DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51241#0254
John of Antioch reloaded:
a tutorial
Sergei Mariev
Abstract This article provides a comprehensive overview over the most important critical issues
involved in collecting and editing fragments of John of Antioch. In particular, it outlines the
difficulties of creating an inventory (or “Maximalbestand”) of all the texts that could contain
material that had once formed part of the work of this author. Then it shows the necessity to
draw a dividing line through this “Maximalbestand” and examines the implications of various
solutions proposed to this effect by the scholars of the nineteenth century. In a next step it
considers the relationship between John of Antioch and John Malalas. Finally, it explains the
reasons behind the decision to include material from the Suda into the corpus. The overall
purpose of this contribution is to facilitate understanding of the complex observations and
hypotheses about the corpus of this author that had been advanced by nineteenth- and earlier
twentieth-century philologists.
Introduction
Scholarly debate about the composition of the corpus of John of Antioch has been
going on for more than one and a half centuries. During its course, scholars have writ-
ten numerous articles dedicated to single issues, composed several longer monographs
(most importantly Sotiriadis 1888 and Sotiroudis 1989)1 and come up with three criti-
cal editions (Müller 1851, Roberto 2005, Mariev 2008).2 It is not an exaggeration to say
that every single thesis and editorial decision reflected in these publications is acutely
debated. What is more, most of these publications are themselves polemic in nature
and aim to defend or put into editorial practice specific and frequently conflicting
theses and views about the lost historical compilation traditionally labelled as “John
of Antioch”. What is lacking, however, is a comprehensive “map” which can assist in
identifying the most important critical issues that are at stake in this debate in a re-
latively succinct, easily comprehensible and accurate manner. The lack of such a com-
1 Sotiriadis, Zur Kritik des Johannes von Antiochia; Sotiroudis, Untersuchungen zum Geschichtswerk
des Johannes von Antiocheia.
2 Cf. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum', Roberto, loannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia chro-
nica', Mariev, loannis Antiochenifragmenta quae supersunt omnia.
a tutorial
Sergei Mariev
Abstract This article provides a comprehensive overview over the most important critical issues
involved in collecting and editing fragments of John of Antioch. In particular, it outlines the
difficulties of creating an inventory (or “Maximalbestand”) of all the texts that could contain
material that had once formed part of the work of this author. Then it shows the necessity to
draw a dividing line through this “Maximalbestand” and examines the implications of various
solutions proposed to this effect by the scholars of the nineteenth century. In a next step it
considers the relationship between John of Antioch and John Malalas. Finally, it explains the
reasons behind the decision to include material from the Suda into the corpus. The overall
purpose of this contribution is to facilitate understanding of the complex observations and
hypotheses about the corpus of this author that had been advanced by nineteenth- and earlier
twentieth-century philologists.
Introduction
Scholarly debate about the composition of the corpus of John of Antioch has been
going on for more than one and a half centuries. During its course, scholars have writ-
ten numerous articles dedicated to single issues, composed several longer monographs
(most importantly Sotiriadis 1888 and Sotiroudis 1989)1 and come up with three criti-
cal editions (Müller 1851, Roberto 2005, Mariev 2008).2 It is not an exaggeration to say
that every single thesis and editorial decision reflected in these publications is acutely
debated. What is more, most of these publications are themselves polemic in nature
and aim to defend or put into editorial practice specific and frequently conflicting
theses and views about the lost historical compilation traditionally labelled as “John
of Antioch”. What is lacking, however, is a comprehensive “map” which can assist in
identifying the most important critical issues that are at stake in this debate in a re-
latively succinct, easily comprehensible and accurate manner. The lack of such a com-
1 Sotiriadis, Zur Kritik des Johannes von Antiochia; Sotiroudis, Untersuchungen zum Geschichtswerk
des Johannes von Antiocheia.
2 Cf. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum', Roberto, loannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia chro-
nica', Mariev, loannis Antiochenifragmenta quae supersunt omnia.