266

Peter van Nuffelen

Diodorus did experience a revival in the 6th century history as an authority in the
field of historiography This is, probably, the result of the reception of the chronicle
of Eusebius, although it is hard to find traces of Diodorus in the 4th and 5th century
In the 6th century, by contrast, we have Procopius, Agathias, Theophylact Simocatta
and, somewhat later (or earlier, depending on your taste), John of Antioch all drawing
on Diodorus.14 The 6th century marks, then, the renaissance of Diodorus. Didymus is
Didymus Chalcenterus, a ist century BC Alexandrian scholar, whose Xene His tor ia, a
work on mythography, surfaces in Syncellus and Michael the Syrian; the references in
Malalas must come from the same work.15 There is a link between Orosius and one of
the Didymus quotations by Syncellus, and Orosius has long been suspected of having
used an Eastern, Alexandrian chronicle.16 This would situate the introduction of Didy-
mus into the chronicle tradition before ca. 415, when Orosius could have accessed this
Eastern chronicle. The mention of Didymus in Malalas’preface may signal a particular
interest in mythography, which is indeed present in the Chronographia. Diodorus’ first
five books were also dedicated to myth and the reference to Diodorus may well rein-
force the impression gained by that to Didymus.17 Moreover, both Diodorus of Sicily
and Didymus Chalcenterus are classical authors, writing about the distant past, and
one may presume that John Malalas mentions them to indicate that he has harkened
back to ancient sources of authority.
2. Taking Malalas seriously
What can we conclude from this analysis of the preface? First, the list of names should
be understood as a statement about Malalas’project: he inserts himself into the chrono-
graphic tradition (Africanus, Eusebius, Eustathius) with a strong local, Antiochene
focus (Pausanias, Domninus) and with a particular interest in myth (Didymus). Some
of the names were good, respected historians and chroniclers, such as Diodorus, Afri-
canus, Eusebius, and Eustathius, allowing Malalas to claim authority through his use
of good sources. The highlighting of Theophilus and Clemens is relevant to the extent
that they reflect the approach Malalas himself seems to have to chronography, with an
interest in Greek philosophy, myth, mystery lore, and historical facts, as well as a dis-
tinct regional focus. Moreover, as stated by Malalas (Chronographia X 2), they provided
him with his Annus mundi dates. In other words, the preface (at least through the list
of names) is not a hodgepodge of randomly chosen names but does what a preface is
14 Procopius, De aedificiis praefatio·, Agathias, Historiaepraefatio, II18,5, II 25,5; Theophylactus Simocatta,
Historiae VII 17; for John of Antioch see Roberto (2005), pp. CXXXIV_CXXXV Cf. also Kaldellis
(2012), p. 77.
15 Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica 305 (p. 189, 23 Mosshammer) and 306 (p. 190,1-2 Mossham-
mer); Michael Syrus, Chronicon IV 1 (Translation p. 49 Chabot; Text p. 23 Chabot); Malalas, Chrono-
graphia praefatio, IV10, IV17 and VI 22. The fragments of Didymus are edited in Schmidt (1854).
16 Orosius, Historiae adversnm paganos 112,3-4 and Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica 305 (p. 189,
23 Mosshammer). Cf. Zangemeister (1882), p. xxiiii.
17 Cf. Sulimani (2011).