172

Geoffrey Greatrex

two members of the Green faction whose right hands were amputated by the praetor
plebis Comitas; unlike in the case of the disgrace of John, Procopius chooses to relate
the episode, for which he held Theodora responsible, in the Anecdotal It might be
possible to find further such convergences. John of Nikiu, when relating the reign
of Justin I in a section that appears chiefly derived from the sixth-century Malalas,
confirms Procopius’ complaints about Justinian’s involvement with the Blue faction,
providing the following report about the activities of the city prefect Theodotus (Co-
locynthius):
When he began in the city/region of Constantinople he punished many men who
had done evil, and thereafter he arrested Theodosius and killed him. That man
was very rich. Thereafter moreover he arrested Justinian (Yustiyänos) the patrician
(batriq) and wanted to kill him. But when he fell ill he left him alone.
According to Procopius in the Anecdota, when Justin got wind of the development, the
prefect was obliged to flee to Palaestina to escape his anger.14 15
We have discussed only a few episodes in Malalas here, focussing on them because
they dovetail with what Procopius recounts; it would be fruitful also to analyse in
greater detail the Excerpta and John of Nikiu in connection with the conflict between
Zeno and Ulus, for instance, where once again the Baroccianus may be supplemen-
ted with extensive information from both.16 In 2007 we discussed perhaps the most
glaring case of divergence between the Excerpta and the Baroccianus, which comes at
the start of book 17: one excerpt reports the suppression of Amantius’ conspiracy and
the rehabilitation and assassination of Vitalian in terms quite different from the Ba-
roccianus. We argued that this excerpt represents a more reliable witness to the sixth-
century Malalas, whereas that given in the Baroccianus is a sanitised version, in which
both Amantius and Vitalian are portrayed as deserving their fate.17 The other cases
that we have presented here, on the other hand, are more ambiguous, although that
in John of Nikiu is clearly hostile to Justin and Justinian; given, however, that he does
draw on other sources to criticise the Chalcedonian emperors, caution must be exer-
cised. Perhaps the most that can be proposed is that the sixth-century Malalas may
have included entries that reported events that could at least be construed as reflecting
14 Malalas, Chronographia XVIII101, Procopius, Anecdota. 17.41-5, PLRE III, Comitas qni et Dipundiaris-
tes 3, cf. Greatrex, “The composition”, p. 8.
15 John of Nikiu. XC17-19, cf. Malalas, Chronographia XVIII 12 with Jeffreys et al., The Chronicle, p. 235,
Procopius, Anecdota. 9.37-42 and Croke, “Justinian under Justin”, p. 39 and n.i40,who considers John of
Nikiu here to reflect the original Malalas. I owe the translation of 90.18 from the Ethiopic to Phil
Booth (Oxford); the reference to illness should refer either to Theodotus or Justinian, whereas Proc,
mentions rather an illness of Justin, from which he recovered and came to Justinian’s aid. It is possible,
however, as Booth notes, that the translation process has garbled an allusion to Justin’s illness. These
cases are considered also by Puech, “Malalas et la prosopographie”, pp. 222-3, who sees Mal.’s treatment
as neutral.
16 Malalas, Chronographia XV 13, cf. John of Nikiu LXXXVIII 76-82, De insidiis 35 (with the full text of
Verina’s proclamation).
17 So Greatrex, “The early years of Justin I”, concerning De insidiis 43, cf. n.6 above.