Malalas and Procopius

171
or no interest in the west - or indeed in the christological details of church councils,
such as Chalcedon and Constantinople - falls to the ground. What we know as ‘Mala-
las’, but which ought perhaps rather to be referred to by some other label, is not just the
work of a sixth-century author, but also of one, or more probably several, compiler(s)
and abridger(s) over the intervening six centuries. This version is thus as much a pro-
duct of the attitudes of these intervening scribes as of a sixth-century mentalite. It is
likely that these later compilers had little interest in Justinian’s wars in the west, while
for church or doctrinal matters they may have preferred other accounts; Theophanes
of course, as Roger Scott has demonstrated, had a rather different perspective, and
turned to Procopius’ Vandal Wars to burnish the image of Justinian the conqueror in his
account.9 We know for certain that the works of Zachariah of Mytilene and Theodore
Lector were both the subject of extensive abridgement in the period that followed
their publication; the Church History of the latter was particularly heavily condensed.
In both cases, moreover, a prime victim of the compilers’ efforts was western affairs,
which, in the Syriac world or even the later Byzantine world, no longer held much
attraction.10 There is every reason to suppose that the same process affected Malalas’
work, which means that inferences based on omissions are of little or no weight.
This point has some relevance for our attempt to assess the relationship of Pro-
copius to the Malalas of the sixth century. While there is now a general consensus
that the latter probably reflects imperial announcements, e.g. concerning the issuing
of laws, and that the former may well be responding to these in his Anecdota, overlap
between this work and the ‘Chronicle’has attracted little attention.11 Yet parallels may
be observed, as in the cases of the notarius Priscus and the praetorian prefect, John
the Cappadocian. In both instances, however, it is the Excerpta that flesh out the very
sparse entries of the Baroccianus and serve to confirm Procopius’hostile interpretation
in the Anecdota and the Wars. Thus we learn from the Excerpta that Priscus held the
powerful post of comes of the excubitors at the time of his dismissal from power; the
fragment also confirms that Theodora was involved in his downfall.12 The same holds
for the excerpt that relates the dismissal of John the Cappadocian, his exile in Artace,
followed by his removal to Antinoe in Egypt, and finally his return to Constantinople.
Here again it is the excerpt that confirms Procopius’ account of the plot in which John
was alleged to have conspired with Antonina and the despatch of eminent senators to
try him and send him to Egypt.13 It is curious, moreover, that both the Baroccianus and
Procopius detach one episode in the John story and recount it elsewhere, concerning
9 Scott, “Writing the reign of Justinian”, pp. 28-33, idem, “Byzantium in the sixth century”, pp. 34-6.
10 See Greatrex, Horn and Phenix, Chronicle of Pseudo-Aachariah, pp. 28, 51, Greatrex, “Theodore le
lecteur”, p. 139 (on Theodore Lector), cf. Zecchini, Aezio, pp. 42-3.
11 See Scott, “Malalas, The Secret History and Justinian’s propaganda”, cf. Kaldellis, Procopius, pp. 151-2,
idem, Prokopios. The Secret History, pp. xl-xli.
12 De insidiis. 45, Malalas, Chronographia XVIII 43, Procopius, Anecdota. 16.7-10, PLRE III, Priscus 1,
Greatrex, “The composition”, p. 7 n.20.
13 De insidiis. 47, Malalas, Chronographia XVIII 89, Procopius, De Bellis Libri I 25.4-44, II 30.49-54 (his
return to Constantinople), cf. Greatrex, “The composition”, pp. 7-11 (on the chronology).