?que Nationale's fiches for CPG 2600 date the manuscript to the last dec

ade of the fifteenth or first years of the sixteenth century, though without providing a

systematic discussion of the dating evidence. 30

On Verg?ce, see M. Hoefer, "Ange Verg?ce," in Nouvelle biographie g?n?rale depuis les

temps les plus recul?s jusqu'? nos jours, avec les renseignements bibliographiques et l'indication

des sources ? consulter, ed. M. Hoefer, 46 vols. (Paris, 1855-66), 45:1105-6. CPG 2600 is

listed as number 152 in Verg?ce's catalog. The Greek manuscripts in the royal (and later

national) library were repeatedly renumbered. CPG 2600 has previously been identified

with the shelfmarks 152, 1082, 1296, and 3244. 31

Manuscripts in most medieval libraries were filed on the basis of format, size, and

title. Verg?ce's catalog included the information necessary to locate a manuscript in gen eral terms, and the description of the binding helped make it easier to identify the specific

manuscript for which one was searching. 32

For the text of Verg?ce's note, and information on the acquisition of Greek manu

scripts by the French royal library in the sixteenth century, see Henri Auguste Omont,

Catalogues des manuscrits grecs de Fontainebleau sous Fran?ois Ier et Henri II (Paris,

1889), i-xxiii and 55.



44 TRADITIO

library sometime between 1529 and 1552. CPG 2600 is currently in the

Biblioth?que Nationale in Paris.

The editio princeps of CPG 2600 was published by Joseph Scaliger in 1606.

Scaliger was among the most famous classical scholars of his day and played a critical role in the study of the Chronika. He made his name working with

manuscripts in Paris and was particularly interested in the historical chro

nology of the ancient world. He argued with great vehemence that Greek

and Roman history could be understood only when placed in a larger tem

poral and geographical context. Scaliger's great ambition was to construct a

comprehensive chronology for events in the ancient Near East, Greece, and

Rome. He made a preliminary attempt to do so in De emendatione tempo rum, which appeared in 1583.

Scaliger's intimate acquaintance with the ancient sources made him aware

of the Chronika. He came to see this work, a Chronographie study that

embraced the entire history of the ancient world including the Near East, as critical to his scholarly endeavors. As a result, he invested a great deal

of time and effort in trying to reconstruct the original Greek text. In doing so, he was greatly aided by his friend and colleague Isaac Casaubon. In 1593

Scaliger went to Leiden to take up the professorship vacated by Justus Lip sius, while Casaubon remained in Paris.33

The primary difficulty that Scaliger had to overcome was that none of

the currently available Greek, Syriac, or Armenian manuscripts of the

Chronika were known to classical scholars when he began his work. Scaliger thus found it necessary to rely upon a Latin translation of the Chronikoi Kanones made by Jerome (see below) and the limited number of fragments found in other sources. The situation began to improve in the early seven

teenth century as a result of the diligent researches of Casaubon in Paris. In

1602 Casaubon discovered a manuscript copy of Synkellos's Eklog? Chrono

graphias, which contained many fragments of the Chronika. In 1605, he dis

covered CPG 2600.34 Casaubon immediately had a copy made and sent it to Scaliger in Leiden.

Scaliger emended the text, which was flawed both due to problems with the

manuscript itself and due to errors in the copy made at Casaubon's behest.

Scaliger published the editio princeps of CPG 2600 as part of a massive Chron

ographie study of the ancient world, the Thesaurus Temporum, in 1606.35

33 On Scaliger's life and career, see Anthony Grafton, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the

History of Classical Scholarship, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1983-93), 1:101-33, 227-29, 2:60-144,

270-75, 361-436, 491-613, and passim, and Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius ( . 7

above), 38-41. 34

For the details of this part of Scaliger's career, see Grafton, Joseph Scaliger, 2:536-59. 35

A second, posthumous edition appeared in 1658. The Thesaurus Temporum included a

register of Olympic victors compiled by Scaliger. This register was written in Greek and




The text of the Olympic victor list preserved in CPG 2600 has been

republished three times since 1606. J. A. Cramer included it in his Anecdota Graeca in 1839, but he simply reproduced Scaliger's version of the text

rather than working directly with the original manuscript.36 Johannes

Rutgers produced an entirely new edition in 1862, but he omitted the mate

rial that appeared before and after the catalog of stadion victors.37 In

1866-75, Alfred Schoene published a new edition of the Chronika that

included all the extant Greek text. For the fragments from CPG 2600, he

took Cramer's edition as his starting point, but he also commissioned a reex

amination of the manuscript that was undertaken by Paul Lagarde. Lagarde produced a revised version of Cramer's text that took into account the pre

viously proposed emendations and presented many new readings.38 Schoene

also received significant help from Alfred von Gutschmid.39 Schoene's ver

sion of the Greek text of the Eusebian Olympic victor list is still the stan

dard edition.

The Latin and Syriac translations of the Chronika are of only minimal

interest here because none of the relevant manuscripts includes the list of

Olympic stadion victors. Jerome produced a Latin translation of the Chro

nikoi Kanones in 380-81. He did a great deal of literal translation, but he

also added some material from Latin authors not used by Eusebius, modi

fied some dates, and wrote a continuation covering the years from 325 to

378. The entirety of Jerome's version of the Chronikoi Kanones survives, and the manuscript tradition begins very early and is exceedingly rich.

Jerome did not, however, take the trouble to translate the Chronographia. There are two extant Syriac epitomes of the Chronika and traces of a third, but they are all incomplete.40

This brings us to the Armenian version of the Chronika. The rich Arme nian literary tradition includes a nearly complete translation of both books of

the Chronika. This translation came into being ca. 450 as part of a concerted effort on the part of the Armenian Christian church to preserve national con

sciousness during a period of political and cultural upheaval.

was modeled on similar registers in ancient sources. It was, as a result, frequently mistaken

for an authentic, ancient Olympic victor list up through the mid-nineteenth century. On

this subject, see Grafton, Joseph Scaliger, 2:536-59. 36

Cramer, Anecdota Graeca (n. 5 above), 2:115-63. 37

The original edition of Rutgers work was published by Brill. It was reissued by Ares

in 1980 (Johannes Rutgers, Sextus Julius Africanus: Olympionicarum Fasti). 38

Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum (n. 4 above), l:xii. 39

Ibid., l:ix. 40

See the bibliography cited in nn. 9 and 11 above. See also R. W. Burgess, "Jerome

Explained: An Introduction to His Chronicle and a Guide to Its Use," Ancient History Bul

letin 16 (2002): 1-32.



46 TRADITIO

From an early date Christianity played a significant role in maintaining a

feeling of unity among Armenians, who frequently found themselves under

the rule of foreign powers. King Trdat of Armenia made Christianity the

official religion of his kingdom in 301 in large part because he was "con vinced that by so doing he would erect an important barrier to assimilation

by Armenia's powerful pagan neighbors."41 When Armenia was partitioned by the Byzantine and Sasanid empires in 387, both groups of conquerors

sought to force the Armenians to assimilate. The Byzantines took over con

trol of western Armenia. They attempted to impose Greek as the basic lan

guage and to subordinate the Armenian church, which had long operated

independently, to the patriarchate of Constantinople. The Sasanids, who

controlled eastern Armenia, hoped to make their newest subjects into Per

sian-speaking Zoroastrians.

The Armenian clergy responded to these threats by adopting measures

intended to promote among the members of their congregations a strong sense of Armenian identity. They began conducting the liturgy in Armenian and took steps to create a written version of the Armenian language and a

corresponding body of religious literature. Two distinct groups of mission aries introduced Christianity into Armenia: Greek speakers who entered from the west and Syriac speakers who entered from the east. Armenian

clergy, as a result, initially held services in either Greek or Syriac. In order to make it possible for the laity to participate, specially trained individuals

provided running but strictly oral translations during the liturgy. In the

years after 387 the decision was taken to use the Armenian language in church. This, in turn, required that key Christian texts, the Bible and pa tristic literature, be formally translated into Armenian.42

The translation of Christian texts presented a formidable challenge because in 387 there was no alphabet capable of reproducing Armenian in written form. The task of creating such an alphabet was undertaken by an Armenian nobleman and preacher, Mesrop Mashtots*, with the support of the patriarch of the Armenian church, Sahak and the assistance of pupils who worked

41 James Etmekjian, History of Armenian Literature: Fifth to Thirteenth Centuries (New

York, 1988), 69. 42

On the historical background to the development of Armenian literature, see Etmek

jian, History of Armenian Literature, 9-47. On the genesis of Armenian literature, see Sen

Arevshatyan, "Hnaguyn haykakan t'argmanut'yunnere ev nrants'patmashakut'ayin nsha

nakut'iun?" ("The Most Ancient Armenian Translations and Their Historical and Cultural

Significance"), Patma-banasirakan H andes 1 (1973): 23-37; Sen Arevshatyan, Formirovanie

filosofskoi nauki drevne? Armenti [The Formation of Philosophical Scholarship in Ancient

Armenia] (Yerevan, 1973), 34-83; Etmekjian, History of Armenian Literature, 69-81; and

L?v n Ter-P?trosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, trans. Krikor Maksoudian (New York, 1992), 3-46.




closely with Mashtots\ This task was completed in 406, the result being an

alphabet of thirty-six letters, twenty-one of which were based on the Greek

alphabet. Mashtots* and his students immediately proceeded to translate the

Bible, first from Syriac and later from Greek. The Bible was not, however,

easily comprehensible without supplementary exegetical literature. This

material existed in abundance in both Greek and Syriac, and Mashtots* and

his students set about translating apologetic treatises, homilies, commenta

ries, martyrologies, and hagiographies. The work of these men was continued

by younger students trained in schools established by Mashtots\ It is likely that Eusebius's Chronika had already been translated into

Armenian by 450. This date is based on four separate lines of evidence.

First, Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History was translated before 420, and it is

likely that the Chronika, which was an important apologetic work, received

the same treatment at about the same time.43 Second, the Armenian version

of the Chronika contains ellipses necessitated by the absence of clear equiv alents to common Greek terms such as grammatik? and math?matik?. Arme

nian scholars rapidly developed a vocabulary that made it possible to render

Greek terminology with considerable precision, and the absence of some of

that vocabulary in the translation of the Chronika indicates that it was exe

cuted at an early date.44 Third, Lazar Parpets'i, a scholar active in the late

fifth century, wrote a History of Armenia in which he seems to draw on the

Armenian version of the Chronika.45 Fourth, a History of Armenia ostensibly written by Movses Khorenats'i, known as the father of Armenian historio

graphy (and hence sometimes as the Armenian Herodotos), draws heavily on

the Chronika.46 The date of this latter History of Armenia remains a subject

43 On the date of the translation of the Ecclesiastical History, see Arevshatyan, "Hna

guyn," 26-27 and Ter-P?trosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 5. 44

Arevshatyan, Formirovanie filosofskoi nauki, 136-37, 214-15. 45

In the preface to his History, Lazar writes that, "I have perused many works of the

former historians of Armenia. After lengthy reading I culled from them the manifold

changes ..." (2.2, trans. Robert Thomson). Lazar's Armenian phrasing closely echoes the

first sentence of the Armenian version of the Chronika. This indicates that Lazar read the

Chronika in Armenian and hence that the Chronika had already been translated by the

late fifth century. On this point, see Garegin Zarbhanalyan, Matenadaran Haykakan

T'argmanut'yants 'Nakhneants* (Dar IV -XIII) (The Early Armenian Translations of the

Matenadaran [IVth to Xlllth centuries]) (Venice, 1889), 442. It is, however, possible that

this sentence was a later interpolation, on which point see C. Sanspeur, "Le fragment de

l'Histoire de Lazare P'arpi, retrouv? dans le ms 1 de J?rusalem," Revue des ?tudes arm?ni

ennes 10 (1973/4): 83-109 and Robert W. Thomson, ed., The History of Lazar P'arpeci

(Atlanta, 1991), 34 . 9. On Lazar, see Arevshatyan, Formirovanie filosofskoi nauki,

141-94, esp. 192-93; Srbouhi Hairapetian, A History of Armenian Literature (Delmar,

NY, 1995), 123-27; and Thomson, History of Lazar P'arpeci, 1-31. 46

On Movses Khorenats'i, see Tadevos Avdalbegyan, Hayagitakan Hetadzotufyunner

(Armenian Inquiries) (Yerevan, 1969), 102-31; Arevshatyan, Formirovanie filosofskoi



48 TRADITIO

of dispute. The work contains authorial statements (3.61-62, 68) that place it in the middle of the fifth century, a date which is accepted by many scholars of Armenian extraction.47 There are, however, numerous inconsis

tencies that have led some non-Armenian scholars to date the work to the

sixth century or later.48 Movses Khorenats'i was clearly active in the middle

of the fifth century, so if the History of Armenia to which his name is

attached was in fact written in the sixth century or later, it was authored

by someone interested in exploiting Movses's established reputation. Karst

rejected all of this evidence and argued that the Chronika was translated

into Armenian ca. 600.49 Given the cumulative weight of the evidence, the

date of ca. 450, which was first suggested by Joannes Baptista Aucher in

the preface to his 1818 edition of the Chronika, is preferable.50 Aucher also raised the possibility that Movses Khorenats'i was at least in

part responsible for the Armenian translation of the Chronika.51 There is no

definitive evidence to support this supposition, but it certainly is plausible.52 The Armenian translation of the Chronika was based not on Eusebius's orig inal text but on the modified version produced by Panodoros.53 (The Arme

nian translation was subsequently revised on the basis of a Syriac version.)

nauki, 18-21, 149-94, 233-41, 254-66; Hairapetian, History of Armenian Literature 139-58; and Thomson, History of Lazar *arpee i, 1-61. A list of the places in the History of the

Armenians where Movses uses the Chronika can be found in Thomson, History of Lazar

*arpee* i, 32-34. 47

See, for instance, Hairapetian, History of Armenian Literature, 139-58 and Ter-P?tro

sian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 19. 48

The inconsistencies are discussed in detail in Cyril Toumanoff, Studies in Christian

Caucasian History (Washington, DC, 1963), 330-34. See also Thomson, History of Lazar

'arpee i, 56-61 and Cyril Toumanoff, "On the Date of the Pseudo-Moses of Chorene," Handes amsoryaw: Baroyakan, Usumnakan, Arvestagitakan 75 (1961): 467-76. For a sum

mary of the scholarly debate, see Etmekjian, History of Armenian Literature, 138-52. 49

Karst, Die Chronik ( . 6 above), xxxvi-xxxvii. The date suggested by Karst has been

widely accepted in non-Armenian scholarship, including Mosshammer, Chronicle of Euse

bius ( . 7 above), 59-60. 50

Aucher, Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis (n. 8 above), vi-ix. The date suggested by Aucher has been widely accepted in the Armenian scholarship. See, for instance, Arev

shatyan, "Hnaguyn," 27; Hairapetian, History of Armenian Literature, 82-87; and Ter-P?t

rosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 5-6. 51

Aucher, Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis, vi-ix. See now also Avdalbegyan, Hayagitakan

Hetadzotufyunner, 112-31. 52

Karst and Schoene both believed this supposition was possible but unprovable (Karst, Die Chronik, xxxvi and Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum [n. 4 above], 2:xlvi).

