Mariev Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta quae supersunt omnia

1. Auflage 2009
ISBN: 978-3-11-021031-6
Verlag: De Gruyter
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, Greek, Modern (1453-), Greek, Ancient (to 1453), Deutsch, Band 47, 666 Seiten, Gewicht: 10 g

Reihe: Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae ? Series Berolinensis

Die intensive Auseinandersetzung mit Johannes von Antiochien im 19. und 20. Jh. hat eine solide Basis dafür geschaffen, den Text philologisch und historisch aufzuarbeiten. Zu den wichtigsten Ergebnissen dieser Auseinandersetzung zählt vor allem die Scheidung der Gesamtmasse der Exzerpte aus der Edition von Müller (1851) in zwei Gruppen. Ursprünglich auf der Basis des Stilkriteriums vorgenommen, später durch die Quellen-und Verwandschaftsverhältnisse bestätigt, die zwischen Johannes von Antiochien und einer großen Zahl byzantinischer Geschichtschreiber bestehen, wurde diese Ansicht von allen führenden Philologen der letzten zwei Jahrhunderte als richtig akzeptiert, obwohl die Frage, welche der beiden Gruppen den Namen von Johannes von Antiochien zu Recht trägt, für manche kontroverse Diskussion sorgte. Diese Frage wird in der vorliegenden Edition zu Gunsten des "Konstantinischen" Johannes entschieden, die Entstehungszeit des Werkes wird somit ins 6. Jh. gesetzt. Die editorischen Richtlinien, die die Ausgaben der traditionsreichen Reihe Series Berolinenis des CFHB prägen, und die sich bewährt haben, wurden selbstverständlich umgesetzt. Darüber hinaus bietet die Edition eine Übersetzung der Fragmente ins Englische.

Zielgruppe

Academics, Institutes, Libraries / Wissenschaftler, Institute, Bibliotheken

Autoren/Hrsg.

Mariev, Sergei

Fachgebiete

• Geisteswissenschaften Geschichtswissenschaft Alte Geschichte & Archäologie Geschichte der klassischen Antike

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;TABLE OF CONTENTS;9
2;INTRODUCTION;13
3;ABBREVIATIONS;53
4;SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY;57
5;.O..... .......OS. ...... .. SO...... ...S..S....;67
6;INDICES;533

Leseproben

The Johannine Question (p. 4-5)

For almost thirty years following its publication, the corpus of Müller (1851), which consisted mainly of the Constantinian and Salmasian fragments1 with additions from other sources like the Suda, remained unquestioned. The debate that later came to be known as the “Johannine Question” (Johanneische Frage) was initiated in two publications by Boissevain (1887) and Sotiriadis (1888), which appeared almost simultaneously but independently of one another.

Both authors pointed out a number of discrepancies between the Constantinian fragments and some of the Salmasian fragments (the dividing line between the two parts of the collection, the marginal note t??a ??a??????a had not yet been discovered). Boissevain made the following observations:2 (1) the same historical events are described differently in the two collections, e.g. the death of Bagoas in fr. 38M (= EI 10) and fr. 39M (Salm.) or the fate of the astrologer Larginus in fr. 107M(= EI 44) and fr. 108M(Salm.),3 (2) the account of Roman history in fr. 119 – 146M is based on Herodian, whereas the two Salmasian fragments that fall into the same period follow Cassius Dio,4 (3) the majority of Constantinian fragments depend on Eutropius for their narrative framework but no traces of this author are discernible in the Salmasian material,5 (4) the Salmasian fragments contain no information on the Roman Republic, a subject conspicuously prominent in the Constantinian fragments.6

Sotiriadis (1) investigated differences in the language and style of the Salmasian and Constantinian excerpts,7 (2) pointed out that Leo Grammaticus, Zonaras and some of the Salmasian excerpts derive from a common source which is different from the source followed by the Constantinian fragments for the same events,1 and (3) underlined the similarities between the Salmasian collection and the Chronicle of John Malalas.2 Both Boissevain and Sotiriadis concluded that these discrepancies make it very unlikely that the two collections ultimately derive from the same work and, to different degrees, they cast doubt on the authenticity of the Salmasian fragments: Sotiriadis considered spurious all the Salmasian material in Müller’s corpus with the exception of fr. 1 M,3 while Boissevain expressed serious doubts about the genuineness of the Salmasian material from fr. 29M onwards and was convinced that the Salmasian fragments from fr.

73M onwards must be spurious.4 Alternatively, Patzig accepted the presence of the two different traditions in the corpus as pointed out by Sotiriadis and Boissevain,5 but he disagreed with the opinion that the Salmasian John of Antioch was spurious: for Patzig, the Salmasian excerpts, together with the fragments from Cod. Par. 1630 and the final Constantinian excerpts, represented the original chronicle,6 while he maintained that the Constantinian fragments are a later compilation.7 The debate over the correct identification of the genuine and spurious John of Antioch reached its zenith with the discovery of a marginal note in the manuscripts of the Salmasian collection. De Boor (1899) reported that in several manuscripts of the Salmasian excerpts the marginal note t??a ??a??????a had been inserted at the end of the material corresponding to fr. 1 M. He concluded that, had this note been discovered previously, the “Salmasian John of Antioch would never have been born”.1 His interpretation convinced Krumbacher (1899), who echoed de Boor with the words “the ominous Salmasian John can now be buried in peace”, concluding that only the Constantinian excerpts remain as evidence for the historical work of John of Antioch.

Über Autor(innen)

Sergei Mariev, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.

Sergei Mariev, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.