i78

Geoffrey Greatrex

paucity of sources for so much of ancient history, to vent their frustrations on authors
whose works survive. Procopius had no need to provide full coverage for earlier events,
which were treated already not only by Malalas, but also by Eustathius of Epiphania,
Priscus, Malchus, not to mention the poet Colluthus of Lycopolisd6 Once he reaches
events of his own day, and particularly those in which he himself was involved, his co-
verage is admirably complete; it is he alone, for instance, who recounts the defection of
King Gourgenes of Iberia, thus providing coverage of events that had escaped Malalas’
attention. He is also the first source, as Agathias clearly indicates, to record the guar-
dianship of Theodosius II exercised by Yazdgerd I.36 37 Whereas in the chronicle tradi-
tion it was preferable to repeat earlier stories in order to demonstrate one’s credibility,
reinterpreting them as necessary, Procopius in his introductory chapters consciously
opted for a different course, no doubt for the entertainment of his readers, narrating
only episodes that had hitherto been neglected and that he had unearthed in obscure
places, such as the enigmatic ‘History of the Armenians’.38
3. Conclusion
Drawing these threads together, we propose two conclusions, both of which high-
light links between the two authors. The first is to reiterate what Roger Scott pointed
out nearly a quarter of a century ago: ‘Procopius’ attitudes and interests seem to cut
across any supposed differences in social status or intellectual level between him and

36 Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, p. 61, on several of these; there is also a lost history of Justinian’s
Persian war by John the Lydian, which might have covered earlier events as well. We leave for others to
discuss the improbable theory ofTreadgold that Eustathius is the real’Malalas: see Treadgold, Early
Byzantine Historians, pp. 250-6, “The Byzantine World Histories”, with the criticisms of Croke’s review
(2010), Greatrex, “Theophane et ses sources”.
37 Procopius, De Bellis Libri I 2.1-10 with (most recently) Greatrex, “Deux notes”, cf. Börm, Prokop, pp.
308-11, with references to earlier literature. Theophanes, Chronographia 216.7-14 (A.M. 6027, i.e. 534/5)
reports the arrival of a King Zamanarzus of the Iberians in Constantinople, whose proposed alliance
Justinian accepts. Colvin (forthcoming) accepts Theophanes’ dating of this episode, arguing that Proco-
pius has deliberately suppressed it in order to present the renewal of hostilities by Khusro in 540 as
unprovoked. But the placing of Theophanes’lone entry for this year cannot be accepted so lightly, espe-
cially since it is not corroborated; it is highly probable that he has filled a gap with a notice taken from
elsewhere, as he does in other cases (cf. Scott, “Byzantium in the sixth century”, pp. 62-3, Mango and
Scott, Chronicle of Theophanes, pp. xcii-xcv), even if (as is likely) the information derives from Malalas
(who at 18.9 refers to this ruler). No Iberian ruler of this name is otherwise attested. See further Mango
and Scott, Chronicle of Theophanes, p. 313 n.i. I am grateful to Steve Rapp for discussion of this issue.
38 Scott, “Writing the reign of Justinian”, p. 53, idem, “Byzantium in the sixth century”, p. 30, idem, “By-
zantine chronicles”, pp. 32-3 on credibility. Procopius, De Bellis Libri I 5.9 on the ‘History of the Arme-
nians’. We suggested in Greatrex et al., Chronicle ofPseudo-Zachariah, p. 54, that Pseudo-Zachariah of
Mytilene may have adopted a similar approach; cf. Scott, “Text and context”, p. 253, on the entertain-
ment value of Procopius’ stories. Kaldellis, “The Christianization of the past”, p. 46, appears to have the
same notion in mind when he refers to Mal.’s ‘comedic chronicle’in discussing his euhemerising version
of Greek myth.