53 Peculiarities in the Armenian indicate that the Chronika was translated directly from

the Greek. On this subject, see Arevshatyan, "Hnaguyn" (n. 42 above), 27. On the use of

Panodoros's version of the Chronika as the source text for the Armenian translation, see

the lucid (but still complex) discussion of the issues in Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius,

59-60, 76-79. On Panodoros, see the bibliography cited in n. 20 above.



Pinte 1: Folios 201v-205r of (LPG 2600

The Reginning of the Catalog of Stadion Victors from Eusebius' CJuonika

(courtesy Biblioth?que nationale de France)

few" Cj?

*



Plate 2: Page 69 of Matenadaran 1904 (Codex E) The Beginning of the Catalog of Stadion Victors from Eusebius' Chronika

(courtesy Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts)

.^fT>;ji|irlitti^'/1r^tnr^| t ft

i "?? I ilAlA l?fc'i?i "l?liflfctMT' ffllil ? 1^1 f - nfrr

fri? f iynin? .fidili fljyfr ?^3 > " ?fc-jy <fef ?? *^^**-Zf*^

?^^^^jjtl^* * . '?^J*Xtf^HIM? a? ill?im MMbHAltAiljbif

_ . ̂ifwiif fem " ^

li%fPiV%f #?>#^ Vf




There can be little doubt that Movses Khorenatsfi had access to Panodoros's

version of the Chronika. The Armenian scholars who produced the early translations of Greek and Syriac texts for the most part worked outside

their homeland. They avoided the expense and delays that would have fol

lowed from having copies of codices shipped to Armenia by traveling to

major libraries in cities such as Constantinople and executing translations

there.54 Mashtots* and his contemporaries based themselves primarily in

Edessa and Constantinople, while their immediate successors preferred Alex

andria. Those successors included Movses Khorenats'i. This gave him ample

opportunity to become familiar with Panodoros's recension of the Chronika, which had been produced in Alexandria not long before Movses's arrival. In

addition, the History of Armenia to which Movses's name is attached makes

heavy use of the Chronika, which may reflect a familiarity developed during the process of translation. It should, however, be noted that long works like

the Chronika were translated by small groups of scholars, not by individuals, so regardless of how one reads the evidence, Movses was not solely respon sible for the Armenian Chronika.55

The Armenian translation of the Chronika survives in a single manuscript, Codex E. There are two extant apographs of Codex E. Apograph was

produced in 1696, Apograph I in 1793.56 Codex E is a manuscript of 181

54 See Ter-P?trosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 18-19. Ter-P?trosian also points

out that these travels were advantageous in another way. There were in the fifth century no bilingual dictionaries. When the Armenian translators ran into serious difficulties, such

as complicated expressions or ambiguous words, they consulted living dictionaries, Greek

and Syriac vardapets, who could only be found on-site at major libraries. 55

On the participation of multiple Armenian scholars in the translation of individual

Syriac and Greek works, see Ter-P?trosian, Ancient Armenian Translations, 18-19. 56

The designations used here are loosely based on those established by Petermann in his

edition of the Armenian Chronika. Codex E was moved from Tokat to Samaxi to Jerusa

lem to Istanbul and thence to the patriarchal seat of Echmiatsin in Armenia. When Peter

mann was working with the Chronika, the manuscript had recently been sent to

Echmiatsin, but he was erroneously informed that it had been sent back to Jerusalem.

He received a partial transcription of the manuscript from the librarians at Echmiatsin

and came to the reasonable but mistaken conclusion that there were two separate manu

scripts, one at Echmiatsin, which he designated as Codex E, and one in Jerusalem, which

he designated as Codex G. He also had access to an apograph of Codex E that was

brought to the Mechitarist library at Venice by P. Nerses. He designated this copy as

Codex N. Karst perpetuated the confusion about the number of manuscripts, and it has

persisted to this day. (All of these points and the relevant bibliography are treated in

detail below.) In the interests of clarity, we have explicitly designated the copies as apo

graphs and have avoided using "G" as an identifier. The 1790 copy of Codex E is too

flawed to be of much use. Petermann also saw an unfinished copy of Codex E that Aucher

began while in Istanbul.



50 TRADITIO

pages, written on parchment.57 It contains a nearly complete copy of both

books of the Chronika (and nothing else). The manuscript is missing the first

page, several pages in the middle representing the end of the Chronographia and the beginning of the Chronikoi Kanones, and a few pages from the end.

In addition, there are lacunae scattered throughout that reflect flaws in the

text from which it was copied. The Olympic victor list appears on pages 66-74. Plate 2 shows page 69, on which the prefatory material ends and the

catalog of stadion victors begins.58 Codex E was produced sometime between the early twelfth and early

fourteenth century. The date of Codex E presents difficulties because dam

age at the beginning and end of the manuscript brought with it the loss of

any notes that may once have existed about when, where, and by whom it was copied.59 Aucher suggested a date of the twelfth century based on the

handwriting and on the presence of a seal of Catholikos (Patriarch) Grigor found on page 157. He associated this seal with either Grigor III

(1113-1166) or IV (1173-1193).60 He raised the possibility that Codex E was

57 Codex E is both paginated and foliated. We have chosen to use page numbers as

referents. 58

On the Armenian manuscripts of the Chronika, see Aucher, Eusebii Pamphili Caesa

riensis, ix-xiv; Babken Ch'ugaszyan, Georg Dpir PalatetsH Keankh? ew Gortsun?uf ean Tare

grufiwn, 1737-1811 (Chronological Data on the Life and Activities of Georg Dpir Palatets'i,

1737-1811) (Yerevan, 1994), 89; M. Djanachian, "Les Armenistes et les Mekhitaristes," in

Armeniaca: Melanges d'?tudes arm?niennes, ed. M. Djanachian (Venice, 1969), 383-445, at

399-400; Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan, "Ein neuer Fund zur armenischen Version der Euse

bius-Chronik," in Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik, ed. Martin Wallraff

(Berlin, 2006), 255-62; O. Eganyan, A. Zeyt'unyan, and P. Ant'abyan, eds., Mayr Ts'uts'ak Hageren Dzeragrats* Mashtots'i Anvan Matenadarani (The Main Catalog of the

Manuscripts in the Mesrop Mashtots* Matenadaran) (Yerevan, 1965-70), 1904; Theodor

Mommsen, "Die armenischen Handschriften der Chronik des Eusebius," Hermes 30 (1895): 321-38; Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius, 41-60; H. Petermann, "Die armenischen

?bersetzungen der armenischen Chronik des Eusebius," Monatsberichte der k?niglichen Pre

ussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1865): 457-62; and H. Petermann in

Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 2:xlv-lvi. 59

Codex E appeared in an 1863 catalog of manuscripts in the Echmiatsin library with

the shelfmark 1684. The catalog erroneously dated it to AD 1695, evidently due to confu

sion with the preceding entry, which referenced a copy of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History.

(See Mommsen, "Die armenischen Handschriften der Chronik," 322 . 1.) Careful examina

tions of photographic reproductions by both Karst and the authors of this article confirm

that there is nothing in the manuscript which supports a seventeenth-century date for

Codex E. 60

Aucher published a line drawing of the seal, which can be found on page 134 of vol

ume 2 of his edition of the Chronika. For the dates of the Armenian patriarchs in Armenia

itself and at Jerusalem, see Michael Burgess, The Eastern Orthodox Churches: Concise His

tories with Chronological Checklists of their Primates (Jefferson, NC, 2005), 63-68, 179-82.




copied for Samvel Anets'i,61 a twelfth-century Armenian historian, who wrote a continuation of the Chronika.62

Petermann believed that the seal belonged to Grigor VII (1294-1307). He

pointed out that the Armenian chronicler Vardan Arewelst* i, who died in

1271, made use of the Chronika and seems to have had access to a copy without the lacunae found in Codex E.63 He conjectured that the text Var dan used was damaged in 1293 when the Mamelukes burnt the patriarchal seat at Hromkla and took Catholicos Step*anos IV captive.64 The new patri arch, Grigor VII, then had a new copy made, Codex E, based on the fire

damaged version of the manuscript. There is not sufficient evidence to prove or disprove either of these scenarios. In addition, there were thirteen differ ent catholikoi who bore the name Grigor, and it is not clear whether the seal was impressed when the manuscript was copied or at a later date. The date of Codex E cannot, therefore, be specified with great precision.65

The history of Codex E can be traced beginning in the late seventeenth

century with the help of two notes found on the final page of Apograph N:

The possessor of this book was Minas, archbishop of Amida, who gave it as a

gift to Sahak, archbishop of Tigranacerta.

and below that:

This volume was written in the year 1145 (AD 1696) in the city of Tokat by the scribe Michael.66

was copied from Codex E, which must have been in Tokat (a city in what is now the Black Sea region of Turkey) in 1696.67 The whereabouts of

61 Samvel is sometimes identified as Samuel of Ani.

62 Aucher, ed., Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis (n. 8 above), vi-ix.

63 Petermann in Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum, 2:xliv. Petermann also identified several

places where Samvel Anets'i gives dates and names drawn from the Chronika that are

slightly different from those found in Codex E. He was, as a result, dubious that Samvel

used Codex E. 64

On the history of the Armenian church during this period, see Jean M?c?rian, Histoire

et institutions de l'?glise arm?nienne (Beyrouth, 1965), 109-15. 65

A date much later than the fourteenth century is problematic because Aucher dated

the handwriting to the twelfth century. 66

The texts of these notes are supplied by Petermann. The Armenian calendar is based

on an era that begins with the equivalent of July 11, 552. See E. G. Richards, Mapping Time: The Calendar and Its History (New York, 1999), 159.

67 Petermann (in Schoene, ed., Eusebi Chronicorum [n. 4 above], 2:1?li) supplies details

about Apograph N, which is written on paper and consists of 302 pages. The first 230

pages contain the Chronika, the remainder is devoted to the chronicle of Samvel Anets'i.

There is also a note on page 230 of Codex indicating that the chronicle of Samvel was

attached to the end of Eusebius's Chronika at the request of Minas, patriarch of Jerusalem.

This presents some difficulties since Minas became patriarch of Jerusalem in 1697 (see n.

60). It is, therefore, rather odd to find a description of Minas as archbishop of Amida and a

date of 1696 on the final page of the manuscript (p. 302). Some of the answer may lay in



52 TRADITIO

Codex E for much of the next century are unknown. It was rediscovered in a private house in the city of Samaxi in eastern Armenia in 1782 by the scholar Gevorg Dpir Palatets'i.68 By 1787 it was at the Armenian patriar chate in Istanbul, evidently having passed through Jerusalem first.

Dpir made the existence of Codex E known to the Mechitarist community in Venice. The Mechitarists were an order of Armenian monks that was founded in the early seventeenth century. Their stated mission was to reunite the Armenian and Boman Catholic churches through the introduc tion into Armenia of Western culture and through proselytizing intended to

spread Boman Catholic doctrine. They were compelled to leave Armenia in the early eighteenth century and ended up settling on the island of San Laz zaro in Venice. As part of their mission, Mechitarist monks operated schools and produced printed editions of important patristic works.69

The reappearance of Codex E was of considerable significance because,

although the contents of the second book of the Chronika (the Chronikoi

Kanones) had long been known through Jerome's Latin translation, rela

tively little survived of the first book (the Chronographia). There was, in

fact, some doubt about whether there actually was a first book. The Mechi tarist monk Joannes Baptista Aucher asked Dpir for a copy of Codex E, which arrived in Venice in 1790. The copy was, however, flawed, and Aucher requested another. The new copy (Apograph I) was produced by Dpir in 1793 and was delivered to the Mechitarists in Venice by Joannes Zohrab in 1794.70 Aucher had a commentary and Latin translation ready by 1795. He delayed publication, however, because of unsettled conditions created by French and Austrian intervention in Venetian affairs and because he wished to locate another manuscript copy of the same text. Zoh rab became impatient with the delay. He spirited away the 1790 copy of Codex E and, with the help of Angelo Mai, published a Latin translation in 1818.71 This forced Aucher's hand, and his edition, which included the

difficulties in converting Armenian dates into the Julian equivalents, on which see the pre vious note.

68 Dpir is sometimes identified as Gevorg Dpir Ter-Hovhannesyan. On Dpir's rediscovery

of Codex E, see Abraham Ayvazian, Shar hay kensagrowf cants*, 3 vols. (Istanbul, 1893), 1:11-73.

69 On the history of the Mechitarists, see J. C. Almond, "Mechitarists," in the Catholic

Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York, 1907-12), 10:102-3 and R. Janin, "M?khitaristes," in

DThC, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, and ?. Amann, 15 vols. (Paris, 1909-50), 10:498-502. /0

Dpir had inserted interpolations in the 1790 apograph based upon the Greek frag ments of the Chronika published by Scaliger. Aucher detected the interpolations and

insisted upon an exact copy of the original manuscript. Zohrab is sometimes identified as

Yovhann?s Vardapet Zohrabean. 71

Angelo Mai and Joannes Zohrab, eds., Eusebii Pamphili Chronicorum canonum libri

duo: Opus ex Haicano codice a Johanne Zohrabo collegii Armeniaci Venetiarum alumno

(Milan, 1818).




