No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
The student of the Roman Empire cannot do without the HA. For the years 117–284 it is the sole Latin source of any compass. Hence a double challenge. First, to segregate fact from fiction. Second, to ascertain the purpose and date of the enigmatic product. If that were done the result would contribute to understanding another period of imperial history.
In the process, in the long controversy that began in 1889 (the epochal year of Hermann Dessau) the literary approach suffered neglect and obscuration. It would have been advisable to start from structure, composition and authorship. The larger part of the HA is fabrication. If the inventions were put under scrutiny, the path lay open to uncover the manner and methods of the imposture, to deduce a personality—and to divine a purpose, if any.
1 Cameron, A. D. E., JRS LXI (1971), 254–67.Google Scholar
2 Use of Dio is credited by several scholars, and is now argued by Kolb, F., Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta (1972). Not accessible at the time of writingGoogle Scholar.
3 HA, Pesc. 5, I, cf. Herodian II, 7, 5. The passage in the HA, however, purports to render a verdict of Septimius Severus. Comparison of the context (4, 7) with Clod. Alb. 3, 4 indicates Marius Maximus as the source.
4 Tyr. trig. 8, cf. Victor 33, 9 ff. For the talent here displayed see Emperors and Biography (1971), 251 f.; The Historia Augusta. A Call for Clarity (1971), 41 f.
5 Not all critics have taken the point.
6 Emperors and Biography (1971), 30 ff. The chapter is reprinted from HAC 1966/67 (1968), 131 ff.
7 On this side see now Birley, A. R., Septimius Severus (1971), App. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Macrinus, however, has his quatrain in the catalogue of the twelve emperors recorded by Ausonius. The reviewer does not discuss this item.
9 Barnes, T. D., JRS LVII (1967), 70.Google Scholar
10 Barnes, T. D., HAC 1968/69 (1970), 31Google Scholar; HAC 1970 (1972), forthcoming. For Maximus as the source of Elag. 13–17, Syme, R., Hermes XCVI (1968), 500Google Scholar; Emperors and Biography (1971), 118 ff. Barnes suggests that ‘this was the first occasion on which the HA employed Maximus, and the references to him in the earlier vitae were added after the Elagabalus was finished’ (o.c. 31 f.). In my theory that operation (along with others) fell earlier between the Caracalla and the Macrinus.
11 The Vita Veri can no longer be relegated to that category. See the arguments of Barnes, T. D., JRS LVII (1967), 65 ff.Google Scholar
12 The Codex Palatinus exhibits a peculiar order more than once between the biographies of Verus and Severus Alexander. Its ‘index’ is reproduced on p. IX of Hohl's edition of the HA (1927).
13 Emperors and Biography (1971), 64; 71; 75. The chapter is reprinted from HAC 1968/69 (1970), 285 ff. See also, later in the book, pp. 87; 282.
14 For Maximus as the source of the scandalous items inserted in the Vita Marci, see Emperors and Biography (1971), 128 ff.; ‘Marius Maximus Once Again’, HAC 1970 (1972), forthcoming.
15 Barnes, T. D., HAC 1968/69 (1970), 35 f.Google Scholar In the paper ‘Three Jurists’ published in the same volume I chose to waive the question (ib. 315).
16 Herodian II, 7, 5. Pescennius had in fact earned military credit in Dacia c. 185 (Dio LXXIII, 8, 1).
17 For a list of seven problems see Emperors and Biography (1971), 52.
18 Not all critics recognize or concede this evolution in a single author.
19 Herodian I, 10, 5.
20 Chastagnol, A., HAC 1966/67 (1968), 53 ff.Google Scholar Similarly in Rev. phil. XLI (1967), 85 ff.
21 Thus Jones, A. H. M., JTS, n.s. XX (1969), 320 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 As pointed out at a late date by Hohl, , Wiener Studien LXXI (1958), 152.Google Scholar
23 On which see above, p. 126.
24 Victor 28, 7. The consequences for the dating of the HA were first drawn by Chastagnol, A., HAC 1964/65 (1966), 54 ff.Google Scholar; Rev. phil. XLI (1967), 95 f.
25 Goffart, W., Class. Phil. LXV (1970), 149 f.Google Scholar
26 Emperors and Biography (1971), 97.
27 ib. 38.
28 See now ‘Marius Maximus Once Again’, HAC 1970 (1972), forthcoming. Further, the context of the sole reference in the Vita Elagabali (II, 6) suggests that it may well be fraudulent.
29 Some scholars once maintained that the ‘six biographers’were courtiers.
30 It is perhaps worth stating that the present paper was not written with the design and desire of defending that theory. The enquiry brought out more than I expected.
31 Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 135 f.; Emperors and Biography (1971), 215 ff.
32 The author does not confess that he had been taken in himself. He is serious for once. By contrast, the avowal about Firmus in Quadr. tyr. 2, 3 is a joke.
33 The reviewer recently stated that ‘the Historia Augusta as we have it was not all written at the same time, … and no theory that it was merits serious consideration’ (CQ XVIII2 (1968), 18, cf. 20).
34 At least the fact that ‘Capitolinus’ alone of the six cites ‘Junius Cordus’ is regarded as significant and even mentioned as one of the arguments for plural authorship by Momigliano, , EHR LXXXIV (1969), 568CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Atti Acc. Torino 103 (1968/69), 435. On which, The Historia Augusta, A Call for Clarity (1971), 62 ff.; 96 ff.; 105 f.
35 The remark is superfluous unless it was intended to convey an opinion about the authorship of the HA.