Friday 13 November 2015

ByzReview: John Malalas, Chronicle



The Byzantine empire was heir to both the Roman and Hellenistic world on the one hand, as well as the Biblical one on the other. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in their histories, composed in one form or another from the earliest years of the empire – whenever that began – until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE. One of the earliest of these ‘Byzantine’ histories was the world chronicle of John Malalas, writing during or just after the reign of the emperor Justinian I (527-565). This long and colourful historical narrative stretches from a time of Biblical legends to the middle years of the 6th century, telling a few wild stories on the way.


                The chronicle is comprised of eighteen books, varying in length from short to very long. The earlier books are mostly a hotchpotch mishmash of Greek and Biblical legend, with significant chunks devoted to the Trojan War and the Odyssey, the fall of Jerusalem, and a cute little account of the rise of the Roman empire, while later books give a garbled version of the reigns of the various Roman emperors. If you want an accurate picture of the empire under Trajan, Diocletian and Constantine the Great, then there are much better sources to go for than this one. Meanwhile the earlier books concerning myth and legend seem to offer a creative take on Greek gods and heroes, presenting them as human kings and progenitors rather than as the immortal folk of ancient legend. This is probably an attempt by the chroniclers to reconcile their ancient legends to the new Christian religion. Malalas himself offers an explanation for these myths and legends, stating that:

                “... later generations, who were not aware of their ancestors’ attitude – that they honoured these men as forefathers and devisers of good only as a memorial – revered them and sacrificed to them as if they were heavenly gods and not mortal men who were born and suffered like themselves. The most learned Diodoros comments on this in his writings, saying that the gods were men whom other men addressed as gods, thinking them immortal because of their good deeds; in some cases even rulers of territories were named in this way. Men did this because they were full of ignorance.”*

[The Chronicle of John Malalas, translated by E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys and R. Scott. Melbourne: 1986. (pp. 26-27). Page 52 to 53 in the original Bonn Greek edition]


                An interestingly rational view for a 6th century chronicler to have, but it makes sense if you consider he wants to explain away the divinity of the old gods as simply as possible in the context of a largely secular history of the world. All in all, these early books of Malalas’ chronicle present a vaguely interesting story that never gets bogged down in the nitpicking arguments made by George the Synkellos. Malalas is only interested in presenting events in a roughly chronological narrative and in telling a story, rather than tying down certain events to a precise date – and as such his work is significantly less tedious and more interesting than the Synkellos’ ever was. 


                Which is just as well, because in terms of historical accuracy this thing is awful. The chronicle’s history of the Macedonian and Roman empires is littered with inaccuracies and problems, misdating and misunderstanding the events it tries to present. This is not too much of a problem, for many better sources exist for those centuries, and if you happen to be familiar with the history of the Roman empire it can sometimes be amusing to see how much Malalas gets right, and what sort of errors he makes. In regards to the historical content however it must be asserted that Malalas is only trying to present a synopsis of world history – while better sources still exist for Roman history as a whole, Malalas’ gaze is fixed on his home city of Antioch in the eastern Mediterranean. Emperors come and go, but the marks they leave on Antioch remain, and thus it is in these references where Malalas’ history of the Roman empire might be regarded as more useful.


                But with every chronicler, the most useful part of their history is always that which recounts the history of their own life-times. Inevitably this means the final sections of any chronicle will be the most valuable to someone interested in the history. With Theophanes the Confessor, the most important part of his work was for the period of the First Iconoclasm, which Theophanes himself experienced first-hand. For John Malalas it is his accounts of the reigns of the Leonid emperors (Leo I and his family) and their successors, especially Justinian the Great. The final (and quite lengthy) book of the chronicle is entirely devoted to this one period of history. In essence, things get more interesting from Book 14 onwards:


Book 14: Theodosius II     (408-450) – Son of Arcadius

                Marcian              (450-457) – Married Theodosius’ sister Pulcheria

                Leo I                   (457-474)

                Leo II                  (474)          – Infant grandson of Leo I, who dies young

Book 15: Zeno                   (474-491) – Leo I’s son-in-law, father of Leo II

Book 16: Anastasius I        (491-518) – Married Ariadne, daughter of Leo I, widow of Zeno

Book 17: Justin I                (518-527)

Book 18: Justinian I           (527-565) – Nephew of Justin I



In between the interesting stories of Zeno’s battles with his mother-in-law, Anastasius’ wars and the Nika revolt under Justinian, we see that Malalas is very interested in the circus factions across the empire; namely the Blues, Greens, Reds and Whites. These groups, a cross between sports-teams and political parties, are continuously brought up in Malalas’ chronicle, from their earliest days under the Roman empire for which their creation and naming is explained in an over-logical way typical of the chronicle, right up to the reign of Justinian when they played an important role in the Nika revolt (see: Riots). Often the most defining characteristic of any emperor is which faction they support, to the detriment of the others. They took chariot-racing seriously, it seems.


So then, a few concluding remarks. This chronicle is infinitely more digestible than that of George the Synkellos, more concerned with narrative and characters than in theological argument. The earlier books can be considered an interesting and somewhat amusing detour round the Byzantine mindset regarding ancient myth, while the last quarter of the chronicle contains more relevant material for those interested in the emperors and history of the later 5th and 6th centuries. A few titbits of information about the history of Antioch can be found, which can prove useful for looking in at life in a provincial capital. Overall I found Malalas to be direct, honest and – if not entirely accurate about most things – at least entertaining.



* The preceding passage from this same book is also enlightening: 
       “Because those who had of old been fighting men, leaders, or had done something brave or virtuous in life were worth remembering and especially those who had worked mysteries by some power, they honoured them with monumental statues as being their forefathers; all worshipped them as benefactors, like a god; and they made sacrifices to honour them because discovering a benefit...coming either through skill, or through construction or through wisdom or through some other virtue of whatever kind. These they deified, as the most learned Rheginos has written the names of the men who were deified.”



Bibliozantium 3

Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia. L. Dindorf (ed). [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae] 32. Bonn. (1831)

The Chronicle of John Malalas. trans. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys and R. Scott. Melbourne. (1986)

Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia. I. Thurn (ed). [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae] 35. Berlin. (2000)
- Helpful Footnote: The Dindorf edition is the original Greek text with Latin translation first published in the 19th century. This is the one that can be found for free on Google Books. The 1986 Jeffreys and Scott edition is a translation of this. The Thurn edition from the year 2000 is a recent edition of the original Greek text. For simply reading the chronicle, then the Jeffreys translation is undoubtedly the one to go for, but as always the original Greek text must be considered in the face of this. I think that Jeffreys might have done an updated translation based on Thurn's edition, but I haven't yet seen a copy of this.

No comments:

Post a Comment