John Malalas — Prefaces and Prolegomena

ANNO DOMINI DCLXX.

JOANNES MALALAS. PROLEGOMENA. LUDOVICUS DINDORFIUS' PREFACE.

(Collectio Byzantina ed. Bonnæ 1850, 8°.)

There is one manuscript of the Chronographia of John Malalas, the Baroccian codex of Oxford, from which Humphrey Hody published the work after it had been transcribed by Edmund Chilmead, who was overtaken by death; and Hody provided a preface to it in such a way that nothing remains for me to add regarding the codex and Chilmead, and very little regarding the writer and the method of this edition. Since a considerable portion of the beginning and toward the end of the Oxford book of John is missing, Chilmead patched up the loss from another manuscript chronographer in the same library, whom Hody convinced himself was George the Monk, commonly called Hamartolus. As for myself, since the beginning does not seem to me to correspond that well with the fragment of George published by Allatius, I would prefer to leave to the judgment of another—one who had the time and inclination to compare the complete part edited by Chilmead with George—the question of whether the Oxford writer should be considered to be George or someone else. For since one Byzantine chronographer is the ape of another, if some agree word-for-word for a few pages, there is no reason for us to think that they are not distinct individuals.

Furthermore, since the loss of the final part of Malalas makes it uncertain whether he concluded his chronicle with Justinian or brought it down further, and thus it becomes a matter of greater doubt as to when he himself should be thought to have lived, Hody exerts every effort to push the writer back to the beginning of the ninth century, as such a degree of ignorance and barbarity as his, he felt, could not possibly fall into an age close to Justinian. And since [vi] John of Damascus, who is known to have died in the middle of the eighth century, uses Malalas as an authority in his third oration on images to recount a certain fable, Hody evades his testimony by saying that that oration could be supposititious. How trivial these points are is easily seen. Between the third and the second orations of John of Damascus, there exists such a great similarity in all matters that if it were not known by whom the other was written, no one who read it would suspect that both had not proceeded from the same man. But even if it could be demonstrated with complete certainty that the third is not John’s, his testimony regarding the age of Malalas would not be changed in the slightest. For as Lequien rightly concluded (vol. I, p. 306), both were written at the time when bishops of the East were indeed threatening anathema against Leo, but had not yet pronounced it, because the same words are found in both (p. 332 and p. 346): *But even if an angel or a king should preach to you anything else than what you have received, do not listen; for I hesitate for now to say, as the divine Apostle said, "Let him be anathema," awaiting his amendment.* As to what Hody adds—that if not the whole oration, at least the passage excerpted from Malalas could have been interpolated by someone—it suffices to note in a word that this is said with no better reasoning than that which he conjures up, convenient to his opinion, regarding the age of Clement, Theophilus, or Hesychius; to which anyone can see what can be answered, Lequien answers on p. 368.

Regarding the talent of Malalas himself and his utter ignorance, and—if one compares him with slightly earlier writers—the barbarity of his language, anyone who thinks such things unworthy of a Syrian man of the sixth or seventh century speaking with the common people must be ignorant of the Byzantine reality. Men who were most learned in Byzantine affairs, Reiske and Gibbon, judged differently. The former (Histor. cap. 40, annot. 11) agrees with Jortin (Animadvers. vol. IV, p. 383)—the very part of whose book I find it difficult to lack—that Malalas wrote shortly after Justinian. Reiske, meanwhile, writes as follows in his Commentary on Constantine, which has been admirably expanded (p. 855): " *Meizoteros* instead of [vii] *meizon* already in Malalas (vol. II, p. 236, 1), whose age, contemporaneous with Justinian, Hody should not have doubted on account of the crudity of his diction. Already in that century, reasoning was inept and diction monstrous. From this, Christian teachers began to disturb the state with useless questions, and, having omitted the study of the humanities, proceeded to ridiculous speculations which they themselves did not even understand; all uprightness in thinking perished, as did clarity, care, and polish in diction. We owe this barbarity not so much to the Barbarians as to the Christians. See how much swelling, how much foreignness is in the Theodosian Code; how often Procopius—without controversy the best of all his contemporaries—is not like an old woman, and how forced and Latinate his diction is. An affected artifice, through which a speech might be rendered more obscure by Cimmerian darkness, was held in praise, and the more learned one was, the more he surpassed Cassiodorus and those like him." But these solecisms, in passing…

...are *peizóteroi* and the like, they were indeed never out of use among the common people, but writers, even those not overly concerned with elegance, refrained from using them. To return to Malalas, his age is evident from his very name. *Malalas* is a Syriac name. The Syriac language prevailed in Syria down to the beginnings of Islam. Upon its rise, as the Saracens were seizing Syria, they extinguished the Syriac tongue, and the Arabic tongue abounded in its place, with Syriac being confined to the narrow limits of Christian churches. Therefore, Malalas must have lived and written in that age when the Syriac language was still in use. For "rhetor," the Arabs say not *Malal*, but *Chathib*. To which it may be added that in descriptions of the affairs and places of Syria, there does not appear even the slightest trace of the status of things having changed there under the Arabs from what it had been under the Byzantines. Furthermore, regarding the fact that Malalas is called *Ioannes Antiochenus* by John of Damascus, I agree with Hody (*Proleg.* § VIII) that this is not meant to be the Patriarch, but a citizen of Antioch; how the phrase *Antiochou [VIII] Kolophon* in the Oxford manuscript misled Bentley in his letter to Mill (p. 8), has been noted. So much for Malalas. Since our edition ought to return intact what Chilmead had noted, and it seemed unendurable that the corrections—even of the smallest errors—be added to these, I have divided his annotations into two parts, so that I might insert into my own those which I judged useful for textual criticism, and relegate the others to the end. I have myself corrected or noted whatever seemed to be errors of writing—though it is understood of itself that it is often ambiguous which mistakes are to be imputed to the scribe and which to the author himself. Bentley deigned to apply his censure to the incompetence of the man in a few sections; may no one dare to say that everything has been refuted. Since the Oxford edition is so negligently printed that it exhibits whole verses omitted, both on page 108 and 145, it would be worth the effort for anyone who considers the labor of comparing the Barocci manuscript again to be of such value. This was also my reason for not touching Chilmead’s translation, which at present serves as a kind of codex. I have, however, rejected the indices of writers and of words and terms omitted by Du Cange, which Hody had added, as they were mangled and meager, substituting new ones in their place. Finally, we note that the Oxford edition was published with a double title bearing the year 1691, to which a third is added in another copy I use, marked with the year 1692; the Venetian edition is entirely useless due to the multitude of its errors, from the year 1733. I was writing at Leipzig on the Ides of October, MDCCCXXX.

PREMONITION CONCERNING THE AUTHOR'S COGNOMEN

[IX] Malalas is a Syriac cognomen. It might have been written by the Greeks *Malalas*; yet it seems more in keeping with their analogy that it should be written *Malalas*; and it would appear to have been so written. In the *Prolegomena*, the author prefers the genuine and original Syrian name, *Malala*. This is shown to agree best with usage in the Latin language, by which a "rhetor" is signified. That this was the cognomen of many learned men. In this sense the author is so called.

In the words of John (who is called) of Damascus and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, from which the title that is prefixed is derived, it does not appear with sufficient certainty whether the author's cognomen, *Malala* (or *Malelas*), descends in the, as they call it, genitive case from *Malalas* (or *Melelas*), as *Barnabas* from *Barnaba*, *Souidas* from *Souida*; or if, as a foreign and alien word, it is rather indeclinable. Following the authority of very great men, whoever has thus far made mention of this cognomen—Gerard and Isaac Vossius, Ussher, Du Cange, and many others—we have accepted it as indeclinable. And certainly not rashly. For although it seems that the masculine names among the Greeks are not allowed to end in *a*; still, it is not inconsistent with their usage that the names of Oriental and barbarian men be pronounced with a Greek mouth without any Greek termination or variation of cases. Nor is anyone ignorant of how the Orientals (from whom our chronicler was) love to form their names and cognomens in *a*. [X] That is evident from those examples which the monuments of Holy Scripture exhibit in many places. The same is indicated by Arabic names and cognomens, *Abdalla, Hanifa, Nahala, Taphala, Mashalla*, and thousands of others of that kind: hence Jesus is for them *Isa*, Darius *Dara*, Kosroes *Kezra*, Basilius *Basila*, as in Said Ebn Batrik. Finally, concerning the Syrians themselves, the countrymen of our author, since they enjoy the same termination, one may consult the *Catalogus Scriptorum Syriacorum* written by the Metropolitan of Sobah. There are celebrated there *Marutha, Barsoma, Hanana, Dan, Resaina, Abrah, Catina, Greg. Sussaira*, along with many others, a great part of the Catalog. But to what end all this? It should suffice to have pointed out that the author's cognomen is clearly Syriac, and that it is agreed it ends with *a* among them. However, a countless multitude of examples demonstrates the extent to which the Greeks are accustomed to receive foreign names of this kind into their Greek with native terminations. In the front rank stands *Ioannes Palaiologos* from Joannes Cantacuzenus. Is he more recent, and not from the ancient heroes?

^A Beware of triumphing over it. See how many and how great are the satellites of this contemptible *ble-paiza*. In the Chronological Series, carried down to Alexius Comnenus, which the most learned Petavius edited, there occurs *Konstantinos ho Doukas* as emperor. In Bartholomæus of Edessa, *Mesia* is mentioned, and the Arabic *Hanifa* is called by him *Chanifa*; although this name may be found in him in the genitive case, it clearly appears that it was placed as indeclinable, both from the accent itself and from other names following it. In the anonymous *Refutation of Muhammed*, his follower *Beira* is commemorated: "He attached himself to Muhammed, a certain *Iakobites* by name *Beira*." In the same place occur *Abdik* and *Audallâ* (Abdalla), other companions of Muhammed. Let this be noted by the most learned men who deny that the name *Abdalla* among the Greeks ever falls into *a*. To the same author again, as also to Nicetas Choniates in the *Thesaurus*, *Tzet-zafa* and *Maroua* are proper names of angels or of Muhammed. Thus, in Euthymius Zigabenus, *Tzitzara* (erroneously) and *Maroua*. Let Agathias be heard, a most trustworthy writer, concerning the King of the Persians, Vararanes: "He was surnamed *Segansta*," and soon after, "and rightly was the boy named *Segansta*." The same author says again of another Vararanes, likewise a King of the Persians, "who was also called *Kermasa*." To these let Eratosthenes be added, that most ancient man and chief of the Greek grammarians; in whose *Catalogue of Theban Kings* the king *Komzetha* contends for us—a word made from ^B or [Ooo] (lest it be attributed to a scribe's error), which was the name for Vulcan among the Egyptians, and is thus written by Porphyry in the nominative case. I add furthermore *Hmoula* was a surname of a patriarch among the Alexandrians themselves. Hear the telling witness Theophanes in his *Chronography*: "Joannes, surnamed *Hmoula*." Thus in Victor of Tunnuna: "Joannes, by surname Hemula." What a brilliant example is this! How can you avoid its force? Will you impute the fault to the scribe? Alas, what an escape! In the same Theophanes, *Eseba* is the name of a King of the Ethiopians: the accent makes one believe that, although it is read in a non-recto case, it is nevertheless indeclinable. But hear other things as well. In the Greek version of the Scriptures, what is more obvious or more common? *Mathousala*, *Sisara*, *Sala*, *Ieddoua*, *Rada*, *Azaria*, and six hundred others. And not only in the version of Holy Scripture have they obtained this termination, but they flew forth with it to all the Greeks and passed into common use. Was not *alpha* changed among the later Greeks to *alphas*? I concede this for some, but I utterly deny it for all. Let the evangelist Matthew bear witness. Celebrated by him are *ho Zara*, *ho Abia*, *ho Asa*. Except for Flavius Josephus, who did not write his work from the Greek version of the Bibles, I yield to give me even one to whom that most long-lived of patriarchs, *Mathousala* (not *Mathousal*,) is applied, even though his name is mentioned passim among so many writers, and, on account of his longevity, was bandied about even in the common tongue everywhere in the world. That *Mathousala* is named by Theophilus of Antioch, Africanus, Eusebius, Syncellus, the author of the *Chronicon Paschale*, Nicephorus the Patriarch, Cedrenus, Glycas, our Hamartolus, the anonymous Petavian, and others. After this example, what does it avail to bring forward other such names, which are read in the same authors, along with Philo Judæus, Joel, and Theodoret in his *History*—*Sisara*, *Sala*, *Tharra*, *Sebachala*, *Ezra*, *Anania*, and most other similar names? May the Muses love me, I am heartily weary of lingering so long on these childish trifles. Yet, for the sake of those who might doubt, I shall here append other certain examples, of which the analogy and reason are the same. *Ho Pambe*, *ho Chale*, *ho Mase*, and the like among ecclesiastical writers, are unknown to no one except those still under the rod. *Alexios ho Mosel*, someone of the Greek magnates, according to Georgius Monachus in the *New Emperors*. Glycas: "But Theophilus had as a son-in-law Alexios, whose surname was *Mosel*." In the continuator of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, *History of Basil the Macedonian*, ^C is mentioned "Romanos ho Mosel," another of the Greek magnates. In another, *Isd Mouzala*. Thus in Codinus and Glycas: *Michael ho Rhangabe*, the emperor of the Greeks himself; in Cedrenus, "Mich. to whom the appellation is *Rhangabe*." Other similar nouns ending in vowels, which have been received into common use from Holy Scriptures, I do not enumerate, lest I appear to be listing some army of the Jews, perhaps that of Solomon or Jehoshaphat. Nor do I recount those countless others that are scattered among the Greek historians, which contrary to the norm of the Greek language, end in consonants. I only observe this concerning the name of the false prophet of the Turks, that although the mention of him among Greek writers is so frequent, he is not even once, so far as I know, given a Greek termination. *Mouamed*, *Moames*, *Moamet*, *Mouchoumet*, *Mouchamet*, *Mameth*, etc.

These things I have discussed (erudite reader) in matters of grammar, not as a grammarian; for I, who have taken *Malala* as indeclinable, am accused of grave error against Greek usage by most learned men, who say it does not permit any male name, however Barbarian, to end in *a*. If they press further (as they do) and think that an argument can be drawn from the accent itself, because it is placed on the penultimate syllable; let them turn their eyes back to *Media*, *Peralta*, *Maroua*, *Hmoula*, *Ieddoua*, *Sisara*, *Azaria*, *Mathousala*. To which others can be added: *Ozaia*, *Abdia*, *Ezrabia*, and a hundred others which are most genuinely in the Holy Scriptures. Nor is the reasoning different for those ending in other vowels, *Ramessemenō* in a certain series of Egyptian kings, *Iezthas*, *Iodas*, etc., or those ending in consonants, *Abimelech*, *Iared*, *Iapheth*, *Issachar*, *Gelimer*, *Tatimer*, etc.

Thus I have delivered ourselves and the aforementioned eminent men from every sin against Greek usage. Let us proceed further: and as it has been shown there is no objection to writing *Malala* in the nominative case, let us now inquire briefly whether it was indeed customary to write it so. Certainly, even if these things are as they are, and although it appears it could have been written *Malala*; yet I do not lack what would easily persuade anyone that it was not so in reality, but *Malalas* that was written. Indeed, this seems to be proven by the fact that it is written *Melēs* by Tzetzes the Chiliast, who everywhere substituted *ē* for *a*, not as an indeclinable, but entirely according to the example and genius of the Greek language. The same seems quite likely to happen, ^D that although the Greek termination is not always assumed by such foreign names, it is nonetheless evident that this is done most frequently.

^A Thus also among more recent writers (to dismiss infinite trivialities), we observe that the word *Alleluia*, when used for a man's name as it is in a certain manuscript, is written *Allelouias*. "A servant of the servants of God, Mardarios the monk, byname *Allelouias*." These things, reader, we once wrote to very learned friends; yet they (which we plainly marvel at) conduct their dispute against us as if we had contended not only that it could be written correctly as *Malala*, but that it had in fact been so written and ought to have been so written.

Let this, therefore, be settled concerning the Greek termination. Let us now look to the Latin. Shall they write him *Malalas* or *Malelas* in Greek letters? Or shall they rather follow the original of the Syrians? Certainly I do not care for the Greek, since the Original is clear, and the former is not yet established by common usage. I favor the genuine Syrian word *Malala*: for the Latins love this same termination in men's names as much as possible, as in *Seneca*, *Nasica*, *Messala*, and six hundred others. Since the genuine word *Malala* is certainly known to us, since it agrees exactly with the analogy of our languages, and since, moreover, this termination has already obtained common usage; what to us, I ask you, pray, if the Greeks added their own Σ? Who will draw water from a rivulet when the very fountain is at hand, and is more convenient for both use and taste? Who in his right mind will say *Abdallas* or *Abdelas* (which is the more common termination among the Greeks) and not *Abdalla*, as the Arabs do? But you object to us: Since the Syrian name is so pleasing, why is the author's forename derived by the Greeks, not Syrians? Why is he called by the forename *John*, and not, as it is in Syrian, *Juhhanan*? Lest any man rashly set up trophies here for himself, here is the answer for you: namely, because *John* has already become a Latin forename. But whither do these trifles carry me? Let the learned say *Malala* or *Malalas* as they please. Let others follow their own opinion. I, for my part, shall not be anxious about such ineptitudes. And since I claim that Seldenian *Περὶ παντὸς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν*, at least in philological matters, for myself, it is fair that I grant the same liberty to others. ^B This much alone I suggest: the Latins were so fond of that termination in men's names that in those very ones which they received closely from the Greeks, they most frequently changed the *ας* of the Greeks into *a*. This appears to have been done almost always by the older Latin writers. Nor are examples lacking even after those times, when all of Greece was pouring itself into Rome, and a contrary custom had begun to prevail; nor, to be sure, in the names of servants or freedmen alone, living in the Latin state, as learned men claim entirely precariously. Hence, in Solinus, Justinus, Orosius, and Jerome in his *Chronicon* of Eusebius, we find *Perdicca* king of Macedonia. (Was he a Roman freedman? Did he live in the Latin state?) Hence again, in Orosius, *Aruba* king of the Molossians, and *Alecta*, brother of Perdicca. Hence in Ammianus Marcellinus, *Hormisda*, a name of some Persian kings, which is nevertheless written *Hormisdas* by the Greeks, from whom the Latins are said to have taken it; as in Theophylactus Simocatta, Syncellus, Theophanes, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Nicephorus in his *Breviarium*, and others. Hence the Pope's name *Hormisda* in the *Pontificale* of Anastasius, and in his own Epistles. One might, with many others, add *Mida* from St. Jerome and others older than him to these: but enough and more than enough of the goats' wool of grammarians.

