John of Antioch reloaded

259

which contains almost the entire “Maximalbestand”, excludes Salmasiana I from the
corpus, see Illustration 6.
III. j Cod. par. gr. i6jo: John of Antioch and John Malalas
What remains to be considered is the thorny problem of the relationship between John
of Antioch and John Malalas. The key role in understanding this relationship should
be assigned to Cod. par. gr. 1630. On the one hand, the text of this manuscript shows
close similarities with several other texts that form part of the “Maximalbestand” and,
on the other hand, the text of this manuscript was used by Thurn for the constitutio
textus of the lost initial sections of the chronicle of John Malalas. After a detailed ana-
lysis of all the correspondences between Cod. Paris. Suppl. 682, Cod. Vatopedin. 290,
Baroccianus 182, Cod. Paris. 1336, Cod. Paris. 1630, the Salmasiana II, Suda, Excerpta
de virtutibus and Excerpta de insidiis,81 arrived at the conclusion that the text of Cod.
Paris. 1630 is a mixture of several elements. Without going into details, I would like
to restate here one of the conclusions I reached in this publication: the initial sections
of Cod. par. gr. 1630 up to number 48 in the table Mariev 2009 derive from Malalas’
text. After this point, the text of Cod. par. gr. 1630 becomes increasingly contaminated
by insertions from what Patzig considered to be “genuine” John of Antioch (= green
sections in Illustration 2), i.e. the tradition that is detectable in the Salmasiana II, and
also in the post-Anastasios fragments of the Excerpta Constantini.
IV. Material from the Suda in the Corpus
In order to understand fully the general editorial decisions behind the corpus of John
of Antioch in Mariev 2008 (see Illustration 7), one last issue needs to be addressed.
Illustrations 1,2,3,4, 6 and 7 all indicate a number of Suda glosses that are included in
the corpus. There are several important considerations behind the decision to include
material from the Suda into the corpus. One consideration is simple: all glosses from
the Suda that correspond to the texts that have already been accepted in the corpus for
various other reasons should also be either included in the corpus or at least referred to
as lociparalleli. Another consideration is slightly more complicated and is based on the
following observation: on many occasions, the Latin text of the Breviarium of Eutro-
pius closely corresponds to the Excerpta Constantini, which, in their turn, correspond
to entries in the Suda. This relationship can be represented as an “equation”:
Eutropius (in Latin) = John of Antioch (as transmitted in the Excerpta Constantini)
= Suda

8 Mariev, “Über das Verhältnis von Cod. Paris, gr. 1630 zu den Traditionen des Johannes Malalas und des
Johannes von Antiochien”.