Page:1909historyofdec04gibbuoft.djvu/620

 552 APPENDIX was added subsequently to the publication of the first seventeen 26 (see E. W. Brooks, English Historical Review, 1892, vol. vii. p. 291 sqq. ; cp. S. Shestakov, in the fifth part of the Zapiski of the University of Kazan, 1890), the question arose whether the work was thus revised and continued by Johannes himself or by another. The former alternative implies that Johannes migrated to Constantinople ; for part of Bk. 18 appears to have been composed there, not at Antioch, though part of it shows Antiochene influence ; this falls in with Haury's contention (see above). The second alternative, if it be adopted, raises the question whether the editor and continuator may not to a large extent be responsible for the style ; and he could be considered responsible for obliterating (though not completely) indications of the monophysitic leanings of the original author. For this question see C. E. Gleye's article Zur Johannes-frage, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1895, p. 422 sqq. Bibliography. A full list of the numerous works (before 1897) dealing with the numerous Malalas questions will be found in Krumbacher, Gesch. der byz. Litt. (ed. 2), p. 332-4. Only a few need be mentioned here. (1) Editio princeps, Chil- mead-Hody, Oxford, 1691, reproduced in the Bonn Corpus, 1831. The text contains many errors from which the Ms. is free and is otherwise inaccurate ; see J. B. Bury, Collation of the Codex Baroccianus, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1896, Bd. 6, Heft 2. (2) G. Sotiriadis, Zur Kritik von Johannes von Antiochia, 1888. E. Patzig, Unerkannt und unbekannt gebliebene Malalas-fragmente, 1891, and Johannes Antiochenus und Johannes Malalas, 1892. S. Shestakov, op. cit., and a paper on the importance of the Slavonic translation for the Greek text in Viz. Vremennik, I, p. 503 sqq. E. W. Brooks, op. cit. C. E. Gleye, op. cit., and a paper on the Slavonic Malalas in the Archiv fur slavische Philologie, 16, p. 578 sqq. There is also much on Malalas in Gelzer's Sextus Julius Africanus (1880-5). F. C. Cony- beare shows (The Relation of the Paschal Chronicle to Malalas, in Byz. Ztsch., 1902, II, 395 sqq.), with the help of Moses of Chorene, that Malalas and the Paschal chronicler used common sources independently. V. Istrin has discussed Book 2 of the Slavonic translation of Malalas in the Lietopis of the Hist.-Phil. Society of Odessa University, x. (Byz.-Slav. section, Otd. vii.), 1902, 437 sqq. Quite distinct from the John of Antioch who was distinguished as Malalas is another John of Antioch, to whom a large number of excerpts preserved in various Mss. are ascribed. His existence is confirmed by Tzetzes, but the questions of his date and his literary property are surrounded with thei greatest difficulties. It is quite clear that his name covers two distinct chroniclers, of whom the earlier probably lived in the seventh century and the later in the tenth. But it is still a matter of controversy which is which. The matter is of considerable importance indirectly ; it has even some bearings on historical questions (cp. above, vol. 3, Appendix 24) ; but the question is much too complicated to be discussed here, and no solution has been reached yet. 27 It will be enough to indicate the fragments in question. (1) The Constantinian fragments (excerpta de virtutibus and de insidiis), of which the last refer to the reign of Phocas ; (2) fragments in Cod. Paris, 1630 ; (3) the " Salmasian" fragments of Cod. Par., 1763, of which the latest refer to Valentinian iii. ; (4) fragments of the part relating to the Trojan War preserved in Codex Vindobonensis 99 (historicus), under the name of Johannes Sikeliotes. The first three groups were published by Miiller, F. H. G. iv. p. 535 sqq., and v. pp. 27, 28, while (4) is partly published in a gymnasial programme of Graz by A. Heinrich, 1892, p. 2-10. The two chronicles, represented by these fragments, may be dis- tinguished as C and S ; and the question is whether C, from which the Constan- tinian fragments, or S, from which the Salmasian fragments are derived, is the earlier work. S was a chronicle of the same style as that of Malalas or Theophanes, Christian and Byzantine ; C was a work of "hellenistic " character and dealt with the Roman republic, which the true monkish chronographer always neglected. Cp. Patzig. Joannes Antiochenus, &c, especially p. 22, who upholds the view that S is the older, and that C was compiled in the ninth or tenth century. (Cp. the works of Sotiriadis, Patzig, Gleye, Gelzer, cited in connexion with John Malalas, 26 More precisely : the first paragraphs of Bk. 18 belonged to the first edition. 27 Prof. Krumbacher gives an excellent summary of the facts (§ 141) in his History of Byzantine Literature.