Malalas and the Chronographic Tradition

263

sufficiently well-known.4 Hence, the list is bracketed by references to respectable and
well-known authors of chronicles.
What are we to do with the names in between? Pausanias seems to be Pausanias of
Antioch, writing at some point between the 2nd century BC and the 6th century AD5
and the author of a work variously called Περί Αντιόχειας or Περί Αντιόχειας
κτίσεως. Debate about the issue whether Malalas used this author directly or not are
not germane here.6 More important is that Pausanias composed a local history, which
surfaces in the 6th century, not just in Malalas but also in Stephen of Byzantium,
and, much later, in Tzetzes. We shall notice such resurgence more often for authors
mentioned in Malalas. Thus, after the chroniclers, Malalas refers to a local historian
of Antioch.
The same holds for the second to last name, Domninus. The extant citations in
Malalas suggest Domninus wrote a local history of Antioch with particular attention
to chronology. The identification of Domninus as the author of a work with a clear
Antiochene focus is surely correct: the ten mentions in Malalas all regard local history
and topography.7 The terminus post quem is 302, Diocletian’s visit to Antioch. The frag-
ments include precise chronological references (cf. Malalas, Chronographic VIII 24),
demonstrating a close interest in precise chronology. Pawel Janiszewski argues that
Domninus is to be dated to the early 4th century AD, as he was, most likely, a pagan,
given the explicit praise for Diocletian in XII 44, with a reference to Zeus. Domninus’
paganism is Janiszewski’s main argument for favouring an early date, besides the fact
that the extant fragments show no knowledge of Libanius’VzzAAAWf (held in 356 or
360 AD).8 Albeit uncertain, a date under Constantius II would help to understand
some of the particular interests that surface in Domninus’ extant fragments. The in-
terest expressed in Trajan’s Persian campaign (Malalas, Chronographia XI 4) and the
Persian threat throughout Antioch’s history (Malalas, Chronographia X 9-10; cf. also
the invasion of Sapor the Great under Valerian in XII 26) would square well with a
date under Constantius II, when Rome and Persia fought a series of battles. The list
of temples built by Tiberius in Antioch (Malalas, Chronographia X10) could then be a
response to increased Christian building under Constantius in that city.
The identification of Pausanias and Domninus as local historians is important, for
it implies that after Malalas’bracketing of the list of authorities with chronicle writers,
the second tier of the list are historians of Antioch. This is, I would surmise, a state-
ment of intent: Malalas displays his Antiochene focus.
Still four names to go. Let us first look at the two middle ones, Theophilus and
Clement. Discussion of these two authors has been marred by the persistent ten-
4 Allen (1988); Treadgold (2007) (whose view on Eustathius, however, is unlikely to be correct); see also
Dariusz Brodka’s contribution in this volume.
5 FGrHist 854 = BNJ 854 (the tendency is to date him after the 2nd century AD).
6 Bourier (1899), pp. 9-14; Jeffreys (1990), p. 189.
7 Malalas, Chronographia praefatio·, IV19; V 37; VIII 24; X 10; X 51; XI 4; XII 9; XII 26; XII 44. See also
Laura Mecella’s contribution in this volume.
8 Janiszewski (2006), pp. 282-291.