From the termination of the name to the name itself, from the mire to the flowers, my reader, let us now pass. Hence our John received his cognomen, because he practiced rhetoric, such as it was, in his barbarous age; namely, by teaching it, a pedagogue worthy of his century; or by conducting cases in the forum, a *scholasticus* or advocate. For *Malala* (or *Malela*, as it is written from a somewhat easier and more accepted, though less correct, pronunciation) is in the Syrian language a rhetor or orator, a sophist or *scholasticus*. From which profession, indeed, we may observe that cognomina were wont to cling to very many learned men of old. Do you want examples? Behold, we have many at hand. Many have flourished with the cognomen of rhetors: Demochares, Priscus, Zacharias, Procopius, Diodorus, and another, older John of Antioch. Sophists who flourished with the cognomen include Callinicus, Abas, Eusebius, Metrophanes, Malchus, Eutropius, Eustochius, Nicostratus, Polemon, Bemarchius, and others. Thus, *Agathias*, *Evagrius*, *Socrates*, and *Sozomen* are distinguished by the cognomen of *Scholasticus*. All these, like our *Malala* (for I pass over others knowingly and intentionally), are writers of histories. So far does the rhetorical profession agree with the study of writing histories! But stop, reader, for a little while. I would not have you depart from these matters entirely secure. Why might our author not have acquired the cognomen *Malala* or *Rhetor* for another reason? I will not conceal from you that there was also a *Rhetor* in the East known by that official title. Hence "Theodoros the Deacon, Rhetor" in Saint Maximus the Confessor, who is also wont to call him simply *Rhetor*. Hence also others increased by the title of *Rhetor*: Michael of Thessalonica in an unpublished chronicle; Manuel Holobolus, whose poems in praise of Emperor Michael Palaeologus exist in manuscripts; John the Deacon, writer of the life of Joseph the Hymnographer; and (to pass over others) Georgius Contis (who was recent) in hand-written codices: "Georgios Kontis, the *Rhetor* of the metropolis of Aenos, and *ekdikos* of the great church." ^C In other codices: "Which book belongs to Georgios the *Rhetor* of Aenos." Hence also a dignity in the Church, the *Maistor* of the *Rhetors*, or *Didaskalos*, and *Megas Rhetor*. Manuel the *Megas Rhetor*, who wrote against the Latins, is celebrated in a manuscript volume. Thus that most famous Eustathius, afterwards Archbishop of Thessalonica, is called in the title of a manuscript oration to the Emperor, *Didaskalos* of the *Rhetors*. The same is honored in the inscription of an epistle, which is prefixed to his Commentaries on Dionysius Periegetes, with the title *Maistor* of the *Rhetors*. *Rhetor*, taken in this sense, is sometimes called *Sophist*. In recent scholia on Pindar: "By our *Sophist*, that is, *mystagogos*, Lord Demetrios Triklinios." Whether our Chronographer is decorated with the appellation of *Rhetor* or *Malala* in this sense, let it be left to the judgment of the learned.

Now, Reader, you may proceed to other matters. But before you proceed, be a witness for me of certain vows; and sometime, if ever I should violate them, be my monitor: vows known—oh, the grief!—to scholars until this day only to a few; but which I have constantly, from my very first letters, as I do now, made from the heart. [xvi] May the Divine favor grant that I may either lie hidden in eternal silence among those who do not write, or that I may write as behooves a man of integrity, of liberal and generous education, and a seeker of true philosophy: a sole investigator of truth, without any bitterness of style, gentle, courteous, candid, and so far from being inclined toward what is indecent that I am not even to be moved by it: and finally, a contemner of trifles.

HUMPHREY HODY PROLEGOMENA CONCERNING THE AUTHOR

[xvii] SYLLABUS OF CONTENTS.

John Malalas of Antioch, chronicler, all but unknown to the learned. That there existed another John of Antioch, a chronographer, whose excerpts from the collection of Constantine Porphyrogennetus were edited by Valesius, who is wrongly accustomed to be confused with Malalas, 1, 11. — John of Antioch, chronographer, by which authors he is cited, 111. — That he whom Greek writers adduce is different from Malalas, and appears to be the same as the other previously mentioned, iv. — That there exist in certain libraries Collectanea of John of Antioch distinct from the Collectanea of John of Antioch of Valesius, and also from the Chronographic work of Malalas. That excerpts from the Chronicle of John of Antioch, who appears to be the same as the Valesian John, exist in the Paris library, but that those excerpts are distinct from the Valesian. Concerning the John of Antioch, author of the [ἀρχαιολογία]: that he still survives, and appears to be the same as the Valesian John, and at least different from Malalas. The report of John Malalas lurking in Gaul. That the cause of this is that scholars have confused him with that other chronographer of Antioch, v. — That the John of Antioch, author of the [ἀρχαιολογία], has much in common with John Malalas, vi. — Concerning other Johns of Antioch, chronographers. G. Vossius and Phil. Labbe noted, 7. — That John Malalas was not the Patriarch of Antioch. The translators of John Damascene noted; Gothofredus, Baronius, and others. Concerning the various Johns, patriarchs of Antioch. That in the list of patriarchs of Antioch there is found no John who flourished in the same age in which Malalas lived, 8, 9; 10. — The hallucination of Francis Combefis, confusing our Malalas with the John [xviii] of Antioch, the priest, whom Gennadius mentions, and with John the Grammarian, 10, 11. — That he appears to be counted among the orthodox rather than the heretics, 12. — Other Johns of Antioch listed. Concerning John Mela, Patriarch of Alexandria, 13. — Concerning the age of John Malalas. That he was not contemporary with Justinian the First, as Chilmead and others wish: but is rather to be assigned to the ninth century, or at least to have flourished long after the times of Justinian, 14 to 39. — That he wrote after Justinian appears from the fact that he commemorates all the years that he reigned, 15. — That he did not exist while Justinian was alive is demonstrated from the citation of public records of his own city concerning matters transacted there under Justinian, 16. — From his many and very grave errors concerning the deeds of Justinian, 17. — And from other clear indications, 18, 19, 20. — That Malalas did not converse with the legate of Justinian, as Chilmead thinks, but only read his book; and that he was none other than Nonnosus, 21. — That he did not live before the end of the seventh century is proven from the citation of Clement the Chronographer, who is shown to have written after the year 685, 22. — That he did not flourish before the beginning of the ninth century is concluded further from the citation of Theophilus the Chronographer, who is proven to have died in the year of Christ 785, 23. — That he is wrongly confused by some with Theophilus of Antioch, the author of the work *To Autolycus*. A manuscript fragment from Hesychius concerning the nativity of Christ is produced, in which are cited the chronographers Clement, Theophilus, and Timothy. That this Hesychius seems to have written from Malalas himself, 24. — That the *Chronicon* of Eusebius, which is accustomed to be cited by Malalas, is not the genuine one, 25. — That Malalas lived not earlier than the ninth century is confirmed elsewhere, as well as from the barbarity of his locution, 30, 26, 27. — Arguments are proposed which seem to demonstrate his antiquity. Among other things, he is cited in the third Oration on images ascribed to John Damascene: and in many Narrations he is found to agree word-for-word with the *Chronicon Paschale* or *Alexandrinum*, composed, as is believed, before the year 650, which are thought by Chilmead and others to have been taken from the author of that Chronicle and Malalas, 29. — An index of those narrations, 30. — These arguments are answered, 31, etc. That it is not sufficiently certain that that fragment of Malalas, which is held in the aforesaid Oration on images, was transcribed by the author of the Oration himself: and furthermore, there is reason to suspect that that Oration was not John Damascene's, 32. — Regarding the argument [xix] concerning the *Chronicon Paschale* or *Alexandrinum*, it is answered: 1st, that that Chronicle contains many interpolations, 33, 34. — Nor, 2nd, is it sufficiently certain that the things found in the *Paschale* corresponding to Malalas were taken from him, for it is demonstrated from his tautologies that Malalas was accustomed to copy other historians word-for-word, 35. — And from his citation of Latin writers, whose language he certainly never understood. His gross errors concerning Roman affairs, 36. — Furthermore, in most of those Narrations which are believed to be taken from Malalas, the *Paschale* contains some things that in no way agree with Malalas's accounts, and some things that are clearly repugnant, 37. — That Malalas, where he speaks of older matters as if they existed within his own memory, is merely recounting the words of his own authors. This is a practice typical of writers of lesser quality and of a later age, 38.

PROLEGOMENA

^A I. John Malalas the chronicler, whom the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus calls by the surname Malala, others (1) Malala, and a third (2) Meleles, has remained, I must inform the learned reader, little known even until now. To those illustrious and most learned men who have shone with a certain singular honor in this field of study—Gerard John Vossius (3), Philip Labbe (4), and Leo Allatius—he was known only by name: nor did they possess any further knowledge of him, except for the fact that they had pored over this chronographic work of his. Those most learned men of our own country who applied their diligence and studies to him specifically were Edmund Chilmead and John Gregory.

^B II. Writers of our own nation, when they cite John Malalas from the manuscript codex of the Bodleian Library under the simple title of "John of Antioch"—as if no other John of Antioch, the chronicler, existed—are accustomed to mention him in this way. Thus do the aforementioned learned men, Chilmead and Gregory, as well as Stanley (5), Langbaine (6), Selden (7), Pearson (8), and Fell (9)—all eminent names. But it is certain (and may I say this while preserving the honor of such great men) that there formerly existed several Johns of Antioch, chroniclers, and that to this day there survives, at least in part, another one whom old writers were accustomed to call simply "John of Antioch," whereas our John Malalas is rarely or never mentioned without the addition of his surname. Those great men could have noted this from the aforementioned ^C Collectanea on virtues and vices of the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which Henri de Valois published to the world more than 50 years ago (10); in the preface to these, where those writers from whom these excerpts were taken are listed, John Malala the chronicler is expressly distinguished from John of Antioch the chronicler, as he is commonly called: "From the following chronicles: 1) Josephus’ Antiquities, 2) George the Monk, 3) the chronicle of John, surnamed Malala, 4) the chronicle of John of Antioch," etc. I wonder that this escaped the most learned and diligent Gerard Vossius, who, although in the later edition of his books *On Greek Historians* he observes that John Malalas is among the number of those writers, nonetheless makes no mention of the other John of Antioch the chronicler, as if he were celebrated in the same volume. Excerpts of this latter one, sufficiently ample and prolix, are published in the said volume under this title: 'Ex τῆς Ἰωάννου Ἀντιοχέως Ἱστορίας χρονικῆς ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ'—*From the chronicle history of John of Antioch from Adam*, with these words appended at the end: 'Τέλος τῆς Ἱστορίας Ἰωάννου μοναχοῦ'—*The end of the history of John the Monk*. But those excerpts which are taken from our John Malala are missing, having been rejected on purpose by Valesius because (as he himself says) beyond three or four fables about Minos, Antiopa, and Bellerophon, and those told in an unrefined style, they contained nothing of any real profit. Although in the cited passage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus it is not even hinted that our John Malalas was from the city of Antioch, but is rather distinguished from John of Antioch, it is nonetheless most clearly evident that he was indeed from that city, from the third oration on Images, commonly attributed to John of Damascus, where he is expressly called an Antiochene; nor does it seem to refer to the author (as an Antiochene) solely from that oration, but also from the chronography itself, which is constructed entirely according to the Antiochene era and specifically recounts and pursues matters concerning that city above all others.

^D III. Concerning John of Antioch, testimonies from other Greek writers of recent ages regarding matters of antiquity are not infrequently produced. In George Codinus’ *On the Origins of Constantinople* (p. 57), I have found him cited regarding the name of the Port of the Bosporus. [xx] By Isaac Tzetzes in two places...

In the first (p. 24), regarding the reason why Cecrops, king of the Athenians, was called *Díphuēs* [double-natured]; since before his time, because there was no marriage among the Athenians, children did not know their own fathers, he (it is said), by establishing a law concerning marriage, caused them to know not only their mothers but also their fathers, etc. In the second (p. 64), concerning the Trojan Palladium, which was fashioned by a certain mathematician named Asius by means of talismanic art and given to the king of Troy, so that as long as it was kept in the city of Troy, it would remain unconquerable and safe. It will not be inconvenient to present his words here: “But John of Antioch writes that the Palladium did not fall from heaven, but that a certain philosopher and mathematician named Asius had predicted—by means of a remarkable horoscope—that the city in which the Palladium was kept would not be captured; and he gave such a Palladium to Troy as a gift.” To these add John Tzetzes, brother of the aforementioned Isaac, who in his *Chiliads* of Histories, chil. 2, hist. 33, lists John of Antioch among those writers who have commented in their works on Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt. And again in chil. 6, hist. 69, concerning Pentheus killed by Agave, and the explanation of that fable, he cites the same. The title of this Tzetzean history is as follows: *On the antiochene Agave, who betrayed her son to death.* Which the translator renders thus: *Of him, because the Antiochene... Agave betraying her son to death.* After a few verses about the Bacchants and the descendants of Cadmus, these things are added: [xxiii] "Euripides mythically writes thus in the *Bacchantes*. But the Chronicler John, expounding the fable, says: Pentheus and Labdacus—but more so Pentheus—after the rest of the descendants of Cadmus were killed, Actaeon indeed by his own dogs, Learcho and Melicetus by their father and mother, had hope of obtaining the scepters and seats. But when he heard that Bacchus, the illegitimate descendant of Cadmus, was aspiring to the kingdom, he cast him into chains; but being released by the prayers of his mother, he is killed by her stratagems. Therefore, they invented the fable that he had been killed by his mother."

Regarding this in another manuscript work that is held among the Barocci codices of the Bodleian Library, in the allegorical expositions of Homeric fables, it is cited by the same person regarding the judgment of the Trojan Paris among the goddesses, namely that this fable arose from the fact that Paris, skilled in the art of rhetoric, had written a certain book about Prudence, Fortitude, and Desire, and their comparison with one another. ^A [xxiv] The meaning of which is as follows: Being powerful in the art of rhetoric, he wrote among many other things a comparison of the three goddesses: ^B Minerva (Prudence), Juno (Fortitude), and Venus (Desire); the last of which he preferred to the others, as John the chronographer of Antioch writes. He alone explains this allegorically, leaving aside other matters—namely, the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, Mercury, and Jupiter, and Mount Ida—where he judged those goddesses. But Tzetzes allegorizes all those things subtly. And attend.

IV. In describing these places, we have been verbose so that it might be more conveniently—which is for our purpose—inquired whether this John of Antioch, whose testimony the cited writers use, is the same as our John Malalas, or rather that other one mentioned above, whose excerpts exist in the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. ^C Gerhard Vossius, who, as we have mentioned above, says nothing at all concerning the *Collectanea* of John of Antioch existing in the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, conjectures that the John of Antioch whom John Tzetzes cites concerning the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra is the same as John Malalas. In that opinion he is followed by Allatius and our ^D John Gregory in his manuscript notes on our author. I rather incline to the opposite view, and not only regarding him whom John Tzetzes cites in that place and the others brought forward above, but also regarding him whom his brother Isaac and George Codinus cite.

For though previously, in the same work, he had cited John of Antioch: *Ταῦτα μὲν Ἰωάννης τις* (thus note) *Μελέλης χρονογράφος*. These things are handed down by a certain John Meleles, chronographer.

V. Since things are as they are, let the judgment be free to the reader: whether this John of Antioch, who is cited in both places by Tzetzes, is the same as our John Malalas, or the same as that other one whose ^A Chronographic Excerpts exist. If the latter pleases, then it must be said that the writer of those Excerpts lived after George the Chronographer, and thus, as learned men have determined up to now, did not flourish under the empire of Heraclius. For Tzetzes, the author of the Chiliads, expressly asserts that John of Antioch, mentioned by him, flourished after George the Chronographer (understand Syncellus or Hamartolus). If the former pleases, then the same must be said of our Malalas, concerning whose age [we shall speak] below. Meanwhile, it is certain that not only do fragments from the Chronography of the monk John of Antioch exist in the *Collectanea* of the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but also that today there are preserved in library archives other and completely different excerpts from him, as well as the entire Chronography itself elsewhere; or at least some other archaeological work attributed to John of Antioch. By the most learned Alemannus, in *Historical Notes* on the *Secret History* of Procopius, two fragments concerning the Emperor Justinian are brought forward from the *Collectanea* of John of Antioch (as he calls them); and it is necessary that these were different from the Constantinian *Collectanea* of John of Antioch, since nothing at all is read in them concerning Justinian. In a Greek manuscript volume of the Royal Library of Paris, number 2216, among various tracts of diverse subject matter, there occur Excerpts from the Chronicle of John of Antioch; ^C this is gathered from the index of the tracts of that volume, which is held in Greek among the *Varia sacra* of Stephanus Le Moyne, under the title "Index of Antonius Eparchus (the Corcyrean) the legate," through whose gift that volume was deposited in that most illustrious treasury of manuscript books about the middle of the last century. In that index, number 79, it is read thus: *Ἰωάννου Ἀντιοχέως ἀπὸ τοῦ χρονικοῦ αὐτοῦ συντάγματος ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως κόσμου*. Certain [excerpts] of John of Antioch from his Chronicle which begins from the beginning of the creation of the world. The same Excerpts are mentioned in the Labbaean *Analecta* from the catalogs of the same library; and they are cited several times by the most learned Dufresne in his *Notes* on the *Chronicon* (which he entitles) *Paschale*. ^D From his citations, which exhibit the words of the author, it is discovered that these Excerpts are different from the above-mentioned Constantinian Excerpts, and that this chronography is also different from that one.

NOTE. In those Excerpts there is a long passage concerning Paris the Trojan, in which, however, nothing occurs concerning the writing of that libel regarding the *Encomium of Venus*, about which John Tzetzes cites John of Antioch; but it can be said to this point that Constantine Porphyrogenitus was accustomed in those excerpts not to present everything which his authors wrote in their individual narrations word for word, but to contract their accounts and to omit some things from them at will. See, however, what we have said in our Diatribe *De scriptoribus Græcis variis*, chapter 1, where [we speak] of the Antiochian chronicler monk.

