τ74

Geoffrey Greatrex

on the other hand, Mischa Meier has interpreted the surprisingly favourable portrayal
of the Emperor Nero in book io as a sign that the author preferred a more eirenic
approach to religious differences; while the emperor displays a markedly tolerant atti-
tude, quarrels among the Christians end badly Hence, he proposes, the sixth-century
Malalas was sceptical about Justinian’s strong-arm measures; he points out, moreover,
that in the last sentence of the last surviving whole chapter of the work, we read ‘And
thus the city (i.e. Constantinople) had peace through the prefect Julian, and everyone
walked about and attended to their affairs freely and without fear’.22
It is hard to see how much precision can be obtained in discussions on the elusive
author of the (no longer extant) sixth-century chronicle. They will no doubt continue,
of course, but it would be helpful if in doing so they carefully distinguished between
the sixth-century author and the twelfth-century compilation. Before concluding this
section, we should note in passing that the debate on the genre of the work is also
affected by this distinction: those who deny the work’s identity as a chronicle note
the vagueness of its chronological indicators. Yet Theophanes frequently supplies very
precise details on dates missing from the Baroccianus", and one section at least of the
Tusculan fragment likewise provides very detailed dating by month for a series of
notices. Consequently if the Baroccianus itself indubitably reads like an epitome, that is
because this is precisely what it is. The original work, however, is highly likely to have
been a chronicle, even by Burgess and Kulikowski’s strict criteria.23
2. Historiography and sources in Malalas and Procopius
The gap between the two writers is narrowing. Where once a marked contrast would
be made between the naive, monkish chronicler and the sophisticated, classicising
historian, now they are both seen as products of a similar, bureaucratic milieu, just like
Justinian’s propaganda”, p. 104, idem and Nilsson, “Towards a new history”, p. 328, Jeffreys, “The Chro-
nicle of John Malalas, Book I”, p. 68 (on 1.8) and Kaldellis, Prokopios. The Secret History, p. xli.
22 Meier/ Thurn, Die Weltchronik, 252-60, Mal. 18.151 (De Insidiis 51, p.176.14-17): καί ούτως δια τού
Ίουλιανού έπαρχου <τής> πόλεως έλαβεν ή πόλις κατάστασήν, καί πάντες έλευθερίως
καί άφόβως προήρχοντο καί έθεραπεύοντο, my translation (since none is offered in Jeffreys et
al., though one is to be found in Thurn/Meier, Die Weltchronik p. 537).
It would be unwise therefore to place too much emphasis on perceived parallels between different sec-
tions of the work for the same reason, as do (e.g.) Scott, “Malalas’view of the classical past”, pp. 152-7,
Odorico, “L’uomo nuovo”, p. 314, Liebeschuetz, “The Use of Pagan Mythology”, p. 88. And by the same
token, it would be rash indeed to overinterpret apparent omissions, e.g. concerning the Roman Repu-
blic, as does Scott, “Malalas’view of the classical past”, p. 157, idem, “Byzantium in the sixth century”, p.
35, cf. Bernardi, “Regards croises”, p. 53.
23 See (e.g.) Scott, “Diplomacy in the sixth century”, pp. 160-1 on the extra chronological details to be
found in Theophanes; examples may be found at Malalas, Chronographia XVIII 32 (Theophanes Chro-
nographia 178.7-9), XVIII 34 (Theophanes, Chronographia 178.15-16). See Jeffreys, “The Transmission of
Malalas’ Chronicle”, p. 251, on the Tusculan fragments and Malalas, Chronographia ed. Thurn, p. 410-13,
cf. Schulz in this volume.