Armenian text and Latin translation, appeared in the same year. Aucher's

Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopi Chronicon Bipartitimi remains the

only printed edition of the Armenian translation of the Chronika.72 The transfer of Codex E to Istanbul did not put an end to its travels. As

we will see, the constant relocations of this manuscript ended up causing a

considerable amount of confusion. Aucher visited Istanbul in 1802-9 and saw Codex E there. At some later point the manuscript was sent to the

library of the Armenian patriarchate at Echmiatsin in Armenia. The Ech miatsin library, including Codex E, was moved to Yerevan in 1939.73 Codex E is currently in the Mesrop Mashtotse Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (the Matenadaran) in Yerevan. It is now identified by shelf mark 1904.74

The discovery of one of the Syriac epitomes of the Chronika in 1860 con vinced many scholars that the time was ripe for a new collection of all of the extant textual evidence. The work was entrusted to Alfred Schoene, who turned to Heinrich Petermann for help with the Armenian version. Peter

mann went to Istanbul in 1864 to see Codex E, but was (mis)informed upon his arrival that it had been sent back to Jerusalem. He then went to the Mechitarist library in Venice to see Apograph I. Petermann was delighted to find that the Mechitarists in Venice had recently acquired the previously unknown Apograph N. He drew on Apographs I and and Aucher's and Zohrab's earlier printed editions in producing a new Latin translation that was published in 1875.75

While Petermann was completing his work, a catalog of the manuscripts in the Echmiatsin Library was put into print. This catalog listed a manu

script of the Armenian Chronika. Petermann was able to obtain a transcrip tion of the opening pages of the Echmiatsin manuscript but nothing more

and so proceeded on the basis of the material at his disposal. Theodor Mommsen obtained further information about the Echmiatsin manuscript

72 Dr. Gevorg Abgarjan started work on a new edition of the Armenian Chronika in the

1980s but died before bringing it to completion. The project has now been entrusted to his

daughter, Dr. Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan of Martin-Luther-Universit?t Halle-Wittenberg. Her edition will include the Armenian text of Codex E, a critical apparatus, and an

updated version of Karst's German translation and will appear in the Griechische christliche

Schriftsteller series at some future date. It will also include an important new collection of

excerpts from the Armenian Chronika discovered by Dr. Gevorg Abgarjan in a Matena

daran manuscript (2679) that dates to 981. See Drost-Abgarjan, "Ein neuer Fund" ( . 58

above). Dr. Drost-Abgarjan has informed us by personal communication that there is no

Olympic victor list in Matenadaran 2679. 73

See B. L. Chookaszian (Babken Ch'ugaszyan), The Mashtots Matenadaran: A Guide

book, trans. A. Abdalian (Yerevan, 1980), 8. 74

It was originally catalogued in the Echmiatsin library with the shelf mark 1684, before

being moved to the Matenadaran. In the late nineteenth century it bore the shelfmark

1725. 75

Petermann's translation appears in volume 1 of Schoene, ed., Eusebi Chronicorum.



54 TRADITIO

and determined that it was the same manuscript that had at one point been in Istanbul (Codex E).76 This was perhaps most evident from the fact that the manuscript that Aucher saw in Istanbul and the manuscript at Echmiat sin had an identical seal (that of Catholikos Grigor) at the same place in the text. In 1895 Mommsen called for a new edition and translation of the Armenian Chronika based on direct examination of Codex E. Mommsen

pointed out that Aucher's edition was problematic because it contained numerous unmarked emendations and that Petermann neither saw the orig inal manuscript nor reproduced the Armenian text.

Mommsen's call was soon answered, in part, by Karst, who in 1911 pub lished a German translation of the Chronika. Karst's edition included an

elaborate critical apparatus, but he supplied only the translation, not the

original Armenian text. Karst decided that a translation from Armenian back into Greek was problematic because the Armenian translation of the Chronika had been emended based upon the Syriac version. He rejected Latin as being too constrictive and so settled on German.

There is a major problem with Karst's version of the Chronika that is not

widely recognized. Karst worked with a photographic reproduction of Codex E that had been produced for the Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften in 1898. He understood that Apograph was a copy of Codex E, but he did not realize that the manuscript Dpir and Aucher saw in Istanbul and that of which he had a photographic reproduction were one and the same. Karst was,

inexplicably, unaware of Mommsen's article on Codex E until after his trans lation of the Chronika appeared.77 He nowhere makes clear what textual

materials he had at his disposal beyond the photographic reproduction from

Echmiatsin, but it is likely that he used Aucher's printed edition without tak

ing into account Aucher's unmarked emendations. The divergences between the text given by Aucher and that found in the photographic reproduction led him to conclude that there were two independent copies of a lost arche

type. He thus collated Codex E and Apograph with the text given by Aucher and devoted considerable effort to tracing the divergences between E and Aucher's text in order to restore an ostensible archetype. For obvious

reasons, the critical apparatus supplied by Karst is nearly useless, although his translation is excellent.

There are thus two surviving manuscript copies of the Olympic victor list from Eusebius's Chronika, one in Greek from CPG 2600 and one in Arme nian from Codex E, of which there are two apographs.78

76 Mommsen, "Die armenischen Handschriften der Chronik" ( . 58 above).

77 Karst made this explicitly clear in a short note he published in Theologische Literatur

zeitung (26:827-28) in 1911. In that note he offered no defense of his ideas but promised to

address the issue in a future publication. He never did so. 78

Dr. Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan reaches a similar conclusion about Karst's work with

the Armenian manuscripts of the Chronika in her forthcoming article, "Ein neuer Fund."

Neither we nor Dr. Drost-Abgarjan were aware of each other's researches until just before



olympig victor lists 55

Comparison of the Greek and Armenian Versions of the

Eusebian Olympic Victor List

The Greek and Armenian versions of the Eusebian Olympic victor list

diverge in several important ways. The most obvious difference is that the Armenian translators, who used Panodoros's version of the Chronika, chose not to include the stories about famous athletes he had appended to the Eusebian list. This is not surprising, since the Armenian translators worked with the Chronika because of its apologetic potential and had little interest in athletics as such. Indeed, neither the translators themselves nor their audi ence had much first-hand knowledge of Greek sport. As we will see, the trans lators felt compelled to add glosses to explain words such as "Olympics."

There is a range of other differences between the Armenian and the Greek versions. The Armenian translators were responsible for many of these differ ences because they introduced phonetic changes, added glosses, and made errors. Michael Souliardos (or one of the earlier scribes who worked with the Greek text) was responsible for other differences because he abbreviated the names of some athletes and towns, made errors, and failed to copy some of the material found in the original. In the remainder of this section, we will look at each of these six sources of divergence between the Greek and Arme nian versions of the Eusebian Olympic victor list.

During the process of transliterating the names of individuals and towns from Greek into Armenian, the translators introduced a certain number of

phonetic changes. For the most part the changes were made in accordance with a specific system, which can be summarized as follows:

Greek Letter(s) Armenian Letter(s) Transliterated

Letter

Phonetic Value of

Armenian Letter(s)

gh gh or ni]

O, o, nL Or or ni] u or o or ov ou or o or ov

h or h or fei. e or e or ew e or e or ew

L

aspirated r

The translators sometimes changed - to the equivalent of -v (-G) and -a

to the equivalent of -o (-n, or vice-versa), did not consistently bring rough breathings into the Armenian (which was capable of rendering them), oc

both "Ein neuer Fund" and this article went to press. We were gratified to find that she

shared our reading of the evidence, and we are grateful to Dr. Drost-Abgarjan for sending us an advance copy of her article.



56 TRADITIO

casionally reduced double to single consonants, and changed final sigmas to the equivalent of -v. Theopompos (line 192) thus became T'eoponpos

(i^tnujnGujnu), Ath?nod?ros (line 404) became At'enadoros (UptGuirpijinu), Hippostratos (line 152) Ippostratos (hurupuinpuiinnu), and Dand?s (line 181) Dandin (TmGnjiG). All ethnics were transliterated in accordance with stand ard Armenian practice and end in -tsfi (-cj|i), e.g., Mes?nios is rendered as

M?s?nats'i (l?tutGuigJi). In some cases, the translators deviated from this system and worked on

an ad hoc basis. This is particularly noticeable in regard to the names of

victors, many of which do not follow any consistent pattern.79 These incon

sistencies arose because the translators worked in teams, so that more than one person was responsible for the Eusebian Olympic victor list (see below), and because the Chronika was translated shortly after the Armenian alpha bet was invented.80 Conventions were still being established, and individual

translators had their own idiosyncrasies. The Armenian translators seem to have been concerned that their readers

would be unfamiliar with some of the terminology contained in the Euse

1 The following chart summarizes the relevant examples:

Olympiad Number

Greek

Original

Armenian Version

(phonetic form)

Olympiad Number

Greek

Original

Armenian Version

(phonetic form)

A Esk'id?s 120 a Kerasos

14 D?zmon 134 A a Aghkid?s 18 Tughghos 145 Tork*os

25 a or a

Paoron 150 On?sikratos

26 a Kaghghist'?n 152 Dimokrates

29 K'ionis 160 A Anovdovros

33 a a Krak* sighas 189 |A a Askghipiad?s 46 Pawghimn?stovr 193 A e Artesidoros

47 E Ewr'ik?s 194 a a Dimatros

52 A Agh?s 196 a Pasen?s

53 A Anon 201 a a a Damas

54 A Ar?ghion 213 e T'?odoros

70 a a Nik?as 215 [E Hermog?n?s 93 E ?a or

E a Ewrovtos 216 a Pati

96 a Akrat?s 218 A Apoghghinos 99 E ?a Ewr'ibasos 220 A e K'ighghevs 110 A Anikgh?s 223 E a Ewstoghos 114 a Mik?nas 247 a Sator* ni?os

118 A Anatenovr 248 a a Trovsidamos

The ethnic for the stadion victor in

not transliterated but translated into the

the 219th Olympiad, Stephanos of Cappadocia, is

Armenian word for Cappadocia, Garnir (< | ).




bian Olympic victor list. They therefore occasionally added glosses. The Armenian equivalents of (Olympics, line 8), a a (opponents, line 14), (a footrace in which the runners wore armor, line 169), and a a (a combination of wrestling and boxing, line 295) are all fol

lowed by short explanatory passages that are not found in the Greek text.81 The Armenian translators made a number of errors. The translators

worked with large amounts of text, encountered subjects and words with which they were unfamiliar, and dealt with the Chronika at a time when both Armenian as a written language and the process of translating texts from Greek to Armenian were quite new. Some mistakes were, therefore,

virtually inevitable. The following chart summarizes places where the trans lators went astray:

Entry for

Olympiad Number

Description of Error

28

36

confused a with

read a as

50

54

87

93

read Ol as Ol

credited Arechi?n with two instead of three Olympic victories

read as E and transliterated it as Ewp'ranovr

neglected to translate the sentence e a a a a a e a

a a a

129 transliterated Bilistich? or Belistich? as P'ighistiak'os, transform

ing the victor in question from female to male

129 read a e as a patronymic rather than an ethnic

131 read e a as a patronymic rather than an ethnic

180 gave the hometown of the stadion victor Andromachos as Lace

daemonia instead of Ambracia, as per the Greek version. The

translator (or a later copyist) seems to have erroneously repeated the ethnic from the previous entry._

204 read A ea as e

243 transcribed in two different ways, Sidoros and Artemi

doros, both of which are incorrect

The Armenian translators seem to have been thoroughly confused about the nature of the pankration and particularly about the difference between

pale (wrestling) and pankration. (We have already seen that the translator of line 295 felt compelled to gloss the word pankration.) In some cases (e.g., line 148), the translators simply transliterated the word pankration into the

Armenian alphabet. In other cases, (e.g., line 201) they translated pankration as "every type of fighting" (jui?T;Gui)unu?p l?uipm). In some cases, the transla tors rendered pale as "mixed wrestling" (JuumG ], e.g., line 76), in other cases simply as "wrestling" (Ijnjii], e.g., line 119) or as "mixed fighting"

81 It is, therefore, a little ironic that one of the latest known Olympic victors was an

Armenian, Varazdat, who won a victory in boxing sometime after 378. See Movses Khore

nats'i, History of Armenia 3.40 and Luigi Moretti, Olympionikai (Rome, 1957), no. 944.



58 TRADITIO

(JuumG l?uipui, e.g., line 161) or as "fighting" (l?uipw, e.g., line 185). Occasions

when an athlete won both the pale and pankration are noted in the Eusebian

Olympic victor list. In the Armenian version, the Greek phrase a a

a a , is simply transliterated as pankration the first time it appears

(line 286). It is used six times thereafter (starting with line 315) and is con

sistently translated as "every type of fighting," always with the equivalent of

pale omitted entirely.82 This switch from transliteration to translation probably springs from the

habit of Armenian translators of working in small teams when dealing with

longer pieces of literature.83 It is worth noting in this regard that the word a a appears in lines 108, 148, 201, 249, and 286 but is not glossed

until line 295. It is likely that the translator who worked with line 295

glossed a a the first time he came across it, which, as it turned out, was not the first time the word appeared in the text. The gloss at line 295

and the switch from transliteration to translation between lines 286 and 315

indicate that at least two Armenian translators worked on the Eusebian

Olympic victor list, with the first stopping somewhere around line 300.

The Greek and Armenian versions of the Eusebian Olympic victor list

also diverge because Michael Souliardos (or an earlier copyist) made

changes, intentional and unintentional, to the original text. In regard to

intentional changes, Souliardos chose to abbreviate the names of some ath

letes and their home towns. These abbreviations appear in the following pla ces in the Greek text:

Entry for

Olympiad Number

Armenian Version Greek Version

120 Magnesia-on-Maeander Magnesia 132 Amphissa in Aetolia Aetolia

145 Salamis on the island of Cyprus Salamis

149 Seleuceia in Pieria Seleuceia

153 Antissa on Lesbos Lesbos

172 Magnesia-on-Maeander Magnesia 186 Alexandria Troas Alexandria

198 Prusa by Mt. Olympus Prusa

230 Didimos Kghidevs Agh?k 'sandrats 'i (Didymos Klideus of Alexandria, victor's name)

Didymos of Alexandria

242 Magnos Libian Kiwrenats'i (Magnus Libicus of Cyrene, victor's name)

Magnos of Cyrene

82 In the entry for the 142nd Olympiad in the Armenian version, Kapros is said to have

won the stadion and the pankration (as opposed to the pale and pankration in the Greek

version). The scribe seems to have become confused due to the similarity between a

and a and duplicated the word stadion. 83

See Ter-P?trosian, Ancient Armenian Translations (n. 42 above), 18-19.




The Armenian translators, whose interest in athletics and athletes as such was quite limited, are unlikely to have exerted themselves to locate addi tional information about the names and home towns of Olympic victors.

They must have simply transcribed the information they found in the Chro

nographia. The fact that the Greek version of the Olympic victor list does not include some details about Olympic victors found in the Armenian ver

sion must be the result of a copyist omitting those details as superfluous. Unintentional changes were made to the Greek text due to copying

errors. The entry for the 104th Olympiad has a in place of a (line 222). The victor in question, Ph?kides, is part of the list of stadion victors, and both the Armenian version and Diodorus (15.78.1) identify Ph?kides as a stadion victor. This mistake is sufficiently obvious that it must have been made by Souliardos, since, if it was in the text that Souliardos copied, he would presumably have recognized and fixed it. In addition, part of the text in the entry for the 204th Olympiad (lines 392-400) is incomplete. The Greek text reads "Neikostratos of Aigai (won) the wrestling and pankration, the

eighth from Herakles to do so, the Eleans treating those capable unjustly." The Armenian version reads "Nikostratis of Argos (won) the pankration, the

eighth from Herakgh?s to do so. There were no more from Herakgh?s after him up to our time, because the Eleans would not crown any, even if the athletes were capable. Gayos was emperor of the Romans." The Armenian text is clearly more complete and correct.