^A our Malalian work was different. From the most illustrious Salmasius, in his *Notes on the Historia Augusta* and in his *Plinian Exertitations on Solinus*, and similarly from Leo Allatius in his *Notes on the Hexaemeron of Eustathius of Antioch*, several passages are produced from John of Antioch (or the Antiochean) *On Archaeology*; that this work, too, was different from our John Malalas’s *Chronography*—although that [latter work] also could not inappropriately be inscribed *On Archaeology*—is rendered manifest by the things brought forth from it. Thus, those learned men who have taught that an entire work of our John Malalas is still preserved in France (for I have heard this from some) are entirely mistaken. That was, without a doubt, a source of error for them: either because they thought the work *On Archaeology* was identical with the Malalian Chronicle, or because they believed those Excerpts, which exist in the manuscript of the King of the French, were a complete work, and belonged to our author. Protesting for certain, by heaven, it is clear that not even that most learned of Frenchmen, the celebrated Dufresne, the *chalkenteros* [man of brass guts], ever had the Chronicle of our John in his hands; who nevertheless has perhaps been more conversant with Greek manuscripts than any other mortal of this age. Whenever he mentions John Malalas (as he does indeed cite him a few times in his *Notes on the Chronicon Paschale*, and [in his] *Annals of John Zonaras*, and in his *Glossary of Mediaeval and Low Greek*), he does not derive his testimonies from elsewhere than from other writers who had perused our Oxford copy and had excerpted some things from it; a fact which he himself openly admits in some places. ^B Whether the aforementioned work of John of Antioch *On Archaeology* is the same as the Chronicle so often mentioned, of which Excerpts already exist in the *Collectanea* of Constantine, those to whom the opportunity is given to compare the one with the other will be better able to judge. Meanwhile, it is highly probable: for thus Josephus inscribed his *Jewish History*, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus his work of *Roman History*, as *Archaeology*; the latter of whom, I remember reading, was cited in the same way by the same Salmasius in his *Notes on the Scriptores Augusti* under the title *Dionysii De Archaeologia*. Nor does that work *On Archaeology* deal only with the more ancient things and the fabulous age, but it also embraces the history of more recent things and the deeds of the Roman emperors themselves. This is proven by those Excerpts which are brought forth from it in the *Notes* of Salmasius most recently cited; namely, concerning the death of the Emperor Hadrian (vol. I, p. 180), and the magnificent mausoleum erected in his honor; concerning M. Antoninus (p. 354), who, since the treasury was exhausted by wars, held an auction of the imperial ornaments in the forum; concerning the blinding and death of the Emperor Numerian (vol. II, p. 791); and concerning the notorious cruelty of Carinus, who, once he had become emperor, did not leave unpunished those who had formerly played with the boy and mocked him.

VI. If it is found to be different, then there will be a place for suspicion, not [that it is] the Chronicle, that work of John of Antioch whose Excerpts exist in the possession of the Porphyrogennetus, but rather that the work itself was designated by G. Codinus and Tzetzes, both of them, whenever they cite John of Antioch. But if it should appear to those perusing it that it is the same work (which I would entirely believe), then, from those passages which Salmasius and Allatius bring forth from it, this will be further and more clearly established, [as] we proposed above: that John of Antioch the Monk and our John Malalas are accustomed to agree in the same little narratives; and therefore nothing stands in the way of that John of Antioch, who is praised by the Tzetzes brothers, being the same as the monk, even if those matters for which he is cited are found in Malalas himself. By Leo Allatius (in *Eust. Hexaem.* p. 300 and 303), from the John of Antioch ^C *On Archaeology*, among other things, passages are cited concerning a certain Hesiod, that he taught the Greeks letters; and concerning the exposition of the fable about Endymion, that he wished to learn the name of God from the moon through certain mystical prayers, and that, having been instructed in that through a dream, he never again awoke. Both of these narratives are found in Malalas (p. 70 and 73). Salmasius also (in his *Plinian Exercitations*, p. 902, 903, 908) from the same work, among other passages, brings forth fragments: concerning the hippodrome of the city of Rome built by Romulus; concerning its different parts and the divisions of the people; concerning the division of the factions in the circus by colors of groups and garments, instituted by King Oenomaus; and concerning the 7 spaces of the circus, according to the number of the planets, and, in imitation of the 12 signs of the Zodiac, the 12 gates. All of which also occur in our Malalas (p. 218 to 225) as the fabulous; just as those things which are cited from the same in the *Notes on the Scriptores Historiae Augustae*, concerning the gaming board invented by Palamedes, and concerning the Trojan Palladium devised by the philosopher Asius; which is indeed one of those little narratives for which John of Antioch is cited by Is. Tzetzes. His words are as follows: "The Palladium in Troy was a small image constructed by a certain philosopher named Asius for the protection of the city." And if anyone desires to compare his words about the gaming board of Palamedes with the Malalian [text] (p. 129), they are these: "Palamedes signified the earthly cosmos through the board; the zodiacal circle through the twelve squares; through the dice box and the seven grains within it, the seven stars of the planets; and through the tower, the height of the sky, from which good things and bad are given to all." Thus are cited by Dufresne (Notes on the *Chronicon Paschale*, p. 498, 499, etc.) manuscript Excerpts ^D from the Chronicle of John of Antioch, among other things, concerning various matters which also appear in our [author] (p. 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 43): concerning the exposition of the Homeric fable about Mars and Venus caught by the Sun, from Palaephatus, which is also brought forward by our [author]; concerning the sayings of Hermes Trismegistus about the divine nature, from his own works; concerning the king of the Egyptians named Karache, or Marache, who succeeded Sostris (or Sesostris), and that the succeeding kings of the Egyptians were descended from him; concerning Medusa and Perseus...

^A Persians, the rites concerning the Gorgons; concerning the ancient year of the Egyptians under the times of Vulcan and Sol; concerning Sose and Thuli (or Thuachi) and other kings of the Egyptians; and finally concerning the oracle regarding the Holy Trinity given to king Thuli in Africa. Cited also by the same author (p. 497) are the same matters, concerning Pico Jove, concerning queen Semiramis, and concerning Ninus and Thurra who succeeded him; which narratives, although they are not now found in our copy—since many things are wanting at the beginning—there is nonetheless no reason to doubt that they were present in those portions which are now missing, just as they occur in those which are supplied in it (pp. 19, 20, 21) from the Paschal or Alexandrian Chronicle. I will not regret transcribing one passage from those mentioned above, concerning the ancient year of the Egyptians, so that it may be compared (if it pleases) by the curious reader with Malalas (p. 25): "His son Helios reigned over the Egyptians for two days, such that they were twelve years and seventeen days. For the Egyptians or any others did not yet know how to calculate a year; but some reckoned the periods of the moon as years, others the periods of the day; for the numbers of the twelve months were devised after these things, from the time when it was devised that men be subjects to kings."

VII. And let these things be said here concerning the various John of Antioch chroniclers, lest our Malalas be rashly confused, as is the custom, with that other John of Antioch chronicler or archæologist. There existed other John of Antioch chroniclers, such as John the rhetor, who finished his History under the Emperor Justin the Elder; and, if the Arabs are to be believed, John Chrysostom himself, who from being an Antiochene presbyter became Patriarch of Constantinople, in whose name a Chronicle is now circulated among them, and in their tongue. Concerning these we treat in another work. Gerard Vossius (De Hist. Græcis) and Philippe Labbé (Delin. Apparatus Hist. Byz.) celebrate another John of Antioch chronicler or historian, whom they say flourished after the times of Justinian the Elder, and was a contemporary of Evagrius, the writer of ecclesiastical history, and is mentioned by him. But those learned men are far mistaken; for that historian John was not from the city of Antioch, but from Epiphaneia, as the most illustrious Henri de Valois demonstrates in his Notes on Evagrius, and as we do more fully in [xxx] ^B another work (19) mentioned in a different way. Now, omitting these things, let us proceed to the rest that pertains to our author, and let us enter into a discussion regarding his status: there are those who believe that he was adorned with the mitre of the very episcopate of Antioch while he lived. Translators of the Third Book of John of Damascus on images (as they call it) were of this opinion, as were others of no small name who have followed them. The inscription of the fragment, which is produced in the cited book from our Chronicler, is as follows:

From the chronicle of John of Antioch, also called Malalas, concerning the woman who had an issue of blood, etc.

From the description of times of John of Antioch, pontiff, who is also called Malalas, concerning the woman who had suffered an issue of blood.

VIII. Whether the author of the aforementioned oration on images himself intended, by "John of Antioch," our John to have been prelate of Antioch—which the cited authors have supposed—I would not easily affirm for certain; meanwhile, one must be admonished that a formula of speech of this kind does not always necessarily imply bishops, even though bishops are accustomed to be designated by it in the Catalogues of councils; but other citizens of any kind can also be denoted by it. This Godfried Tilmann seems to have grasped, who in his version of the aforementioned speech has simply "John of Antioch." But whatever may have been the opinion of the author himself, we, however, can by no means descend into the opinion of those who draw our Chronicler ^C from the patriarchal see of the Antiochenes; rather, we have an argument—and a most firm and irrefutable one, if I am not mistaken—that he was never raised to that dignity. I will not note here that he is cited by Tzetzes the Chiliast as an obscure and unknown man: "These things indeed a certain John Meletis, a chronicler," where that word "a certain," seems to be a mark and indication of obscurity; this, I say, I will not note, since it can hardly be denied that this word is sometimes found used among the ancients even of names that are most famous and great. Thus (to mention others) concerning Theodoret, the most learned and most celebrated bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodorus, abbot and philosopher, says in the argument of the Synod of Ephesus: "There was found after John, a certain Theodoret, most learned bishop of the city of Cyrrhus in the East." Thus verbatim Leontius Scholasticus in the book On Sects (act 4, p. 509), transcribing from Abbot Theodorus (as I suppose): "There was found after John, a certain Theodosius, a learned bishop of Cyrrhus in the East." It will be more than enough if we demonstrate from the very Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Antioch that there was no such ^D

^A bishop named John in that age in which Malalas wrote, who flourished. Come then, let us see how many Johns were patriarchs of Antioch, and let us demonstrate that there was none during the same interval of time in which Malalas lived. In the Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Constantinople of Patriarch Nicephorus (which includes more than sixty in number, and carries down to the patriarch Anastasius the Younger, who suffered martyrdom about the year of the Lord’s incarnation 608, or, as others will have it, 611), two Johns are enumerated. The first of them, commemorated by all ecclesiastical writers on account of his schism at the Synod of Ephesus, and most noted for several of his Epistles, was in the order of patriarchs the 39th, and he departed from the living in the year of our Lord 433, having governed the patriarchate for 18 years. The second was in order the 47th, the successor of Peter the Fuller, under the Emperor Zeno, A. D. 476, and was ejected after 3 months. After these two Johns, whom no one fails to see preceded our John Malalas in time, since they flourished before the reign of Justinian, whose first deeds of that name are celebrated by Malalas, no other John appears in the series of the prelates of Antioch [xxxiii] before the eleventh century from the birth of Christ. In that century, namely at the time when the city of the Antiochenes was recovered from the Saracens by our Occidental Christians, that is, A. D. 1098, it is recorded in memory by William of Tyre in his History of the Holy War (book VI, ch. 23) that a certain John, a most holy confessor, held that chair. He, as the same Tyre says, scarcely two years after the city was recovered, resigned his seat and departed for Constantinople. As the following century verged toward its end, namely the twelfth from the Nativity of our Lord, another John held the patriarchal throne of Antioch; the ^B same man who had formerly lived a monastic life on Oxia, an island in the Propontis, and whose *Oration on the donation of monasteries to the laity* survives among the most famous Monuments of the Greek Church by Cotelier. In the volumes of the Councils there is contained a small work by a certain John, patriarch of Antioch, *On the superiority between a council and the Pope*; but he was recent, and not before the fifteenth century, nor is he to be numbered among the Greeks, but the Latins, nor indeed in truth was he a patriarch except by title only. Whether or not any man sat on the Antiochene throne between these two later Johns, as the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries ran their course, I cannot say; nor does it matter at all to our concern; for it is liquidly clear that John Malalas flourished before the tenth century. Therefore, just as those two whom we first mentioned flourished before him, so all these most recently enumerated were by far more recent. In a certain manuscript of the Oxford library, *De translatione episcoporum* (On the translation of bishops), which was composed about 1400, mention is made of a John, Patriarch of Antioch, surnamed Codonatus, who was translated thence to the metropolitan seat of Tyre. He was no other than the second of those whom the patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople mentions, whom I said was ejected by the Emperor Zeno. That he was surnamed Codonatus is testified by Victor of Tunnuna. By Anastasius of Caesarea, in the treatise *On the Fast of the Mother of God*, a certain John, a patriarch of Antioch, is celebrated as ruling that Church at the time when he himself was writing: in which century he flourished, we do not have so thoroughly explored that we can [xxxiv] determine it for certain and beyond doubt: this, however, is most certain and explored, that he did not preside in the chair of that Church before the eleventh century, or at least the middle of the preceding one: for the same Anastasius is the author who states that he succeeded in that seat Theodosius, the successor of Peter; and it is agreed that there was no Theodosius in that Church who succeeded Peter before (at a minimum) the middle of the tenth century. Nor does it seem that there should be much doubt but that this same man was either that aforementioned John the patriarch, of whom there is mention in William of Tyre, or at least (which pleases ^C me less 20) with the monk of the East.

IX. If any suspicion torments anyone that some John sat in the Antiochene chair between Anastasius the Younger, the patriarch at whom the Nicephorian Catalogue ends, and the tenth century, before which Malalas appears to have flourished, who could have been the same as Malalas: I would wish him to approach the *Annals* of Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and the *Synopsis* of his chronology prefixed to them. He will find all the patriarchs of that interval enumerated there, with no John celebrated among them. Evidence of the same thing is provided by another Catalogue, which we received, transcribed from some Arabic author (as I believe), from our friend highly to be revered, Edward Bernard, a man of singular excellence in every kind of learning. His patriarchs of the aforementioned interval, because it differs slightly from that of Eutychius, we shall not be reluctant to lay before the eyes of the reader here.

Num. 58. Anastasius the Second, 59. Vacant under the Persians, and Macedonius, 60. Macarius, 61. Theophanes, 62. Thomas, 63. Georgius, 64. Vacant under the Saracens, and Theophylact, 65. Job, 66. Theodorus, 67. Theodoretus, 68. Nicolaus, 69. Stephanus and Thaddaeus,

A. D. an. desin. 9 607 31 638 8 646 5 631 12 663 20 685 21 706 50 754 18 772 25 795 17 812 31 843 26 869 891

NOTES. (20) See *Diut. de script. Graec. var.*

Then Theodosius and other obscure men.

[xxxv] X. Just as the aforementioned writers commit an error when they place our Malalas in the album of the patriarchs of Antioch, so too did François Combefis make a completely different error regarding him. In his *Manipulus* on the origins of the affairs of Constantinople, he determines that our John Malalas of Antioch—whose name became known to him from the Orations of St. John of Damascus on images, cited above—was the same person as that John of Antioch, the grammarian presbyter, whom Gennadius Massiliensis (in *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*) and Marcellinus Comes (in his *Chronicon*) relate to have composed a book against the Eutychian heretics. This error, as it is easily refuted, since the *Chronicon* of Malalas extends beyond the time of the aforementioned John, so too is it easily forgiven, since the *Chronicon* itself was never given to him to see. Marcellinus composed his own *Chronicon* in A. D. 534, that is, the eighth year of the reign of Justinian; and Gennadius compiled his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, in which he makes mention of the aforementioned John, presbyter of Antioch, during the reign of Anastasius, in A. D. 495—that is, some 70 years before the end of the reign of Justinian, celebrated by our Malalas.

^A ...he says, he ordered all followers [of a heresy] to depart from the borders of the Roman Empire, although a respite of three months was granted to any who, during that time, might embrace the orthodox faith. Thus, in another place regarding Justinian: Under his reign, he says, various heresies were prohibited. Among these, it is evident from edicts 5 and 6 in title 1 of the *Codex Justinianus* that the Eutychian heresy, by name, was prohibited. Indeed, another passage is provided therein which perhaps might appear to some to furnish an argument that he [Malalas] was tainted by the opinions of the Eutychians; this is the passage where he speaks of the rebellion of Vitalian against the Emperor Anastasius, a Eutychian who raged against the Catholic faith and drove orthodox bishops from their sees. Victor, bishop of Tunnuna, states that this Vitalian took up arms against him on account of the subversion of the Catholic faith, the condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, and the removal of orthodox bishops and the succession of heretics in their place. Speaking of that rebellion of Vitalian, our chronicler, recounting how he was put to flight, adds the following: "And Christ the Savior and the fortune of the Emperor were victorious." ^B Indeed, Christ the Savior and the Emperor's fortune secured this victory. These words might appear to indicate his zeal against Vitalian's cause, and that it was his opinion that Christ fought for the Emperor as if for the truth. But however much this may appear to some at first glance, nothing can be rightly concluded from it; for these things could have been said by Malalas simply because Vitalian had taken up arms in rebellion against his sovereign. Thus, other orthodox writers surely speak of the war stirred up by Vitalian as a thing to be condemned, even if the cited Victor appears to have thought well of him. Cyril of Scythopolis, in the *Life of St. Sabas* (chap. 57), appears to condemn his rebellion, but in a somewhat [xxxvi] more cautious manner: "The Emperor Anastasius, being preoccupied... by the barbarian disturbances of Vitalian." Evagrius (*Hist. eccles.* 1. III, c. 45) most clearly says: "Vitalian," he says, "acted as a tyrant against Anastasius." And, in the same place, he says that he had intended to seize the empire.

XI. Combefis makes another conjecture, no more fortunate than this, regarding our chronicler in the same place; as he [conjectures] him to be the same as the aforementioned John the presbyter, so he determines that he was altogether the same as John the historian, known as the Diacrinomenos—that is, the Eutychian; for so the schismatic Eutychians were accustomed to be called. This John the Diacrinomenos flourished before our John, and before the times of Justinian himself, under the reign of the aforementioned Anastasius, as cited by Theodore Lector in his *Ecclesiastical History*, who himself wrote under Justin the Elder, the predecessor of Justinian and successor of Anastasius. Nor are those things which are brought forth by Greek writers from that John called the Diacrinomenos found in our chronicler. Whoever desires more on this matter may consult our *Diatribe* (to which we have already often referred the reader) *On various Greek writers, both profane and ecclesiastical*, especially those from manuscript codices, which will soon see the light of day, where it will be possible to read some things about him that are not common.

