ι8ο

Geoffrey Greatrex

The second conclusion returns to the issue that was discussed at the start of this
paper. Chronicles - and other types of work, including epitomes or even church histo-
ries - are increasingly now recognised as ‘living texts’. In other words, as Burgess and
Kulikowski observe, they ‘were not regarded as having fixed end points’.44 As soon as
a version was released, as it were, it circulated and then could be continued, adapted,
abridged and expanded by others. The sixth-century work of Malalas evidently caught
the attention of numerous contemporaries and underwent numerous reworkings: to
name but a few, Evagrius incorporated elements into his church history, while both
John of Nikiu and John of Ephesus, whether directly or indirectly, built their own
works around it, while lacing it with anti-Chalcedonian elements, e.g. in praise of
Anastasius and criticism of his successors.45 Likewise, of course, the Chronicon Pas-
ch ale, Theophanes and the Constantinian excerptors, not to mention subsequent chro-
niclers, made good use of it.46 Then, in the twelfth century, we have the Baroccianus
manuscript. This, we must recognise, is but one witness to the earlier, no doubt much
longer, text; it is surely possible, moreover, that just as some sections have been elimi-
nated or curtailed, others have been expanded or inserted in their entirety.47 It follows
that the sixth-century author must remain something of an enigma.
Now classicising histories are not generally thought to be ‘living texts’: their high
style was as important as their content, and they could not readily be redeployed or in-
serted into other works. Yet recent work on Procopius, notably by Federico Montinaro,
points to at least a short existence as a ‘living text’for one of his works, the Buildings
or De Aedificiis: he has suggested, on the basis of his close analysis of the longer and
shorter recensions of this work, that the shorter version was Procopius’ initial text,
probably completed at the same time as Wars I-VII, i.e. 550/1. As news reached him
of developments elsewhere, and perhaps in reaction to the response of his audience,
he inserted new sections as time went on, bringing out a new version c.554.48 In the
case of the Wars we have argued that he may likewise have inserted changes to the first
seven books after their initial appearance in 550/1; he does at any rate make corrections
44 Burgess/Kulikowski, Mosaics, 28, cf. van Nuffelen, “John of Antioch”, pp. 44-9, Greatrex, “The early
years of Justin I”, p. 107. Meier, ‘Σταυρωθείς öl’ ήμας’, pp. 164-81, offers a detailed investigation into
two different traditions derived from Malalas (concerning the riot against Anastasius of November 512).
See also Jeffreys in this volume who considers the ‘fluidity’ of texts such as Malalas in detail; cf. the
contributions of Burgess and Kulikowski.
45 See Croke, “Malalas, the man”, pp. 17-18, cf. Jeffreys, “The Transmission”, pp. 249-51 (on Evagrius). Ibid.
249 on John of Ephesus, with Witakowski, ‘Malalas in Syriac’, and Debie, ‘Jean Malalas’. Jeffreys, ‘The
Transmission’, p. 254, on John of Nikiu.
46 See Jeffreys, “The Transmission”, pp. 252-4,257-9,262, Flusin, “Les Excerpta constantiniens”.
47 Cf. Pseudo-Zachariah, who excises some elements and adds others, cf. Greatrex et al., The Chronicle of
Pseudo-Zachariah, pp. 39-43, noting how this Amidene compiler abridged the Church history of Za-
chariah and then inserted chronological data from a chronicle source. The seventh-century epitomator
of Theodore Lector appears to have done much the same, cf. Greatrex, “Theodore le lecteur”.
48 Montinaro, “Byzantium and the Slavs”, cf. idem, Etudes sur I'evergetisme. On the dating of the (final)
version of the Buildings, see now Greatrex, “The date of Procopius’ Buildings". Jeffreys, “Malalas, Proco-
pius”, discusses correspondences and differences between the Buildings and Malalas.