Souliardos (or an earlier copyist) also neglected to transcribe a consider able amount of information found in the original version of the Eusebian

Olympic victor list. The Greek version as preserved in CPG 2600 is missing a section title, the names of a victor and a Roman emperor, the entries for the 110th and 174th Olympiads, and supplemental information about four different Olympiads.

The Armenian version features an indented section title and accompany

ing description placed at the beginning of the Olympic victor list (lines 3-5):

Olympiads of the Greeks First Olympiad, in which Kowr'ibos of Elis won the stadion.

This text is not found in the Greek version. As Eusebius provided titles for all the other subdivisions of the Chronographia, there can be little doubt that

the Greek text as preserved is incomplete. Even the Armenian version, how

ever, is problematic since the text attached to the section title does not include a source attribution. Most of the material in the Chronographia consists of

extended quotations from earlier authors, and Eusebius was unusually atten

tive to noting the source of each quotation in the section titles. Eusebius took

his Olympic victor list from Cassius Longinus, and the section title for the

Olympic victor list as originally written presumably featured Longinus's name.

Souliardos omitted the names A (line 314) and a a (line

429) and the entries for the 110th and 174th Olympiads when he wrote out



60 TRADITIO

CPG 2600. The entry for the 109th Olympiad comes at the end of folio 207r, while that for the IIIth Olympiad begins folio 207v. Souliardos must have lost track of his place in the list when he turned the page. The reason for the omission of the entry for the 174th Olympiad is less obvious. The entry for the 175th Olympiad, at which only boy athletes competed because Sulla sum

moned the men to Rome, was unusual, and this may have been a distraction. Souliardos or an early copyist also omitted supplemental information that

the original version of the Eusebian list provided about individual Olym piads. Here again a chart is useful:

Entry for

Olympiad Number

Information Found in Armenian but not in Greek Version

129 "The chariot race for two colts was added, and P'ighistiak'os the son of Maketos won."

131 "The race for colts was added, and Ippokrates son of

T'essaghos won."

178 "[Stratonikos won four crowns on the same day at the Nemean Games],

entering the gymnic competitions, not having a horse. But that also hap

pened to be ascribed to the influence of his friends or of the kings. Therefore, the events that transpired were not considered to be valid as well."

222 "Horse races were held again.'

As was the case with details about the names and home towns of victors, the Armenian translators are unlikely to have sought out additional infor

mation about the horse races at Olympia and about Stratonikos's achieve ments. This means that the information listed above was included in the

original version of the Eusebian list but fell out over the course of time. The fact that three of the four pieces of information in question concern

horse races is probably significant. It is, however, impossible to say precisely why the copyists who worked with the Greek text were relatively cavalier when it came to equestrian events. Nigel Crowther has shown that there is some reason to think that the information about the equestrian events sup plied in the Eusebian Olympic victor list is not entirely accurate.84 One

might suspect that a Greek scholar or copyist deleted information that he knew to be problematic, but one of the statements about the equestrian events at Olympia that Crowther shows to be inaccurate appears in the

entry for the 199th Olympiad in the Greek version.

Although the number of errors in CPG 2600 might lead one to conclude that Souliardos was not particularly careful in his work, many of the flaws identi fied above are likely to have been present in the manuscript of the Chronika

84 Nigel . Crowther, "Greek Equestrian Events in the Late Republic and Early

Empire: Africanus and the Olympic Victory Lists," Nikephoros 8 (1995): 111-23. On the

history of the Olympic Games during the Roman period, including the complex fate of the

hippie contests, see Thomas Scanlon, Eros and Greek Athletics (Oxford, 2002), 40-63.



olympic victor lists 61

that he copied. Some of the problems that arose in the replication of texts are evident in the entry for the 36th Olympiad. In Greek the entry reads:

[ a e . A a , a a a . 36 . Phryn?n of Athens, he who died fighting in single combat against Pit takos.

The Armenian version reads:

36th. P'rinon of Athens won the stadion, he who was killed in single combat on the island of Cos.

Schoene conjectured, no doubt correctly, that the Armenian translators con fused a with .

This is, however, not the only problem with this entry, since Diogenes Laertius (1.74) describes Phryn?n as a pankratiast. In addition, the follow

ing fragment of Hippys of Rhegion identifies Arytamas as the stadion victor in the 36th Olympiad:

e ? ' . . . A a ?a E a e -

a a a , a a a a a . . . .

(FGrH 554 F3 apud Antigonus of Carystos Historiarum mirabilium 121)

Hippys of Rhegion . . . says that in Athens, during the reign of Epainetos, in the 36th Olympiad, in which Arytamas of Laconia won the stadion. . . .

Rutgers plausibly restored the original entry as follows:

a a a a . a a A a , a a a .

Arytamas of Laconia stadion.

Phryn?n of Athens [won] the pankration, he who died fighting in single combat against Pittakos.

The obvious comparandum is the entry for the preceding Olympiad, which also notes the success of a prominent Athenian political figure at Olympia in an event other than the stadion.

The fact that both the Greek and Armenian versions give Phryn?n as the stadion victor show that the entry had been corrupted in the Greek text before the Armenian translation was executed. The most likely scenario is that the corruption occurred when Panodoros revised the Chronika. The Armenian translation and CPG 2600 both derive from Panodoros's version

of the Chronika, which would account for the duplication of the errors in

both versions of the Eusebian Olympic victor list.

Conclusion

We have seen that there is a need for a new critical edition and an Eng lish translation of the sole extant, complete Olympic victor list, which is

preserved in the Chronika of Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius wrote the



62 TRADITIO

Chronika in the early fourth century in order to demonstrate that the Bible was an older and more reliable source than any pagan text. The first book of the Chronika, the Chronographia, contains information about the time

reckoning systems used in Greece, Rome, and the Near Eastern kingdoms. In the second book of the Chronika, the Chronikoi Kanones, this information is assembled into a continuous chronological table running from 2016 BC to AD 325. Eusebius included an Olympic victor list in the Chronographia because numbered Olympiads and stadion victors were widely used in ancient Greece to reckon time.

The Eusebian Olympic victor list survives both in Greek and in an Arme nian translation that was made ca. 450. The Chronika was translated into Armenian as part of a concerted effort undertaken by the Christian clergy in Armenia to resist assimilation by the Byzantines and Sasanids. That effort included the translation of the Bible and key pieces of exegetical and

apologetic literature, including the Chronika, into Armenian. The Greek text of the Eusebian list is preserved in Codex Parisinus Grae

cus 2600, a fifteenth-century manuscript written by a copyist named Michael Souliardos. The Armenian text is preserved in Codex E, which was

produced sometime between the early twelfth and early fourteenth century. The Armenian version is important because it is helpful in emending the Greek text and because it contains passages that dropped out of the Greek over the course of the centuries. Both the Greek text found in CPG 2600 and the Armenian translation were based on a revised edition of the Chro nika produced by the Alexandrian monk Panodoros sometime around 400.

Panodoros added a series of stories about famous athletes that are found in CPG 2600 but not in the Armenian translation.

The best currently available edition of the Greek text of the Eusebian

Olympic victor list was published by Alfred Schoene in 1875. Schoene pro duced a largely accurate transcription of CPG 2600, but he did not make it

possible to identify easily the numerous places where the Greek and Arme nian texts diverge and did not print the stories appended by Panodoros.

Further, there is no complete English translation of the Eusebian list in

print. We have, therefore, produced an updated critical edition of the Euse bian Olympic victor list, along with an English translation, which can be found in Appendices 1 and 2.

The work presented here is by no means intended to be a definitive and

complete study of the Eusebian Olympic victor list. The development of the

program of events at Olympia, the careers of the victors mentioned in the

list, and the history of Olympic victor lists prior to Eusebius's time are only some of the subjects for which the Eusebian list is important. Our hope is that the text and translation supplied below will facilitate future work on these and other subjects.




Appendix 1:

Greek Text of the Eusebian Olympic Victor List1

a a e a e a a a '

a a a a -

a a e a a*, .

In the Armenian version, this sentence is followed by an indented title, "Olym piads of the Greeks," and the phrase "First Olympiad, in which Kowr'ibos of

5 Elis won the stadion" The Greek version moves directly from to .

a a E a a , a ? a a a e e -

a e * a 2 a , a , a e a *

e e [ ] a [ ] .

The Armenian version adds the following gloss after the word for : 10 "which is a collection of contests."

[ ] a e a a a e a e e , e a a a e a a e a a ,

e a 3 a e a e a e a a a a

' a a a a a e a

15 The Armenian version contains the following gloss after the word for a a : "that is, opponents."

e ' ?v4 a e e a a, e e , e a -

a a a * e ' 5 a e a a a e

1 The Greek text presented here is based upon that found in Schoene's Eusebi Chronico

rum. The text given here differs from Schoene's in the following ways: (1) the stories about

famous athletes appended to the Eusebian Olympic victor list by Panodoros and preserved in CPG 2600, which are not supplied by Schoene, are included; (2) important variants pre served in the Armenian version of the Eusebian Olympic victor list are clearly noted; and

(3) new readings, primarily based upon a close analysis of the Armenian version and of

CPG 2600, are presented in a number of places. We have not supplied the Armenian text in its entirety because it is preferable to rely

upon the Greek wherever possible and because we wish to conserve space in what is

already a lengthy essay. Some sense of the appearance and the format of the Armenian

version can be had from Plate 2 and from the following excerpt, consisting of the entries

for Olympiads 1-3:

ui . f|i]ni?u||iuiu. Snpnui jiurrptp Ijnuijipnu hbijjiuigji '|i uinuiijjiii. ,piii?q|i cjuijL Lbp l?pgtjiti ??jiG^i?

cjbpb.puiiiiuiu'?ibpnpij. ni|iiiiu||iuii|ii :

p'. liGuijiiiiupnii hbi||iuicj|i '|i uinuiijjiii. ftniinu L nni?jiirnu :

cj\ U,?iijpnl|i|nu iH;ul;titiicj|i '| uinuiijji?j. 2 Gutschmid (henceforth AvG) pro e .

3 Scaliger pro .

4 Scaliger pro .

5 Scaliger pro .



64 TRADITIO

e '

a a A a , a '

e ea a a e , e a 20 e e a e a [ a a ] e

' a a e a e a a.6

a e a, a e E a , ? e e a a 7 a e , e a e a e e e a a a a e e e e e a a a*

25 e a a , e ? e 8

e e a e e e9 a e a e .10 e , a 11 e .

[ ] e e a e a e a *

[ ] a 12 e e a a , ' a e e,13

30 a e e ,

[e ' a e ae ] e a .14

6 Schoene, on von Gutschmid's suggestion, emended a to

' a (and placed

a semi-colon after a e ). The restoration supplied here is based on the paraphrase of

this passage found in Synkellos's Eklog? Chronographias: a e a A a e e e ea ', a

e e e a a a a e '

a a e a e a a. (231.14-16) 7

Schoene printed a second e, following a a , which Gutschmid suggested deleting. This second e does not, however, appear in the manuscript and may have been a printing error.

8 Schoene pro e .

9 AvG pro e e. Schoene printed a comma after e e e, implying that a e a -

e should be read absolutely. This would yield the translation, "sacrifice and

obey, whatever the seers might say." The Armenian version, however, takes the subordi

nate clause as the object of e e e, a reading that is to be preferred given the juxtapo sition of e e e and a and the fact that e a can govern an accusative neuter

object (see Liddell, Scott, and Jones Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. e B2b). 10

Scaliger pro . 11

Schoene pro . 12

Scaliger pro a . 13

Scaliger pro e e. 14

The Greek text as transmitted reads , which is clearly problematic. Synkel los (Eklog? Chronographias 231.23) gives the line as:

' a e a . This section of the Eklog? Chronographias contains an almost verbatim transcription of the

Chronographia, and Schoene, following von Gutschmid's suggestion, printed the line as

found in Synkellos. Phlegon (Jacoby, Fragmente [n. 17 to text above], 257 Fl) quotes the

same oracle:

e , a e

a e e a a , ' a e e,

e . e

e ' a e ae e a .

In addition to distributing the lines of the two oracles differently, Phlegon supplies an

alternate reading for the first three words of the final line. A marginal note in the Phlegon

manuscript (Codex Palat?nus Graecus 398) gives the version of the final line found in Syn




a '

a e e15 e e a [e e a a * a e a a e ]16 a a a e -

e e a e a e e a * a e a a '

35 a , a e a ? a * e e a a a a a a a

e .

e e e , a ' e a e?

17

a [ a ]18 a a a a a a e a , a *19 a e a e a ,20 a e a -

40 21 e e a ? e , a e a

kell s. The Armenian version reads "until in annual celebrations the year of happiness arrives." Scaliger suggested emending the line in accordance with Phlegon. Cramer sug

gested ' e a .

We have adopted Phlegon's wording since it makes the most sense in context. The

oracle is meant to be a foundation text of sorts for Elean control of the Olympics, which

requires the open-ended sense ("whenever") found in Phlegon but not in Synkellos and the

Armenian Chronika ("until" or "so long as"). In addition, the version from Phlegon comes

from an independent textual tradition. The fact that Synkellos and the Armenian trans

lators give nearly identical versions that do not make sense in context indicates that the

line was already corrupted in Panodoros's version of the Chronika. 15

Schoene printed a e e without any note. The manuscript, however, reads a -

e e, as Scaliger indicated. 16

This line is missing from the Greek manuscript, and the Armenian version is corrupt. Gutschmid suggested the restoration given here based on Synkellos, Eklog? Chronographias 231.1-2.

17 Schoene believed that the text read e and should be emended to e?

. The

writing in the manuscript is sufficiently unclear that the second letter of the word could be

either a beta or an upsilon. In either case, it should definitely read ? .

18 The Armenian version specifies that the starting point for a

' e a ?

was the Olympiad organized by Iphitos. Although the Greek is grammatically sound as

transmitted, the Armenian version is more precise, and there is almost certainly, as

Schoene noted, a short lacuna in the Greek. The Armenian version, however, is also prob lematic in its own way. It reads, "but Aristod?mos and his colleagues relate that starting in the 27th Olympiad after Hip'ites (Iphitos) the contest and victories were put in order."

The Armenian translators were evidently confused by this sentence in general and the

infintive a a a e a in particular. Synkellos paraphrases the text as follows:

e a a a e a e a e , a e a e. a e a ? e a e a a a , a a ' a a a , a

' e a e a ?

. (Eklog? Chronographias 232.4-8) 19

The word is repeated in the manuscript (which thus reads a

). There is a line break between the eta and phi of the second -

, which probably explains why Souliardos duplicated the word. Schoene printed only one , but does not note the emendation.

20 Schoene pro a a a .

21 Gutschmid suggested e in place of what seems to be e in the

manuscript. (The word appears at the end of a line and is compressed to the point of

illegibility.) It seems more reasonable to emend the text to so that the gen itive absolute has a clearly stated subject.