[xxxvi] XII. Whether our chronicler was immune from every stain of heresy, or rather favored the parties of the aforementioned Eutychians, such that he deserves to be called the said John the Historian, the Diacrinomenos—if indeed it is worth the effort to inquire—there are not lacking those things that provide certainty that he is rather to be numbered among the orthodox writers. For he calls the faith of the Emperor Justinian—which was opposed to the dogmas of the heretics whom he had condemned by edicts—the orthodox faith.

XIII. Besides these various Johns of Antioch ^D mentioned up to this point, who are known with certainty to be different from our John from what has been said, we have observed in our reading the names of not a few others. The first of them is John of Antioch, archpresbyter, the son of the deaconess and abbess Publica, who was famous under the Emperor Julian the Apostate. The second is John Maxentius, a presbyter (as they claim) of the Church of Antioch under Justin the Elder, of whom some tracts exist in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*. The third is John of Antioch, a presbyter, a writer against the Semi-Pelagian Faustus, praised by Ado of Vienne; unless this person might be the same (which I would easily grant) as the aforementioned John Maxentius. The fourth is John of Antioch, a monk of the Laura of St. Sabas in Palestine, a deacon and canonar...

canonarch, of the Origenist sect, in the reign of Justinian. ^A The fifth is John Scholasticus, former priest of Antioch, patriarch of Constantinople towards the end of the same Justinian's reign: whose *Collection of Canons* and *Ecclesiastical Chapters* are extant; whom some wrongly confuse with John of Antioch the Chronicler, whose *Excerpts* are extant in the *Collection* of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The sixth is John of Antioch commonly so-called, an Arian, one of the teachers of the pseudo-prophet Muhammad, at which time Heraclius reigned. To these must be added, unless perchance they are the same as some of those already mentioned, John, monk and priest of Antioch, to whom in a certain manuscript codex is attributed an *Oration on the Transfiguration of the Lord*, the same as that which we have published in the name of John Damascene among his works: ^B and John of Antioch, whose name is found prefixed to a certain other manuscript treatise *On Conjurations*. Concerning all these, just as concerning most of those whom we have mentioned above, we have discoursed at length and more fully in the aforementioned *Diatribe on Various Greek Writers*, in the first two chapters, out of our professional concern. I have wished to have them listed here, so that the reader might not be unaware of how many and who those of that name were, and if any one of them appears to be the same as our chronicler, let him use his own judgment, provided I am allowed to use mine. There is no need for me to append to these that a certain bishop of Alexandria is mentioned by Deacon Liberatus (*Breviary*, ch. 18), whose name is very similar to that of our writer, John by surname Mela; whom he says was a Dioscorite, that is, a *Diacrinomenus* or adversary of the Council of Chalcedon. That he is the same as our John Malalas, no one even slightly learned will suspect. For he flourished before the times of Justinian, and, as Liberatus himself is the author, he was second in the succession of Alexandrian prelates after Peter Mongus, the successor of the heretic Athanasius, and the predecessor of the other John surnamed Machiotes (or Niciotes). He began, according to the *Chronicon Orientale*, to preside over the Church of Alexandria A.D. 488, and held the see for 8 years, and a little more. Kircher, in his *Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Alexandria*, refers his beginning to the year of Christ 506. To which year is placed by Baronius not his beginning, but his end. ^D XIV. Regarding our chronicler, kind reader, who he was and what kind, or rather indeed who and what kind he was not, we have inquired so far. The reason of our undertaking now demands that we proceed to other matters, and we begin a disquisition on what kind of writer he is, and concerning his age, and the time in which he wrote. That he flourished under the reign of Justinian the First of that name, which began in the year of our Lord 527 and ended in 565, the opinion has hitherto prevailed among those learned men who have examined the manuscript copy of his chronicle. Thus do Chilmead and Gregorius at the same time, interpreter and scholar, settle it as certain and indubitable; ^A and likewise the most noble Mr. William Lloyd, the present bishop of St. Asaph, who also thinks that he stopped writing around the 25th year of Justinian. We have been informed of this by the most illustrious Antonio Pagi in his *Annals of Cardinal Baronius* (ad A.D. 107): in which excellent work, concerning our chronicler, mentioning the letters of the aforementioned Father sent to him, that most learned man says: *He lived*, he says, *under the great Justinian and it appears he stopped writing in the 25th year of his reign, or thereabouts.* Thus the most illustrious William Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, of the Protestant sect, a man of most solid judgment. In his excellent and most useful work, *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, with which the most learned Mr. William Cave of ours has obligated the literary world to himself, he is relegated to an age after Justinian, yet so that he could have been alive during his reign, and is conjectured to have lived until the year of Christ 601.

XV. When the most celebrated Pagi says that he was informed by the Bishop of St. Asaph that our chronicler stopped writing in the 25th year of Justinian, or thereabouts, I cannot but suspect that he failed in memory in two respects: for 1st, I easily persuade myself that the most learned prelate wrote of the year of Justinian, not the 25th, but the 35th. For that our *Chronographia*, as it is now held in the manuscript, is carried up to the 35th year of that emperor, is as certain as it is most certain: and it ends indeed in the 38th, or the 37th year of his reign. ^C There is also a suspicion that he only meant that our exemplar ends in that year, not that the author stopped writing in that year; for from where that could be gathered, nothing anywhere, even slight, occurs, when it appears clearer than light itself that the exemplar is mutilated at the end. The exemplar is held among the Barocci manuscripts, on parchment, and written in an ancient hand (as it is right to conjecture) of more than 600 years. From the thickness of the manuscript volume, it seems easy to gather that not many sheets are missing at the end, and that it was scarcely carried beyond the death of Justinian: but whence is it clear that no other thing formerly belonged to this volume, or that it was not formerly divided into two? It is certainly established that the whole work suffered many things formerly, and that all the sheets at one time lay loose from one another through the injury of time. This is indicated by the present condition of the volume, with various sheets in many places most miserably transposed by a later bookbinder. However the matter may be, that our chronicler wrote within 900 years from the birth of our Lord is placed beyond all doubt, since there existed excerpts from his work among the *Collectanea* of the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who was born in the year 905, and died around the year 959; and that he did not write under the reign of Justinian himself, but after he had finished his supreme day, that is after the year 565, is evident to us with the same degree of certainty, as those words concerning Justinian at the beginning of the seventeenth book openly indicate: [XL] "The most divine Justinian reigned thirty-eight years, and seven months, and days..."

13." This alone can be brought into controversy: did he flourish under Justinian, and compose his Chronography a little after his time? There are indeed things which might easily persuade anyone who is not sufficiently attentive that he compiled his work a little after Justinian; but there are also many other things observed by us which create not unmerited suspicion that he was more recent to that age; and indeed there are those which indicate he should be relegated to much later times. In order that the reader may be able to investigate the truth regarding his age, and to make a judgment concerning his authority, we shall here gather before our eyes whatever notes and indications of his age occur, and place them together in the scales. And first, indeed, let us bring forward and place in the balance those things which seem to point against his such great antiquity; then, let us weigh against them those things which seem to establish it; and if they admit of any answer, let us see to it, as becomes fair estimators of things.

XVI. That our author not only did not write under Justinian the Elder, but did not even exist in his lifetime, this, in the first place, seems to have the force of a strongest argument: that when speaking (part II, p. 179) of the name of his city, Antioch, being changed under Justinian to Theopolis, and of the acclamations of the people of that time, he does not speak ^B of those acclamations from his own knowledge and memory, but appeals to the public Registers of that very city: "Likewise also in the Charts of those who recorded the acts of the same city it was found that they were shouting, giving an omen for the renaming of said city." As for this new name, it is found in the Charts of those who recorded the public acts of this city that the inhabitants acclaimed it, pronouncing good omens for it. Surely, if those acclamations had reached his own memory, although perhaps he might have been able to mention that they were recorded in the public Registers of the city, he would not, however, have alleged them in this manner and form. If either he himself, or his contemporaries, had perceived such acclamations with their own ears, would he have cited the public acts [XL]? Had he related what voices were shouted, and how often it was shouted, it would not have been a wonder to have called upon the public acts (21) regarding them. But if he himself, or his contemporaries, had heard it simply shouted by the well-omening, how could he cite the Registers?

XVII. I seek the second argument from the fact that errors ^A are committed in his Chronography regarding the deeds under the reign of Justinian, so great and so many that it completely contradicts the notion that he lived in those times. To produce here—passing over many—a few examples that are of greater moment to us: That war by which aid was brought to the king of the Lazi against the Persians by the general Irenaeus, etc., he refers to the reign of Justinian (p. 155), and to his 2nd consulship and the 5th indiction, which falls in the 11th year of that emperor’s reign; which, however, can be gathered from Procopius of Caesarea (De bello Pers. l. 1, c. 12), a most trusted writer of the same age, not to have been conducted by the Emperor Justinian, but by his predecessor Justin. He conjectures Justinian’s Edict concerning bishops, orphanotrophs, oeconomi, and xenodochiarii—that they should not issue a testament except from goods held before the office was assumed—to the 2nd year of Justinian (22), an error of no less than 13 years. For Nova Justiniani 131 (23) is designated, which was issued on the 15th of the Kalends of April, in the consulship of Basilius (24), as is seen at its end, i.e., in the 15th year of his reign [XLI], now coming to an end. Our author, making mention to the 2nd year of Justinian (25) of certain Novellar Constitutions promulgated by him at that time, includes among them the Constitution "On granting hereditary right to natural children," according to the law passed by the Emperor Anastasius; which was indeed published not before the 13th year of Justinian’s reign. Although there is a law of Justinian on this matter in the Code, tit. 26, 50, 8, given in his 2nd consulship, i.e., in the 11th year of his reign; yet it seems hardly to be doubted that our author designates a later, fuller, and more famous law on the same subject, ^C which is numbered 89 among the Novellae in the Authenticum, and was given in the 12th year of his reign, while Apion held the consulship; in which, indeed, there is an express mention made of the law concerning the same matter issued by the Emperor Anastasius, as the author not obscurely indicates that a mention of it was made in the law he designates. To the same year he mentions the girls liberated from the most shameful slavery of the panderers by Empress Theodora, and that panderings were prohibited (26); but no one will doubt that this happened immediately before that time at which provision was made by the Emperor against panderings by law: but that law was given on the Kalends of December, in the consulship of Belisarius, in the ninth year of the emperor; and it is numbered 14 among the Novellae. To the same year, namely the 11th of Justinian, and before the consulship of Decius, which began as that year was verging to its end, is referred by our author (27) the codex NOTE.

^A To these must be added that fable which the memory of the Axumites hands down (p. 164), that at the time when Justinian was about to go to war against the king of the Homerites, because he had despoiled Christian merchants passing into the regions of the Axumites of all their goods and their lives, he vowed that if he overcame the Homerite in war, he would become a Christian (for he says: "I take up arms against him on behalf of the Christians"); and when victory was won, he sent ambassadors to Justinian so that a bishop and clergy might be given to him, by whom, having been imbued with the rudiments and mysteries of the Christian religion, he might be dipped in the sacred laver of baptism. That this entire story deviates most widely from the truth is made most certain by Procopius: for he is the author [who testifies] that the king of the Axumites, even before that war, was a worshipper of the Christian religion, and that, too, most fervently—being a Christian and one who cared for this faith as much as possible. And just as it is clear that it is foreign to all truth, so if anyone attends more deeply to it, the method and manner of mythologizing used by more recent Greek writers will easily appear. I cannot but add here what he left written in the *Life of Justin the Thracian*, the predecessor of Justinian, a few years before the beginning of his reign, concerning Euphrasius, the patriarch of his city; that he was put in place of the deceased Paul, and that he severely persecuted those who are called orthodox, many of them even being delivered to death. What a portent of error is this! How absurd, and ^B how ^C irrational! How absurd it is that Euphrasius, an orthodox man, should have delivered the orthodox to death! How absurd that he, who for the very reason that he was orthodox had been promoted to that throne, should have persecuted the orthodox under an orthodox emperor! Who does not know that those heretics whom the Emperor Anastasius had raised to the honor of episcopal sees [XLV] were cast down and expelled by Justin? And who does not know that under him only the orthodox flourished? Indeed, such and so great does this error appear to be that it could in no way have been committed by our author regarding his own city if he himself had lived in that time, or if he had associated with any others who had lived in that age. Nor does it appear that it was written for any other cause than that he copied the account from some Eutychian author; which author, being himself a Eutychian, designated by "orthodox" not those who were truly orthodox, but those who were considered such among the Eutychians; for that these suffered persecution from Euphrasius comes as close to the truth as possible.

^D XVIII. As to the fact that our Chronographer has so remarkably departed from the truth in those other places, the cause seems to be, in part, that he used bad writers, whom he would surely have omitted using had he himself flourished in those times.

XX. Nor should it be passed over in silence here that, although he provides not a few items to memory concerning his own fatherland of Antioch while describing the affairs of Justin and Justinian, nevertheless nothing—not even a syllable—appears regarding himself or his own family that would imply he lived at that time. ^B While he describes that tremendous earthquake which happened about 11 years before the beginning of the reign of Justinian, by which (as he says) the desolation of Antioch was wrought, to which no house remained except those that were by the mountain, and by which about five thousand mortals perished; while he describes another earthquake which happened in the 11th year of Justinian, by which (as he states) five thousand souls perished, and those who remained betook themselves to other cities—describing these things, I say, he has not one word about himself or his own, although it seems highly probable that he would have mentioned something about himself or his own in such places.

XXI. It does not escape my notice that Edmund Chilmead, in his Latin version, interprets some passages as if Malalas implied that he lived under the reign of Justinian. Concerning the embassy from the Emperor Justinian to the king of the Axumite Indians, in the 4th or 5th year of Justinian, Malalas, having a discussion, describes the attire in which the king of the Axumites was clad when the ambassador was received, according to the narration of the ambassador himself: *“As the same ambassador explained, when the king of the Indians received him, he related the style of the royal Indian state, that he was naked,”* etc. Chilmead rendered this in his version thus: *“The attire, however, of the Indian king and the solemn pomp with which he received the Roman ambassador (as we learned from his own mouth) were of this sort. He was naked,”* etc. But this interpretation of Chilmead labors under a most serious fault. For the chronicler intended nothing other than that he had learned these things from the account of the ambassador himself. His words mean nothing else; and that he received this not from a conversation with the ambassador, but from a written narrative that he records, we have demonstrated by the words following shortly after. For after narrating how the king of the Indians was adorned and attended, the chronicler proceeds to explain the manner of the ambassador’s reception with these words: *“And the Roman ambassador being brought in, bowing his knee, he made obeisance; and the king of the Indians ordered me to rise and be brought to him,”* etc. *“The Roman ambassador, therefore, having been introduced, falling on his knees, worshipped the king. But he ordered me to rise and approach closer.”* While he writes from a book ^D upon captured Antioch raging, which by no means he would have omitted, had he himself flourished in those times.

XXII. Just as it seems sufficiently evident and clear from these points discussed so far that our chronicler did not live under the reign of Justinian, so there are matters among these which, if anyone would weigh and consider more closely, he could not persuade himself otherwise than that he must be numbered among much later writers. Other arguments also seem to prove this. From the fact that he calls upon Clement the Chronographer as a witness, it seems to be concluded, not without great probability, that he did not live before the eighth century. For it seems this Clement the Chronographer did not live before the year of the Savior 685. And we gather this from the Greek Anonymous ^B *Demonstrations* (as they title them), or *Collectanea* on the antiquities of Constantinople, by whom it is cited (as it seems entirely) regarding the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, who exchanged life for death in the aforementioned year of Christ, namely 685. For that anonymous author, writing (p. 32) concerning a certain statue in the city of Constantinople called the Bull, and saying that it was of Theodosius the Elder, adds: *“Clement says that similar and manifold marble statues are of Constantine, son of Constantius.”* But Clement says that the various marble statues of similar form are those of Constantine, son of Constantius. (By which words Combefisius, in his notes, thinks that Constantine Pogonatus is designated, the son of Constans, as he is usually called; and thus, by Hercules, we have observed him being called by others. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, *De Administrando Imperio* (cap. 48, p. 112): *“Under Constantine, son of Constantius, who is also called Pogonatus.”* Constantine, son of Constantius, who is also called Pogonatus. He was indeed, which is known to all, Constantine himself the Great, son of Constantius (Chlorus): ^C but that we should understand him in this place, it seems that this is entirely obstructed by the fact that nowhere is he named in the cited author *Constantine, son of Constantius*, although he makes mention of him very frequently, but always either simply *Constantine*, or *Constantine the Great*, Κωνσταντίνος ὁ μέγας. And thus he is indeed frequently called in the few lines after ^D the cited lines; so that it is most clearly insinuated that it is another and different person from him who is called *Constantine, son of Constantius*.

XXIII. As it seems to be proven from this argument that our writer did not flourish before the beginning of the eighth century, so also it seems possible to infer from this with probability that he was even younger at that time. For even if it is conceded that the aforementioned Clement consigned his monuments to writing at the end of about the seventh century (for one may even suspect that he too flourished after that time), yet our chronicler seems to cite him, not as a writer of his own time, but as one more ancient. As this seems to be concluded even from this, so another argument is available to us, from which, if hardly anything else occurred, it would yet seem possible to be demonstrated that he was more recent than that time, and did not live except after the beginning of the ninth century. I derive this argument from his citation of Theophilus the Chronographer or Historian. For that Theophilus the Chronographer, or Historian, flourished a little before the eighth century was completed, is clear from Abulpharagius’s *Arabic History of Dynasties* (p. 147, 148), which teaches that he departed from the living under the times of the Empress Irene, wife of Leo Porphyrogenitus, in the year of the Hegira 169, that is, in the year of the Christians 785. He says he was a Christian, the son of Thomas, an astrologer of Edessa (*i.e.*, the Edessene), a leader of the astrologers of the Caliph of the Saracens, and of the sect of the Maronites who are on Mount Lebanon; and that he composed an excellent history. Thus in another place (p. 63) he cites his *History* or *Chronology* regarding the years from the creation of the world up to the beginning of the Seleucid epoch. That this same man was the Theophilus the Historian or Chronographer whom our chronicler brings forward, there is no reason, in my opinion, why anyone should doubt, especially since he flourished in the same region of the earth. And lest anyone suspect that Theophilus Abulpharagius was not a Greek writer, but a Syrian (which, however, if it were granted, nothing would prevent him from being the same as the one with Malalas, since his chronicle, written in Syriac, could have been translated into the Greek language), there exist even now in various libraries of Europe certain astrological works of his woven together in the Greek tongue, as the catalogs (which I have seen) of the manuscript codices of various libraries teach; in which Theophilus’s astrological works are wont to be celebrated. That the aforementioned Theophilus wrote such things, as it seems sufficiently evident in itself, since he was an astrologer by profession, as Abulpharagius relates, and indeed the highest and most famous, so it is confirmed by the authority of Abumaschar (35), likewise an Arabic writer, who in his book *On Mysteries*, which is unpublished, among various Greek astrological writers, counts Alexander, Stephanus, and Aristotle.

