Malalas and the Debate over Chalcedon

191
and partisans of Chalcedon in 532,43 conversations that, it must be admitted, were un-
successful. Nor does the ordination of Theodosius as successor of Severus of Antioch
and head of the Syrian church rate a mention.44 Even more significantly Malalas does
not record the convening of the ecumenical council of 553, but this is in line with his
lack of mentioning of other ecumenical councils, as noted above. However, it must
be admitted that Evagrius does not mention the conversations of 532 either, nor the
edicts of 533,543,544, and Justinian’s Document of Faith of 551, probably because of his
disapproval of the emperor.45 More will be said on this in the section on Kaiserkritik
below. For his part Marcellinus was in Constantinople during the heady days of the
first decade of the sixth century when Emperor Anastasius’ ecclesiastical policies were
in play and Philoxenus, Severus, and Nephalius were in the capital, but he does not
mention their presence or the significance of their visits.
This leads us to Malalas’ treatment of Severus, the influential patriarch of Anti-
och from 512 to 518. Since both men were in Antioch at the same time between those
years Malalas could have been his own eye-witness source for what was happening, but
chooses not to relate these events. It is also hard to believe that he was unaware of the
partnership between Philoxenus and Severus. As Professor Alpi has argued persua-
sively, with regard to Severus Malalas maintained a strict defence of imperial power and
the person of the emperor46 - and this, let me add, in the case not only of Anastasius
but also of his successors. Although Severus is passed over in a perfunctory manner,
Professor Alpi suggests that Malalas had access to the biography of Severus by Zach-
ariah.47 In Malalas’ Chronicle short shrift is also given to Ephrem, the comes Orientis
who rehabilitated Antioch after the earthquake of 526 and was subsequently patriarch
from 526 to 545,48 even though Malalas himself appears to have been associated with
the office of the comes Orientis. Now we are indeed speaking not about the sources that
Malalas used, which have been well studied,49 50 but about those which he did not use.
2. Kaiserkritik?0
From what we have discussed above about Malalas and religion, it will have become
apparent that the role of the emperor was crucial to the tendencies, influences and
use of sources in Malalas’ Chronicle. Hence the following section on Kaiserkritik, in
43 On which see especially Brock (1981); Speigl (1984); Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995), pp. 232-248,345-346;
Uthemann (1999), pp. 27-34.
44 On Patriarch Theodosius see Menze (2008), pp. 189-190,197, 203-204,207,209,223,225,234.
45 Whitby (2000), p. xl.
46 Alpi (2006).
47 A1?1 (2006), p. 236.
48 On Ephrem see Lebon (1914); Downey (1938); Grillmeier/Hainthaler (1995), pp. 348-349,388-389.
49 See especially Jeffreys (1990); Treadgold (2007), pp. 246-256.
50 On Kaiserkritik in Byzantine historians see in general Tinnefeld (1971), pp. 17-48, on Procopius, Agath-
ias, and Evagrius; on church historians see Leppin (1996). For examples of Kaiserkritik in the second
half of the sixth century see Cameron (1976).