66 TRADITIO

, a a a a * a

' e a

, a ' a a a ? e . a a e e -

a e a a a a e a 22 a a a e a * e e -

a e a e a 23 ?

24 a .25 e a 45 a A a e e a

a a, e a e 26 '. "A e e 27 e ae a a, e a e e a e .

[ ] a e

a e ',28 a '

a ?a e e 50 e? .

[ ] a , a ? e a . (Olympiad 1, 776 BC) [ ] a e a

'

.

[ ]e a. A a e a . (02, 772) 55 '

a '

e a .

[ ] . e a . (03,768) [ ]e a . a e a . (04, 764) [ ] . A e a . (05,760) [ ] . ? a 30 a a . (06, 756)

60 [ ]? . e ,' e a . (07, 752)

[ ] . 'A e a . (08, 748) fEjvwnr). e e a . (09, 744) [ ]e a . a e a . ( , 740)

65 [ ] e a . e a e a . (011, 736) [ ] e a . e a a . (012, 732) [ ] a e a . a . (013, 728) [ ]e a e a e a . a . (014, 724)

[ ] e a a a a " 31 e .

70 [ ]e e a e a . e a e a . (015,720)

22 Scaliger pro a a .

23 AvG pro e a e a e a (based on Synkellos). 24 Scaliger pro ? .

25 AvG pro (based on Synkellos).

26 Scaliger pro .

27 The Armenian version gives Herakleidai rather than Eleans.

28 The reasons for the discrepancy between the prescript, which promises a list covering

247 Olympiads, and the actual list, which covers 249 Olympiads, have been the subject of

much discussion. See, in particular, Burgess, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian

Chronography (n. 18 to text above), 28-35 and Mosshammer, Chronicle of Eusebius (n. 7

to text above), 138-68. 29

AvG pro e a a . 30

The manuscript reads ? a . Pausanias (6.3.8, 7.17.6) supplies the correct form of

the name. 31

AvG pro . is the form found in the Armenian manuscript, Pausanias

(5.8.6), and Philostratus (De gymnastica 14).




[ ] e * a e a a a a .32

a e a . a a a a . (016, 716) a a(. e a . a a . (017,712)

75 a e a . a . (018, 708) e a , a a E ?a a . e a a a a a a .

ea a e a . e a e a . (019, 704) E . a a a a . ( 20, 700)

80 E .33 a a A a a . (021,696) E e a. a e e . a . (022, 692) E . a e e 34 a . (023, 688)

e a a a 35

a, ? a e . 85 [E] e a . e e a a . (024, 684)

[E] . a 36 a a . (025, 680) e , a a a 37

?a . E e . a a a . (026, 676)

? e a a a 90 e. a e a38 e e a e a

a a .

[E] ? . E ? A a a . (027, 672) [E] . a a a , (028, 668)

e .

95 The Armenian version reads, "who satisfied his needs only with dried figs."

a a a 39 e a , a a 40 e .

32 This phrase has been variously punctuated. The punctuation given here follows

Schoene, whose version is supported by the Armenian version, which reads, "The dolichos

was added. They ran nude, and Akant'os of Laconia won." 33

The Olympiad numbers in many of the following entries vary in a seemingly random

fashion between numbers that are written out and numbers that are expressed in part

using alphabetic numerals. For the sake of clarity, all numbers for these Olympiads have

been written out in the text given here. 34

Schoene printed e e , along with Gutschmid's suggestion that e e is

the more correct form. The manuscript seems to read e e . 35

AvG pro a . 36

The manuscript has a but - is erased. 37

AvG pro a . 38

Mai pro a a. 39

Scaliger pro a . 40

Scaliger pro a . In the Armenian version, the Eleans are said to have fought a war against "the Westerners," while the Greek version, no doubt correctly, has the Ele

ans fight against the Dymaians (residents of a community located near Elis). Karst (Die

Chronik, 256 n. 154) suggested a convincing explanation for this divergence. The Armenian

translator found a in the text with which he worked and mistook this for -



68 TRADITIO

[E] a . a , 100 a a ?',41 a . (029, 664)

[ ] a . a e e .42 a 43 e a a e a e a , a a e ?'. ( 30, 660)

[ ] a . a , a . (031, 656) [ ] a e a. a e a e a . (032, 652)

105 e a^ a a e a a e a.

[ ] a . 44 a a . (033, 648) e a a a a a a 45

e e , a e e ea ,46

110 a a a a a e a e . e 47 a a a a 48 e a .

[ ] a e a . a a a . (034, 644) [ ] a . a a a . (035, 640)

[ ]a a a ? e a .

[ ] a e . [ a a a a .]49 (036, 636) 115 [ a a ] A a , a 50

a a .

[ ] a e? . E e a a a . (037, 632)

. This indicates that the corruption from a to a occurred early, pos

sibly in the version of the Chronographia produced by Panodoros. 41

Both Cramer and Schoene printed ?' as the original manuscript reading (which Gutschmid emended to ?'). However, the manuscript might also read ?' (the letter is

unclear). 42

The manuscript reads ? rather than e e . The word a is omitted from this

entry, presumably because the information about the Pisatans occupied the space normally allotted to a .

43 Scaliger pro a .

44 Scaliger pro .

45 Scaliger pro a .

46 Schoene printed e e a , indicating in a note that the manuscript

reads e e a , which is incorrect. The manuscript actually reads e e

a . 47

Mai pro a and a lacuna of four letters in the manuscript. 48

AvG pro a a . 49

The text of this entry, in both the Greek and Armenian versions, is incomplete. Dio

genes Laertius (1.74) describes Phryn?n as a pankratiast. In addition, the following frag ment of Hippys of Bhegion identifies Arytamas as the stadion victor in the 36th Olympiad:

? . . . A a e ?a E a e a a a , a a a a a . . . ( Jacoby, Fragmente, 554 F3

apud Antigonus of Carystus Historiarum mirabilium 121).

Hippys of Rhegion . . . says that in Athens, during the reign of Epainetos, in the 36th

Olympiad, in which Arytamas of Laconia won the stadion. . . .

Rutgers plausibly restored the original entry as indicated above. The obvious comparan dum is the entry for the preceding Olympiad, which also notes the success of a prominent Athenian political figure at Olympia in an event other than the stadion.

50 The Armenian version reads "who was killed in single combat on the island of Cos."

Schoene conjectured that this is the result of a confusion between a and e

.




e a a a a e . e a a a a a a ,

120 a a a e a a a a e.

[ ] a . e a a . (038, 628) e a a a a 51

e a e e a 52 a . 125 [ ] a a . a a a . (039, 624)

[ ]e a a . e a e e .53 ( 40, 620) [ ]e a a . e a ?a a . (041, 616)

e a a a a ?a .54 e a a e a. a a a . (042, 612)

130 [ ]e a a . a a . (043, 608) e a a e a . a a . (044, 604) e a a . a a a . (045, 600) e a a . a a 55 a a , (046, 596)

a 56 a a 135 a a 57 a a?e.

e a a e? . E a a . (047, 592) e a a . a a . (048, 588)

a a a e a , a e a e , ?a e

140 a a , a a a e e. e a a a . a a . (049, 584) e . e a a , 58 e a

a a , a . ( 50, 580) e . E a a a . (051, 576)

145 e e a. e a . (052, 572) e . e a 59 a . (053, 568) e e a . a a a . (054, 564)

a e 60 a a e a a e, a e , a a

150 a e a a a a , a ' e .61

51 Scaliger pro a .

52 AvG suggested emending a e e a to a

' E e a .

53 In this entry, as in many (but not all) entries that list an athlete who won the stadion

at more than one Olympiad, the word stadion is omitted. 54

Scaliger pro a a . 55

Scaliger pro a . 56

Scaliger pro . 57

Scaliger pro a a . 58

The Armenian manuscript reads "at which time the seven wise (men) were named,"

probably, as Schoene suggests, the result of confusing ot with ot. 59

Mai pro "A e a . 60 AvG pro a e . 61

The Armenian version has Arechi?n die while winning the pankration for the second

time. Synkellos (Eklog? Chronographias 287.2-5), quoting the Chronographia, states that



70 TRADITIO

e . a ? a e e .62 (055, 560) ' e ?a e e e .

e . a a a a . (056, 556) 155 e e? . a a a . (057, 552)

e . a a . (058, 548) e a . A e a a . (059, 544)

E . 'A e a e a . ( 60, 540) E . a a e a a . (061, 536)

160 E e a. a a e a . (062, 532) a a 63 a a64 a ,

a a , '

a e a , ea a . E . a e a a a a . (063, 528) E e a . a 65 e a e a . (064, 524)

165 E . 'A a 66 a a a . (065, 520) e , a a a a a e .67

E . e a a . (066, 516) E e? . a a e e *

(067, 512) e e , a , a , .68

170 The Armenian version adds the following gloss on the word for hoplon: "this is a competition in which the contestants carry weapons."69

E . a a a . (068, 508) E a . a e e .70 (069, 504) E? . a a 71 a . ( 70, 500)

Arechi?n died winning his third Olympic victory. The same information is given by Pau

sanias (8.40.1), so the Greek manuscript must be correct. 62

The word a is omitted from this entry, presumably because the information

about Cyrus took up the space normally allotted to a . 63

The Armenian version states that Milo of Croton competed in "mixed wrestling." This

might be taken to imply that Milo competed in the pankration, but both the Greek version

and Pausanias (6.14.5) clearly state that Milo competed in wrestling. The divergence in the

Armenian version is the result of a lack of familiarity on the part of the translator with the

relevant Greek terminology. This is apparent from the entry for the 156th Olympiad, in

which the Greek states that Aristomen?s won both the pale and the pankration, while the

Armenian describes Aristomen?s as the victor in "every type of wrestling. " The difference

between pale and pankration was evidently not clear to the translator. Similar terminolog ical problems are apparent in the entries in the Armenian version for the 142nd, 172nd,

178th, 182nd, 198th, 204th, and 232nd Olympiads. 64

Scaliger pro a. 65

AvG pro E a . Gutschmid also suggested emending e a e to e a . 66

AvG pro a a . 67 Mai pro a a a e . 68

The word a does not appear in its usual place. 69

This gloss was, as Karst suggested, added by the Armenian translator. 70

The manuscript reads ? rather than e e . The word a does not appear in

this entry, or in the entries pertaining to Tisikrat?s' second victory and Astyalos's second

and third victories (Olympiads 72, 74, and 75). 71

AvG pro a a .




175 E? . a a a . (071, 496) E? e a. a e e . (072, 492) E? . a a a . (073, 488) E? e a . a e e . (074, 484) E? . a . (075, 480)

180 E? . a a 72 a a . (076, 476) E? e? . a e a . (077, 472) E? . a e e a a . (078, 468) E? a . e a . (079, 464)

. a e a a . ( 80, 460) 185 a a a a , ? a

a e * a e a 73 a a e a . . a a a . (081, 456)

e a. a a a . (082, 452) . e a a . (083, 448)

190 e a . a e e .74 (084, 444) . a .75 (085, 440)

. e e a a . (086, 436) e? . ? a , ?

e a e e , a . (087, 432) 195 . a e 76 a . (088, 428)

a . a e e .77 (089, 424) e . ? a 78 a . ( 90, 420) e . a e 79 a a a . (091,416) e e a. a e e .80 (092, 412)

200 e . E ?a 81 a a . (093, 408)

a a a a a e e , a a a' e e a

a e ,82 a a a *

e a a a a a e a a a a .83 205 e a a E a a e .

e e a . a a a a . (094, 404) e . 84 a a . (095, 400)

72 Mai pro a a following Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae

9.18.1. But Gutschmid pointed out that Diodorus 11.48.1 gives the form as a a . 73

Scaliger pro a . 74

The manuscript reads ? rather than e e . The word a is omitted in this and

the following entry. 75

The manuscript reads rather than . 76

Scaliger pro e . 77

The word a is omitted from this entry. 78

Scaliger pro a . 79

AvG pro a e . 80


AvG pro E a . 82

Schoene pro a . 83

There is no equivalent to a a a a a e a a a a in the Arme

nian version. The translator evidently omitted this sentence by mistake. 84

AvG pro .



72 TRADITIO

e e . E e e e a , a a a e ,

210 e a , a a a e . e ? . e a e 85

e . e 86

A e a a87 e e a?e .

215 e a . a 88

e , a a E ?a a

E a . a a E a . a

220 E a e a. a e e .89 E a . a E a e a . A a

A a 91 e . E a . 92 a

225 E a e . a e e .93 E a ? . a a a E a . a E a a . A a

a . (096, 396)

a .

a ,

a <

a .

a .

a .

[ a ].9

a .

a .

a .

a .

(097, 392) (098, 388)

(099, 384)

( 100, 380) ( , 376) ( 102, 372) ( 103, 368) (0104, 364)

( 105, 360) ( 106, 356) ( 107, 352) (0108, 348) (0109, 344)

The entry for the 110th Olympiad is missing from the Greek manuscript and the 230 lacuna is not noted in the manuscript (the entry for the 109th Olympiad comes

at the end of folio 207r, while the entry for the 111th Olympiad begins folio 207v). The Armenian version gives the name of the stadion victor as Anikgh?s of Athens, Diodorus (16.77.1) and POxy I 12 give the more proper form of the name, A a .

235 E a e a . e a e a . (Olli, 336) E a e a . E a a e a . (0112, 332)

A a a? a a e, a e a e . E a a e a . a e a . (0113, 328)

e e , "A e ea 240 a e a e e .

85 Gutschmid believed that e was interpolated from the previous line. There is no

ethnic in the Armenian version, and Diodorus (14.94.1) gives without an ethnic.

Gutschmid suggested that the original form was e e a . 86 AvG pro a e . Scaliger suggested ? e . 87

Scaliger pro a . 88

Scaliger pro a . 89


The manuscript lists the event in which Ph?kides won as a , rather than the sta

dion. The Armenian manuscript, however, and Diodorus (15.78.1) identify Ph?kides as a

stadion victor. 91

Scaliger pro a . 92

Scaliger pro a . 93

The word a is omitted from this entry.




E a '. a '

a . (0114, 324) A a e e e*94 e

' e

a e e a , A a A e a e a

?a e e e a . 245 E a e'. a a a a . (0115, 320)

E a '. a a . (0116, 316) E a '. a e a 95 a . (0117, 312) E a '. a . (0118, 308)

A a , a a , a ,96 250 e a e 97 a a .