^A and also Hermetes (36), he enumerates Theophilus the son of Thomas. What of the fact that the aforementioned Theophilus, the Edessene chronographer, was skilled in the Greek language, as we are taught by Abulpharagius himself (pp. 148 and 26)? For it is added by him that this same individual translated the books of the poet Homer *On the Destruction of the City of Ilium* from the Greek language into Syriac most elegantly. Thus John Mansur Damascenus, although he himself similarly flourished in the court of the Saracen Caliph among his advisors, nevertheless adorned the works he published with the Greek language.

XXIV. It might perhaps be easy to suspect that the aforementioned Clement, the chronographer cited by our chronograph ^B, was none other than Clement of Alexandria, who is extensive in historical and chronological matters in his *Stromata*; and likewise that Theophilus the Chronographer, whom the same person is accustomed to call a witness, was none other than Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, the author of the three books *To Autolycus*: in the third of which books *To Autolycus*, not a few things are produced in writing concerning chronological matters, and the series of years from the building of the city up to the author’s own age is deduced in a continuous thread; and indeed that very book is praised by Lactantius Firmianus under the title of a book *On the Times* (i.e. Chronological). Indeed, the most learned Oxonian editor of the aforementioned books *To Autolycus*, ó νῦν ἐν ἁγίοις, in his Preface, without any examination of the matter, considers it as granted that the individual designated by our chronograph, whenever testimonies from Theophilus the Chronographer are brought forward, is that same one, because, forsooth, he had heard nothing of any other Theophilus the Chronographer. But that every suspicion of this kind may be dissolved, we shall note this one thing for the present: that these matters which our historian produces from Clement and Theophilus the chronographers are not found at all in the works of Clement of Alexandria and Theophilus of Antioch. We find these same writers, Clement and Theophilus the chronographers, cited by a certain Hesychius in a homily or discourse *On the Nativity of Christ*, in a fragment which exists in the *Theological Questions* of Anastasius Nicenus (or rather Sinaita), published from the Latin interpretation of Gentianus Hervetus in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*: ^C but there is no reason for this to be dragged by anyone into an argument against those things which we posited above concerning the age of those chronographers. For no necessity demands that the aforementioned Hesychius be held to be the same ^D as Hesychius the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who is thought to have flourished at the end of the sixth century or the beginning of the seventh; since so many much more recent Hesychii have been famous in the Church of the Greeks. Nay, I have little doubt but that this Hesychius is also more recent than our John Malalas, and that he copied from him the things which the cited Fragment exhibits. That this may be left to the judgment of the reader, and because it contributes to correcting somewhat the Malalian numbers of our exemplar, it will not grieve me to bring them before the eyes here; with the Greek text added from a manuscript in the Bodleian library (37), which has not yet seen the light of day (38).

[LI] From Hesychius *On the Nativity of Christ*.

For in the 42nd (40) year of the reign of Augustus, on the 25th of December, on the 6th day, at the 7th hour of the day, our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh, from the holy Virgin Mary; in the year according to the Antiochians from the creation of the world up to the birth of Christ and the crucifixion 6000 are reckoned: for from Adam up to Phalec, the son of Heber, are 3000 years, and from Phalec up to the 42nd (43) year of the reign of Augustus, 1067 years; and thereafter the Savior conversed with men for 33 years; so that there are from Adam up to the birth of Christ 6000 full years. For Phalec, according to the prophecy of Moses, is said to be the half of the time of Christ’s appearance [LI]. For just as when God had fashioned man on the sixth day, he subsequently fell into sin; so also on the sixth day of the millennium he came into the earth and

Hesychius from that on the Birth of Christ (59)

For in the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, on the 25th day of December, on the 6th day, at the 7th hour (41) of the day, our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh from the holy Virgin Mary. In the year according to the Antiochians from the creation of the world up to the birth and crucifixion of Christ, 6000 (42). For it is reckoned from Adam up to Phalec, the son of Heber, 3000, and from Phalec up to the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, 1067 years (44), and finally the Savior conversed with men for 33 years; so that there are from Adam up to the birth of Christ and [the crucifixion] 6000 full years. For Phalec, according to the prophecy of Moses, is said to be half of the time of the appearance of Christ. For just as God fashioned man on the 6th day, and he subsequently fell into sin, so also on the 6th (45) day of the

millennia, the Lord appeared on earth as the number of the 6 days of the fashioning of Adam, as he saved the human race. Others, however, say that the Lord came in the year 5500. But not many agree on this. In the year 6000, however, all accurate chroniclers agree that Christ appeared. For even if some disagree about this, nevertheless the prophetic voice speaks the truth, which teaches rather that it was in the year 6000 that the Lord appeared.

If one were to compare these things with what John Malalas has at the beginning of book X, nothing, upon my word, will appear earlier to him, nothing more manifest, than that they are the very words of Malalas reduced to a summary. If it pleases anyone that John Malalas wrote from the same chronicler, and then that Hesychius, whoever he may be, wrote the author's verbatim words, and this one with a more concise style: let him enjoy his own judgment, if he wishes; to us, the former opinion is more pleasing, especially since this Hesychius was not a recent writer, that is, he did not live after the ninth century; nowhere in the books does anything occur that makes it clear. That the fragment described above is found in Anastasius’s ^B Theological Questions should not lead anyone into error. For that fragment was not translated by Anastasius himself into his work of Theological Questions, but it is held in the Additamenta or Appendix; just as there are many other things from more recent writers, both added to and inserted into the Questions of Anastasius. Consult our Dissertation on various Greek writers, where the questions of the aforementioned Anastasius have been treated most fully, and the questions—in fact, that the first 24 were truly Anastasius’s, and the others are all additions; and it has been clearly demonstrated from manuscript codices that very many things in those first 24 were interpolated. See also in the same place regarding the aforementioned Hesychius, in the chapter On various Hesychii; and also regarding Clement and Theophilus aforementioned, in the chapters On various Clements and Theophili: where we have discussed them more extensively and fully.

XXV. To these arguments regarding the age of our writer, there seems to be added confirmation from the fact that whenever he cites the Chronology of Eusebius of Caesarea, he does not cite the true or genuine Chronicle of Eusebius, but a certain supposititious Chronicle, accustomed to being circulated under the name of Eusebius. Such, indeed, was the Chronicle ^C among recent Greeks which falsely bore the name of Eusebius, although this has been observed by no learned men until now; and that the one which our chronicler used was not a genuine work of Eusebius, we have shown in the cited book, in the chapter On various Eusebii.

XXVI. Nor does it seem to be entirely disregarded that in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, celebrated in the year of Christ 778, where the opinions and traditions of very many writers concerning images are gathered by the iconolatrous bishops—who with the greatest effort searched for books of any kind whatsoever that were deemed to contribute to their worship—that, I say, in the Acts of that council, where so many writers are alleged concerning images, there is a most profound silence concerning our author (49), who brings forward a remarkable Narration, and also (if one can trust it) the suppliant petition of the woman with an issue of blood to King Herod concerning the statue to be placed to Christ in the city of Paneas; and this, even though from the writers of the minor Narrative, descriptions of that Paneadic statue of far lesser moment are brought forward.

XXVII. Finally, our conjecture concerning the age of Jo. Malalas, that he wrote in the ninth century, or at least was much more recent than the age of Justinian, seems to be remarkably confirmed by the very character and condition of the man. For who would consider a historian so triflesome, so devoid of judgment, so inconsistent with himself, who in almost all parts of his chronology that precede Christ, and in many others with the subsequent ones, is almost nothing other than what Scaliger calls Cedrenus, a stable of refuse: who, I say, would consider such a miserable chronicler as worthy of those more learned times of Justinian, or of Justin the Younger; ^D the times of Procopius of Caesarea and Agathias, those most approved historians? Truly, if it be permitted to form a conjecture and judgment from the character and erudition of a man, he belongs to this ninth century, the most miserable of all.

^A And most tenebrous, he will be a writer most worthy of being denounced. Let there be added, furthermore, his style and the very manner of speaking, which never and nowhere avoids being entirely lacking in refinement, and which those who have perused it will confess is in many places clearly barbaric; it is undoubtedly unworthy of the more cultivated age of Justinian, and most worthy of the aforementioned ninth century. Nor do I assert this, by Hercules, relying solely on my own judgment. But there is added the testimony of the very learned Mr. Edward Bernard, who I remember telling me more than a decade ago, when, on the occasion of our Malalas—at that time completely unknown to me—a conversation had been struck up as we were chatting (for the man of supreme candor and humanity did not refuse at that time to descend to my stammering erudition, but, like the wise Socrates, sometimes took pleasure in playing with a boy), that he wondered if the age of Justinian had degenerated from the ancients to such a degree of barbaric language.

[LV] XXVIII. If it should please anyone that the same man was our John Malalas as that John of Antioch whom John and Isaac Tzetzes are accustomed to cite, that will be for further confirmation, or rather demonstration; since John Tzetzes affirms (as was noted above) that the John whom he cites, the Antiochene, wrote after George the chronographer. I said above that one should understand thereby either George Syncellus the chronographer, who departed this life a little before the end of the eighth century, or at least George Hamartolus, who worked out his Chronographia a little after the middle of the ninth century. I am not unaware that the Chronographia of George of Pisidia is cited by a certain anonymous unpublished Greek chronographer; nor am I ignorant that George of Pisidia flourished under the Emperor Heraclius himself before the middle of the seventh century. But when I weigh the matter more strictly and accurately, I can scarcely doubt that this anonymous writer has confused another George with George of Pisidia; nor, furthermore, does it seem that John Tzetzes would call George of Pisidia simply "George the Chronicler." For he is accustomed—by others generally, as well as by Tzetzes himself [(50)] in that same work of the Chiliads—to be called by his expressed surname, George Pisides, or, to speak more truly, without any first name, simply Pisides. But we are not concerned about these matters at present; for, as has already been indicated, we think rather that this John of Antioch, who is praised by both Tzetzes, was distinct from our Jo. Malalas.

XXIX. And these are the various arguments by which we have been led, not without ease, to believe that our author not only did not live under Justinian, but was much later than him; and we judge that he should be referred to the ninth century rather than the sixth. We now come to those arguments which seem to bolster his antiquity: those of which they who wish to weigh matters with an even scale of truth will concede to our opinion. The first argument, by which his antiquity seems to be capable of being proved, appears to be sought from the fact that he pursues events accomplished under the reign of Justinian with a far more expansive Minerva; and in celebrating them, he employs not only the year, [LVII] but also the month and even the day of the month with great particularity. One might gather the second argument from the fact that he is accustomed to distinguish the senior Emperors Constantine, Theodosius, and Leo from the junior emperors of those same names by the epithets toῦ μεγάλου, i.e., "the elder," and toῦ μικροῦ, that is, "the younger"; but regarding Justinian, the first of that name, he never once uses the epithet toῦ μεγάλου: which, since he wrote before Justinian the Younger, who began his reign in the year of our Lord 685, he seems to demonstrate. To this you might add that—as has now been observed once or twice—a fragment is cited from him by name in the third book *On Images* attributed to John Damascene; for John Damascene finished his life about the year of our Lord 750, whence it would be constructed that our author, if he did not write before the end of the sixth century, at least existed among the living before the end of the following one. The fourth argument may be formed from the fact that in most places he agrees verbatim with the *Chronicon Paschale* or *Alexandrinum* (as it is commonly called), so that the compiler of the *Chronicle* appears to have copied from him, with various indications demonstrating not that our author on the contrary took these things from the *Chronicle*. Indeed, all scholars hitherto have decreed that the author of the *Paschale* wrote from John Malalas in those things in which they agree, with the most famous Dufresne also supporting this in his Notes to the *Paschale*, where he compares Malalas’ narration concerning the death of Julian the Apostate, which he had read excerpted from our codex, with the narration of the *Paschale*. But it is commonly believed by learned men that the *Paschale* was compiled or continued under the reign of Heraclius, before the year of our Lord 650, which would show that our author wrote 40 years after the death of Justinian, namely, before the end of the sixth century or at the very beginning of the seventh, to which he is referred by the celebrated Cave. I do not think I will be doing anything unpleasant to the learned reader, nor anything alien to our intent, if I append here an Index of those Narrations in which, either entirely or at least in part, there is a word-for-word agreement between our author and the aforementioned *Chronicle*.

XXX. There occur in our chronographer things which are held in the *Chronicon Paschale* according to the Dufresne folio edition. [LVIII] Page 38. Concerning Danaus and Perseus [(51)] from the words, ὁ Πήκος ὁ καὶ Ζεὺς, to p. 41, the words Βαβυλωνίων χώρας. Page 41. Concerning Inachus [(52)], Io, Taurus, Phoenice,

Agenore, son of Agenor, the Tyrian Hercules, etc., from the words: *‘ἐν δὲ τοῖς,’* ^A to p. 44, the words: *‘ὁ σοφώτατος ἐξέθετο.’*

p. 45. Concerning the Sun (53), the son of Vulcan, Sesostris, and Hermes Trismegistus, from the words: *‘Μετὰ δὲ τελευτὴν Ἡφαίστου,’* to p. 48, the words: *‘ἐβασίλευσαν Αἰγυπτίων οἱ λοιποί’*; [thus almost everything from p. 38 to p. 48 is the same as in Malalas, but not described in the same order. Nor does it seem doubtful that all these things regarding the tomb of Picus, Faunus, and Vulcan, which are found on p. 45 (54), would also be read in Malalas: this is shown by the beginning of Malalas, which is mutilated, and which was correctly supplied from the Chronicon Paschale by Chilmead. The same must be said about all these matters which are found regarding Semus, Saturn, Picus, Zoroaster, Ninus, etc., p. 36, 37, 38, after the words ^B ‘Περὶ Ἀστρονομίας.’ Which appear to have pertained to the same second book of Malalas.]

p. 109 to 114. Concerning the city of Rome (55), Romulus and Remus, and the circus games.

p. 117. Concerning the chlamydes of the Romans (56).

p. 191, 192. Concerning the tower of the Pharos (57), built as a mole between the island of Pharos and the city of Alexandria, the envoy sent to Antony against Cleopatra, Sosibius the Antiochene, and the titles of Caesar Augustus.

p. 246, 247. Concerning Titus Vespasian (58), devastating the city of Jerusalem.

p. 250, 251. Concerning Apollonius of Tyana (59), and Asclepius killed by the Emperor Domitian, and regarding the death of Domitian.

[LIX] p. 262. Concerning the edict of the Emperor Marcus (60) regarding intestate and ungrateful children.

p. 265. Concerning Artabanus the Antiochene (61).

p. 265. Concerning the founding of Byzantium (62) and the public bath named Zeuxippus.

p. 275, 276. Concerning St. Gelasinus the martyr (63).

p. 284, 285. Concerning the works of Constantine the Great (64) in the city of Constantinople, concerning his being the first of all the emperors honored with a diadem made of precious stones, concerning the birthday and Fortune of the city, and concerning Constantinople being separated from the European province.

p. 297 to 303. Concerning the martyrdom (65) of St. Domitius, the death of the Emperor Julian, his death being revealed in a dream to St. Basil, and the empire being handed over to Jovian, concerning the embassy of the King of the Persians to him, peace made through Arintheus, the city of Nisibis surrendered to the Persians, and ^D the Nisibene village built, concerning Valentinian being relegated to Olymbria and afterwards made emperor, and concerning the public edict against Sallust, concerning the magnates guilty of injuries, the Rhône being committed to the flames, the empress being proscribed, and the death of Valentinian.

p. 310 to 313. Concerning the marriage of the Emperor Theodosius (66) with Eudocia, her brothers promoted to honor, and the dignities conceded to Paulinus.

p. 316 to 319. Concerning the murder of Paulinus (67), and the deeds of Eudocia in the cities of Antioch and Jerusalem, concerning Attila the king of the Huns, Cyrus the patrician, the earthquake at Constantinople, and the death of the Emperor Theodosius.

p. 321 to 335 (68). Concerning the death of St. Symeon Stylites (69), the philosopher Isocasius [LX] (Mal., p. 77), the order for Sunday to be kept for holy days (p. 78), Aspar and Ardaburius (ibid.) being put to death, the persecution suffered by the Arians under the Emperor Leo (p. 79), concerning the rain (ibid.) of ash (ibid.), the fire (ibid.) at Constantinople, Zeno being assumed as partner in the empire by Leo Junior (p. 84, 85), the death of Leo, Verina the mother-in-law of Zeno (p. 87), and concerning the emperors Basiliscus and Marcus (p. 88), concerning the war between Zeno and Basiliscus (ibid.), Armatus, the Samaritans (p. 93), and the Roman woman (p. 95) Juvenalia, and the death of Theodoric, concerning the count (p. 103) Maurianus, Pelagius, and the riot of the faction (p. 108) of the Greens, concerning the city of Doras (p. 115), Areobindus (p. 126), the vision of the Emperor Anastasius (p. 127), and Justin being raised to the empire (p. 130), concerning Amantius and Andreas being removed from the middle, Apion, etc. (p. 152), recalled from exile, and concerning the comet (ibid.), concerning the king of the Lazs (p. 134), concerning the embassy of the Coad of the Persians (p. 136) to the Emperor Justin, and the king of the Huns (p. 157) Zilgui or Zilgibus, and finally concerning Justinian (p. 147, 151) being assumed as partner in the empire.

Thus almost all the histories and narratives which are contained in about 80 pages in Paschales are found in this Chronographia of ours either entirely verbatim, or nearly so.

XXXI. These arguments, although to one weighing them lightly they all seem to be supported by no slight appearance of probability and to obtain some force of demonstration, nevertheless, if we inspect them more closely and, after recalling them to examination, weigh them by their own significance, they will not seem to have so much value that we are compelled to concede to the received opinion. For as regards the first, what is surprising if the life and deeds of Justinian under his empire are committed to memory much more fully than those of others, since they provided so much material for writing, and he protracted his life for almost 39 years, being a long-lived and very famous emperor? And what is surprising if he attaches not only years, but also months and days, to most of his deeds? He did this, to be sure, not because he lived at that time and was present at those events, but because his own [people] had done so.

