258

Sergei Mariev

between these sections of the excerpts, but the surprising fact that both Constantinian
collections, i. e. both De virtutibus and De insidiis have a caesura after the death of
Anastasios. In other words, both collections exhibit a gap of about a century in their
description of events and then take up the narrative again with events from the reigns
of Maurice and Phocas (See Illustration 4a). Given that both collections have this
gap, it is more than probable that the Vorlage, which was available to the scholars
employed by Constantine, also had this gap or, alternatively, that this Vorlage ended
with the death of Anastasios. In any case, the existence of this gap should be taken as
an established fact. No doubt, this fact can be then interpreted in different ways. What
is more important, however, is that the interpretation of this fact should always take
into consideration the arguments of Patzig, who not only drew a dividing line after
the death of Anastasios, but also provided arguments for considering these final frag-
ments of the Excerpta Constantini to be a continuation of the Salmasiana II, which in
turn are linked with the initial sections of Cod. par. gr. 1630 insofar as all this material
represents the remains of one and the same work.
Ill 2
Problem 2: Salmasiana I and Salmasiana II
The dispute over the status of the Salmasiana I and Salmasiana II is crucial for de-
fining the “Minimalbestand” of John of Antioch. This dispute revolves around the
interpretation of the marginal notes found on folio ioov in Cod. vat. gr. 96. The pro-
blem can be outlined as shown in Illustration 5. The most plausible interpretation of
these findings is the following. On the authority of the marginal note on folio 99r
(Αρχαιολογία Ίωάννου Αντιοχέως, έχουσα καί διασάφησιν των μυθευομέν
ων) the subsequent material, which is known to us as the Salmasiana I, should be,
at least nominally (here and only here this term advocated by Van Nuffelen proves
helpful), attributed to John of Antioch. Starting from the marginal note έτέρα αρχαι-
ολογία we have a different source and therefore the material following this second
note should, nominally, be excluded from the corpus. We should not forget, however,
that there are very significant correspondences between the text of the Salmasiana II
and the excerpts preserved in Cod. par. gr. 1630 and, if we follow Patzig, that there
are good reasons to consider the final sections of the Constantinian excerpts to be a
continuation of the Salmasiana II. We cannot, therefore, address the status of the Sal-
masiana I and Salmasiana II in isolation from the other two questions. What is more,
the relationship between John of Antioch and Julius Africanus depends on the status
of the Salmasiana II. To show the complexity and the wide-reaching implications of
this question it is also worth pointing out that Patzig defended the thesis that the
marginal note Αρχαιολογία Ίωάννου Αντιοχέως, έχουσα καί διασάφησιν των
μυθευομένων on f. 99r refers not to the material that immediately follows, but rather
to the material that begins several folios later on folio 100 v, i.e. that this note refers to
the Salmasiana II. Last but not least, we should keep in mind that Roberto’s edition,