Malalas and Procopius

177

outbreak of outright hostilities between Romans and Sasanians in the late 520s. It is
true, as he notes, that only Malalas, and sources derived from him, such as John of
Nikiu and the Chronicon Paschale, provide details on the defection of the Lazic king
Tzath in 521/2; they alone also report the subsequent campaign in the region by three
high-ranking Roman commanders (whose names vary in the sources).31 Colvin argues
that Procopius’ omissions are deliberate; the historian expatiates instead, he alleges, on
the failure of negotiations for the adoption of Khusro by Justin, in order to explain the
renewal of war and to conceal Roman provocations in the Caucasus, which were com-
pounded by negotiations with Hunnic tribes, also reported by the chronicle tradition.
Some scepticism was even expressed recently at the Oxford Procopius conference as to
the historicity of these adoption negotiations, for which Procopius is the only source,
although there is no reason to doubt his word.32
Now there is no doubt that Procopius’ omission of such important events is trou-
bling. It must furthermore be deliberate, since the events described will have been
well-known.33 A more innocent and straightforward explanation is to hand, howe-
ver. As we suggested already in 1998, it is surely no coincidence that Procopius’ and
Malalas’ accounts complement each other so well in this case: the former wrote in
full knowledge of what the latter had already published. Whether the first edition of
Malalas’ chronicle appeared in 528 or 532, it was certainly available by the time Pro-
copius wrote up his Wars in the 540s and brought the first seven books out in 550/1.34
His coverage of the period before Belisarius was promoted to magister militum per
Orientem in 529 is patchy in general, notably in the case of events in the fifth century
and the Anastasian war (502-6). This has led to harsh criticism, notably from James
Howard-Johnston, while others have attempted to interpret Procopius’ introductory
section in more allegorical terms.35 It is too easy for modern scholars, frustrated by the
31 Colvin (forthcoming), Malalas XVII 9, cf. Chronicon Paschale 613-15, John of Nikiu XC 35-41,Theopha-
nes, Chronographia 168-9 with Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, pp. 130-4, idem, “Byzantium and the
East”, pp. 496-7; Mai. 18.4, cf. Chronicon Paschale 618, John of Nikiu XC 52, Theophanes, Chronographia
174 with Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, pp. 145-6. In the case of the campaign of 528,Thurn 355.40
accepts the presence of Belisarius among the commanders serving in the Caucasus, which, if true,
would seriously undermine Proc.’s credibility. But it is more likely that the Slavonic Malalas and the
other sources, in which the reading Belisarius (rather than Gild erich) are substituting an unfamiliar
name with a familiar one. See Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, pp. 145-6, Puech, “Malalas et la proso-
pographie”, p. 217 n.26.
32 Procopius De Bellis Libri 111, cf. (on contacts with the Huns) Malalas, Chronographia XVII10, Chroni-
con Paschale 615-16, John of Nikiu XC 42-6, Theophanes, Chronographia 167 and Malalas, Chronographia
XVIII13, cf. John of Nikiu XC 61-5, Theophanes, Chronographia 175. Marek Jankowiak expressed doubts
as to Proc.’s account of the negotiations in Oxford, but see Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, pp. 135-8,
Börm, Prokop, pp. 312-17, Croke, “Justinian under Justin”, pp. 42-3.
33 Note the allusion to the events in Lazica at Procopius, De Bellis Libri 111.29.
34 Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, p. 142 n.8, for the suggestion. On the date of the first edition, see
Croke, “Malalas, the man”, pp. 18-22, suggesting 528 or 532, cf. Jeffreys, “The Beginning of Byzantine
Chronography”, p. 500, Treadgold, Early Byzantine Historians, 239, Goltz, Barbar - König, pp. 205-8,
Meier, “Einleitung”, p. 24.
35 Howard-Johnston, “The Great Powers”, p. 176, who also expressed support for Colvin’s interpretation at
the Oxford Procopius conference. Kaldellis, Procopius, ch.2.