220

Roger Scott

ended (Malalas, Chronographia XIV 47, p. 300, 29-31 Thurn). This, unless it is sheer
chance, does help support Patzig’s suggestion of the two being identical. Such an
identification is not a major issue here but it would fit my hypothesis on what sources
were used by Malalas at particular stages.
Likewise Eustathius of Epiphania is the last chronicler to be acknowledged both
in the text (at XVI 9, p. 326, 45-47 Thurn) and also in his preface list. It is, of course,
possible that Malalas’ placement of Eustathius as the last to be mentioned in both
preface and narrative is just coincidental but that seems inherently unlikely. Although
the nine major chronicle sources whom Malalas includes in his preface do not appear
to be listed in any particular identifiable order, it remains likely enough that the final
two, Domninus and Eustathius, are in fact the final two to whom he had access before
he was forced to rely on sources other than chronicles, just as (on the premise that
‘Nestorianus’ is another name for ‘Domninus’) they are the final two whom he men-
tions in his text, in each case drawing attention to the date at which their respective
chronicles ended. This is strengthened by the fact that they are the only ones among
the nine who were alive in the fifth or sixth century. Indeed among the 76 sources
named by Malalas at some point or other in the chronicle, the only others alive as late
as the mid-fifth century were Cyril of Alexandria, Priscus of Panion and the shadowy
Timotheus, and none could be regarded as a major direct source for Malalas. So it
becomes difficult not to accept that Domninus/Nestorianus and Eustathius are delib-
erately named by Malalas as the final two in his initial list of major chronicle sources
since they were the final two to whom he had access before he was forced to rely on
“the things that came to my hearing”. That Malalas also emphasises the date at which
these two sources ended their chronicles (and only does so for these two) is presum-
ably because of the significant effect this had on his own chronicling.
Here it should be stated immediately that there is no reason for rejecting the state-
ment in Malalas that Eustathius died with his history still incomplete in 503, with
the year of death supported by Evagrius in two places.11 As Evagrius seems unaware
of Malalas’ additional statement that Eustathius’ work was incomplete at his death, it
is quite likely that Evagrius’ information is independent of Malalas and so is genuine
supporting evidence for the year of Eustathius’ death. There is not a scrap of evidence
to suggest, as Warren Treadgold would have us believe, that Eustathius died in the
earthquake in Antioch in 526.12 That is, Eustathius cannot have been the source for
Malalas for any events after 503.
We should also note that Books XV to XVIII differ from the earlier books in that
each is devoted to a single emperor. Here there is a need to note a particular oddity of
11 Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica III 37 and V 24, in each case giving the twelfth year of An-
astasius’ reign as the final year of his history, and at Historia Ecclesiastica III 37 also as the year of his
death. Evagrius does supply more information than survives in the extant version of Malalas. On Eva-
grius’ and Malalas’ testimony about Eustathius’ death year see also the contribution in this volume by
Dariusz Brodka whose helpful comments benefitted me both before the conference (by email) and
during it.
12 Treadgold (2007a), p. 118; Treadgold (2007b), p. 729.