170 Geoffrey Greatrex
chronicle, on the grounds that it is not primarily concerned with chronology, but we
shall return to this point.3 Instead, we propose to focus on ‘Malalas’ himself.
Nearly twenty years ago Michael Jeffreys made the following, apparently para-
doxical, observation: ‘It must be emphasised for what follows that Malalas is a poor
witness to Malalas’. In his article, concerning accounts of the Nika riot, he went on to
argue that the Constantinian Excerpta de insidiis preserved an extract that belongs to
the sixth-century Malalas although no trace of it survives in the twelfth-century Baro-
ccianus (or Oxford) manuscript; he argued, against Bury, that the Chronicon Paschale's
much fuller account of the riot derives from the original Malalas.4 Jeffreys further-
more proposes that the Baroccianus is perhaps half the length of the original work of
the sixth century, which implies a loss of significant proportions.5 Before proceeding
further along these lines, the importance of Michael Jeffreys’ observations requires
emphasis, partly because they do not always seem to have been taken into account:
hence Bernard Flusin, when discussing the relationship between the Excerpta and
the Baroccianus, countenances the notion that some excerpts, e.g. concerning events
at the start of Justin Is reign, may not derive from the sixth-century Malalas because
they differ so significantly from it.6 But more crucially, as does not seem to have been
appreciated, they call into question many arguments advanced in recent years about
the Weltanschauung of the author himself; scholars have tended rather to look in the
opposite direction, concerned that what they perceive as Malalas’views might actually
be those of the sources that he cites.7 One of the leading Malalas scholars of present
times, Roger Scott, has argued on more than one occasion that Malalas, i.e. the sixth-
century author, is a far more typical representative of the sixth century than his con-
temporary Procopius, offering reports on Justinian’s legal and theological measures,
including the closure of the Academy at Athens, and, just as importantly, evincing
barely any interest in the western reconquests dealt with in such detail by Procopius.8
Of course, the first part of Scott’s point remains valid, and doubtless scholars have
been unduly swayed over the years by Procopius’ prose into concentrating on the wars
rather than other aspects of Justinian’s reign. More must be said about the second part
of his argument, however.
If Michael Jeffreys’ estimate is correct and the Baroccianus represents just half of
what the sixth-century author composed, then the supposition that ‘Malalas’ has little
3 Burgess/Kulikowski, Mosaics, pp. 30, 223-4, cf. Scott, “Byzantine chronicles”, pp. 33-6, Treadgold, Early
Byzantine Historians, p. 241.
4 Μ. Jeffreys, “Bury, Malalas”, quotation from p. 43.
5 Μ. Jeffreys, “Bury, Malalas”, p. 43, cf. Jeffreys, “The Attitudes”, pp. 219-20, eadem, “The Beginning”, p.
508; Treadgold, Early Byzantine Historians, p. 241 and n.63, is more optimistic in his estimate of what
proportion of Malalas’work has survived.
6 Flusin, “Les Excerpta constantiniens”, p. 133, followed by Puech, “Malalas et la prosopographie”, p. 225;
Greatrex, “The early years of Justin I”, pp. 106-10, contra. See further Carolla in this volume, cf. Blau-
deau, ibid.
7 Cf. Jeffreys, “The Transmission of Malalas’ Chronicle”, p. 55.
8 Scott, “Writing the reign of Justinian”, p. 27, idem, “Byzantium in the sixth century”, p. 32, developed
more fully in idem, “Chronicles versus classicizing history”, esp. pp. 2-4.