E a \ a . (0119, 304) E a '. a a a a . ( 120, 300)

The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Magnesia-on-Maeander.98

a a e , a a a ? .99 255 E a a\ a a e e .100 (0121, 296)

E a ?'. A a e a .101 (0122, 292) E a '. a e e .102 (0123, 288) E a '. 103 a a a . (0124, 284) E a e'. a a A e 104 a . (0125, 280)

260 E a ^'. a a a a . (0126, 276) E a '. e e a e a . (0127, 272) E a '. e a e a . (0128, 268) E a '. a . (0129, 264)

94 The words A a e e e appear in the manuscript between and

a . 95

Schoene pro a . 96

The manuscript reads a . 97

AvG pro a . 98

The Armenian actually reads i mandr?atsH (|i i?uiGijptuig|i), which Aucher and Peter

mann took to be a corruption of the Armenian for "on-Maeander." Karst believed that

i mandr?atsH was actually a corruption of bayts'i martin (puijg Ji i?mpui|iG), the Armenian

for "but in fighting" (wrestling). He points to the entry for the 172nd Olympiad as a paral lel. This appears to be a plausible emendation except for the fact that in the numerous

occurrences of i martin not in proximity to the word for Magnesia, bayts* never appears. In addition, POxy 2082 describes Pythagoras as coming from Magnesia-on-Maeander.

Aucher's and Petermann's reading is, therefore, preferable. 99

Schoene pro . 100


The entry actually reads A a e a a . The inadvertent rep etition and deletion of the word a is not noted by Schoene.

102 The word a is omitted from this entry. 103 Scaliger pro .

104 Mai pro A e .



74 TRADITIO

The Armenian version has the additional following text: "The chariot race for 265 two colts was added, and P'ighistiak'os the son of Maketos won."105

E a '. a e e .106 ( 130, 260) E a a'. A 'A e a e a . (0131,256)

The Armenian version has the additional following text: "The race for colts was added, and Ippokrat?s son of T'essaghos won."107

270 E a ?'. e a A a . (0132, 252)

The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Amphissa in Aetolia.

E a '. ea a . (0133, 248) a a e a a , a

?a e e 'A a , e 'A a a . 275 E a '. 'A a a a . (0134, 244)

E a e'. a A 108 a (0135, 240) e e 'A e a e e

a a a .109

E a \ a . (0136, 236) 280 E a \ e e e a a . (0137, 232)

E a \ 'A e a e a . (0138, 228) E a \ a a 'A e a . (0139, 224) E a '. a 110 a . (0140, 220) E a a\ e a . (0141,216)

285 E a ?'. a 'A e a e a . (0142, 212) a 111 e a a a a a e ' a a a a a a e a e e a

'

a .

E a '. a e a a . (0143, 208) 290 E a '. a e a a a . (0144, 204)

The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Salamis on the island of

Cyprus.

E a e\ a A 112 a (0145, 200)

105 POxy 2082 and Pausanias (5.8.11) give the name of the victor as Bilistich? or Belis

tich? from Macedonia. The Armenian translator was evidently confused by the appearance of a woman's name and by the ethnic for Macedonia.

106 The word a is omitted from this entry.

107 The Armenian translator seems to have here mistaken an ethnic for a patronymic.

108 Scaliger pro A .

109 Scaliger pro a a a .

110 Scaliger pro a .

111 Mai pro a .

112 Scaliger pro A .




a * [ ] [ a]113

295 a 114 e . e a a a a a a A e a e .

The Armenian version adds the following gloss on the word for pankration: "which is a combination of wrestling contests."115

3QQ E a <\ a . (0146, 196) E a '. a a (0147, 192)

a e a ' * a

a e a ?a e .

E a '. e a 116 e a a . (0148, 188) E a '. a e e e a . (0149, 184)

305 The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Seleuceia in Pieria.

E a '. a a a . ( 150, 180) E a va'. 117 a . (0151, 176) E a ?'. e a e a . (0152, 172) E a '. a e ? a . (0153, 168)

310 The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Antissa on Lesbos.

E a '. e a a a . (0154, 164) E a e'. a e e .118 (0155, 160) E a <\ a . (0156, 156)

[A ]119 a '

a 315 a a a a .

E a '. e a 120 a a ,121 (0157, 152) e a e e a a a a e a

a e e e a. E a '. a 122 a . (0158, 148)

113 There is a lacuna of five letters after . Gutschmid suggested the restoration

supplied above. This restoration is supported by the Armenian version, which reads:

In the boys' boxing, Tork'os of Colophon won, he who was the only one to win the

periodos as a boy. 114

Scaliger pro a . 115

This is another gloss added by the Armenian translator (cf. the entry for Olympiad

67). The Armenian entry ends with the equivalent of "in the stadion" which, as Karst

suggested, was inadvertently duplicated from the following entry. 116

AvG pro 'A e a . 117 AvG pro . 118

The word a is omitted from this and the following entry. 119

The name A is lacking in the manuscript and was supplied by Gutschmid

on the basis of Pausanias 5.21.10 and the Armenian version, which gives the victor's name

as Aristos?n?s. The word appears at the end of folio 208r, the word at the

beginning of folio 208v. Souliardos evidently dropped a word when he turned the page. 120

In the Armenian version the words "the same" appear before Leonidas's name. 121

The word a follows in the manuscript. 122

Schoene pro a .



76 TRADITIO

320 E a '. ' 123 a . (0159, 144) E a '. 124 a . (0160, 140) E a a'. A a e a . (0161, 136) E a ?'. a e a . (0162, 132) E a '. e a a a . (0163, 128)

325 E a '. a . (0164, 124) E a e'. a 125 a a . (0165, 120) E a ^'. ae a . (0166, 116) E a e '. a e e . (0167, 112) E a '. a a e e a . (0168, 108)

330 E a \ a e a a . (0169, 104) E a '. a e e e a a . (0170, 100) E a a'. a e e a a . (0171, 96) E a ?'. E a a . (0172, 92)

a a a a a a , 335 a a

' a .

The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Magnesia-on Maeander.

E a '. a e e a e e 126 a . (0173, 88)

The entry for the 174th Olympiad is missing from the Greek manuscript and the 340 lacuna is not noted in the manuscript; the Armenian version gives the name of

the stadion victor as D?mostratos of Larisa.127

E a e'. a a . E a e e ' (0175, 80)

a e a a , a a a e '

e a e a .

345 E a os''. a e a . (0176, 76) E a '. a e a . (0177, 72) E a '. ' e a . (0178,68)

a a 128 e a e , a a a a a

' a * e a 350 a e a a a a e a a

e a e e .

The Armenian version has the following additional text after the word for e e : "entering the gymnic competitions, not having a horse. But that also happened to be ascribed to the influence of his friends or of the kings.

123 Schoene pro .

124 AvG pro .

125 Scaliger pro a a .

126 The manuscript reads ? rather than e e .

127 This entry appears in the middle of folio 208v, so the omission is not, as was the case

with the entry for the 110th Olympiad, a matter of Souliardos losing his place while turn

ing the page. The entry for the 175th Olympiad was, however, anomalous, which might

explain the omission of the entry for the 174th Olympiad. 128 AvG pro a .




Therefore, the events that transpired were not considered to be valid as

355 well."129

E a '. A a a e a a . (0179, 64) E a . a ? a 130 a . ( 180, 60) E a a\ a a a e 131 a . (0181, 56) E a ?'. e e a . (0182, 52)

360 a a e a e a a a a a

' a .

E a \ e e a . (0183, 48) a a a e

' a .

E a \ a e e . (0184, 44) 365 A a ?a e e.

E a e'. a . (0185, 40) E a ". a a e a e a . (0186,36)

The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Alexandria Troas.

E a '. a . (0187, 32) 370 E a '. a e a . (0188, 28)

E a \ a a . (0189, 24) E a ?'. A a e a . ( 190, 20) E a ?a\ a e a . (0191, 16) E a ??'. a A e a . (0192, 12)

375 E a ? \ e a e a . (0193, 8 BC) E a 9 '. a a a . (0194, 4 BC) E a 9e\ a e e . (0195, AD 1) E a 9?\ a a a a a a . (0196, AD 5) E a 9 '. A a a a e a . (0197, 9)

380 E a '. a ae a . (0198, 13)

129 The text as transmitted may be problematic. Aucher and Karst emended it in such a

way as to try to explain the inclusion of the information that Stratonikos showed up with

out a horse. They suggested the following: in the gymnic competitions, not having a horse. His victories in the horse races were

ascribed to the influence of his friends or of the kings, and consequently his achieve

ments (or, alternatively, his victories in the horse races) are not thought to be valid.

A more likely possibility was suggested by Mark Golden (personal communication). Golden

believes that the wording stresses that Stratonikos's four victories did not include any won

by a horse that he owned, making his feat of winning four times on a single day particu

larly impressive. Golden also believes that Stratonikos's influential friends intervened in

order to allow him to compete in two different age classes at the same set of games, which

was rather unusual. He points to Agesilaus's efforts to have the son of Eualk?s admitted to

the boys' category at Olympia despite being taller than all the other boys as a possible

parallel (Xenophon Hell. 4.1.40). 130

Scaliger pro a a . Gutschmid suggested a instead. The Arme

nian version describes Andromachos as Lacedaemonian, probably because the translator

or a later copyist carried the ethnic from the previous entry. 131

Schoene pro a e e .



78 TRADITIO

The Armenian version gives the name of the town as Prusa by Mt. Olympus.

'A a a e a a ,132 a a a a ?

133 a '

a .

? a ?a e e.134 385 E a 9 '. A ? a a a . (0199, 17)

'A e 6 a a e ,135 a a ?e a a .

a . e a a . ( 200, 21) a . a a a a 136 a . ( 201, 25)

390 a e a. E e a 137 a . ( 202, 29) a . A a a . ( 203, 33) a e a . a a e a e a . ( 204, 37)

[ e ] a A ea 138 a a a a a

' a , a a? a?e

395 e a .

The corresponding entry in the Armenian version reads as follows: "Niko stratis of Argos (won) the pankration, the eighth from Herakgh?s to do so. There were no more from Herakgh?s after him up to our time, because the Eleans would not crown any, even if the athletes were capable. Gayos was

400 emperor of the Romans."139

a e'. E ? a a e a . ( 205, 41) a a ?a e e.

a . a a a . ( 206, 45) a \ A A e a . ( 207, 49)

405 a '. a e e . ( 208, 53) ' a ?a e e. a \ a a . ( 209, 57) a '. A A e [ ].140 a . ( 210, 61) a a\ , a a?a (0211, 65)

410 e ea a . e a e a e

132 Scaliger pro a . Gutschmid suggested ? a , on the pattern of the

following entry. 133

Schoene pro . 134

Schoene printed ?a e e , in contrast to the other, parallel uses of this verb. 135

There is no equivalent to a a e in the Armenian version. 136

Mai pro e a . 137

Scaliger pro e a . 138

The manuscript reads a ea , with a being preceded by a lacuna

of five letters. The text given above is Gutschmid's restoration. 139

The Greek text is clearly corrupt. The Armenian version is much clearer, although Neikostratos's ethnic in the Armenian is incorrect (see Luigi Moretti, Olympionikai [Rome,

1957], nos. 762-63). 140

The manuscript reads ? (standing in for e e ) even though this was Atheno

d?ros's third stadion victory. There is no corresponding notation in the Armenian transla

tion. Gutschmid deleted e e , but, for reasons that are not clear, did not restore

.




a , a e a e e a, e a a e a ,141 a ,

a , a a , a 142

e a e a .

The Armenian version lists Nero as the winner not in the herald contest 415 ( a a) but in the kithara contest.

a ?'. e a a . (0212, 69) e a a a ?a e e.

a '. a , e , a . (0213, 73) a '. a e a e , a

420 ?a e e, a . (0214, 77) a e'. E a a . (0215, 81)

a a ?a e e. a ^. 'A a , ? a a ,143

a e a . (0216, 85) 425 a '. E a e e a . (0217, 89)

a '. 144 e a e a . (0218, 93)

a '. a a a a . (0219, 97) e a a ?a e e, e

' [ a a ].145

430 a '. e e a e [ a ].146 ( 220, 101) a a'. e a , a a a ,

e a e 147 a . (0221, 105)

a ?'. a a . (0222, 109)

The Armenian version has the additional following text: "Horse races were 435 held again."

a '. E a a . (0223, 113) a '. a e a e a . (0224,117)

A a a ?a e e.148 a e\ a a . (0225, 121)

440 a <'. , [ a ]149 a e , e a e a . (0226, 125)

141 Scaliger pro e a .

142 The manuscript has following a , which was deleted by Gutschmid.

143 AvG pro a .

144 AvG pro A .

145 This restoration was suggested by Mai and is supported by the Armenian version,

which includes Trajan's name. 146

The word stadion is omitted from this entry. The word at the end of the previous line, a a , is also missing. The reason for neither omission is clear.

147 Scaliger pro A a .

148 Schoene pro a e e.

149 Starting with the entry for the 216th Olympiad, there are repeated uses of a basic

phrase, consisting of a victor's name, the words ? a , an alternative appellation for the

victor, and his ethnic. This strongly indicates that a should be restored in this entry as

well.



80 TRADITIO

a '. a e e . (0227, 129) a \ a e a e a . (0228, 133) a '. E a ? a ,

445 e a e a . (0229, 137) E e? a ?a e e.150

a '. e a e a . ( 230, 141)

The Armenian version gives the name of the victor as Didimos

Kghidevs Aghek'sandrats'i (Didymos Klideus of Alexandria).

450 a a\ a a a . (0231, 145) a ?'. A a a a . (0232, 149)

a 151 a a a a a a a e , e a e? a?e e 152

e e .

455 a '. a . (0233, 153) a '. a a . (0234, 157) a e'. a ? a e 153 a . (0235, 161)

a a 154

a ?a e . 460 a ^'. e a e a e a . (0236,165)

a '. E a e a e a . (0237, 169) a . a A 155 a . (0238, 173) a \ a e e . (0239, 177) 156 a ?a e e .

465 a \ ? ? a e ,157 e a e a . ( 240, 181)

a a\ e a e a . (0241, 185) a ?'. a a a . (0242, 189)

The Armenian version gives the name of the victor as Magnos Libian 470 KiwrenatsM (Magnus Libicus of Cyrene).

a '. 158 e a e a . (0243, 193) e a , e a e? ,

' a ?a e a .

a '. a e e . (0244, 197) a e'. A a e a e a . (0245, 201)

475 a ^'. 159 , 6

a a , a . (0246, 205)

150 Schoene pro a e e.

151 The name Sokrat?s is missing in the Armenian version.

152 AvG pro .

153 AvG pro a e .

154 Scaliger pro .

155 Mai pro 'A .

156 Scaliger pro .

157 AvG pro a ? ? a e . 158

The Armenian translation gives two versions of the victor's name, Sidoros and Arte

midoros, both of which are incorrect. 159

AvG pro .




a '. a 160 a . (0247, 209) , ? a a a a ,161

' a ?a e e.

a \ ,162 ? a a a , 480 'A e a e a . (0248, 213)

a \ a e e , .163 (0249, 217)

a a a a e e . a ? e E ? a a. "A e a a ? A a a e -

a e a a a a . 'A e a ? 485 a e a a a a ,

'A e a a a a .

