Malalas and the Chronographic Tradition

269

The account is garbled, beyond repair, splitting Perseus up into two personalities. At
the same time, there is a wealth of source references, which are not completely wrong.
The wrong version of the name Perses may indeed have been triggered by Sallustius,
Bellum Catilinae 51, 5: Bello Macedonico, quod cum rege Perse gessimus. Eutropius does
discuss Perseus {Breviarium IV 6-7) and there did exist translations into Greek. The
reference to Palaiphatus seems out of place, although we do know that Palaiphatus was
credited with describing political events and not just myths:
Puiqmtf hh duuluiiiuil[]iu uijunpjili tquiuiifnqp ji ^uipujig hr jUunpmg, uijp
hr |i dmiiuig: J2uiiiq|i |i ul]qpuitik puiquirnpnLphuiiiii ^luipphruig djih^hr
gquiquipnufu' phq Znntiuijhgmg Ipupiili qnph, hpphtfu hiiuiquiiiqni_phuiilp
hr hpphtfu upumhpuiqtfuir, qnp upuunfk ^luiqhQiuiumu hr Φηρφ|ιι_ρ hr
Ojqhifnh, hr uijpp puiqnulp: Puijg dhp uiuuiugnrp ji ifuiuihiikli qnp hphp
lunnnhpnun, qPuipunuIuijji.24
Many are the historians of this time among the Persians and the Syrians and also
among the Greeks. For from the beginning of the kingdom of the Parthians un-
til its extinction they were involved with the Romans, sometimes in subjection
and sometimes in war, which Palaiphatos and Porphyrios and Philemon and many
others relate. But we shall give our account from the book of Barsuma, which
Xofohbut brought.25
There are some mysteries in this passage by Moses Khorenat’si too, such as the iden-
tity of Philemon and Chorobut. For my purposes it suffices to note a series of related
facts: 1) we find Palaiphatus and Porphyry associated; 2) Moses is normally assumed
to have used Eusebius’ chronicle in the Armenian translation;26 and 3) the reference
to Porphyry also derives from Eusebius. Moses presumably used here the first part of
Eusebius’ chronicle, that is the chronography, but we cannot check this as it is only
preserved in Armenian translation until the early history of Rome. Eusebius’ chron-
ography provides indeed a tentative context for the garbled passage in Malalas. Draw-
ing on Porphyry, Eusebius discusses and lists the Macedonian kings,27 then lists the
Thessalians, by noticing that Macedonians ruled Thessalians and Epirus too. Eusebius
thus offers some of the elements we find in Malalas’garbled account. Tentatively, then,
we have two authors, Moses Khorenat’si and John Malalas, who associate Palaiphatus
with material derived from Eusebius’ chronography.
It seems, then, that Palaiphatus was cited by Malalas through the chronicle of
Eusebius, as probably were Cephalion, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thallus
and Phlegon too. The evidence from Palaiphatus suggests access to the first part, the
chronography, and not just to the second part, the canons. There is no evidence that
Malalas had access to an original version of Eusebius’ chronicle: he cites Eusebius,
24 BNJ 44 F9 = Moses Khorenat’si, Historic! II 69 Mahe.
25 English translation by Niinlist (2008).
26 Traina (1995), p. 309.
27 Eusebius, Chronicon 112,6-114,17 Karst.