496 APPENDIX A.D.),' and have been translated into Latin by Van Douwen and Land (Johannis episc. Ephesi comment, de beatis orientalibus, 1889). Part 3 is extant and is one of our most valuable contemporary sources for the reigns of Justin IL and Tiberius. It has been translated into English by R. Payne Smith, 1860, and into German by J. Schiinf elder, 1862. It begins with the year a.d. 571— the year of the persecu- tion of the Monophysites bj- Justin II. John tells us that this part of his history was mostly written during the persecution imder great difficidties ; the pages of his Ms. had to be concealed in various hiding-places. This explains the con- fused order in part of his narrative. [W. Wright, Syriac Literature (1894 ; a reprint, with a few additions, of the article under the same title in the Encyclo- pedia Britannica, vol. xxii. ), p. 102 sqq.] EvAGRius (c. 536-600 a.d. ; born at Epiphania), an advocate of Antioch, is the continuer of the continuers (Socrates, &c.) of Eusebius. His Ecclesiastical History, in six Books, begins with the council of Ephesus in a.d. 431 and comes down to A. D. 593. Apart from its importance as one of the main authorities for the ecclesiastical history of the long period of which it treats, this work has also some brief but valuable notices concerning secular history. Evagrius had the use of older works which are now lost, such as Eustathius (whose chronicle he used in Bks. 2 and 3 ; see above, vol. iv. p. 512) and Johannes of Epiphania (whose still unpublished work he was permitted to consult in composing Bk. Q).* Evagrius also made use of John Malalas (the first edition ; see above, vol. iv. Appendix 1) and Procopius. An attempt ^ has been made to show that he used the work of Menander (directly or indirectly), but the demonstration is not convincing. The accuracy of Evagrius in using those sources which are extant enables us to feel confidence in him when his sources are lost. For the end of Justinian's reign, for Justin, Tiberius, and Maurice, he has the fuU value of a contemporary authority. [p]d. H. Valesius, 1673; in Migne, Patr. Gr. vol. 86. A new, much-needed critical edition by MM. Parmentier and Bidez is in the press. ] Theophylactus Simocattes, born in Egypt, lived in the reigns of Maurice and Heraclius, and seems to have held the post of an imperial secretary. He wrote, in euphemistic style, works on natural history, essays in epistolary form, and a history of the reign of Maurice. Theophylactus — the chief authority for the twenty years which his history deals with — maj^ be said to close a series of his- torians, which beginning with Eunapius includes the names of Priscus, Procopius, Agathias, and Menander. After Theophylactus we have for more than three himdred j'ears nothing but chronicles. Theophylactus had a narrow view of history and no discernment for the relative importance of facts (cp. Gibbon, c. xlvi., note 49); the affectation of his florid, periphrastic style renders his work disagreeable to read ; but he is trustworthy and honest, according to his lights. Although a Christian, he affects to speak of Christian things with a certain unfamiliarity — as a pagan, like Ammianus or Eunapius, would speak of them. He made use of the works of Menander and John of Epiphania. [Best edition by C. deBoor, 1887.] Contemporary with Theophylactus was the unknown author of the Chronicon Paschalb (or Alexandrinum, as it is also called) : a chronicle which had great in- fluence on subsequent chronography. Beginning with Adam it came down to the year a.d. 629; but, as all our Mss. are derived from one (extant) Vatican Ms. which was mutilated at the beginning and at the end, our text ends with a.d. 627. As far as a.d. 602 the work is a compilation from sources which are for the
- And in two Mss. in the British Museum.
■* But Evagrius did not make such large use of Johannes as Theophylactus did ; it was not his main material. For Bk. 5 he did not use Johannes at all. Cp. Adamek, Beitr. zur Geschichte des byz. Kaisers Mauricius, ii. p. lo-ig. 5 By L. Jeep (in 14 Supp.-Bd. der Jahrbb. f. Classische Philologie, p. 162 sqq.). Adamek argues sensibly against this view, op. cit. p. 4 sqq.
