Malchus (historian)

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

Life

Little is known about the life of Malchus. The name is of Semitic origin. It probably originated in Syria - most likely from Philadelphia in the Roman province of Arabia, now in Amman, Jordan - and has lived evidently longer time in Constantinople Opel, because he writes from main urban perspective. Whether he was a pagan or Christian, it is unclear from the fragments of his historical work goes in this respect nothing is clear. Apparently, he worked as a speaker and sophist rhetoric in Constantinople Opel and stood senatorial circles close.

Work

Malchus, written in ancient Greek, a work of history, the exact length and treated period but are not quite clear. Already the Byzantine authors, to whom we owe the quotations and excerpts of the otherwise lost work, was present only that part of the years 473-480 treated and seven books included, as is evident from the summary of Photius. Photius himself was already clear that Malchus had previously written other books and apparently planned to continue his work. Perhaps it is in the Byzantiaka of Malchus ( so probably the authentic items) the continuation of a more comprehensive work, which began with Constantine; this occasion was suspected because of an entry in the Suda, a Middle Byzantine lexicon. More likely, however, that Malchus wrote only one work, and thus perhaps the historical work of Priscus continued, especially as more detailed representations of a shortened period in the 5th century were not unusual: Olympiodorus of Thebes, Priscus and Candidus did the same. Warren Treadgold is based on a work in three parts: An Epitome of earlier works of history, which began with Constantine and ranged up to 473 /74 as well as two contemporary historical parts, one of which was present the second part of Photius; the third part was then handed to the year 491.

From Malchus ' work only fragments and summaries have been preserved by later authors us anyway, but some important information: For example, the diplomatic contacts between Byzantium and Odoacer and of the beginnings of Theodoric. Malchus described the foreign and domestic political events but overall quite detailed. Opposite Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians he was hostile, where he Zenon in contrast to its predecessor Leo but at least good intentions zusprach - perhaps because Zeno's widow Ariadne still lived at the time of composition of the work and certainly possessed as the wife of the current Emperor Anastasius about influence.

About Malchus ' sources are not known, although he was apparently well informed. He seems to have a good knowledge of both the (at the time of writing of his work ) perished Western Empire as well as via the Eastern Empire to have possessed; whether from their own experiences or due to oral or written sources is unknown. Linguistically, it was based on the classical authors; even by the Byzantine Patriarch Photios and scholars praised his clear and elegant language. Even in the modern research that has considered the work but rather a long time on the sidelines, he enjoys a quite good reputation.

Malchus and the year 476

Of paramount importance is Malchus ' account of the events of 476, when an embassy was sent after the deposition of the Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus to the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno, who explained that the West now needed no own emperor more and imagine Konstantin Opel. The passage in question at Malchus is the ultimate source for these operations, but it is preserved only in a later brief summary, which has significant inconsistencies and contradictions on closer inspection; For example, fit Zenos answers partly to the questions allegedly asked:

" Had As ( Romulus ) Augustus, son of Orestes, heard, had the Emperor Zeno overthrew Basiliskos and again assumed power in the East, because he persuaded the Senate to send an embassy to Zeno and determine that there is no reason more for a divided rule and admit that satisfy a single, common Kaiser for both halves of the empire. The envoys said they had Odoacer, a militarily and politically experienced man, chosen to protect their interests, which is why Zeno was to give him the title patricius and entrust the government of Italy. These proposals brought before the representatives of the Roman Senate, when they arrived in Constantinople Opel. At the same time, envoys of Nepos came to Zeno, to congratulate him and to ask Could it be the effective support for Nepos, who 've suffered similar misfortune; he would help him with money and an army and all forms of assistance in it, also to regain his throne back. Nepos had told these men to put forward this. Those who came from the Roman Senate, Zeno gave the following answer: Twice they had received the Emperor of the East lately sent, the one they had chased away even killed the other, Anthemius. Now, he said, they know themselves what they are supposed to do; since the other Emperor was still alive, they should not consider but welcome him on his return. The representatives of the barbarians, he declared, it would be better if Odoacer would let rise by Emperor Nepos to patricius, even if he would even do this, should not precede him Nepos. Zeno added that he would like to congratulate Odoacer to have made it possible to obtain for Italy a government that was appropriate to the Romans, and was therefore confident that Odoacer, will be acting legally when he wanted to take, the Emperor again, who honored him have. He sent Odoacer an official letter in which he told him his wishes and addressed him as patricius. "

Editions and translations

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