Nikos Kokkinos

Eusebius’ Chronika was a remarkable achievement in the field of ancient chronography, not least as the conclusion of extensive research running since the beginning of the Hellenistic period. It was a double work, composed some time before AD 311 and expanded shortly after AD 325. The first part, now usually called Chronographia, was a detailed introduction, aiming at collecting the raw material from all sources then available, and setting out the plan of the project. The second part, known as Kanones (Chronikoi Kanones), which carried its own preface, was a grand exposition (utilising the data of the first part) in the form of a table consisting of up to nine parallel columns to be read across, thus presenting a synchronistic universal history at a glance. Only fragments survive of the Greek original, primarily in George the Syncellus (ca. AD 800) and an anonymous excerptor (known as ‘Excerpta Eusebiana’ from a MS of the 15th century AD). But we have a nearly complete Armenian translation (earliest copy ca. 13th century AD), a Latin translation of the second part by Jerome (with his own preface and extended to AD 380/1), as well as two Syriac epitomes, one of which is believed to have been compiled by Joshua the Stylite (8th century AD), and other witnesses including two very early Arab chroniclers, one being Agapius of Hierapolis, ca. AD 942.

A previous paper on the titulus Tiburtinus re-opened the debate concerning the notorious ignotus, then generally thought to be P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. 12 BC), suggesting instead that he might be identified with C. Sentius Saturninus (cos. 19 BC). This suggestion was subsequently challenged in favour of L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 15 BC), who had originally been argued by Sir Ronald Syme. Since the identification of the consular concerned is significant for Augustan prosopography and for the history of Asia, among other provinces such as Syria and Germany, a detailed and wide-ranging restatement of the case for Saturninus is made here. Piso (unlike Quirinius) is really a non-starter, and it is surprising that he would have been supported by formidable Syme. The rex of the titulus could not have been Rhescuporis I or Rhoemetalces I. The iterum would not have referred to the second legateship of Piso (presumably that of Syria) given Piso’s early career. The binas, referring to two public thanksgivings, does not inspire confidence in Piso receiving a second supplicatio. Piso the Pontifex is not attested as proconsul of Asia, nor is he attested as governor of Syria, and the reconstruction of the fasti of this province is much more reasonable than previously thought. By contrast, all points in Saturninus career can be successfully compared with the information in the titulus. Origins of the Sentii from an area near Tibur is a bonus, if dispensable. Saturninus could not have been proconsul of Africa at the time inferred from Tertullian (29 BC), and hence Asia is open for him in c. 14/13 BC. His office in Syria (c. 12–8 BC) is well-attested, as it is that in Germany (c. AD 3–6). He was awarded ornamenta triumphalia in the company of Tiberius, after ‘two’ victories and no doubt supplicationes binas. Finally, a flexible understanding of the word iterum can accommodate also the meanings ‘for another time’ and ‘twice’, either of which can work with the career of Saturninus. As for deprived Quirinius, among various problems, no two thanksgivings can be conceived for a war such as that of the Homonadenses, and, most condemningly, a reference to his important office under Gaius will never have been omitted in the titulus.