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.
