Malalas and the Chronographic Tradition

267

supposed to do in the historiographical discourse of Antiquity: it situates the work the
reader has in his hands against the background of earlier historiography and, in doing
so, gives clues about the nature of the work. A suspicious reader of this chapter might
object that my interpretation is, by and large, circular: in parts it has to rely exclusively
on evidence offered by Malalas himself. Yet, this would not invalidate my argument: if
one wants to consider the authors unattested elsewhere as a smoke-screen blown up
by Malalas, it would still be the case that he creates for himself the pedigree I have
just sketched. His self-representation remains upright, even if one thinks it is based
on fiction.
Nevertheless, such scepticism is, at least for the cases we have looked at so far,
unwarranted: Theophilus has a clear, particular profile, as does Clement, and they can-
not be identified with any other author of that name. The same holds for Domninus
and for Pausanias. Obviously, this does not mean that we should accept at face value
everything Malalas writes, but scepticism should not be the starting point. To give one
more example: the Bottios cited by Malalas must be identical to the Bruttius cited by
Jerome and the Brettios quoted by Georgius Syncellus.18 He is not a fictitious name,
but an author who was quoted in Eusebius’ chronicle or in a later update used by all
authors just cited.
More generally, the hermeneutics of suspicion has failed to recognise that the
chronographic tradition in Greek after Eusebius is by and large lost, as is local histo-
riography. By situating Malalas simply against the background of preserved traditions,
we fail to understand not only his use of sources but also where he positions himself
within the history of Greek chronography. Indeed, Malalas himself, as well as some of
his authorities (Theophilus and Clement), testify to an integration of chronography
and local historiography. This is not just evident in the local focus they share. From the
little we know of the latter genre, we can infer that it tended to include discussions of
local myth, which linked a city to Greek traditions.19 Chroniclers such as Clement
and Theophilus clearly have a local focus, but also included local mythical traditions
that customarily were part and parcel of local histories. It seems, then, that the inte-
gration of local history into chronography contributed to an increased interest in myth
within chronography - precisely what we witness in Malalas. His idiosyncratic under-
standing of the mythical past may, then, have less to do with the state of his mind than
with the development of late ancient chronography.

18 Malalas, Chronographia II11, VIII1, X 48 (cf. Chronicon Paschale p. 69,14 Dindorf and p. 468,7 Dindorf
[written as Βροΰττιος]); Georgius Syncellus, Edoga chronographica 650 (p. 419, 27 Mosshammer); Eu-
sebius, Hieronymi Chronicon 192c Helm. Cf. Jeffreys (1990), p. 174: “Bottios (or Bouttios) is an otherwise
unknown and completely unidentifiable chronicler”. See now the annotated edition in FRHist 98.
19 Dagron (1984), pp. 9-19; Gabba (1981), pp. 60-62. Lorenzo Focanti is currently preparing a PhD thesis
in Ghent and Groningen on late ancient patria under the direction of J.W. Drijvers and myself.