John Malalas had access to an expanded version of the chronicle of Eusebius, which included also a different Christian era (probably AM 5967). Most of the fragments cannot be traced back to Eusebius, and add material drawn from other works of Eusebius, Latin literature and from the Book of Jubilees.

Theophilus is only attested in John Malalas, as a chronographer who defended a Christian era starting in AM 5916 or 5967. The fragments show an interest in Greek literature and myth, and a knowledge of Julius Africanus and Eusebius of Caesarea. He wrote from an Alexandrian perspective, probably in the fifth century.

Isidore the deacon is a probably sixth- or seventh-century chronographer, of whose work a single fragment is preserved. It records an episode from the life of John Chrysostom.

Inspired by his Old Testament exegesis, Diodore of Tarsus composed a chronicle, which corrected the chronology proposed by Eusebius.

This book shows that the development of Greek chronicle writing from the fourth to the seventh century was not linear. Whilst the impact of the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea was great, subsequent writers corrected his errors and incorporated the third-century chronographies by Hippolytus and Julius Africanus into the framework shaped by Eusebius. As a consequence, chronographies and not chronicles dominate in Greek literature. One innovation of the fourth century was to link computus (the calculation of the Easter date) and chronography, first visible in the work of Andreas, brother of Magnus (352), and later in that of Annianus (412). The direct impact of Annianus has been overestimated: unique in some of its core ideas, his work resurfaced only in the 560s, in the context of Justinian’s attempt to impose the Christmas date of 25 December on the church of Jerusalem. This controversy caused a flurry of works of chronography and computus to be written in the early seventh century. Besides this tradition, the book also uncovers a tradition of chronicles with a local focus, which shaped the chronicle of John Malalas. We argue that the source indications of Malalas deserve more credit than they are usually granted.

The chronogaphy of Panodorus, composed early in the 5th c. in Alexandia, is only attested in the early ninth century. chronicle of Georgius Syncellus, who cites fragments concerning two issues: the long antediluvial chronologies found in Babylonian and Egyptian writings and the start of the Christian era in AM 5493. Panodorus’ chronography relied heavily on astronomical scholarship in Alexandria and is very similar to that of Annianus. We argue that Annianus based himself on Panodorus and not the other way round. Although older scholarship attributed an immense impact of Panodorus on late antique chronicle writing, his work only resurfaced in the ninth century.

The chronography of Annianus, composed in 412, stands out by closely mapping the chronology of the world onto the Alexandrian 532-year Easter cycle, of which he may be the originator. He also defended that Christ was born in AM 5500, which had its roots in Christian exegesis. This generated a set of chronological anomalies, especially the fact that he situated birth and death of Christ about 10 years later than usual in Christian chronography. As a consequence, there is hardly any trace of Annianus before the second half of the sixth century, when Justinian’s attempt to impose the Christmas date of 25 December on the church of Jerusalem sparked a controversy. Annianus’ chronology, which supported the date of 25 December, was put forward by the defenders of that date (especially Heron), whilst those defending 6 January drew on Andreas. Due to this controversy, Annianus’ chronography travelled from Alexandria to Constantinople and was transmitted to Syriac and hence into Arabic.

Timothy of Apamea is only attested in John Malalas. His chronography was probably composed in the fifth century and in Apamea. The fragments demonstrate an interest in reconciling biblical stories and Greco-Roman traditions, such as Orphism. He proposed a Christian era starting close to AM 6000.

Andreas composed an Easter table and 200-year list of Easter dates that started in 352. It was based on the work of Anatolius of Laodicea and Hippolytus. To this a chronography was added, which is attested in Syriac but mostly in Armenian. Indeed, at the end of the sixth century, the work of Andreas travelled to Armenia, where it became the basis for the Armenian calendar. Andreas is the first known author to combine computus and chronography. He is also the earliest author to defend 6 January as the date for Christmas, and he is unique in proposing AM 5600 as the start of the Christian era.

Metrodorus composed a chronography that also contained an Easter list of 532 years. His date is uncertain. If dated to the fourth century, he may be a precursor to Annianus, who is usually credited with the invention of the 532-year cycle. If dated to the sixth, he is one of many authors drawing up such an Easter list.

The chronography of Heron dates from the sixth century (before AD 555) and defended an adapted version of the chronology and computus of Annianus. In the debate about Christmas of the 560s, it supported Justinian’s position in favour of 25 December. Armenian sources offer most information on this work, although their information is very unreliable. Heron may have been responsible for recirculating Annianus and thus for the latter’s enduring popularity.

Pyrrho is a further unknown chronographer from the sixth or seventh century, whose only remaining fragment discusses the chronology of Adam.

This chapter deals with onomastic homonymy as a phenomenon of ancient Greek literary history. Focusing first on early Greek poets about whom ancient testimonies claim there were doublets (Euenus, Xenophanes, Alcman and Sappho), the chapter moves on to examine doublets of poets emerging in the Parian Chronicle (Simonides, Sosiphanes, Stesichorus, Melanippides), to conclude with the Phocian Homer of Byzantine scholarship (Tzetzes). After distinguishing between historical homonyms and scholarly constructs, the chapter examines the possible reasons behind the duplication of poets, most particularly the need to deal with conflicting details in the transmitted biographies while preserving the textual tradition.

In non-narrative contexts, the use of the present to refer to past events is supported by the idea that these events are currently accessible through some kind of record. In references to mythological events, the implied record is mythographical or iconographical. In references to historical events, the implied record is chronographical, such as the Parian Marble. In references to transactions in the legal and business spheres, the implied record is a document from the corresponding sphere, such as a sales contract. The implication conveyed by the construal of the designated past event as being 'on record' is that this event is well-documented and of some importance in recorded history.

Ovid’s Metamorphoses is a history of the world down to his own time, and Ovid shows a sophisticated understanding of the ancient systems of chronology and chronography that were conventionally used in such histories. He distorts conventional ways of organising past time in order to disrupt the Augustan view of teleological progress towards a pre-ordained world order.

Chapter 1 of The Cambridge Companion to Sappho analyses Sappho’s biography, sifting the ancient texts which give us information about Sappho’s life, and considering just how reliable they are as sources for the poet of Lesbos.