8o

Philippe Blaudeau

veloped form (with exceptions). Such notable modifications do not immediately imply
that the author is different. There are no linguistically strong modifications, nor lexical
nor morphological,14 and the religious interpretation of the tale may also suggest one
and the same author,15 named John and nicknamed Malalas (garrulous in syriac).16
Recently, W. Treadgold has presented a very dark image of him: he would have been a
poorly educated forger paraphrasing Eustathius, but the continuity of the text pleads
for a certain unity and two editions instead of four as the American scholar has propo-
sed.17 It is then more appropriate to consider him as a non-classical historian, writing
in a common Greek, with a Christian view of what has to be remembered.18 But why,
probably having been an old man then, did he feel it necessary to write a complement
to his book XVIII (so as to reinforce its major length in the opus), quickly known
to John of Ephesus for instance?19 Here, three explanations may be proposed: a) An
answer to his own wish as it is expressed in the Prolog, so to speak, writing because
it is worth it, and pursue, applying to himself (if we still admit that he is one and the
same person) what had been previously conceived for others.20 b) A more impelling
reason may be invoked, that is the revival of the chronology which located Christ’s
Incarnation in 5500 AM, the calculation of which, as we have already said, Malalas
completely opposed. In a brief Armenian treaty, Ananias of Shirak (c. 600-650) in-
deed related a controversy between the doctor Iron and a group of thirty scientists
gathered in Alexandria to establish a new table dating Easter after the expiry of that
of Andrew of Byzantium (published under Constantius II in 353 and valid for 200
years).21 The story adds that Iron would have produced a paschal computation contrary
to the calculations of his opponents and he would have obtained that the emperor Jus-
tinian promulgated his model account by edict. The historicity of such a statement is
far from certain, but the density of information does not rule out the possibility of the
general movement of thought. As for its historical moment, Meier has convincingly
proposed a dating of 563, suggested by later Armenian witnesses.22 For the end of a cal-
culation sequence is also evidenced by the Chronicon Pasch ale. If so, it would have led
Malalas, among other reasons, to go back to fight in order to preserve the alternative
chronological system he had vulgarized, c) In that light of a new situation very soon
after Justinian s death - if we believe as I do that this event marked the real end of his
14 Jeffreys, “Malalas’ Sources”, p. 212; p. 216.
15 Blaudeau, “Ordre religieux”, p. 255.
16 Debie, “Jean Malalas et la tradition chronographique de langue syriaque”, p. 148.
17 Treadgold, Early Byzantine Historians, pp. 239-240; 251-52; “The Byzantine World Histories”, p. 715.
18 Scott, “Writing the Reign of Justinian. Malalas versus Theophanes”, p. 24
19 Witakowski, “Malalas in Syriac” pp. 299-305.
20 Malalas, Chronographia, praefatio·. “Δίκαιον ήγησάμην μετά τό άκρωτηριάσαι τινα έκ των
'Εβραϊκών κεφαλαίων ύπό Μωϋσέως δει δε καί τούς μετά ταύτα συγγράψασθαι τα
Λοιπά άρετής χάριν” (“I thought it right after abbreviating some materials from the Hebrew books
written by Moses... My successors must complete the story relying on their own ability”, Chronicle of
Malalas, trans. E. Jeffreys et alii, p. 1).
21 See Ananias of Shirak, On Easter, pp. 579-580 especially.
22 See Meier, Das andere Zeitalter, p. 467.