[51] ...as it frequently happens also in those [works] which precede: the Lives of the Emperors [LXI]. As to the second point, [it is argued] that he never calls Justinian "the Great" or "the Elder," just as he never bestowed that title upon his predecessor, Justin, although it is certain that he composed his work no earlier than the reign of Justin the Younger. Therefore, just as this argument regarding Justin the Younger is invalid, so too it does not contradict the possibility that he wrote his work after the reign of Justinian the Younger.

XXXII. Regarding the third point, we respond that if it were to be granted that the third book *On Images*, which is attributed to the name of John of Damascus, was truly composed by him, one could not undeservedly doubt the value of its arguments. For who is so much a stranger to the works of the ancients as to not know how prone their books are to be interpolated by readers? Who does not know that it was the custom of readers and scribes alike, when they found testimonies of others gathered together in books, to add and insert things of their own if anything occurred to them? Do not the infinite writings of the ancients teach this, and especially those in which the fragments of more ancient authors are heaped together without any orderly connection of discourse, as in the aforementioned third book *On Images*? Examples of this matter are the *Theological Questions* of Anastasius of Sinai, of which we spoke just now; and (to pass over others) those which treat of the same subject—namely, the veneration of images—the *Acts* of the Second Nicene Council, in whose fourth session, where the various passages of writers in favor of images are gathered together, one finds in certain copies various testimonies other than those which were actually recited in that synod. Thus, in the ancient manuscript of the Vatican Library (as noted in the marginal comment [Vol. VII, p. 272] to the *Acts* of the Council), many sentences of the Fathers occur which are neither found in any other manuscript nor correspond to the order of the proceedings. So too in the Greek edition of that synod is found the *Narrative from the Life of St. John the Faster*, Patriarch of Constantinople, which neither other Greek copies nor the old Latin edition acknowledge (p. 767). I said, "if it were to be granted" that the third book *On Images* which is fronted by the name of John of Damascus was truly composed by him; because (if I may be permitted to say what the situation is) there are not wanting things which persuade me [LXII] that this treatise is falsely designated by the name of John of Damascus; just as others are various treatises on the same subject falsely ascribed to him—namely, because later, less-educated Greeks attributed to him almost everything they had that had been written by anonymous authors in favor of the doctrine of iconolatry, on account of the great name he had earned for himself by his defense of images. Concerning these various treatises, and what special argument we have against the aforementioned book, see our *Diatribe on various Greek writings*.

XXXIII. Regarding the final argument about the Alexandrian Chronicle, whose author is commonly thought to have lived under Emperor Heraclius and to have drawn most of what he recounts from our author, this also admits a double response. For first, if we grant (though some men of great name even doubt this) that the Paschal numbers were brought to a conclusion by an author living under Heraclius, [52] yet who will guarantee that these things, which are found also in our own [author], were inserted by the chronographer himself and not by his interpolators? Who does not perceive that that Paschal Chronicle is filled with nearly infinite interpolations? Do not its tautologies clamor for this? Do they not very clearly speak of contradictions? If you inspect the edition of the most celebrated Dufresne, it will show that many passages appear in the edited [text] that are missing in the Holstenian manuscript; and among these, many things are missing which the edited Paschal Chronicle concurs with our author. Thus, all those things that are contained between page 45, from the words *Since therefore these [things] we have mentioned*, up to page 48, to the words *the rest of the Egyptians*, are absent from the Holstenian codex; in which are found all those things in which our author agrees with the common Paschal exemplar concerning the fabulous affairs of the Greeks and Egyptians.

Likewise is missing a great part of that passage which deals with the city of Rome, Romulus, and Remus, and the circus games, namely the entire intermediate part which treats of the King of the Piseni, Oenomaus, and the games instituted by him and Romulus, from the words *and from the four elements* page 110 D, up to those [words] *and the parties had great hostility toward one another* page 112 D, which in our *Chronograph* are read from page 218, line 28, to page 223, line 20. There is also missing in the Holstenian manuscript the greater part of that passage which concerns the storming of Jerusalem by Titus, in which our [author] and the Paschal [Chronicle] also agree; to wit, all those things which are held from the words *And all the provinces*, to *until this day* [LXIII]; [which is] in our [edition] p. 337, line 7, to the following page, line 11. Nor does the published exemplar of the Paschal [Chronicle] only abound with many added fragments, but the Holstenian exemplar itself also has its own insertions in other places. To omit those things which are not of this place: because all these other things concerning Romulus and Rome in the aforementioned place, which are read also in the Holstenian manuscript, and which our author also acknowledges, were inserted into the Paschal [Chronicle], from this a sufficiently probable argument is drawn, because it is said in that place that the Capitol was built by Romulus and Remus, when yet in another place shortly after, the exact opposite is reported, namely that Numa Pompilius built the Capitol from the foundations in the fourth year of his reign. *Numa Pompilius in the fourth year of his reign builds the Capitol in Rome from the foundations.* Thus it appears that these three passages which are held in the Paschal [Chronicle] coinciding with our own—concerning Cleopatra, the Pharos tower, Sosibius of Antioch, and those titles in which Caesar Augustus delighted, up to the word *Autocrat*—were stuffed in by some interpolator. This is gathered from the fact that they neither cohere among themselves as they are read there, nor with the subsequent passage. For in the first of them it is...

reported that Antony was sent by the Romans against Cleopatra and the Egyptians with an army; and in the second, it is immediately subjoined that a certain Sosibius, a senator of Antioch, accompanied Augustus Caesar as he was returning to Rome: returning from where? Truly, from the conquest of Egypt, as is manifest from our writer. But concerning his campaign against the Egyptians, there is no mention made beforehand. Thus, in the third paragraph, the titles of Augustus Caesar are enumerated, just as if he were alone, administering the empire without any colleague; and yet in the following paragraph, mention is made of his campaign against the Egyptians, and of their subjugation; from which time his monarchy was reckoned, as is acknowledged in the same place. Αὔγουστος ἐλθὼν εἰς Αἴγυπτον, etc. Augustus, coming into Egypt, captured that region; with the extinction of the kingdom of the Ptolemies, which had lasted for 296 years. The great Joseph Scaliger knew this; regarding the name of Antony, in the place noted, where it says he was sent against Cleopatra and the Egyptians, he wrote instead "Augustus," and thus "Augustus" was substituted for "Antony" in the new Latin version of Du Cange. But that was done rashly by learned men. For although Antony was never sent by the Romans against Cleopatra, the interpolator of the Paschal [LXIV] Chronicon had read it so in his author. This appears most clearly from our author, in whom not only is the same name "Antony" found, but it is also added that, when he was descending into Egypt and encircling Alexandria with a siege, he was solicited by Cleopatra—to whom he had been known previously, when he had accompanied Julius Caesar into Egypt—with flattering letters, and, captured by love for her, he entered into marriage with her and waged war upon his own Romans.

XXXIV. From these things it is clear that it can in no way be concluded that any places among those in which our author and the Paschal Chronicle agree were written by the primary author of the Paschal Chronicle. Nor does there seem to be any reason to doubt that, in that part also which the continuator added, which begins from the 18th year of Constantius, most of the histories and narratives were inserted. Not to mention that it is to be suspected that those very passages where the Emperor Heraclius is called "our emperor" were nothing other than the words of some writer who flourished under that emperor, translated into that Chronicle by the interpolator. This alone seems to be concluded by anyone for certain: that the things which are read both in it and in our author were described in that Chronicle some 700 years ago, more or less. This is gathered, indeed, from the fact that they are found, just as they are now exhibited in print, in another very ancient copy of the Paschal Chronicle in the Vatican Library, which 700 years ago [sic] seemed to the most learned men, Jo. Mabillon and Michael Germain, Benedictines of France, to have been written, as Du Cange teaches in his Preface, who had requested them to inspect that codex while they were staying at Rome. Concerning this Paschal or Alexandrian Chronicle—concerning its age, author, and continuator, and which things in it are spurious—we have had the opportunity to discourse professedly in another work not yet published, ^A On the writers of Egyptian affairs, in his third book, specifically, where we treat of the writers of Alexandrian or Ptolemaic affairs, just as we dealt in the first book with the writers of the more ancient historical affairs of that race, and in the second with those who celebrated in their writings, ex professo, their theological or philosophical, strange, natural, and artificial matters; and in the fourth, of the writers of that race's affairs as they pertain to Jews, Christians, and Muhammadans. In this fourth book of the same work (if it may be permitted to mention this in passing, lest perhaps our silence be taken by the less prudent as an argument), we have recalled to examination those things which were written against [LXV] our Dissertation against the History of Aristeas concerning the LXX interpreters, and we have shown that the most illustrious and eminent Isaac Vossius, of blessed memory, [ὁ μακαρίτης], in place of a reply, responded nothing.

XXXV. We respond, secondly, that it is not sufficiently evident to one considering the matter more than perfunctorily that these things, which appear in him and in the Paschal Chronicle at the same time, are to be attributed to our author. For to whom is it not clear that our author was accustomed to copy verbatim from other writers? This becomes most clear from those things which he ^B ineptly repeats in a tautology; this appears from those other things which we have brought forth above, where we touched upon his errors concerning matters managed under Justinian. And he does not only play the tautologist concerning matters transacted under Justinian, but he is also manifest in his carelessness in other places. In book XVI, discoursing on the works of Constantine the Great in the city of Constantinople, he makes mention of the construction of the Hippodrome twice. Likewise, he writes twice in book IX concerning Egypt being subjugated to the Roman domain by Augustus Caesar. He says that in a naval battle near Epirus he slew Antony and cast the queen of Egypt, Cleopatra, into chains; setting sail from there and proceeding into Egypt, he reduced that region into his own power and celebrated the victory with a triumph (pp. 285, 286, 287): then he subjoins that, having sailed past all Europe, he came to Byzantium and subjugated Gallatia, Lydia, Pamphylia, Phrygia Pacatiana, and Lycaonia to the rule of the Romans: from there he proceeded into Syria, and approached Antioch, and there triumphed over his victory against Antony and Cleopatra; ^C from thence he strove for Laodicea, and there also he "celebrated a triumph over his victory"; then, after a few things, these follow: "Proceeding into Egypt from Palestine, he subjugated it, and when he had reduced it into Roman servitude, entering Alexandria, he triumphed over his victory." To this city, moreover, he gave its first prefect from among his own, named Cornelius Gallus, whom he also distinguished with the dignity of Augustalis, a mark of his own name.

XXXVI. The same thing appears, even more clearly by itself, from the fact that he is accustomed to bring forward as witnesses the Latin writers—Florus, Livy, Lucan, Pliny, Servius, Sallust, Suetonius Tranquillus, and Virgil [LXVI]—though he held their works

^A in his hands, never saw them with his own eyes, and indeed did not understand their language, is most certain. That he had not read those good and serious writers of the Romans is most certainly proven by his supine ignorance of Roman affairs and his errors, which are more than old-womanish. To leave many other such stables of his waste untouched, lest they offend the reader: how delightful is that which, regarding Cicero and Sallust himself—whom he cites elsewhere—he records to memory, namely that they were Roman poets! "In these times flourished Cicero and Sallust, the wisest poets of the Romans." How charming is that which he holds concerning Julius Caesar, that he captured and killed Pompey the Great in Egypt! And again, the absurdity he utters regarding the duration of that empire; that the Roman Empire lasted for eighteen years! How ridiculous is that which he holds regarding M. Antonius, that he was sent by the Roman Senate against Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, and, descending into Egypt, surrounded the city of Alexandria with a siege! How absurd is that which he holds regarding Lucullus, that he was sent against Tigranes by Augustus Caesar! Finally, how well he understands the reader of the aforementioned Roman writers, when he writes concerning Claudius Caesar, that he "founded the city of Britain, not far from the Ocean!" Thus, in his city (if it pleases our little Greek), our great Britain has vanished, which among all Roman writers is the most celebrated of islands; ignorance proper and peculiar to the people of the Orient, and to those to whom Latin historians are utterly unknown. So, indeed, Rabbi Abraham Zacuth of Salamanca, in his book *Juchasin*, or *Book of Genealogies*, makes mention of the construction of England. He is cited by Rabbi Ganz in his *Germs of David*, or *Chronology*, in the second part to the year 830 of the third millennium: "And Juchasin wrote (page 136), that in this time Ausonia, Padua, and England were constructed." Thus he calls the city ^B England! The Samaritan Sichemites call it so in the letters which they recently sent to the English people, through the very worthy man Rob. Huntington, the current president of Dublin College in Ireland. That, moreover, our chronicler was not even polished by any knowledge of the Latin language—just as there were very few among the Greeks who instructed themselves in a skill of the Latin language—is clearly concluded from two or three places. In one he says the Latin word *consilia* signifies "day of largess": *Kousilia*, which is interpreted as "day of provision." How egregiously and learnedly! In another place, where he discourses on the four different factions of the circus introduced by Romulus (as he says, but falsely) and distinguished by different colors, namely the Green, the Blue, the Red, and the White; he says the Green (that is, the *Viridem*) was so named by Romulus as if it were "Permanent"; for, he says, *Prasinum* signifies "permanent," deduced from the verb *prasenteuo*, which signifies *paramenein*, to remain. Illustrious (by Jupiter) and expert! In that same narrative about Romulus, saying that he and Remus were commonly held to have been nurtured by a she-wolf, he adds that this fable arose from the fact that they were found and nurtured by a certain rustic woman: "For in that region," he says, "even until now, they call those rustic shepherdesses 'she-wolves' (*lupas*), as those who spend their life among wolves." But who, I ask, of men has ever heard the word 'she-wolf' (*lupa*) used among the Latins in that sense? And who does not perceive that this was accepted from I know not what babbler? Let Titus Livius be heard, whom our compiler of nonsense brings forward as though he had read him in that narrative about Romulus and elsewhere: "There are those who think that Laurentia, being of common body, was called a She-Wolf (*Lupa*) among the shepherds: thence the place was given over to the fable and the miracle." ^{C D} [LXVIII] XXXVII. As is apparent from these things, our author is accustomed to copy verbatim from other writers, and therefore it is not necessary that things which have correspondence with his words in the *Chronicon Paschale* should be thought to have been taken from it; thus there are certain other peculiar arguments which confirm that they were not specifically described from it. This is to be noted first, that in some of those places which are found both in our author and in the *Chronicon Paschale*, Latin writers are invoked; which, from what has been said, is rendered conspicuous as being things he himself had never read. Thus, in the narrative about Romulus and Remus, the aforementioned Virgil, Pliny, Livy, and also Licinius the Roman chronicler are cited: for the second and third of whom, in the *Chronicon Paschale*, one reads by corruption 'Apollonius' and 'Silvius.' In the place which deals with the Roman cloaks (chlamyds), *Suetonius* Tranquillus is cited, who is also cited in the same place in the *Chronicon Paschale*, and that with the addendum of the name Suetonius, which is not recognized by our author. To be observed second, that in many of their places.

NOTES.

(70) The inscription of the letters written in Hebrew, and in this sense, was held by the interpreter the most learned Edv. Bernard: "May it rightly reach 'sous theou' (God willing) this writing to the city of England and to the synagogue of the children of Israel, the Samaritans (thus they thought the English to be), whom may the Lord preserve." And another inscription in Arabic: "Let it be delivered to Lord Robert Huntington, the European, with care, who may take care to deliver it to the synagogue of the children of Israel, the Samaritans, who dwell in the city of England in the region of Europe."

(71) Hence it is that countrywomen, and not harlots, were called she-wolves (*lupas*). Thus indeed among Plautus that word is found used for a harlot, and thence *lupanar* and *lupanarium* for a brothel. *'Publicizing sometimes the beauty of the body,'* says Dionysius of Halicarnassus, *'those who dwell about the Palatine took the name Lupa. But this is both Greek and ancient, set upon those who earn their gain by Aphrodite, whom now they call by the more seemly title, "companions" (hetairai).'* To her (Laurentia), on account of her formerly common body, the inhabitants of the Palatine hill gave the nickname *Lupa*. This is to the Greeks a primitive appellation of those prostituting their venal voluptuousness for Venus; whom now they are accustomed to call by the more specious term *hetairai* (as if 'friends' and 'companions'). Saint Jerome in the *Eusebian Chronicle*: "Which (Laurentia), on account of the beauty and rapacity of her gain-making body, was called *Lupa* by her neighbors. Whence to our memory the cells of harlots are called *lupanaria*."

I omit many other instances (73) of this sort here, lest I should weary the reader of a more refined judgment. From such things, indeed, I do not seek a laurel of Mustacis.

XXXVIII. Thus, from what has been said (unless I am very much mistaken), it is most clearly concluded that nothing can be argued regarding the age of our chronicler from the fact that there are found in the *Chronicon Paschale* matters that correspond word for word with his accounts. Furthermore, let no one use as an argument that, because he speaks of things that seem more ancient as if they lasted down to his own memory, we should believe these are all his own words; rather, I would advise the reader that all these things—the *heos arti* ("until now") and *heos nyn* ("up to the present") and the like, which occur so repeatedly—belong not to him, but ^B to the authors whom he followed. No one who has considered what we have just discussed could fail to conclude that this is the case, and one can easily infer the same from most of the passages themselves. Thus, there is nothing more customary and solemn for writers of this sort than to disfigure their own works with such signs of poor judgment, exposing them to the laughter and nausea of sensible readers. This is well known, I think, to learned men and fully established; but I am writing not only for the learned: therefore, certain examples must be provided.

