¹ For these and other similar appointments, see Maspero, J., Histoire des patriarches d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1923), 256–257 (cf. also 161, n. 1).Google Scholar

² The inscription, found near Seleucia Pieria, was set up during Ms tenure of the comitiva Orientis (see Chapot, V., “Antiquités de la Syrie du Nord,” Bull, de Correspondance Hellénique, XXVI [1902], 166–168, 289Google Scholar; cf. Perdrizet, P.in Comptes, rendus de l'Acad. des inscriptions et telles-lettres [1924], 324.Google Scholar The date given in this inscription shows that he was comes Orientis in 11, 524.Google Scholar Malalas' reference to Ms appointment (416, line 20, Bonn ed.) occurs In a context which indicates that he entered office during the first indiction (Sept. 1, 522—Aug. 31, 523). On the life of Ephraemius see, in addition to the studies cited below, Jülicher, A., “Ephraimios,”Google Scholar in Pauly-Wissowa, , Real-Encyclopädie, VIGoogle Scholar, col. 17, and Karalevskij, C., “Antioche,”Google Scholar in Bandrillart, , Dict. d'hist. et de géogr. eccl., III, col. 577Google Scholar; cf. also Histoire de l'église, publ. sous la direction de A. Fliche et V. Martin, tome IV (by Labriolle, Bardy, Bréhier, and Plinval; Paris, 1937), 431. The reader may refer to these treatises for certain minor details of Ephraemius' career in the church which it seems unnecessary to repeat here.

³ Mal. 416, 20.

⁴ Mal. 417, 5; ef. Proeopius, , Anecdota, XXVI, 6–9.Google Scholar

⁵ Mal. 417, 9.

⁶ Mal. loc. cit. In the Greek text of Malalas preserved in the codex Baroccianus at Oxford it is stated (417, 17) that Ephraemius was patriarch at the time of the fire. The Church Slavonic version of Malalas, which states that Euphrasins was patriarch during the fire, now proves that the reading in the Greek text is a scribe's mistake (See Istrin, V. M., Chronika loanna Malaly v slavianskom perevodieGoogle Scholar, in the Sbornik otdêl, russkago yazyka i slovesnosti Akademii Nauk, tom. XCI, p. 19Google Scholar; I take this information from the English translation of this version by Professor Matthew Spinka, which it is hoped may soon be published). Theophanes, in his account of the event (A. M. 6018, p. 172, 9 ed. De Boor) says that Enphrasius was patriarch. The names could easily have been confused because of their similarity, and the confusion would have been made easier by the circumstance that Ephraemius was later made patriarch.

⁷ See the following paragraph.

⁸ Mal. 419, 5; many details now lost from the Greek text are preserved in the Church Slavonic version mentioned above.

⁹ Mal. 432, 19; Evagrius, , Eccl. Hist., IV, 6.Google Scholar Karalevskij is mistaken in stating (op. cit., col. 699) that Ephraemius became patriarch in 526; the election is dated by Malalas and by Theophanes (A. M. 6019, p. 173, 20) at about the time of the death of Justinus (Aug. 1, 527). There is no evidence how the patriarchate was administered in the interval before Ephraemius' election.

¹⁰ See Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1923), II, 377–378Google Scholar; Maspero, , op. cit., 122, 144, 180Google Scholar; Labriolle, , etc., op. cit., 454–455.Google Scholar

¹¹ Bardenhewer, O., Gesch. a. altkirchl. Lit., V (Freiburg-i.-B., 1932), 17–18.Google Scholar

¹² For the history of the invasion see Bury, , op. cit., II, 89 ff.Google Scholar

¹³ Procopius, , Wars, II, vi, 9–15.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In addition to Bury, 's account (p. 96)Google Scholar, see the description in Ch. Diehl, , Justinien (Paris, 1901), 583Google Scholar; also Holmes, W. G., The Age of Justinian and Theodora (ed. 2, London, 1912), II, 588 ff.Google Scholar, and Leclercq, H., “Antioche (Archéologie),” in Cabrol-Leclercq, Diet, d'arch. Chrét. et de liturgie, I, cols. 2390 f. (see below, note 19.)Google Scholar

¹⁵ Procop. II, vi, 16–17Google Scholar, translated by Dewing, H. B. in the Loeb Classical library.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Proeop. II, vi, 25.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Proeop. II, vii, 14–18.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Procop. II, ix, 14–18 (cf. II, x, 6).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Eccl. Hist., IV, 25.Google Scholar The way in which both Procopius (in the passage cited above) and Evagrius speak of “the church,” without using a descriptive epithet, im plies that it was the most important of the churches at Antioch. At this time, this would be the Church of the Virgin, built by Justinian after the earthquake of 626 (Mal. 423, 1; ef. Procop. Buildings, II, x, 24).Google Scholar The famous church of Constantine is said to have been burned in this earthquake (Mal. 419, 21; Leclercq, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, confuses the accounts of the earthquake and the sack by the Persians, stating mistakenly that the church of Constantine was burned in 540).

²⁰ Bury, , loc. cit.Google Scholar; this is also the opinion of Hanry, J., Byz. Ztschr., IX (1900), 346.Google Scholar

²¹ Procop. Wars, VII, xl, 9Google Scholar and Anec., V, 8 ff.Google Scholar; Mal, 480, 1; cf. Haury, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

²² Germanus would of course have given up the effort to ransom the eity when the envoys arrived; possibly he abandoned Ephraemius, without making an effort to save him from their accusations.