138 Pia Carolla
(marked with *) at the end; that is why in my own critical edition the four Priscus’
passages from Malalas are indicated as follows:
- fr. 53* Carolla (p. 84): Antiochus’ disgrace, ca. 421 AD;
- fr. 60* Carolla (p. 89): Cyrus of Panopolis’ disgrace, ca. 441 AD;
- fr. 64* Carolla (pp. 92-93): Attila’s threat to both partes imperii (from Chronicon
Paschale2 pp. 587,7-588,1 Dindorf); exc. 3a Carolla (pp. 8-9): Attila’s death accord-
ing to Priscus (from Chronicon Paschale p. 588,1-5 Dindorf, with reference to Mala-
las, Chronographia XIV 10 Thurn in the apparatus);
- exc. 42 Carolla (pp. 78-79): Basiliscus’ disaster in 468 AD (from Theophanes,
Chronographia AM 5961, pp. 115, 21-116, 6 de Boor).
Since the vicissitudes of Ostrys, the Byzantine general, Goth by birth, who caused a
lot of trouble after Aspar’s death in 471, are dealt with by Malalas, Chronographia XIV
40 and Malalas’ Excerpta de Insidiis p. 161, 4-11 de Boor, Thurn might have included
in his apparatus fontium to XIV 40 (and consequently in his Index) also Priscus’ fr. 49,
1-6 Blockley (p. 356) = exc. 39,1 Carolla (p. 75), where Ostrys is mentioned regarding a
military expedition in 469.2
In my edition, I have focused on Priscus’ language, style and literary imitation as
leading criteria for assessing his peculiarities (the so-called usus scribendi)’, in conse-
quence of this, I decided to use italics for the texts which cannot be Priscan in regards to
the form, even though their contents may very well come from Priscus.4 In my edition,
every Priscus’ passage from Malalas is italicized, because language and style are by no
means the usual Priscan ones: they do not correspond to the usus scribendi of the author.
In other terms, an italicized text can bear witness to Priscus’historical work, although no
more Priscan in its form, as is the case with the quotations in Malalas’ Chronicle;5 vice
versa, the Roman (z. e. non italicized) texts can contain genuine Priscan wording, accord-
ing to the author’s usus scribendi. However, on this point absolute certainty is impossible
to achieve, because Priscus’ usus is close (but not identical) to the average Late Antique
Kunstprosa’, thus, while italicized passages cannot be genuine, roman (not italicized) texts
dorf, Blockley referred to “Malalas Chron. pp. 358 f.” [Dindorf’s edition] only at the end); fr. 24,2 Block-
ley (p. 318): Attila preparing to make war against Marcianus and his death (the fragment is quoted from
Theophanes, Chronographia AM 5946, p. 108, 5-12 de Boor; after the text, Blockley mentions “Malalas
Chron. 14 p. 359” and “Chron. Pasch, p. 558 = Fr. 21,1”- In my edition, I have excluded Theophanes’ account
from Priscus’ dubious fragments); fr. 53, 1 Blockley (pp. 360-362): Leo’s expedition against Gaiseric
(from Theophanes, Chronographia AM 5961, pp. 115, 21-116, 6 de Boor).
2 For the link between Malalas’ Chronicle and the Chronicon Paschale see Gastgeber (2016), esp. pp. 187-
189; Juhasz (2016), esp. pp. 228-231. These scholars are jointly pursuing the project of a new critical edi-
tion of the Chronicon Paschale, which is badly needed after the outdated one by Dindorf (1832). For the
Chronicon Paschale as witness to the fuller Malalas, see Carrara (2016).
3 Regarding the date, see Carolla (2010), pp. 393-394·
4 Carolla (2008), pp. XXXII-XXXIII.
5 See, e.g., Priscus Panita, fr. 66b* Carolla = fr. 22, 2 Blockley (from Procopius, Bellum Vandalicum I 4,
29-35). Brodka (2009) may be right in vindicating this passage to genuine Priscus, although Procopius,
in my opinion, has reworked it, as he usually does with his sources. Here too italics mean that the
wording is no longer the original one.