In the supposititious Dorotheus, in the *Synopsis on the Life and Death of the Prophets*, concerning Jeremiah being buried in Egypt and held in great veneration by the Egyptians because he had delivered them by his prayers from an infestation of crocodiles, it is subjoined in word-for-word fashion: "Whence as many as are faithful to God, even to this day, offer prayers in that place," etc. ^C Which very words are found in the *Chronicon Paschale* at Olympiad LXX, where almost the whole booklet of Dorotheus is transcribed, though not as his own, but with his name suppressed; they are found also in the booklet *On the Lives of the Prophets* which bears the name of St. Epiphanius; and likewise in another anonymous manuscript *On the Sixteen Prophets* in the Royal Library at Paris, and in Simeon Logothetes in his manuscript *Chronicle*, whose words are brought forward by the most illustrious Dufresne in his *Notes on the Chronicon Paschale*. The same Dorotheus, in that place—

[NOTES] (72) What our author has concerning the sack of Jerusalem is compared in the *Paschale* to the year thirty-nine of the Lord’s Assumption and the consulship of Vespasian alone: *Triakostō ennatō etei*, etc., although in our author it is expressly stated to have occurred in the year thirty-eight after the Assumption of Christ, under the consuls Commodus and Rufus, who indeed held the consulship, according to Cassiodorus, three years after the capture of Jerusalem. The *Paschale* is entirely silent about them. Moreover, a large part of this account is missing in the Holstenian codex (as was shown before). To the same year in the *Paschale* is referred both the disgrace of Cyrus the Patrician and the earthquake that occurred during the reign of Theodosius the Younger, which was in Constantinople, and also another account of the death of the Emperor Theodosius, which our author clearly implies occurred in different years. The account of the Emperor Zeno returning from Isauria to Constantinople is in the *Paschale* assigned to his own consulship: *Toutō tō etei*, etc., which, however, our author expressly states happened while Theuderich (or Theoderich) was holding the consulship, whose consulship, according to the *Paschale* itself, falls in the sixth year after that. Thus, that narrative which is had in both, concerning Tzathius the king of the Lazi, is referred in the *Paschale* to the consulship of Symmachus and Boethius *en toutō tō chronō*, etc., although in our author there is mention immediately before of the consulship of Vitalianus, which is connected in the *Paschale* itself to the year two years prior.

(73) The items that are read regarding the reign of Severus in the *Chronicon Paschale* concerning the city of Byzantium, Barbysius, Phedalia, and the Fortune of the city of Ceroe, although for the most part they are had in our author as well, the first part, which is sufficiently long, is nevertheless missing from him. Our author does indeed have, in another place, some things about Barbysius, Phedalia, Byza, and the Fortune of the city of Ceroe, namely in the reign of Constantine the Great; as for the rest, it will be clearly apparent to anyone who compares them that what is described in the *Paschale* was not taken from those, for these are different in their wording and fuller in their subject matter. Furthermore, add the narrative regarding Diogenianus and Philoxenus, together with Apion, who were restored from exile by the Emperor Justin; in which they are called *ex-magistri* in the *Paschale*, whereas by Malalas they are called only *senatores*.

^A We ourselves, however, have received [the account] concerning the legations of the Romans to foreigners—those which have not yet been published—some things of the same subject matter from the *History* of George the Monk, surnamed Hamartolus, who arranged his History after the middle of the ninth century. And indeed, "We," he says, "have heard," etc., "from the descendants of Antigonus and Ptolemy, men grave in age; we have received, Alexander the Macedonian," etc. These things are found to be the very same, as if the individuals themselves had heard these things, in the *Chronicon Paschale*, at the author cited in the manuscript booklet *On the Sixteen Prophets*, and in the same Symeon the Logothete. In the same Logothete, the *Chronicon Paschale*, and Pseudo-Epiphanius are found also these [words] of Pseudo-Dorotheus concerning the Egyptians in the same chapter: "Wherefore, to this very day they worship the Virgin-Mother as a goddess, and they adore the infant in the manger: as also many other similar places." Nor indeed does it seem that one ought to doubt much that Pseudo-Dorotheus himself transcribed the aforementioned passages word for word from the authors. You have heard him in the *Life of Isaiah* (in Latin for the sake of brevity): "Whenever, therefore, they came together with Isaiah (to Siloam, the Jews) so that they might draw water, it would go out; whence, to this very day, it suddenly bursts forth even now as a proof of a great miracle. But after this was performed through Isaiah, the Jewish people magnificently and zealously buried him beside Siloam, so that from his prayers a like abundance of water would be supplied to them, since, furthermore, it had been enjoined upon them by an oracle to act in such a way. His tomb lies beside the burial mounds of the kings. For Solomon indeed constructed the sepulchers of David in such a way that they would face the East of Sion, which has an approach from Gabaon far from the city, by twenty stadia; which approach he made so oblique and hidden that it would be perceived by no one, so that its entrance is even today unknown to most priests and the whole people." "Until this day, [a thing] unknown to many of the priests and to the whole people." Which words seem to refer to a writer who lived before the uprooting of the Jews and their fatherland. But these words, "until this day," which occur twice in this place as well, are held in the *Chronicon Paschale*, *Pseudo-Epiphanius*, and the *Logothete*; namely, those who similarly transcribe this place from Pseudo-Dorotheus, but with the name omitted. Six hundred other examples of this kind among Suidas, Cedrenus, and other writers of minor nations and of a later age will suggest themselves here and there to those who study our books more diligently with industry and profit; so that there is no doubt that the same must be said of our author.

[[LXXII] XXXIX. Furthermore, lest it seem to anyone an argument for the antiquity of our author that the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus deigned to hold his *Chronography* in such high regard that he replaced excerpts from it among his *Eclogues*; let it finally be added to all these things, that it is established that the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus was accustomed to transcribe in his *Eclogues* not only from authors of proven antiquity, but even from those who immediately preceded his own times. Thus he drew excerpts from that other John of Antioch, the monk and chronographist, who does not seem to me, at my own judgment at least, to have written before the ninth century, tending either toward the middle or the end. Thus also, in his *Excerpts* concerning legations of the Romans to foreigners, which are not yet published, some things of the same subject matter are held from the *History* of George the Monk Hamartolus, who adorned his *History* after the middle of the ninth century.]

XL. And now I have finished the work, learned Reader, concerning the age of our chronographist; such a thing, to be sure, I would not dare to pronounce, nor would I wish to determine anything confidently before the judgments of more learned men have supported me. I have finished a long and tiresome [labour], I confess, which perhaps you might have desired to be much more concise; but for a threefold reason I deemed it prudent to institute a disquisition on his age so broadly and extensively. First, because the things that we established, since they clash with the received opinion of his own interpreter and of other learned men, seemed to need to be confirmed with the greatest strength of arguments possible: lest perhaps we might seem to some to have attacked great and robust men with a reed sword, and to have received their blows with an entirely papyrus shield. Nor, furthermore, was the author himself lacking that which seemed to demand and merit our greatest diligence; since there is no historical writer, of whatever station, whose age it is not of great importance to compare, for the sake of the things reported and the authors cited. And what wise man (I pray) accuses of imprudence one who is about to build a tower, because he is solicitous about the first stone of the foundation, however common it may be in its nature, where it must be laid? Added to this is that those things which have been brought forward by us, beyond the fact that they contribute to investigating his age, are such as might have seemed under another name to deserve a place in an introductory Dissertation of this kind, inasmuch as they serve to demonstrate his authority, how slight it may be, and what kind of writer he is, and they contain not a few observations which pertain to him sufficiently in other ways. Thus, if we succeed less in what we argue concerning his age, still it is to turn out for us no less fortunately than it usually does for chemists, who are accustomed to obtain no less profit from the means themselves than from that very thing toward which they seem to have aimed primarily; and although that towards which they primarily directed their studies may completely escape them, nevertheless they reveal many things along the very path which are a just reward for their labor and effort.

XLI. Now it remains, most candid Reader, that, having bid farewell to John Malalas, we turn ourselves to another author, who is prefixed to him in this edition, by the arrangement of the most learned Chilmead; and afterward, let us make you aware of a few things concerning this edition and the most worthy interpreter himself. As for those chronological matters which are prefixed to this edition under the title of *An Anonymous Author of Chronological Excerpts*, they are nothing other than the beginning of the *Chronicle* of George the Monk, called Hamartolus or the Sinner. This becomes fully established to us: for the beginning of these is the same as the beginning of the *Chronography* of George Hamartolus, which from a manuscript codex [A by L. Allatio in Diatriba de Georgiis exhibetur.]

^A that Leo Allatius describes in his *Diatriba de Georgiis*. Leo Allatius himself also provided Excerpts in his book *De Ecclesiarum consensione*; Jo. Meursius in his *Glossarium Græco-barbarum*; and Dufresne, the "admirable," in his *Glossarium mediæ et infimæ Græcitatis*; and (unless my memory fails me) [LXXV] in the notes to the *Annals* of John Zonaras. If anyone desires further information on this subject, let him see the aforementioned work of Allatius *De Georgiis*, and our own *Diatriba* on various Greek authors, where it is discussed fully and copiously, and where Allatius’s views are corrected in many matters. On this point, I shall add only this: that he lived in the same century as Malalas, that is, the ninth of the Incarnation of Christ, and carried his *Chronicle* not only to the beginning of [the reign of] Michael, the son of Theophilus—which some scholars assert—but even up to his death, that is, up to the year 866.

*Chronicon short, collected from different chroniclers and expositors, and composed by George the Monk and Sinner. Book of the generation of men, on the day that God created Adam according to his image and likeness. And Adam begat three sons, etc.*

The *Breve Chron.*, excerpted from various annalists and expositors, and arranged by George the Monk and Sinner. The *Book of the generation of men* begins from the day on which God created Adam according to his image and likeness. Adam had three sons, etc. This is evident not only from the beginning but also from the Preface which is prefixed at the start of the manuscript codex from which 74 [LXXIV] Chilmead made his transcript; which Preface is entirely the same as that which Allatius places there from George Hamartolus. The entire work exists in various European libraries, and Allatius writes that he had prepared it for publication and had translated it from the Greek language into Latin. If anyone desires to read other parts of it, various excerpts have already been published from it. By Jac. Gretser, in the book *De cruce*, a fragment is published from it in Greek and Latin regarding the invention of the Cross. By Dion. Petavius, in the *Appendix to the Historical Breviary of Nicephorus of Constantinople*, a fairly long fragment is published from the same, in Greek, concerning the reign of Heraclius, under the false name of George Syncellus. From the same, Matthæus Raderus published in Latin the *Syntagma* (as he calls it) *De statu morientium*, which contains the sayings and fragments of many ancient Fathers. By the same Raderus, in another little work, namely, *Adnotationes ad Viridarium sanctorum ex Menæis Græcorum*, a fairly long fragment is extracted in Latin concerning the miracle performed in the city of Carthage under the reign of Heraclius. Another, but brief, fragment is produced from the same, by Peter Lambeck in book 11 of his *Commentaries on the Bibliotheca Vindobonensis*, concerning the Emperor Theodosius. From the same

^B [XLII] As concerns this edition of John Malalas and its translator, almost an entire age has passed, namely, more than 37 years, since this work was prepared for the press. Concerning the work then awaiting the press, and the praises of the interpreter and annotator Chilmead, Edward Bysshe has these remarks in our notes to Nic. Upton's *De militari officio*, printed in the year 1654, in which he transcribed from Malalas the account concerning the death of the Emperor Julian: "Which book," he says, "is in my possession, and has been awaiting the printer for an entire year: the most learned Edmund Chilmead translated it, whose untimely death is the more lamentable for the reason that it has deprived us of the most welcome labors of so great a talent." Edmund Chilmead once shone, while he lived, among the most illustrious academics of the day in terms of literary repute; besides his skill in antiquarian and critical studies, which this work made most evident, he was a notable mathematician, a most accomplished musician, a clever orator, and most expert in many languages—not only the learned ones, as they are called, but also French and Italian. He was born [LXXVI] in the county of Gloucester, in the village of Stow-on-the-Wold, and in that Academy he...

[NOTES] (74) Although he did not inform the reader where it might be found, I find among the Greek manuscript volumes (the Barocci collection of the Oxford Public Library, no. 194) a paper [codex], and among various leaves of differing subject matter, fol. 61', without any author's name or title of the work, it begins thus: *Πολλοὶ τῶν ἔξω φιλόσοφοι καὶ φιλόλογοι*, etc., just as Allatius has it. It contains many other things besides those which Chilmead transcribed. In the beginning are contained those things which Chilmead placed at the beginning up to page 6, the words *ὡς φησιν Ἰώσηπος*. Then follow those things which, having been transposed by Chilmead, are read on page 18, concerning Nimrod, etc., from these words: *Μετὰ ταῦτα γέγονέ τις γίγας* etc. (for which it pleased Chilmead to write these things of his own accord, on account of the transposition of the passage; *Ἐν δὲ τοῖς προειρημένοις χρόνοις γέγονε* up to page 21, the words *Νίνου μεγάλης βασιλεύσας*). After these, the author continues with the ancient, fabulous times of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Greeks, along with the origin of the city of Rome, and the deeds of Alexander the Great; all of the same character—nothing that is not fabulous. Then he recurs again to Adam, and having set down some things about Moses, because he was older than all the wise men of the Greeks, he proceeds to those things which are contained in the published editions, from the words: *Σὴθ δὲ γενόμενος ἐτῶν σε'*, page 6, up to the end of page 17, the words: *Τὰ πάντα ἔτη σε'*, which conclude our exemplar, which comprises only 5 folios, the scribe having apparently opted to skip transcribing the rest.

(75) From which he gave some books translated into the vernacular. In particular, he translated from the Italian—which is not listed in the published list of his works—the *History of the Rites, Customs, and Manner of Life of the Jews throughout the world*, written by Leone Modena, a Venetian Rabbi; ed. London, 1650, in-8. He is also reported to have written *De sonis* and *De musica veterum*: which work I have no doubt whatever was the same; and it exists indeed, under the title *De musica antiqua Græca*, at the end of [the edition of] Aratus, printed at Oxford in the year 1672, along with his *Adnotations on the Odes of Dionysius*. Our supreme and famous friend, Hen. Dodwell, transmitted those from Ireland, where they had lain among the papers of the most reverend Ussher; he also sent along with them the Latin interpretation of Dionysius from the same hand of Chilmead: however, the editors omitted this, who preferred the Greek alone. His honorable mention [is found] in the Preface to [the work of] D. Hen. Holcroft.

^A Woldam, I say, who placed his early training in this our Academy, in Magdalen College; after [his time there] he became chaplain of Christ Church, having attached to him his companion and fellow-scholar John Gregory, a man likewise most instructed in every kind of learning. Then, in the year 1648, on account of his loyalty toward the royal majesty, he was ejected by the Parliamentary visitation, reduced to such straits that it was necessary for him—alas! how unhappily, a nursling of the Muses!—to procure a meager living for himself from the alms, namely, of a weekly concert which, having recruited for himself certain fellow-musicians, he had instituted in London. Not wanting to him, however, was the munificence of the most distinguished man Edward Bysshe, later decorated with the honor of knighthood, whom we praised a moment ago; a munificence which others also, afflicted by the calamity of the times, experienced, as well as the aforementioned John Gregory. He rendered his soul to God on February 19, 1658, aged about 44. These things regarding him are handed down by our friend, a man most expert in English antiquities, and especially those pertaining to writers, and one who has deserved exceptionally well of his mother academy, Anthony à Wood, in the *History and Antiquities of our Academy*.

There is no need that anything be added concerning our chronograph so as to commend it to the reader and the literate world: it will have sufficed to say just this, that a work is now coming forth in public, which has been greatly sought and desired by learned men for many years; a work containing very many things which, if it had not been brought out from its hiding places into the light of day, would have completely escaped the knowledge of even the greatest men, and remained utterly in darkness. And who, I ask, among men of letters, would hold in contempt an ancient stone—which reveals many unknown things—merely because it is rough and jagged, or because it has characters carved by a less skilled craftsman? Who rather would not rejoice that such a thing is now being unearthed from the earth? And who would not gratefully acknowledge himself beholden to the one digging it up?

^B The reader ought to be reminded that, before Chilmead had undertaken to adorn this work, the aforementioned John Gregory (he died in the year 1646) had prepared for the press certain Excerpta collected from it, with the addition of some Animadversions which he had worked out for it. To him alone is the credit given that, although our copy of Malalas’s *Chronographia* was mutilated at both the beginning and the end, this work nonetheless appears to us as being Malalas’s. This was successfully discovered by him from the collation of a fragment regarding the Woman with the Issue of Blood, which is produced from the Malalian Chronicle in the 3rd Oration on Images attributed to St. John Damascene. The same is confirmed from those fables [(77)] which Tzetzes the Chiliast brings forth under the name of Jo. Malalas in *Chiliad* 5, history 29 and 30.

All of which things are indeed committed to memory in this our *Chronographia*. Gregory deals with these matters in the short preface which he prefixed to his Animadversions. He has nothing else about the author. Now, it seems that Chilmead had intended for this little work of his Animadversions to be prefixed to his edition in place of Prolegomena; for in a certain place of his annotations, he refers the reader to John Gregory’s Prolegomena concerning the author. And indeed, this was the intent of our typographers and the curators of this present edition at the beginning; but finally, when a large part of the work had been finished by the press, it pleased them to honor me—though I am far from deserving it—with such deference, that they asked me to take upon myself, these things notwithstanding, the province [(LXXVI)] and to fashion *new* Prolegomena of my own for the work now coming forth. Yielding, my reader, to their exhortations, I have boldly embarked upon this, whether prudently, others will judge: however it may be, if deserve I any praise for having devoted effort to an arduous and entirely unattempted task, I do not entirely despair of earning pardon at least from the learned. Indeed, I have steered my ship into a certain new world, and as it were another America (would that it were also as rich!): if I should run against rocks or shoals, a navigator not yet familiar with the waves, I would wish that those more experienced correct me as I wander, and lead me back to the path, I who am always wishing to learn, always ready to listen.

^C [(LXXVII)] XLIII. It had almost slipped my memory that we hinted at the beginning of this Dissertation that not only the aforementioned Edm. Chilmead, but also John Gregory, whom we have just celebrated, had applied diligence and study to our chronograph; and that elsewhere I had mentioned his Animadversions concerning the same. Finally, regarding this matter: If this seems true, yield your hands: or if it is false, arm yourself against it.

^D NOTES. [The Latin notes are provided by the printed text; index: entries preserved.]

Chronographia. Anonymous Chronological Works

1 “Book of the generation of men, on the day in which God created Adam after His image and likeness.” Thus, then, the first man was created by God, whose name was Adam, and his wife [was] Eve; “Male and female created He them.” And Adam begat 2 from his wife three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth, and two daughters, Azoura and Asuam. And Adam, according to the command of God, gave names to all cattle and to the birds and to the amphibians and to the reptiles and to the fishes and to his own children; but he and his wife received their own names from an angel of the Lord. And Cain took as wife his first sister, Azoura, and Seth [took] as wife the second, Asuam. And Abel was a virgin and righteous and a shepherd of sheep, from which, having offered sacrifices to God and having been accepted, he is killed, being envied by his brother Cain.