E e 164 a a a e a a a a a a e a a e , e . a

e ? a a a a a a 165 a , a e 490 e e , ? e.166 e a e e 167 ? , a

e ? a a a 168 a a e* a e [a a ]169 "a a ."

[ ] a e a , a a a * a e ? 'A a a e , e ?

495 a e 'A a a e .

a e a '

e A . a e ? a -

a e a a a a , a a * a

e a , a a .

[E] a a e e ? a a e 500 .

[E] a a a e [ e ]170 a a a , e a a a , a a a a a .

[ ] A a a e e 'A e a ?a e a a , a a ,171 a e a e a , a e a

160 Schoene pro .


162 Scaliger pro , .

163 The word is missing in the Armenian version.

164 Scaliger pro e .


166 Scaliger deleted , following .

167 Scaliger pro .

168 Scaliger suggested deleting a e ? a a a , but this seems unjustified

as the phrase is necessary to complete the sense of the sentence. 169

The restoration is Scaliger's. 170

Added by Scaliger. 171

Scaliger pro a .



82 TRADITIO

505 a e a e a a a a a, a a a a, a ?a e e .

e a 172 ? ?a a a e a e e a a ,173 a -

a e a e a e a e . e a a a -

e e ' e e e ?a , a a , 510 e a a e a a e . e e , a a e

a , a a a a e .

[ ]a a , e a a e a a e a , a a a e ,

e ? e .

515 e a a ? a e a a a a a a a a. a e a , e a a a ,

a e , a 174 e a a a e a a a e e a a .

[A] ? a e e? a a e , 175

a a a e e , e a a a a a a a e 520 e , a e a e a , e a e a e a

a a a, a e 176 a e , e a e e e a a a . a a a , a e a

, e e a a:

[ ]a ?a a, a a 525 '

a , a a a , e a

' a ,177 a a a

a , '

e a e e , a a a a a a.

530 e e a e e e a a , ? a e a a a , e a, a a a 178 e a a

a a , e ?a a ? a a a a , '

a a a e a . a

' a a a , a e e .

a e a a e .

535 a e a ? a a e 179 a e e a * a

a a .

172 Pro a .

173 Scaliger suggested deleting e a a , but this seems unjustified as the

phrase is necessary to complete the sense of the sentence. 174

Scaliger suggested deleting a e , a , but this seems unjustified as the phrase is

necessary to complete the sense of the sentence. 175

Scaliger pro . 176

Scaliger pro a . 177

Scaliger pro . 178

Scaliger pro a a a. 179

Scaliger pro e .




Appendix 2:

English Translation of the Eusebian Olympic Victor List

(The following translation is based directly upon the text found in Appendix 1. Places

where the translation draws upon the Armenian rather than the Greek version are indi

cated in bold-face type. We have not included glosses inserted by the Armenian transla

tors, since these glosses were not part of the original Greek text. Places where the trans

lation is based upon significant restorations that are not derived from the Armenian ver

sion are indicated in square brackets.)

Here it seems to me to be a good idea to add also to my account the Olym piads that have been recorded by the Greeks.

Olympiads of the Greeks First Olympiad, in which Koroibos of Elis won the stadion.

For it seems that from this time onward the chronology of events in Greece was accurately recorded on the basis of these Olympiads. The events that hap pened before this time were set down according to each man's fancy.

Concerning the Founding of the Olympic Games It is necessary to say a few things about the games, since some, pushing their

founding back to the earliest times, say that they were founded before the time of Herakles, by one of the Idaian Daktyls. Next they were held by Aethlios as a test of strength for his sons. From his name the contestants were called athletes. After Aethlios, his son Epeios held the games. Next Endymi?n presided over the rites, next in succession Alexinos, then Oinomaos. After him Pelops held the

games in honor of his ancestor Zeus. Next came Herakles the son of Alkm?n? and Zeus. From the time of Herakles there were ten generations, though some

say three complete [Olympiads], to Iphitos's restoration of the games. For this man was Elean, and taking thought for Greece, and wishing that the poleis would cease from wars, he dispatched envoys from all of the P?loponn?se to consult the oracle in order to inquire about finding deliverance from the endemic

warfare. The god prophesied as follows to the Peloponnesians:

O inhabitants of the P?loponn?se, going to the altar, sacrifice and do whatever the seers might say,

with the Eleans as ministers overseeing ancestral law.

To the Eleans the god prophesied as follows:

Defend your fatherland, but hold off from war, being leaders for the Greeks in a friendship of common justice, whenever the genial penteteric year arrives.

Thanks to this, Iphitos announced the establishment of the truce, [which was fixed by Herakles at the summer solstice, and they no longer waged war against each other,] and Iphitos instituted the contests together with Lycurgus the Lace daemonian, who happened to be a relative of his. For both of them descended from Herakles. At that time the only contest was the stadion race, but later the rest of the contests were added, one after another.

Aristod?mos of Elis and his colleagues relate that contestants began to be recorded after the 27th Olympiad from that of Iphitos, whichever athletes were



84 TRADITIO

victors, of course. Before that time no one was recorded on account of the

neglect of those who came before. In the 28th Olympiad Koroibos of Elis win

ning the stadion was the first to be registered. And this Olympiad was ordained as the first. The Greeks reckon their years from it. Polybios also relates the same

things as Aristod?mos. Kallimachos says that, from the time of Iphitos, thirteen

Olympiads passed without being registered, the Olympiad in which Koroibos was victor being the 14th. Many say that from the time of the foundation of the con test by Herakles the son of Alkm?n? to the first numbered Olympiad there were 459 years. The Eleans conduct a penteteric contest, four years passing between festivals.

The Olympiads of the Greeks From the first to the 247th Olympiad, in which Antoninus son of Severus ruled over the Bomans.

(776 BC) 1st Olympiad, in which Koroibos of Elis won the stadion. For this was the only contest in which they competed for thirteen

Olympiads. (772) 2nd. Antimachos of Elis stadion.

B?mos and B?mulos were born.

(768) 3rd. Androklos of Messenia stadion.

(764) 4th. Polychar?s of Messenia stadion.

(760) 5th. Aischin?s of Elis stadion.

(756) 6th. Oib?tas of Dyme stadion.

(752) 7th. Diokl?s of Messenia stadion. B?mulos founded Borne.

(748) 8th. Antikl?s of Messenia stadion.

(744) 9th. Xenokl?s of Messenia stadion.

(740) 10th. D?tad?s of Messenia stadion. (736) 11th. Le?char?s of Messenia stadion.

(732) 12th. Oxythemis of Coroneia stadion.

(728) 13th. Diokl?s of Corinth stadion.

(724) 14th. Desm?n of Corinth stadion. The diaulos was also added, and Hyp?nos of Elis won.

(720) 15th. Orsippos of Megara stadion. The dolichos was added, and they ran nude. Akanthos of Laconia won.

(716) 16th. Pytha goras of Laconia stadion.

(712) 17th. P?los of Epidauros stadion.

(708) 18th. Tellis of Sicyon stadion.

Wrestling was added, and Eurybatos of Laconia won.

The pentathlon was also added, and Lampis of Laconia won.

(704) 19th. Menos of Megara stadion.

(700) 20th. Ath?radas of Laconia stadion.

(696) 21st. Pantakl?s of Athens stadion.

(692) 22nd. The same, a second time, stadion.

(688) 23rd. Ikarios of Hyperesia, stadion.

Boxing was added, and Onomastos of Smyrna won, he who also established the rules for boxing.

(684) 24th. Kleoptolemos of Laconia stadion.

(680) 25th. Thalpis of Laconia stadion.




The four-horse chariot race was added, and Pag?n of Thebes won.

(676) 26th. Kallisthenes of Laconia stadion. The pentathlete Philombrotos of Laconia won in three Olympiads. The Karneia, a contest in singing to the kithara, was held in Lace daemonia for the first time.

(672) 27th. Eurybos of Athens stadion.

(668) 28th. Charmis of Laconia stadion, who trained on a diet of dry figs. The Pisatans ran this Olympiad, the Eleans being occupied on account of a war against the Dymaians.

(664) 29th. Chionis of Laconia, who could jump 22 feet, stadion.

(660) 30th. The same, a second time. The Pisatans rebelled against the Eleans and ran this Olympiad and the next 22 Olympiads as well.

(656) 31st. Chionis of Laconia, a third time, stadion.

(652) 32nd. Kratinos of Megara stadion. This was also when Komaios, the third of his brothers to compete, won the boxing contest.

(648) 33rd. Gylis of Laconia stadion. The pankration was added, and the gigantic Lygdamis of Syracuse won. He measured out the stadium with his own feet, using only 600 steps. The horse race was also added, and Kraxilas of Thessaly won.

(644) 34th. Stomas of Athens stadion.

(640) 35th. Sphairos of Laconia stadion. And Kyl?n of Athens (won) the diaulos, he who attempted to set himself up as tyrant.

(636) 36th. [Arytamas of Laconia stadion.] Phryn?n of Athens [(won) the pankration], he who died fighting in

single combat against Pittakos.

(632) 37th. Eurykleidas of Laconia stadion. The boys' stadion was added, and Polynik?s of Elis won. Boys' wrestling was also added, and Hipposthen?s of Laconia won. He won the men's wrestling in five consecutive Olympiads, starting from the next-but-one Olympiad.

(628) 38th. Olyntheus of Laconia stadion. The boys' pentathlon was added, and they competed in this event

only on this occasion. Deutelidas of Laconia won.

(624) 39th. Rhipsolaos of Laconia stadion.

(620) 40th. Olyntheus of Laconia, for the second time.

(616) 41st. Kle?ndas of Thebes stadion.

Boys' boxing was added, and Phil?tas of Sybaris won.

(612) 42nd. Lyk?tas of Laconia stadion.

(608) 43rd. Kle?n of Epidauros stadion.

(604) 44th. Gel?n of Laconia stadion.

(600) 45th. Antikrat?s of Epidauros stadion.

(596) 46th. Chrysamaxos of Laconia stadion. And Polymn?stor of Miletus (won) the boys' stadion. He chased and caught a hare while tending goats.

(592) 47th. Eurykl?s of Laconia stadion.

(588) 48th. Glyk?n of Croton stadion.



86 TRADITIO

Pythagoras of Sanios, having been excluded from the boys boxing and mocked as effeminate, entered the men's contest and defeated

everyone, one after the other.

(584) 49th. Lykinos of Croton stadion.

(580) 50th. Epitelidas of Laconia stadion. The seven wise (men) were named.

(576) 51st. Eratosthenes of Croton stadion.

(572) 52nd. Agis of Elis stadion.

(568) 53rd. Hagn?n of Peparethos stadion.

(564) 54th. Hippostratos of Croton stadion. Arechi?n of Phigaleia, being strangled, died while winning the

pankration for the third time. His corpse was crowned, his oppo nent having conceded defeat, his leg having been broken by Are chi?n.

(560) 55th. Hippostratos, the same man, for a second time. This was when Cyrus became king of the Persians.

(556) 56th. Phaidros of Pharsalos stadion.

(552) 57th. Ladromos of Laconia stadion.

(548) 58th. Diogn?tos of Croton stadion.

(544) 59th. Archilochos of Corcyra stadion.

(540) 60th. Apellaios of Elis stadion.

(536) 61st. Agatharchos of Corcyra stadion.

(532) 62nd. Eryxias of Chalcis [stadion]. Mil?n of Croton (won the) wrestling. He won the Olympic Games six times, the Pythian Games six times, the Isthmian Games ten times, the Nemean Games nine times.

(528) 63rd. Parmenid?s of Camarina stadion.

(524) 64th. Menandros of Thessaly stadion. (520) 65th. Anochas of Taras stadion.

The hoplites was added, and Damar?tos of Heraea won.

(516) 66th. Ischyros of Himera stadion.

(512) 67th. Phanas of Pellene, who was the first to win three races, the stadion, diaulos, and hoplon.

(508) 68th. Isomachos of Croton stadion.

(504) 69th. The same, a second time.

(500) 70th. Nikasias of Opous stadion.

(496) 71st. Tisikrat?s of Croton stadion.

(492) 72nd. The same, a second time.

(488) 73rd. Astyalos of Croton stadion.


(480) 75th. The same, a third time.

(476) 76th. Skamandros of Mytilene stadion.

(472) 77th. Dand?s of Argos stadion.

(468) 78th. Parmenid?s of Poseidonia stadion. 79th. Xenoph?n of Corinth stadion.

(460) 80th. Torymmas of Thessaly stadion. Am?sinas of Barca, who trained by wrestling a bull while herding cows, (won) the wrestling. He even brought the bull to Pisa and trained with it.

(456) 81st. Polymnastos of Cyrene stadion.




(452) 82nd. Lykos of Larissa stadion.

(448) 83rd. Kriss?n of Himera stadion. (444) 84th. The same, a second time.


(436) 86th. Theopompos of Thessaly stadion.

(432) 87th. S?phr?n of Ambracia stadion. After this the Peloponnesian War was joined.

(428) 88th. Symmachos of Messenia stadion.


(420) 90th. Hyperbios of Syracuse stadion.

(416) 91st. Exagentos of Acragas stadion.

(412) 92nd. The same, a second time.

(408) 93rd. Eubatos of Cyrene stadion. The gigantic Poly damas of Scotussa (won) the pankration. When he was at the court of ?chos amongst the Persians he killed lions and fought nude against armed men. He even brought chariots

charging at full speed to a halt. The two-horse chariot race was added, and Euagoras of Elis won.

(404) 94th. Krokinas of Larissa stadion.

(400) 95th. Min n of Athens stadion.

(396) 96th. Eupolemos of Elis stadion. The contest for trumpeters was added, and Timaios of Elis won.

The contest for heralds was also added, and Krat?s of Elis won.

(392) 97th. Terinaios of [Elis] stadion.

(388) 98th. S?sippos of Delphi stadion. Aristod?mos of Elis, whom no one could hold by the waist, (won) the wrestling.

(384) 99th. Dik?n of Syracuse stadion. The four-colt chariot race was added, and Eurybatos of Laconia

won.

(380) 100th. Dionysod?ros of Taras stadion.

(376) 101st. Dam?n of Thurii stadion. (372) 102nd. The same, a second time.

(368) 103rd. Pythostratos of Ephesus stadion.

(364) 104th. Ph?kid?s of Athens [stadion]. This Olympiad was run by the Pisatans.

(360) 105th. P?r?s of Cyrene stadion.


(352) 107th. Mikrinas of Taras stadion.

(348) 108th. Polykl?s of Cyrene stadion.

(344) 109th. Aristolochos of Athens stadion.

