Malchus of Philadelphia

Malchus of Philadelphia (also called Malchos ) was a late antique historian who lived in the late 5th century.

Life

Little is known about the life of Malchus. The name is of Semitic origin. He probably came from Syria - most likely from Philadelphia in the Roman province of Arabia , today's Amman in Jordan - and apparently lived in Constantinople for a long time , because he wrote from a capital city perspective. From the fragments of his history it is not clear whether he was a pagan or a Christian. Apparently he was active as a rhetoric speaker and sophist in Constantinople and was close to senatorial circles.

plant

Malchus wrote a historical work in ancient Greek , the exact length of which and the period covered are not fully known. Already the Byzantine authors, to whom we owe the quotations and excerpts of the otherwise lost work, only that part was available, which dealt with the years 473 to 480 and comprised seven books, as can be seen from the extract from Photios . It was already clear to Photios himself that Malchus had also written books about previous events and apparently also planned to continue his work. It is possible that the Byzantiacs of Malchus (as well as the authentic title) are the continuation of a more comprehensive work that began with Constantine ; this has been suspected on the basis of an entry in the Suda , a central Byzantine lexicon. However, more likely is that Malchus wrote only one work and perhaps the historical work of Priscus continued, especially as more detailed views of a shorter period of time in the 5th century, which the authors had witnessed himself, were not unusual: Olympiodorus of Thebes , Priscus and Candidus proceeded as well. Warren Treadgold assumes a work in three parts: an epitome of earlier historical works that began with Constantine and extended to 473/74, as well as two contemporary historical parts, of which the second part was available to Photios; the third part then extended to the death of Emperor Zenon in 491.

In any case, only fragments and summaries of Malchus' work have survived from later authors, but some of them contain important information: for example about the diplomatic contacts between Ostrom and Odoacer and about the beginnings of Theodoric . Malchus described the foreign and domestic political events as a whole in great detail. He was hostile towards the Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians , although, unlike his predecessor Leo, he at least attributed good intentions to Zenon - perhaps because Zenon's widow Ariadne was still alive at the time the work was written and, as the wife of the current Emperor Anastasius, had influence.

Nothing is known to us about Malchus' sources. However, he was apparently well informed and seems to have had a good knowledge of both the western empire (at the time of writing) and the eastern empire; whether from personal experience or based on oral or written sources is unknown. Linguistically, he oriented himself on the classic authors; His clear and elegant language is still praised by the Byzantine patriarch and scholar Photios . He also enjoys a very good reputation in modern research, which for a long time only paid marginal attention to the work.

Malchus and the year 476

Malchus' account of the events of 476 , when, after the deposition of the Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus, an embassy was sent to the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno , which declared that the West now did not need an emperor, is of outstanding importance for the question of the fall of the Western Roman Empire more and assume Constantinople. The passage in question in Malchus is the decisive source for these processes, but it is only preserved in a later, brief summary, which on closer inspection reveals considerable inconsistencies and contradictions; For example, Zeno's answers partly do not match the alleged questions:

"When (Romulus) Augustus, son of Orestes , had heard that Emperor Zeno the Basiliskos had overthrown and again taken power in the East, he persuaded the Senate to send an embassy to Zeno and determine that there is no reason give more for a divided rule and that a single, common emperor would suffice for both halves of the empire. The ambassadors said they had chosen Odoacer , a militarily and politically experienced man, to protect their interests, which is why Zeno should give him the title of patricius and entrust the government of Italy. These proposals were made by the representatives of the Roman Senate when they arrived in Constantinople. At the same time, envoys from Nepos also came to Zeno to congratulate him on what had been accomplished and to ask for effective support for Nepos, who had suffered a similar misfortune; may he help him with money and an army and any form of assistance to regain his throne as well. Nepos had asked these men to bring this up.
To those who came from the Roman Senate, Zeno gave the following answer: twice recently they had been sent emperors from the East, one they drove away, the other, Anthemius , even killed. Well, he said, they knew for themselves what to do; since the other emperor was still alive, they should stop thinking, but welcome him back when he returned. He explained to the representatives of the barbarian that it would be better if Odoacer would let Emperor Nepos elevate himself to patricius , even if he did so himself, should Nepos not precede him. Zeno added that he congratulated Odoacer on having undertaken to obtain a government for Italy appropriate to the Romans and was therefore confident that if Odoacer were to act lawfully, he would take back the emperor who honored him have. He sent Odoacer an official letter in which he informed him of his wishes and addressed him as patricius . "

Editions and translations

Entry in Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris (CHAP) .

• Roger C. Blockley : The Fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire . Vol. 1, Liverpool 1981, pp. 71ff. (Introduction); Vol. 2, Liverpool 1983, pp. 402-455 (text with English translation).

literature

• Barry Baldwin: Malchus of Philadelphia . In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31, 1977, pp. 91-107.
• Roger Blockley: The Development of Greek Historiography: Priscus, Malchus, Candidus . In: G. Marasco (Ed.): Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century AD Leiden / Boston 2003, pp. 289-315.
• Robert Malcolm Errington : Malchus of Philadelpheia, Emperor Zenon and the two Theodoric . In: Museum Helveticum 40, 1983, pp. 82–110, doi : 10.5169 / seals-31106 .
• Richard Laqueur : Malchos 2). In: Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Antiquity Science (RE). Volume XIV, 1, Stuttgart 1928, Sp. 851-857.
• Warren Treadgold : The Early Byzantine Historians . Basingstoke 2007, pp. 103-107.
• Hans-Ulrich Wiemer : Imperial criticism and image of the Goths in the history of the Malchus of Philadelphia . In: Hartmut Leppin et al. (Hrsg.): Beyond the borders. Contributions to late antique and early medieval historiography . Berlin / New York 2009, pp. 25–60.
• Hans-Ulrich Wiemer: Malchos of Philadelphia, the Vandals and the end of the empire in the west. In: Bruno Bleckmann , Timo Stickler (ed.): Greek profane historians of the fifth century AD ( Historia-Einzelschriften Volume 228). Stuttgart 2014, pp. 121–159.

Remarks

1. ↑ See Baldwin, Malchus , pp. 92 and 94–96 (on the question of his religion).
2. ↑ See Baldwin, Malchus , pp. 97f.
3. ↑ See also Baldwin, Malchus , p. 96ff.
4. ^ Treadgold, Byzantine Historians , p. 104.
5. ↑ See also Errington, Malchos von Philadelpheia , p. 95ff.
6. ↑ Baldwin, Malchus , p. 93.
7. ↑ Baldwin, Malchus , p. 107: “The surviving fragments make one wish for more. That cannot be said of all late Greek historians. "
8. ↑ Malchus, fragment 14 (Blockley). Translation based on Henning Börm : Westrom. From Honorius to Justinian . Stuttgart 2013, pp. 119f.