190

Pauline Allen

supposedly been condemned to the flames in 530.35 Since Eustathius’main objective in
his treatise (which poses as a letter) is to put Severus in contradiction with himself, we
may suppose that the neo-Chalcedonian movement passed him by.36
It seems to me that the above should caution us against thinking in too black-and-
white terms about attitudes to Chalcedon in the first half of the sixth century There
were certainly zealots, but there were also moderates, and possibly, in addition, those
of persuasions in between, as well as those who did not want to get involved, or were
tired of the wrangling over the council of 451. We shall see where this leaves Malalas.
An additional consideration, as Professor Meier emphasises: it is hard to draw lines
between the proponents of various christological positions at the time37 - a point
also enforced by Dijkstra and Greatrex, who stress the difficulty of applying doctrinal
labels in this period, because people could pass from one label to another without too
much trouble.38 To illustrate this there is the case of Soterichus, bishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, examined in detail by Dijkstra and Greatrex.39 Soterichus was con-
secrated bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia by Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople
(496-511), at which time he confessed his allegiance to Chalcedon. Around 511 Soter-
ichus appears as a leading anti-Chalcedonian, and in 516/517 he was anathematised
by John, patriarch of Jerusalem, together with Nestorius, Eutyches, and Severus of
Antioch, only to be rehabilitated under the Chalcedonian restoration of Justin I.
In considering the religious Zeitgeist of the Eastern empire in the first half of the
sixth century I do not wish to be straight-jacketed completely by the genres of chroni-
cle, history, or church history. Hence I bring the melodist Romanos into my discussion.
More than a century ago Paul Maas showed that Romanos followed the Christology
of Justinian closely.40 However, the melodist avoids speaking of the human nature of
Christ, which could lead us to believe that he was closer to the anti-Chalcedonian
position with its emphasis on the one nature.41 Grosdidier de Matons points out that
Romanos rarely names the heretics he attacks, although he is combative by tempera-
ment and intolerant,42 another indication perhaps that at least in certain circles mod-
eration was the order of the day.
With regard to Malalas’ apathy to or lack of interest in religious matters, we could
mention that the chronicler does not record momentous events like the important
conversations convened by Emperor Justinian in Constantinople between opponents
35 Details in Frend (1972), pp. 272-273; Allen/Hayward (2004), pp. 31-32; Alpi (2009), p. 55.
36 Eustathius Monachus, Epistida de duabus naturis. Further discussion in Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995),
pp. 262-270. Forthcoming annotated English translation of Eustathius’ letter by Pauline Allen (Fest-
schrift for Joseph Munitiz, Brepols, Turnhout).
37 Meier (2007), pp. 211-216.
38 Dijkstra/Greatrex (2009), p. 262.
39 Dijkstra/Greatrex (2009), pp. 240-255. See also Honigmann (1953), esp. pp. 208-211 and Allen (1981),
p. 164 n. 106, who describes the position of Soterichus as fluid.
40 Maas (1906), esp. pp. 13-24.
41 Grosdidier de Matons (1977), p. 268. See also Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995), pp. 513-523.
42 Grosdidier de Matons (1977), p. 266.