(340) [110th. Antikl?s of Athens stadion.] (336) IIIth. Kleomantis of Cleitor stadion.

(332) 112th. Eurylas of Chalcis stadion. Alexander captured Babylon, destroying Dareios.

(328) 113th. Klit?n of Macedonia stadion.

Ageus of Argos (won) the dolichos. He announced his own victory in Argos on the same day.

(324) 114th. Mikinas of Rhodes stadion. Alexander died, after which his empire was divided up among many, and Ptolemy became king of Egypt and Alexandria.



88 TRADITIO

(320) 115th. Damasias of Amphipolis stadion.

(316) 116th. Demosthenes of Laconia stadion.

(312) 117th. Parmenid?s of Mytilene stadion.

(308) 118th. Andromen?s of Corinth stadion. Ant?nor of Athens or Miletus (won) the pankration, uncontested, a

periodonikes, unconquered in three age groups.

(304) 119th. Andromen?s of Corinth stadion.

(300) 120th. Pythagoras of Magnesia-on-Maeander stadion. Keras of Argos (won) the wrestling, he who tore the hooves off a cow.

(296) 121st. Pythagoras, a second time.

(292) 122nd. Antigonos of Macedonia stadion.

(288) 123rd. The same, a second time.

(284) 124th. Philom?los of Pharsalos stadion.

(280) 125th. Ladas of Aigion stadion.

(276) 126th. Idaios or Nikat?r of Cyrene stadion.

(272) 127th. Perigen?s of Alexandria stadion.

(268) 128th. Seleukos of Macedonia stadion.

(264) 129th. Philinos of Cos stadion. The chariot race for two colts was added, and Bilistich? of Macedonia won.


(256) 131st. Amm?nios of Alexandria stadion. The race for colts was added, and Hippokrat?s of Thessaly won.

(252) 132nd. Xenophan?s of Amphissa in Aetolia stadion.

(248) 133rd. Simylos of Neapolis stadion. The Parthians revolted against the Macedonians, and Arsak?s became their first king, from whose name the line is called

Arsakidai.

(244) 134th. Alkidas of Laconia stadion.

(240) 135th. Erat?n of Aetolia stadion. Kleoxenos of Alexandria (won) the boxing. He was a periodonikes who won without suffering an injury.

(236) 136th. Pythokl?s of Sicyon stadion.

(232) 137th. Menestheus of Bargylia stadion.

(228) 138th. D?m?trios of Alexandria stadion.

(224) 139th. Iolaidas of Argos stadion.

(220) 140th. Z?pyros of Syracuse stadion.

(216) 141st. D?rotheos of Bhodes stadion.

(212) 142nd. Krat?s of Alexandria stadion.

Kapros of Elis won the wrestling and pankration, next after Hera kl?s, and was listed as second from Herakl?s.

(208) 143rd. H?rakleitos of Samos stadion.

(204) 144th. H?rakleid?s of Salamis on Cyprus stadion.

(200) 145th. Pyrrhias of Aetolia stadion. Moschos of Colophon (won) the boys' boxing. He alone won the

periodos as a boy. The boys' pankration was added, and Phaidimos of Alexandria won.

(196) 146th. Miki?n of Boeotia stadion.




(192) 147 . Agemachos of Cyzicus stadion. Kleitostratos of Rhodes (won) the wrestling. He triumphed by twisting necks.

(188) 148th. Arkesilaos of Megalopolis stadion.

(184) 149th. Hippostratos of Seleuceia in Pieria stadion.

(180) 150th. On?sikritos of Salamis stadion.

(176) 151st. Thymilos of Aspendos stadion.

(172) 152nd. D?mokritos of Megara stadion.

(168) 153rd. Aristandros of Antissa on Lesbos stadion.

(164) 154th. Le?nidas of Rhodes, who won three times at this Olympiad, stadion.



[Aristomen?s] of Rhodes third from Herakles (won) the wrestling together with the pankration.

(152) 157th. Le?nidas won his fourth stadion victory, the first and only man to win twelve Olympic crowns in four Olympiads.

(148) 158th. Orth?n of Syracuse stadion.

(144) 159th. Alkimos of Cyzicus stadion.

(140) 160th. Hagnod?ros of Cyzicus stadion.

(136) 161st. Antipatros of Epirus stadion.

(132) 162nd. Dam?n of Delphi stadion.

(128) 163rd. Timotheos of Tralleis stadion.

(124) 164th. Boi?tos of Sicyon stadion.

(120) 165th. Akousilaos of Cyrene stadion.

(116) 166th. Chrysogonos of Nicaea stadion.


(108) 168th. Nikomachos of Philadelphia stadion.

(104) 169th. Nikod?mos of Lacedaemonia stadion.

(100) 170th. Simmias of Seleuceia-on-Tigris stadion.

(96) 171st. Parmeniskos of Corcyra stadion.

(92) 172nd. Eudamos of Cos stadion. Pr?tophan?s of Magnesia-on-Maeander (won) the wrestling and

pankration, fourth from Herakles.

(88) 173rd. Parmeniskos of Cory era, for the second time, stadion.

(84) 174th. D?mostratos of Larisa stadion.

(80) 175th. Boys stadion Epainetos of Argos. For the men did not compete, because Sulla summoned all the con

testants to Rome.

(76) 176th. Di?n of Cyparissiae stadion.

(72) 177th. Hekatomn?s of Elis stadion.

(68) 178th. Diokl?s of Hypaipa stadion. Stratonikos son of Korragos of Alexandria (won) the wrestling and

pankration, fifth from Herakles. He won four crowns on the same

day at Nemea, in contests for boys and for ageneioi, entering the

gymnic competitions, not having a horse. But that also hap pened to be ascribed to the influence of his friends or of the

kings. Therefore, the events that transpired were not con sidered to be valid as well.

(64) 179th. Andreas of Lacedaemonia stadion.



90 TRADITIO

(60) 180th. Andromachos of Ambracia stadion.

(56) 181st. Lamachos of Tauromenium stadion.

(52) 182nd. Anthesti?n of Argos stadion. Marion son of Marion of Alexandria (won) the wrestling and pan kration, sixth from Herakles.

(48) 183rd. Theod?ros of Messenia stadion. Julius Caesar was sole ruler of the Romans.


Augustus became emperor of the Romans.

(40) 185th. Arist?n of Thurii stadion.

(36) 186th. Skamandros of Alexandria Troas stadion.

(32) 187th. Arist?n of Thurii stadion.

(28) 188th. S?patros of Argos stadion.

(24) 189th. Askl?piad?s of Sidon stadion.

(20) 190th. Auphidios of Patras stadion.

(16) 191st. Diodotos of Tyana stadion.

(12) 192nd. Diophan?s of Aeolia stadion.

(8) 193rd. Artemid?ros of Thyateira stadion.

(4 BC) 194th. D?maratos of Ephesus stadion.

(1 AD) 195th. The same, a second time.

(5) 196th. Pammen?s of Magnesia-on-Maeander stadion.

(9) 197th. Asiatikos of Halicarnassus stadion.

(13) 198th. Diophan?s of Prusa by Mt. Olympus stadion. Aristeas of Stratoniceia or of Maeander (won) the wrestling and

pankration, seventh from Herakl?s. Tiberius became emperor of the

Romans.

(17) 199th. Aischin?s Glaukias of Miletus stadion. The race for horses, which had been stopped long before, was

restored, and Tiberius Caesar won the four-horse chariot race.

(21) 200th. Polem?n of Petra stadion.

(25) 201st. Damasias of Cydonia stadion.

(29) 202nd. Hergomen?s of Pergamon stadion.

(33) 203rd. Apoll?nios of Epidauros stadion.

(37) 204th. Sarapi?n of Alexandria stadion. Neikostratos of Aigai (won) the wrestling and pankration, eighth and last from Herakl?s. There were no more from Herakl?s

after him up to our time, because the Eleans would not crown

any, even if the athletes were capable. Gaius was emperor of the Romans.

(41) 205th. Euboulidas of Laodiceia stadion. Claudius became emperor of the Romans.

(45) 206th. Valerius of Mytilene stadion.

(49) 207th. Ath?nod?ros of Aigion stadion.

(53) 208th. The same, a second time. Nero became emperor of the Romans.

(57) 209th. Kallikl?s of Sidon stadion.

(61) 210th. Ath?nod?ros of Aigion, a [third] time, stadion.

(65) 211th. The games were not held [at the usual time] because Nero put them off until his visit. They were held two years late. Tryph?n of

Philadelphia won the stadion, Nero was crowned in the contests for




heralds, tragic actors, singing to the kithara, and in the chariot races for colts, horses, and ten colts.

(69) 212th. Polit?s of Ceramos stadion.

Vespasian became emperor of the Romans.

(73) 213th. Rhod?n of Cyme, or Theodotos, stadion.

(77) 214th. Strat?n of Alexandria stadion. Titus became emperor of the Romans.

(81) 215th. Hermo genes of Xanthos stadion. Domitian became emperor of the Romans.

(85) 216th. Apollophan?s, also known as Papis, of Tarsus stadion.

(89) 217th. Hermogen?s of Xanthos, a second time, stadion.

(93) 218th. Apoll?nis of Alexandria, or Heliodoros, stadion.

(97) 219th. Stephanos of Cappadocia stadion. Nerva became emperor of the Romans, and after him [Trajan].

(101) 220th. Achilleus of Alexandria [stadion]. (105) 221st. The?nas, also known as Smaragdos, of Alexandria stadion.

(109) 222nd. Kallistos of Sidon stadion. Horse races were held again.

(113) 223rd. Eustalos of Sidon stadion.

(117) 224th. Isari?n of Alexandria stadion. Hadrian became emperor of the Romans.

(121) 225th. Aristeas of Miletus stadion.

(125) 226th. Dionysios, also known as Sameumys, of Alexandria stadion.


(133) 228th. Loukas of Alexandria stadion.

(137) 229th. Epidauros, also known as Amm?nios, of Alexandria stadion. Antoninus Pius became emperor of the Romans.

(141) 230th. Didymos Klideus of Alexandria stadion.

(145) 231st. Kranaos of Sicyon stadion.

(149) 232nd. Attikos of Sardis stadion. S?krat?s, having entered himself for both the wrestling and pan kration, was banned by the Eleans in favor of Dionysius of Seleu ceia.

(153) 233rd. Demetrios of Chios stadion.

(157) 234th. Eras of Chios stadion.

(161) 235th. Mnasiboulos of Elateia stadion. Marcus Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus became emperors of the

Romans.

(165) 236th. Aeithal?s of Alexandria stadion.

(169) 237th. Eudaim?n of Alexandria stadion.

(173) 238th. Agathopous of Aegina stadion.

(177) 239th. The same, a second time. Commodus became emperor of the Romans.

(181) 240th. Anoubi?n, also known as Pheidos, of Alexandria stadion.

(185) 241st. Her?n of Alexandria stadion.

(189) 242nd. Magnus Libicus of Cyrene stadion.

(193) 243rd. Isidoros of Alexandria stadion. Pertinax, and then Severus, became emperors of the Romans.


(201) 245th. Alexandres of Alexandria stadion.



92 TRADITIO

(205) 246 . Epinikios, also known as Kynas, of Cyzicus stadion.

(209) 247th. Satornilos of Gortyn on Crete stadion.

Antoninus, also known as Caracalla, became emperor of the

Romans.

(213) 248th. H?liod?ros, also known as Tr?sidamas, of Alexandria stadion.

(217) 249th. The same, a second time. Erid.

Up to this point we find a register of Olympiads. And Eusebius (records) these

things. Other chronographers, including Dexippos the Athenian, also make note both of the series of Olympiads and those who were victorious in those Olym piads. Dexippos, who wrote the Chronike Historia, which goes to the 262nd Olympiad, says that Dionysios of Alexandria won at that Olympiad.

Since the register of Olympiads cited above makes no mention of many famous athletes, we will speak of a few of the many. Furthermore, Titormos, who flourished in the time of the athlete Mil?n, was not an athlete but an oxherd. Mil?n, having made trial of Titormos s strength, and being amazed at its immensity, cried out. This is where the saying "this man is another Herakles" comes from.

Glaukos of Carystos was a boxer, who was irresistibly strong, and Kleom?d?s of Astypalaia, about whom there was an oracle:

The last of the heroes, Kleom?d?s of Astypalaia,

was an unconquered boxer, as was Areios the Egyptian. Strat?n the son of Kor

ragos won the wrestling together with the pankration at the Olympics and again in the next Olympiad. He did the same at the Nemean, Pythian, and Isthmian

Games.

Euthymos of Locris was a boxer who was a source of wonder on account of his surpassing bodily strength.

Eurydamas of Cyrene was a boxer. When his teeth were knocked out by his opponent, he won, after swallowing his teeth so that his opponent would not know what had happened.

Di?xippos of Athens was an athlete who made a display of his unique strength to King Alexander. After Di?xippos took off his clothes and picked up a club, a Macedonian, one of Alexanders Companions, attacked him, wearing full armor and brandishing a spear. Di?xippos, naked, overcame him, responding to a challenge.

Kleitomachos of Thebes was a boxer who was a source of wonder because his

strength made him unconquerable and because of his disciplined training. For he did not put up with even the slightest mention of sex. When he encountered erotic stories at symposia, or elsewhere, he immediately stood up and made his escape. He did this, in order that, by not ever giving way to sexual desires, the

peak of his strength would not be wasted away. The jump of the athlete Phaullos of Croton is said to have been 52 feet. He

alone came from Italy to help the Greeks against the Persians, in a trireme he equipped at his own expense.

Melancomas was the fairest and biggest boxer. They say that the Emperor Titus was enamored of him. He never wounded anyone, nor struck anyone. He wore out all his opponents by staying in his fighting stance and holding up his hands.




The athlete Aurelius Helix, who lived during the reign of the emperor Seve rus, so surpassed his opponents that he competed in both the wrestling and

pankration, at least in Rome. For the Eleans, being jealous of him, did not call

any wrestler into the stadium. He won each of the two events, which no one else

entered, clearly in the contests at Rome. In order that I might leave the rest out, I will content myself with only Nikoph?n of Miletus, about whom there is the following epigram:

The thick tendon of a bull, the iron shoulders of Atlas, the sacred beard of Herakles, and the leonine eyes of the Milesian giant not even Olympian Zeus looked upon without trembling, when Nikoph?n won the men's boxing at

Olympia.

There was also in the time of Theodosios the Great a wrestler from Philadel

phia in Lydia, Philoumenos by name. He is said to have struck a bronze statue and to have smashed the bronze deep inward where he struck it. And on it there was an epigram, the last line of which is:

The bronze is far weaker than my hand.

And Metagen?s of Thasos won numberless victories in boxing, for he was irre

sistibly strong.

Dartmouth College Miami University of Ohio



Documents

The Olympic Victor List of Eusebius Back