200

Sergei Mariev

There are other cases in which Eutropius in Latin corresponds to entries in the Suda
even though we do not have any correspondences with the extant text of John of An-
tioch. This situation can be represented as the following “equation”:
Eutropius (in Latin) = “X” = Suda
Given the numerous cases in which John of Antioch is the Suda’s source for the Greek
version of Eutropius, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the “X”in the second “equation”
is also John of Antioch. As a consequence, the glosses from the Suda that satisfy the
parameters of this equation are included in the corpus. Somewhat similar considera-
tions lead to the inclusion of other glosses, e.g. those that are based on Herodian.
V. Conclusions
In the present contribution I have deliberately refrained from providing a compre-
hensive apparatus of references and tried to include as few particular textual details as
possible in order to provide an easy-to-read and yet comprehensive overview of the
most important editorial decisions that lie behind the construction of the corpus of
John of Antioch. These references and details can be easily found in the introduction
to my critical edition and other articles on the subject.
This article is also a response to Van Nuffelen’s “John of Antioch inflated and defla-
ted Or: How (not) to Collect Fragments of Early Byzantine Historians”. Here I have,
first, explained, why in the case of John of Antioch it makes no sense to distinguish
between “nominally ascribed fragments” and “those that for various reasons have been
ascribed to John” and, second, shown that the “Minimalbestand” which Van Nuffeln
considered to be a desideratum of research on John of Antioch is in fact identical with
the Bestand of the fragments offered in my critical edition.
Going beyond this polemical dimension, my hope is to have provided a number of
tools that will facilitate an orientation of the secondary literature for all those who
in the future will undertake research into the “Johannine Question”. One hopes that
future articles on John of Antioch will exhibit better understanding of the complex
observations and hypotheses that had been advanced by nineteenth- and earlier twen-
tieth-century philologists and thereby avoid the euetheia that is unfortunately all too
conspicuous in a number of recent contributions on this subject.