Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:20:06.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The computer and the Historia Augusta: A Note on Marriott

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

David Sansone
David Sansone
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1889 Hermann Dessau published a revolutionary article in which he suggested that the six authors to whom the various biographies of the Historia Augusta are ascribed were merely masks behind which lurked a single author who lived at the very end of the fourth century. Ninety years later, an attempt was made to prove Dessau's hypothesis of single authorship on objective grounds. Ian Marriott's article, ‘The Authorship of the Historia Augusta: Two Computer Studies’, presents the results of two statistical tests conducted on the text of the HA which appear to show conclusively that the work was composed by one author rather than six. Marriott's findings have been hailed by a number of scholars as settling once and for all the question of the authorship of the HA. While I agree with Marriott's conclusion, and I share the consensus view that this curious work is indeed the product of a single mind, I should like to raise some questions concerning the validity of the procedure adopted by Marriott and to suggest that the tests conducted by him are in fact not conclusive.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 80 , November 1990 , pp. 174 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © David Sansone 1990. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘über Zeit und Persönlichkeit der Scriptores Historiae Augustae’, Hermes 24 (1889), 337–92Google Scholar.

2 JRS 69 (1979), 65–77.

3 Syme, R., ‘Controversy Abating and Credulity Curbed?’, London Review of Books 2.17 (4–17 Sept. 1980), 15Google Scholar (= Historia Augusta Papers (1983), 212); D. den Hengst, The Prefaces in the Historia Augusta (1981), 6; Soverini, P., Problemi di critica testuale nella Historia Augusta (1981), 13 n. 6Google Scholar; idem (Ed.), Scrittori della Storia Augusta 1 (1983), 55; idem, ‘Historia Augustae Scriptores’ in F. della Corte (Ed.), Dizionario degli scrittorigreci e latini II (1987)Google Scholar,; K.-P. Johne, ‘Zum Geschichtsbild in der Historia Augusta’, Klio (1984), 633 n. 6; T. Honoré, ‘Scriptor Historiae Augustae’, JRS 77 (1987), 156 n. 8Google Scholar.

4 See most recently A. Q. Morton, ‘Authorship: The Nature of the Habit’, TLS (17–23 Feb. 1989), 164, 174;

5 See, however, M. W. A. Smith, ‘Statistics and Authorship’, TLS (17–23 Mar. 1989), 278, with further bibliography.

6 In what follows, I shall refer to the following four editions: Jordan, H. and Eyssenhardt, F., 1 (1864)Google Scholar; Peter, H.(1865)Google Scholar; D. Magie, 1 (1921); E. Hohl, 1 (1927).

7 Wake, W. C., ‘Sentence-Length Distributions of Greek Authors’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 120 (1957), 331–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 In any case, even with regard to the use of the colon in Latin texts there is considerable variation among editors. Of our four editors of the HA, for example, Peter, Magie and Hohl regularly use the colon before direct quotations, whereas Jordan prefers to omit punctuation entirely (!) in such cases. Inasmuch as there are nearly 500 direct quotations in the text of HA, it is clear that one's statistics for sentence-length and for the grammatical category of word in initial and final position are going to be biased depending upon the editor whose text one has chosen to use.

9 Here are some additional instances of significant discrepancy in the punctuation of the four editions of the HA that we have been using: ‘Spart.’, Hadr. 15.3–9; Ael.5.8; ‘Capitol.’, Ant. Pius 6.7, 10.5; M. Ant 3.2–4, 25.4–8, 28.4–8; ‘Vulc.Gall.’, Avid.Cass. 4.7–9 13.5; ‘Lampr.’, Com. 18.3, 19.7–9; ‘Capitol.’, Pertin. 3.1–3, 5.2–6; ‘Spart.’, Sept. Sev. 8.12–;15, 14.7–;13; ‘Capitol.’, Clod. Alb. 6.1–2, 13.1–5

10 In fact, as far as I am aware, no single scholar in the past two hundred years has edited more than one of the texts used in Marriott's studies, with the (qualified exception of F. Eyssenhardt, who edited Ammianus (1871) and who collaborated with H. Jordan (op. cit., n. 6) in editing the HA.

11 Janson, T., ‘The Problems of Measuring Sentence-Length in Classical Texts’, Studia Linguistica 18(1964), 26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Compare also the cautious remarks in Ireland, S., ‘Sentence Structure in Aeschylus and the Position of the Prometheus in the Corpus Aeschyleum’, Philologus 121 (1977), 191–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.