282

Umberto Roberto

Appendix:
Excerpta Constantiniana that come from Books I—II
of the Archaiologia and that derive from Malalas

1) Heracles the philosopher
Joannes Antiochenus, fr. 6.2,30-38 = Excerptum de Virtutibus 1 Büttner-Wobst.22
The Excerptum de Virtutibus 1 presents an allegorical interpretation of Heracles as
a philosopher. John of Antioch directly copied this text from John Malalas. On the
other hand, the textual transmission of John of Antioch’s excerpt displays a complexity
that allows us to differentiate it from Malalas’ original text. The same text of Excerptum
de virtutibus 1 is also preserved by Cod. Par. 1630,2j6r and Suda H 475, Ηρακλής. Both
the Cod. Par. 1630 and Suda H 475, Ηρακλής, are linked with the text of the Excerptum
de Virtutibus 1 from John of Antioch, because they present the same error and omis-
sion. In fact, they all show the following text (underlined):
δια γαρ του ροπάλου τής καρτερικής ψυχής καί τής δοράς του
θρασυτάτου καί σώφρονος λογισμού ένίκησε τον υιόν τής φαύλης
επιθυμίας φιλοσοφήσας άχρι θανάτου.
In my opinion, the text was already corrupted in the manuscript of John of Antioch’s
Historia Chronike which was used to prepare the Excerpta Constantiniana. The ex-
cerptor Constantinianus probably copied what he could read. Later the author of the
excerpta in the Codex Parisinus 1630 also read this corrupted manuscript. It is worth
observing that he left a white space after επιθυμίας, probably because he was una-
ble to understand the word that followed. This should prove that he used the same
manuscript which was available to the excerptor Constantinianus, but not the Excerpta
Constantiniana directly. In that case, in fact, he would have had the same text that ap-
pears in the lemma Ηρακλής (H 475) of the Suda Lexicon. The author of the Lexicon
22 According to Sotiroudis 1989, this Excerptum de Virtutibus 1 should be excluded from the Excerpta
Constantiniana of the real’John of Antioch. The style and the lexicon of this text would not allow in his
opinion to ascribe it to John of Antioch. The real author would be the Anonymus of Parisinus 1630.
However, he can not explain why this spurious text was inserted among the true excerpta of John of
Antioch by the excerptores Constantiniani (p. 44 «Auf die Frage, wie es dazu gekommen ist, daß dieses
Fragment unter die echten des Johannes geraten ist, kann nicht Bestimmtes gesagt werden. Eine mög-
liche Erklärung wäre die schon angedeutete Tatsache, daß alle erhaltenen Bände der Enzyklopädie des
Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos Überlieferungs Probleme aufweisen»). Sotiroudis has no clear
evidence to justify his assertion. Nevertheless, Mariev has followed his opinion. The Excerpta de virtu-
tibus i of John of Antioch is therefore excluded from his edition. On the other Hand, Thurn accepted
Sotiroudis’opinion, and he therefore considered the whole Cod. Parisinus 1630 a manuscript to recons-
truct Malalas’ first book, which is not in the Cod. Barrocianus 182 (= O). The correspondance of texts,
errors and omissions between the Codex Parisinus 1630 and the related Excerpta Constantiniana confirm
that the Codex Parisinus has to be ascribed to John of Antioch’s Historia Chronike textual transmission.
However, John of Antioch almost copied in his first books John Malalas. Therefore, the Cod. Paris. 1630
still represent a good instrument to understand the textual transmission of Malalas’book I.