Malalas and the Debate over Chalcedon

193

regard to Emperor Anastasius it is munificence that is stressed,61 but the emperor
is also said to have restored excellent’ order.62 Malalas records that Justin I provided
much money for earthquake victims in Antioch after the disaster of 526,63 and that
Justinian established a secure, orderly condition in every city.64 While recording the
munificence of emperors is a topos, Malalas’ emphasis on the order which Anastasius
and Justinian effected betrays something of the bureaucratic bent of the chronicler.
Malalas’ contemporary, the comes Marcellinus, whose dates are uncertain, is more
outspoken in his Kaiserkritik. With relation to the year 494 he declares:
The emperor Anastasius began to declare civil war on the dignity of those of the
orthodox faith. With evil scheming he first demonstrated the cruelty of his pun-
ishment.65
Marcellinus’ entry for the following year alleges that the patriarch Euphemius was
wrongly accused by Emperor Anastasius,66 and the entry for 511 claims that Macedo-
nius was “surrounded by the treachery and lies of the emperor Anastasius”.67 The al-
leged lies and empty promises of Anastasius feature further in the Marcellinus’ Chron-
icle.68 With regard to the synod of Sidon in late 511, where the emperor attempted to
reconcile the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, Marcellinus maintains that Anasta-
sius ordered a “notorious and laughable synod to be held”.69 By contrast the chronicler
stresses the dutifulness of the pro-Chalcedonian emperor Justin to the empire.70 As a
former courtier to Emperor Justinian, Marcellinus is suitably laudatory of his patron.71
In stark contrast to the uniformly pro-Chalcedonian Kaiserkritik of Marcellinus,
the neo-Chalcedonian church historian Evagrius approves of Anastasius, but not of
Zeno, Justin or Justinian.72 Zeno is condemned for his licentiousness and depravity
but not for his eirenic ecclesiastical policy, enshrined in the Henoticonß Anastasius’
peace-loving nature also commends itself to Evagrius, and his depiction of Anastasius
61 Malalas, Chronographia XVI 7 (p. 325, 26-29 Thurn) and XVI 17 (p. 333, 5-8 Thurn); translation in Jef-
frey s/Jeffreys/Scott (1986), pp. 223, 227.
62 Malalas, Chronographia XVI19 (p. 334,38-41 Thurn); translation in Jeffreys/Jeffreys/Scott (1986), p. 228.
63 Malalas, Chronographia XVII17 (p. 350,19-34 Thurn); translation in Jeffreys/Jeffreys/Scott (1986), p. 242.
64 Malalas, Chronographia XVII 18 (p. 351, 43-46 Thurn); translation in Jeffreys/Jeffreys/Scott (1986),
p. 242-243.
65 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon ad 494; Mommsen’s text and English transaltion in Croke (1995), p. 31.
66 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon ad 495; Mommsen’s text and English translation in Croke (1995), p. 31.
67 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon ad 511; Mommsen’s text and English translation in Croke (1995), p. 35.
68 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon ad 512,7; Mommsen’s text and English translation in Croke (1995), p. 36;
Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon 516,1; Mommsen’s text and English translation in Croke (1995), p. 38.
69 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon 512, 8; Mommsen’s text and English translation in Croke (1995), pp. 36-
37. On this synod see de Halleux (1963), pp. 70-71, 81 n. 44 (chronology).
70 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon 519,3; Mommsen’s text and English translation in Croke (1995), p. 41.
71 See further Croke (1995), pp. xxi-xxii.
72 Allen (1981), pp. n-15; Whitby (2000), pp. xl, xlviii-1. See also Whitby (1998); Leppin (2003), esp.
pp. 143-153 on Evagrius’ attitudes to imperial fiscal policies; Blaudeau (2006b), on tendencies in Eva-
grius’ Historia Ecclesiastica.
"]T, Criticism of Zeno in Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica III 1-2; translation in Whitby (2000),
pp. 130-132.