ι88

Pauline Allen

Emperor Anastasius, who himself changed his position: from being a supporter of the
Henoticon, he became more openly anti-Chalcedonian, then weakened his position.22
Like Emperor Justin II in the second half of the sixth century, Anastasius was initially
committed to religious harmony, but when his efforts went sour he was forced to seek
alternative approaches. As for the many shades of religious belief we have only to
think of Philoxenus of Mabbug, a hard-line opponent of the council of 451, who went
to the capital in 484 and again in 507 to lobby Emperor Anastasius.23 A more telling
case because of its complex character it that of the Nubian monk Nephalius, an an-
ti-Chalcedonian in 482 and a pro-Chalcedonian by 507 (thus an extreme swing), when
he appears in Palestine as an opponent of Severus (later patriarch of Antioch). Both
men went to the capital to lobby Emperor Anastasius.24 With caution we can con-
struct Nephalius’ christological ideas from Severus’ refutation of them, only partially
preserved in the refutation of the patriarch of Antioch.25 But the doctrinal position of
Nephalius is not what engages us here, as it did not engage Malalas either in his time.
Let us enquire further into this undercurrent of harmonising religious differences
regarding the Council of Chalcedon. Prominent is John of Caesarea, the priest, Ho-
meric grammarian, and crammer, whose ideas Severus of Antioch took so seriously
that he composed a vast work against them even in exile from his patriarchate.26 John
attempted to reconcile proponents of Chalcedon with supporters of Cyril of Alexan-
dria and those in the party of Severus. In the words of the late Cardinal Grillmeier, “in
a special way the appellation ‘neo-Chalcedonian’applies to him (jn/.John)”.27 Emperor
Justinian embraced neo-Chalcedonianism as a means of effecting religious harmony,
and if - as we believe - Malalas was in Constantinople after about 535,28 as a man
better educated than most, he would have been aware of the emperor’s programme for
religious unity. However, among sixth-century historians it is Evagrius Scholasticus
who is the most obvious advocate of this reconciliation, in that, although reasonably
cognisant of the theological issues at hand, he avoids relating or interpreting events in
a manner that was likely to exacerbate religious conflict.29 Are we correct in suggesting
that Malalas was also a supporter of this reconciliation, at least to the extent that he
did not want to promote religious conflict?
22 On Anastasius’ religious positions see Haarer (2006), pp. 115-183; Meier (2009), esp. pp. 84-92,103-117,
250-288.
23 On Philoxenus see the classic study by de Halleux (1963), esp. pp. 60-63 on Philoxenus’ travels to Con-
stantinople. See also Chesnut (1976), pp. 57-112.
24 See in particular Moeller (1944/1945), with some corrections in Gray (1979), pp. 105-in. See also Grill-
meier/Hainthaler (1995), pp. 23-24,47-52; Blaudeau (2006b), pp. 80,227, 230,340,577,595,663-664,678.
25 See Severus Antiochenus, Qratwnes adNephalium. See further Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995), p. 47 n. 71.
26 On John the Grammarian see especially Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995) pp. 24-25, 52-79. For Severus’
refutation, surviving for the most part only in Syriac translation, see text and translation by Lebon in
Severus Antiochenus, Liber contra impium Grammaticum.
27 Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995), p. 67. On the tendency towards neo-Chalcedonianism see Moeller (1951);
Helmer (1962); Gray (1982); Grillmeier/Hainthaler passim·, Uthemann (1997).
28 See Croke (1990), p. 22. Whitby (2000), p. xxviii thinks on the other hand that the Constantinopolitan
connection of the Chronicle was Ps-Malalas.
29 See further Allen (icßi), passim·, Whitby (2000), pp. xxxvii-xxxviii.