Cain, happening to be a farmer, and after the condemnation having lived more wickedly, was the first to devise measures, weights, and landmarks of the land; then, having built a city in the land of Naid opposite Eden, he named it after the name of his son, Enoch, and by forcing his kin to gather into one [place], he occupied himself with wars. And after these things, the house ^B falling upon him...

^A killed him, as some say, while others say that Lamech killed him. But Cain begat Enoch, and Enoch begat Gaidad, and Gaidad begat Maleleel, and ^B Maleleel begat Mathusala, and Mathusala begat Lamech, who, having taken two wives, Elda and Sela, begat Jobel, Jubal, and Thobel. Now Jobel was a herdsman; Jubal discovered the psaltery and the cithara; and Thobel was occupied with the hammering of copper and iron. And so the one, choosing to live in tents, devoted himself to cattle-breeding and agriculture; the other devised cithara-playing and tragedy for demonic practices; and the third contrived to provide swords and weapons for wars. Thus the race of Cain up to this point, being worthy of mention, is excluded from the number of the patriarchs, ^C so that he is neither reckoned with the first fathers, nor recounted among those that follow. The saying therefore, "Everyone that slayeth Cain shall suffer vengeance sevenfold," has this solution: "Each one shall die for his own sin, but you, having been the first to commit murder and having become the guide for others in this sin, shall suffer vengeance sevenfold," that is, you shall be punished seven times over and in many ways. For it is customary for Scripture to use this number for a multiple, and it is a sign of an indefinite multitude, as in that passage: "Render to our neighbors sevenfold," and, "The barren has borne seven," and, "I say not to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven." For in the crimes ^D committed by Cain, the first sin was envy; second, guile; third, murder; fourth, because it was against a brother; fifth, because it was the first murder; sixth, because he brought grief to his parents; seventh, because he lied to God. These are the seven sins of Cain. But the punishments which were inflicted upon him by divine justice are these: first, "Cursed is the ground because of you"; second, "You shall till the ground"; third, "It shall not give you its strength"; fourth, "You shall be groaning and trembling"; fifth, along with the former, "You shall be upon the earth"; sixth, which Cain himself judged with these words: "If you cast me out from you, I shall be hidden from your face"; seventh, that this punishment was not hidden, but manifested to all by a notable sign; for it was said: "And the Lord God set a sign for Cain, lest anyone who found him should slay him."

Adam, being two hundred and thirty years old, begat Seth. This Seth was the first to discover ^D Hebrew letters and wisdom, as well as the signs of heaven, the revolutions of the years, the months, and the weeks; and he gave names to the stars and the five planets, only so that they might be recognized by men: the first planet he named Saturn, the second, Jupiter, the third...

^A Mars, the fourth, Venus, the fifth, Mercury; for the two luminaries, namely the sun and the moon, God bestowed the names.

Seth, having lived two hundred and five years, begat Enos, who ^B hoped to call upon the name of the Lord. His descendants, and Seth himself, instructed from above, wrote of the things to come regarding the deluge upon tablets of stone and of baked clay, indicating that the whole world was destined to be consumed and destroyed either by fire or by water; and if by fire, the letters would be preserved on the tablets of baked clay, but if by water, upon the stone tablets. After the deluge had come and destroyed everyone, Noah alone, with his sons and his daughters, was saved for the renewal of the world. After the deluge, however, Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, wrote down the science of ^C astronomy, having found the inscription of names of the stars—as it has been said—upon the stone tablet of Seth and his children. This pillar was found after the deluge on the mountain of Siris, and remains to this day, as Josephus testifies.

Adam, then, having been born for two hundred and thirty years, according to the wisest and divine prophet Moses, begat Seth, and died on the (anniversary of the) day of the transgression. For since the day of God has the duration of a thousand years, Adam, having lived only nine hundred and thirty years, finished his day; and it is said that he was buried in the land of Jerusalem, as Josephus testifies.

Seth, having reached the age of two hundred and five, begat Enos, and after this he lived eight hundred and seven years, and he died, having lived in total nine hundred and twelve years. Concerning him it is said: ^D "The sons of God went in unto the daughters of men," namely, unto the women descended from Cain. For the men of that time called him God on account of his having invented the Hebrew letters and the names of the stars, and in addition to these, they admired his great piety, so that he was the first to be called and named God, just as the Lord says to Moses: "I have made you a god to Pharaoh."

And concerning the virtuous and spiritual men and the judges of the people, he said: "You shall not revile God, nor curse the ^A rulers of your people." ^B Rightly, therefore, may the sons of Seth, Enos, and Enoch be understood, according to Symmachus, as "sons of God" and "sons of the gods," who, burning with love for the daughters of Cain, approached them; and from these profane unions giants were born—strong and very large, because of the righteous Seth, but wicked and most evil, because of the unjust and profane Cain.

Enos, having reached the age of 140, begat Cainan, and after this lived 740 years, and died, having lived in all 880 years.

Maieleel, having reached the age of 165, begat Jared, and after this he lived 830 years, and died, having lived in all 995 years.

Jared, having reached the age of 162, begat Enoch (who is said to have been translated: and after this he lived 800 years, and died, having lived in all 962 years).

Enoch, having reached the age of 165, begat Methuselah, and after this he lived 802 years, and died, having lived in all 967 years.

Lamech, having reached the age of 188, begat Noah, and after this he lived 565 years, and died, having lived in all 753 years. ^C But Scripture makes mention of two Lamechs: one, who was descended from Cain; the other, who was the father of Noah. For Noah was born not from the Lamech who traced his origin to Cain (who also killed a man and a youth), but from a later one who bore the same name and was of the progeny of Seth. For that former one says: "I have slain a man for my injury, and a youth for my bruise." And because he had committed two murders and had taken for himself both wives of the slain men, Adah and Zillah, he declares himself worthy of seventy-sevenfold punishment. For, he says, "Sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on Cain: but on Lamech seventy-sevenfold." And for this reason Lamech was considered worthy of greater, punishments (which he also suffered), because he had removed from the midst the righteous brethren of Enoch; ^D who, on account of his faith, therefore prayed to God that he might not himself perish by such a death: and, his prayer having been heard, he was translated. Now Enoch was of the righteous Seth, from whom Christ is descended, being genealogized according to the divine and pious

^A Luke, and indeed traced back as far as Seth and Adam and God.

Noe, when he had reached the age of five hundred years, begat three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. And after one hundred years from the birth of his sons, he entered the ark, being six hundred years old, and thus the flood occurred. And in the six hundred and first year of his life he went out from the ark, and after the flood he lived three hundred and fifty years, and he died having lived in all nine hundred and fifty years. ^B Since, however, the flood had ceased, all fear did indeed depart, but he was seized by a very great depression of spirit, and he experienced that prophetic state which is spoken of concerning the day of the Lord by Amos: "As if a man should flee from the face of a lion, and a bear should meet him, and he should enter into his house, and lean his hands upon the wall, and a serpent should bite him"—so it happened to him at that time. For even having looked forth from the ark, and having been delivered ^C from that fetid and claustrophobic prison, another storm, not at all milder than the former, overtook him, for he contemplated the distress and the very destruction of his race.

Sem, two years after the flood, being one hundred and two years old, begat Arphaxad, and after this he lived five hundred years, and he died having lived in all six hundred and two years.

Arphaxad, being one hundred and thirty-two years old, begat Cainan, and after this he lived four hundred years, and he died having lived in all five hundred and thirty-eight years. ^D

Cainan, being one hundred and nine years old, begat Sala, and after this he lived three hundred and thirty years, and he died having lived in all four hundred and sixty-seven years. But Sala, having grown older, was instructed by his father in letters; and once, when Sala had gone out to search for a settlement, having come into the land of the Chaldeans, he encountered letters inscribed upon certain stones; and they were, in fact, the work of the Watchers

^A; and Sala, having written these down, both sinned in them himself and instructed others in the same absurdities. Sala, at 130 years of age, begat Heber, and after this he lived 403 years, and he died, having lived in all 533 years.

Heber, at 134 years of age, begat Jectan and Phalec. In the time of Heber, men conceived the plan of constructing a tower reaching to heaven in order to avoid the flood, as if God were plotting against them; for they were all of one language. But the giant Nebrod, the son of Chus the Ethiopian, was the originator of this enterprise for others, providing them also with animals taken in hunting for their food. But Heber, the son of Sala, was charged to urge on the construction of the tower and of Babylon, which signifies confusion. While the whole multitude was pressing on towards the construction of the tower and the city, there were 72 prefects; but Heber alone did not consent to their foolish attempt; wherefore, while the languages of all the others were confounded ^B and divided into 72 tongues according to the number of their rulers, God did not deprive Heber alone of the ancient language. Whence those who remained in the earlier language named it Hebrew, according to the name of him who held fast to it, Heber, for the race of the Hebrews, who are called Hebrews patronymically and eponymously. Therefore, the descendants of Adam used the Hebrew language, and it is manifest that Abraham and Noah’s sons, and even the second Adam—I mean Christ—used the same Hebrew language that the first Adam of all used, as is shown by such words as "Ephata," and "Talitha Cumi," and "Lama sabachthani," and the like. Moreover, an ^C argument can also be taken from the names of the ancients that this is the language which men used before the confusion. For whenever a question has arisen concerning any of these, it can find its solution from this language alone; just as the names of Adam and the others cannot be explained from any other language but the Hebrew. That this language is also called Syriac, the most learned Origen testifies in his Commentaries on the Syriac Bible, interpreting from the Syriac book ^D and

^A asserting that the Hebrew dialect is Syriac. For the ancients called Syria Judea, and the Syrians they called Palestinians. The tower, then, was built in the time of Heber over a period of forty years, and it is ruined, its traces being preserved only between Assur and Babylon; and it was 1,322 units [of measurement].

Phalec, having become 130 years of age, begat Ragau, and after this lived 209 years, and died, having lived in all 339 years.

The years from Adam to the flood are 2,262, and from the flood to the confusion of the tower-building and the death of Phalec (14)—which signifies "division"—are 536 years.

And thus occurs the division, or rather the dispersion, of the sons of Noah and those born of them; wherefore ^B they were also called *Meropes* [articulate-speaking] from the divided language and from the division of the earth. Now Shem begat Elam and Assur and Arphaxad and Lud; and Ham begat Chus and Mesraim and Phud and Chanan; and Japheth begat Gomer and Magog and Thiras and Jovan and Jectan (15) and Thobel and [14] Mosoch and Madai, from whom the Medes originated, and having taken hold of the Babylonians, the region was called Media properly and eponymously, ^C according to their own names.

After, then, the confusion and the destruction of the tower, the three sons of Noah summon all those born from them, and give to them in writing the division of the places (16), which they had received from their father Noah; and they obtain by lot for each, and for the tribes and families of each, the territory, and the climates, and the lands, and the islands, and the rivers, according to the exposition set forth below. And they were allotted by lot: to the firstborn son of Noah, Shem, from Persia and Bactria as far as India and Rhinocorura (17) towards the east; to Ham, from Rhinocorura as far as Gades towards the south; to Japheth, from Media as far as Gades towards the north.

The lands which fell by lot to Shem are these: ^D Persia, Bactriana [15], Hyrcania, Babylonia, Cordena (18), Assyria, Mesopotamia, Arabia the old, Elymais, India, Arabia the Blessed, Coelesyria, Commagena,

^A and all Phoenicia, and the river Euphrates. To Ham fell Egypt, Ethiopia that faces ^B towards India, another Ethiopia from which the river of the Ethiopians flows out, Erythra facing the east, Thebais, Libya which extends as far as Cyrene (19), Marmaris, Syrtis, Libya another, Numidia, Massyris, Mauritania which is opposite to Gades. And in the regions to the north by the sea (20) he holds Cilicia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Camalia (21), Lycia, Caria, Lydia, another Mysia, Troas, Aeolia, Bithynia (22), the ancient, Phrygia, and the islands likewise, ^C Sardinia (23), Crete, Cyprus, and the river Geon, which is also called the Nile.

To Japheth fell Media, Albania, Armenia little and great, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia (24), Galatia, Colchis, Bosporus, Maeotis (25), Derbe, Sarmatia, Taurianis, Bastarnis, Scythia, Thracia, Macedonia, Dalmatia, Molossia, Thessalia, Locris, Boeotia, Aetolia, Attica, Achaia, Pellene (26), which is called the Peloponnese, Arcadia, Epirus (26), Illyris, Lychnitis (27), Adriana, from which the Adriatic Sea [takes its name]; and he held islands: Britain, Sicily, Euboea, ^D Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos, Cythera, Zacynthus, Cephalenia, Ithaca, Corcyra (28), and a certain part of Asia, that which is called Ionia, and the river Tigris, which separates Media from Babylonia.

Having thus made this partition, the son of Ham Cha-

-^A naan, seeing that the land bordering on Lebanon was good and fertile, and much better than his own, seized it by tyranny and drove out the offspring of Shem, and so the entire land of promise has been called Chanaan. Therefore, the just Judge afterwards surrendered it to the Israelites, who were descended from Shem, through Jesus son of Nave, just as He had promised to Abraham.

Ragau, being one hundred and thirty-one years old, begat Seruch, and lived after this two hundred and seven years, and died, having lived in all three hundred and thirty-nine years.

Seruch, being one hundred and thirty years old, begat Nachor, and lived after this two hundred years, and died, having lived in all three hundred and thirty years.

Nachor, the son of Seruch, being seventy-nine years old, begat Thara, and lived after this one hundred and twenty-nine years, and died, having lived in all two hundred and eight years.

Thara, being seventy years old, begat Abraham, and Nachor, and Aran, the father of Lot, who also died before his father Thara; and after this Thara lived one hundred and thirty-five years, and died, having lived in all two hundred and five years.

In the aforementioned times, there was a certain giant, by name Nebrod, son of Chus the Ethiopian, of the tribe of Ham, who built the city of Babylon and, having first introduced hunting and magic, was the first to rule over the Persians, teaching them astronomy and astrology, as if indicating all things concerning those born by the motion of the heavens; from whom the Greeks, having learned genethlialogy, began to judge those born under the motion of the stars. Therefore, astronomy and astrology and magic began from the Magusaeans, ^B that is to say, the Persians; for the Persians are called Magog by the inhabitants, who also say that Nebrod was deified and became what they call Orion among the stars of heaven, concerning whom Moses says: "The beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Chalane in the land of Sennaar; from whence went out Assur, a son of Shem, from whom are the Assyrians."

And having taken Syria and Persia and the remaining parts of the East, he appeared, and another of giant stature arose, the son of a certain Coelus and Venus, his wife, Saturn, by the name of a planet

and he too, having become very powerful and having subjected many, and having ruled over them, first demonstrated the art of reigning and holding power over other men. He, having been the first to rule Syria for 56 years, subjected all of Persia, beginning from Syria. Having as his wife Semiramis, also called Rhea by the Assyrians, he had two sons and one daughter; and he named the one Jupiter after the name of the planet, and the other he named Ninus, and the daughter Juno, whom Picus, who is also called Jupiter, took as his wife, being his own sister.

^B After Saturn, his son Ninus reigned for 52 years, who, having taken his own mother Semiramis as his wife, a law came to be among the Persians to take their own mothers and sisters, because Jupiter—who is also called Picus—had taken his own sister Juno. Now Ninus, having become ruler of Syria, and having built a city very great, a journey of three days, he called it by his own name Nineveh, and was the first to reign in it. From his lineage came also Zoroaster, the renowned astronomer of the Persians; who, being about to die, prayed to be consumed by celestial fire, saying to the Persians: "If the fire consumes me, take the remains of my burnt bones and preserve them; and the kingdom will not be taken ^C from your country as long as my bones are guarded." And having prayed to Orion, he was consumed by celestial fire, and the Persians, having taken [the remains] from his burnt bones, keep them preserved to this day.

After Ninus, a certain Thuras ruled over the Assyrians for 30 years, whom they also named Ares, after the name of the planet. To this Ares the Assyrians first erected a statue and, worshipping him as a god even until now, call him in the Persian tongue Baal, which is to say, the warlike Mars. Daniel also makes mention of him as being worshipped and served by the Persians.

After Ares, Lames reigned for 20 years; after Lames, Sardanapalus the Great reigned for 35 years, and he was slain by Perseus. ^D But his sycophants and imitators of his fleshly indulgence, gluttony, and lechery, inscribed upon his tomb, as if uttered by him, the following: What I have enjoyed I have dissipated, what I have eaten and drunken, and the delights of love which I have pursued; but all those many and blissful things are left behind.

^A For now I am but ashes, I who once ruled over great Nineveh.

The brother of Ninus, Picus, who is also called Zeus, remained, holding the kingdom of Italy. At that time there was neither city nor any administration in the West, but simply the whole of that land lay occupied by those who had migrated there from the tribe of Japheth, the son of Noah.

Picus, who is also called Zeus, lived for one hundred and twenty years, governing the West and ruling over it; and he had many sons and daughters from noble women. This Picus, who is also called Zeus, had a son named Faunus, whom he also called Hermes, after the name of the planet.

^B After the death of this same Picus, who is also called Zeus, his son Faunus, who is also called Hermes, ruled Italy for thirty-five years; he was a very clever man, skilled in mathematics, and he was the first in the West to discover the metal of gold and the method of smelting it. ^C Learning that his brothers, born to Picus who is also called Zeus—the father of them all—by the women he had taken, were envious of him—for they, being many, about seventy in number, wished to kill him, since Zeus had begotten many children by his sexual relations with many women—he gathered together a vast amount of gold, left Italy, and went away to Egypt to the tribe of Ham, the son of Noah, who received him with honor. While he dwelt there, he looked down upon everyone, and wearing a golden robe, he practiced philosophy among the Egyptians, telling them prophecies of things to come; for he was by nature extremely intelligent. They worshipped him, calling him the god Hermes, because he spoke of future events and provided them with answers from God regarding the future, acting as a messenger; and he also provided them with wealth, for which reason they called him the giver of wealth, naming him the golden god.

When this Hermes came to Egypt, Mesraim, of the race of Ham, was then reigning over the Egyptians; and when he died, the Egyptians made Hermes their king, and he ruled over the Egyptians for thirty-nine years in great arrogance. ^D After him, Hephaestus ruled over the Egyptians for one thousand six hundred and eighty days, which amounts to four years, seven months, and three days; for at that time the Egyptians did not know how to measure years, but called the cycle of a day a year. They called this same Hephaestus a god;