Malalas’ Sources for the Contemporary Books

219

jor earthquake),9 and possibly as an author of such notices. He later continued with
Book XVIII (or at least the early part of it), again arguably under imperial pressure. At
some point he constructed the first fourteen books, relying on a series of chroniclers
whom he lists in his preface, until he reached the end of Leo’s reign in 474 which, as
he points out in the final sentence of Book XIV, marked the end of the chronicle by
Nestorianus - and Nestorianus may in fact be just another name for Domninus, the
second last source listed by Malalas in his preface (as Patzig suggested over a century
ago).10 The ending of Nestorianus’ chronicle required Malalas then to turn to Eus-
tathius of Epiphania, the final chronicler listed in his preface, for Book XV on Zeno
and XVI on Anastasius, while he also added from Eustathius the whole Eudocia story
to form a revised first half of Book XIV. It was only then that Malalas discovered that
Eustathius had covered just the first twelve years of Anastasius to 503 at the time of
his death that very same year, leaving behind his history incomplete - a fact to which
Malalas rather remarkably draws our attention (Malalas, Chronographia XVI 9, p. 326,
45-47 Thurn). So to complete his chronicle, Malalas now found that he had to cover
the fifteen-year gap to 518 and the beginning of Justin’s reign. This he only managed
with some difficulty, relying on some excellent information but more particularly also
on some fanciful (but credible) stories, and without assurance about dates. So the year
503 marks the date from which Malalas had to rely on what came to his notice (as he
also points out in his preface) rather than on existing chronicles, which helps explain
why Book XVI on Anastasius, the first of the contemporary books, remains such an
interesting mess.
Malalas tells us in his preface that he had relied on previous chronicles up to his
own lifetime, “I mean from Adam to the reign of Zeno and those who ruled after-
wards”. He lists ten sources, presumably the more important ones, namely the Hebrew
chapters by Moses followed by nine χρονογράφοι ending with Domninus and Eu-
stathius of Epiphania. After this he points out that he had to rely on “the things that
came to my hearing”, τά έΛθοντα εις εμάς άκοάς.Έιε question is where precisely
in the chronicle did this occur. That should also enable us to be more precise about his
use of Domninus and Eustathius of Epiphania, those last two chroniclers listed in his
preface, and help reveal significant aspects of how Malalas put together his chronicle
when he could no longer rely on earlier chronicle sources. Virtually nothing is known
of Domninus, although Bourier regarded him as one of Malalas’main sources. Patzig,
as mentioned, suggested that he is identical with the chronicler whom Malalas refers
to as Nestorianus but who does not get a mention as such in the preface, i. e. he is
possibly “Domninus the Nestorian” or else “Domninus also known as Nestorianus”,
which is preferable as there is no obvious sign of his being a Nestorian. What is more
worth noting is that Domninus is the second last chronicler of his preface list while
Nestorianus is similarly the second last chronicler whom he acknowledges in his text,
in the final sentence of Book XIV, pointing out that it was there that his chronicle
9 See Laura Carrara’s contribution in this volume.
10 Patzig (1901), pp. 256-261,610-611. Cf. Jeffreys (1990c), pp. 178,187.