Malalas’ Sources for the Contemporary Books

223

Dara and the misplaced events of chapter 6, there is in fact a gap of some nine years
from 503 to 512.
There are two points to be made. First, that having reached the end of Eus-
tathius’ chronicle (the last chronicle to be cited), it is likely enough that it is right here
that Malalas has had to begin relying on “the things that came to my hearing”, τά
έΛθοντα εις εμάς άκοάς, as he said in the preface. That is surely reinforced both by
his misplacing of the various events in chapter 6 which belong to the years 506-507
(and so should have been placed after chapter 10) and by the following five-year gap
in the chronology suggesting not much actually came to his hearing and that he was
uncertain about the chronology of what he could find. This lack of material is certainly
not a result of a defective text nor is it a case of nothing worthy of being chronicled
having happened during those five years (or indeed the nine years if we ignore the
misplaced chapter 6). Theophanes, though using Malalas as much he could, has plenty
to say about each of those five years but had to turn to Procopius as his main source to
do so, as evidently there was little to be found in Malalas. So we can safely deduce that
the text is fine and that the need to turn to “the things that came to my hearing”, τά
έΛθοντα εις εμάς άκοάς, began at Book XVI chapter 10 after the year 503. But the
five-year gap also suggests that Malalas may have had a bit of difficulty getting started
and (if he was ignorant of anything to chronicle between 507 and 512, when Procopius
found so much, and misplaced the events of 506/507 in his narrative despite dating
them correctly) that he probably only began his own writing quite a few years later
than 512, when those missing years were well beyond immediate memory and nothing
actually came to his hearing. We shall suggest when this was a little later.
Our second point is that as Malalas was using Eustathius for chapter 9, it is
likely enough that Eustathius was also the source for those first eight chapters of the
book, other than the mis-placed chapter 6, where Malalas himself dates the events to
506/507. This was Malalas’ last chance to exploit “the most learned” Eustathius, so it is
reasonable to suppose that he actually did so. If that is so, then given the stress on hip-
podrome material in chapters 2 to 7, it is surely also likely enough that Eustathius was
also Malalas’ main source for Book XV on Zeno, where again we have noted its ex-
ploitation of hippodrome material, indeed its reliance on it. Assuming that Eustathius
was also the most likely source for the Theodosius’ apple story, then we have Malalas
following Eustathius from Book XIV (that is, the early part of Book XIV on the life
of Eudocia) until mid Book XVI (apart from the second part of Book XIV which is
almost certainly based on Nestorianus, as has been mentioned).
That is supported by the dramatic change in the character of Malalas’ chronicle
that now takes place. We have mentioned the exotic stories that now enter Book XVI,
which is evidence enough of a change in character, but the other big change, to which
I particularly want to draw attention, is the lack of hippodrome material from now
on, despite the common belief that such material is one of Malalas’ distinguishing
characteristics. There is not a single hippodrome reference in the rest of Book XVI,
after being so prominent in the early part. In Book XVII on Justin there is just one
reference to hippodrome faction riots (in chapter 12) which was clearly a major one