New fragments of Priscus from Panion in John Malalas?

145

The narration has clearly two focuses: during the rise of Cyrus, his distrust in fortune;
during the disgrace, his constant silence. Both of them are summarized by a short and
witty sentence from the protagonist. However possibly reworked, i. e. Christianised
and adapted (by Eustathius or by other intermediaries) for the public of a Historic/.
Ecclesiastica, the flow of facts and words is consistent in both parts, so that the whole
should be accepted or refused en bloc?0 Since (a) the first part is well attested in the
sources and (b) the second part is consistent with the previous, we can detect in this
story a deeper political meaning: the whereabouts of Cyrus, as a whole, show how
incompetent and unjust the emperor Theodosius II was against his officials. This is
an obvious, almost obsessing red thread in Priscus;30 31 so, in a literary and historical
perspective, I suggest to include also the second part of chapter 16 of Malalas’ Chrono-
graphic/ XIV among the Priscan fragmenta dubia.
Regarding the town of Cyrus’ exile, the sources do not agree:32
- the only manuscript preserving Malalas’ Chronicle, Oxoniensis Baroccianus 182
(known as O), says it was Cotyaeum, in Phrygia Salutaris; so also Suda θ 145 Adler
s.v. Θεοδόσιος and κ 2776 Adler s.v. Κύρος; Vita S. Danielis Stylitae 31 (p. 30, 22
Delehaye); Theodorus Scutariotes, Chronica II125,7-8 Tocci;
- the others texts, including Malalas’ Slavonic translation, the Chronicon Pasch ale,
Theophanes, Zonaras, Leo Grammaticus, Georgius Cedrenus, and John of Nikiu,
have Smyrna in Asia.
Having reconsidered this question, some scholars have come to the conclusion that the
original Chronicle of Malalas contained two different versions about Cyrus’ exile, of
which the Baroccianus today gives only one.33 Admittedly, there can be reasons of ec-
30 See, e.g., the crowd’s shouts in the hippodrome, a detail which (regarding the wording) makes the first
part of the chapter no less incredibly Priscan than the rest. Thanks are to be given to Umberto Roberto
for this remark.
31 Theodosius Il’s incompetence and contempt for justice shine through everywhere in Priscus’ remains:
see e.g. the treaty with the Huns in Priscus Panita, exc. 5,4-5 Carolla (p. 10), here in Given’s translation
(p. 38; the bold type is mine): “(4) The Romans professed to make this treaty voluntarily. (5) Really it
was by necessity that they gladly accepted every injunction, difficult as each one was, because of the
inordinate fear constraining their commanders. They were eager to obtain peace and so assented to
the tribute arrangement, however burdensome it was, even though both their private assets and the
imperial treasury had been exhausted, not paid out for needful purposes but on strange spectacles,
unworthy public exhibitions, and unconstrained pleasures and expenditures that no right-thinking
person would ever consent to, not even in good times, let alone those who think little of arms. As a
result, with regard to the payment of tribute, they submitted not only to the Scythians but in fact to
the rest of the barbarians dwelling alongside Roman territory”. One may also compare Priscus’ de-
scription of Attila as a cruel and greedy, yet just and vigorous king for his people, especially for his
preeminent men: he serves as counterpart to the insignificant Theodosius II; see e.g. Priscus Panita, exc.
8, 88 Carolla (pp. 32-33), where Onegesios’ wife offers Attila some food and he eats it “sitting on his
horse”, so “showing favor to the wife of his adviser” (Given’s translation, p. 61); exc. 8,133 Carolla (p. 40):
a crowd waits for his judgement and Attila comes out “walking haughtily, looking around here and
there” (Given’s translation, p. 67); exc. 12,1 Carolla (p. 53), where the emperor is scorned by Attila him-
self, because Theodosius cannot have his servants obey.
32 See PLREII, s.n. Cyrus 7 (Flavius Taurus Seleucus Cyrus), esp. pp. 338-339.
33 Gregoire (1923), pp. 155—157; but see Cameron (2016), pp. 38-39.