Augustan History

Augustan History
Author Disputed
Original title Historia Augusta
Language Latin
Publication date
 Disputed, possibly 4th century
LC Class DE

The Augustan History (Latin: Historia Augusta) is a late Roman collection of biographies, in Latin, of the Roman Emperors, their junior colleagues and usurpers of the period 117 to 284. It presents itself as a compilation of works by six different authors (collectively known as the Scriptores Historiae Augustae), written in the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine I, but the true authorship of the work, its actual date, and its purpose, have long been matters for controversy.

Major problems include the nature of the sources it used, and how much of the content is pure fiction. Despite these conundrums, it is the only continuous account for much of its period and is thus continually being re-evaluated, since modern historians are unwilling to abandon it as a unique source of possible information, despite its obvious untrustworthiness on many levels.[1]

Title and scope

The name originated with Isaac Casaubon, who produced a critical edition in 1603, working from a complex manuscript tradition with a number of variant versions.[2] How widely the work was circulated in late antiquity is unknown, but lengthy citations from it are found in authors of the 6th and 9th centuries, and the chief manuscripts also date from the 9th or 10th centuries.[3] (The editio princeps was published at Milan in 1475.) The six Scriptores – "Aelius Spartianus", "Iulius Capitolinus", "Vulcacius Gallicanus", "Aelius Lampridius", "Trebellius Pollio", and "Flavius Vopiscus (of Syracuse)" – dedicate their biographies to Diocletian, Constantine and various private persons, and so ostensibly were all writing c. the late 3rd and early 4th century.

The biographies cover the emperors from Hadrian to Carinus and Numerian. A section covering the reigns of Philip the Arab, Decius, Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilian and all but the end of the reign of Valerian is missing in all the manuscripts, and it has been argued that biographies of Nerva and Trajan have also been lost at the beginning of the work, which may suggest the compilation might have been a direct continuation of Suetonius. (It has also been theorized that the mid-3rd-century lacuna might actually be a deliberate literary device of the author or authors, saving the labour of covering Emperors for whom little source material may have been available.)

Despite devoting whole books to ephemeral or in some cases non-existent usurpers, there are no independent biographies of the Emperors Quintillus and Florian, whose reigns are merely briefly noted towards the end of the biographies of their respective predecessors, Claudius Gothicus and Tacitus. For nearly 300 years after Casaubon's edition, though much of the Augustan History was treated with some scepticism, it was used by historians as an authentic source – in the first volume of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, for example. "In modern times most scholars read the work as a piece of deliberate mystification written much later than its purported date, however the fundamentalist view still has distinguished support. (...) The Historia Augusta is also, unfortunately, the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution."[4]

The dating problem

In 1889, Hermann Dessau, who had become increasingly concerned by the large number of anachronistic terms, Vulgar Latin vocabulary, and especially the host of obviously false proper names in the work, proposed that the six authors were all fictitious personae, and that the work was in fact composed by a single author in the late 4th century, probably in the reign of Theodosius I.[5] Among his supporting evidence was that the life of Septimius Severus appeared to have made use of a passage from the mid-4th-century historian Aurelius Victor, and that the life of Marcus Aurelius likewise uses material from Eutropius. In the decades following Dessau, many scholars argued to preserve at least some of the six Scriptores as distinct persons and in favor of the first-hand authenticity for the content. As early as 1890, Mommsen postulated a Theodosian 'editor' of the Scriptores' work, an idea that has resurfaced many times since.[6] Hermann Peter (editor of the Augustan History and of the Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae) proposed 330.[7]

Others, such as Norman H. Baynes, abandoned the early 4th century date but only advanced it as far as the reign of Julian the Apostate (useful for arguing the work was intended as pagan propaganda). In the 1960s and 1970s however Dessau's original arguments received powerful restatement and expansion from Sir Ronald Syme, who devoted three books to the subject and was prepared to date the writing of the work closely in the region of 395 AD. Other recent studies also show much consistency of style, and most scholars now accept the theory of a single late author of unknown identity.

"Computer-aided stylistic analysis of the work has, however, returned ambiguous results; some elements of style are quite uniform throughout the work, while others vary in a way that suggests multiple authorship. To what extent this is due to the fact that portions of the work are obviously compiled from multiple sources is unclear. Several computer analyses of the text have been done to determine whether there were multiple authors. Many of them conclude that there was but a single author, but disagree on methodology. However, several studies done by the same team concluded there were several authors, though they were not sure how many." [8]

Primary and secondary Vitae

A unique feature of the Augustan History is that it purports to supply the biographies not only of reigning Emperors but also of their designated heirs or junior colleagues, and of usurpers who unsuccessfully claimed the supreme power.[9] Thus among the biographies of 2nd-century and early 3rd-century figures are included Hadrian's heir Aelius Caesar, and the usurpers Avidius Cassius, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus, Caracalla's brother Geta and Macrinus's son Diadumenianus. None of these pieces contain much in the way of solid information: all are marked by rhetorical padding and obvious fiction. (The biography of Marcus Aurelius's colleague Lucius Verus, which Mommsen thought 'secondary', is however rich in apparently reliable information and has been vindicated by Syme as belonging to the 'primary' series).[10]

The 'secondary' lives allowed the author to exercise free invention untrammelled by mere facts, and as the work proceeds these flights of fancy become ever more elaborate, climaxing in such virtuoso feats as the account of the 'Thirty Tyrants' said to have risen as usurpers under Gallienus. Moreover, after the biography of Caracalla the 'primary' biographies, of the emperors themselves, begin to assume the rhetorical and fictive qualities previously confined to the 'secondary' ones.

The biography of Macrinus is notoriously unreliable,[11] and after a partial reversion to reliability in the Elagabalus, the life of Alexander Severus, one of the longest biographies in the entire work, develops into a kind of exemplary and rhetorical fable on the theme of the wise philosopher king.[12] Clearly the author's previous sources had given out, but also his inventive talents were developing. He still makes use of some recognized sources – Herodian up to 238, and probably Dexippus in the later books, for the entire imperial period the Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte – but the biographies are increasingly tracts of invention in which occasional nuggets of fact are embedded.

Genre and purpose

Interpretations of the purpose of the History also vary considerably, some considering it a work of fiction or satire intended to entertain (perhaps in the vein of 1066 and All That), others viewing it as a pagan attack on Christianity, the writer having concealed his identity for personal safety. Syme argued that it was a mistake to regard it as a historical work at all and that no clear propaganda purpose could be determined. In his view the History is primarily a literary product – an exercise in historical fiction (or 'fictional history') produced by a 'rogue scholiast' catering to (and making fun of) the antiquarian tendencies of the Theodosian age, in which Suetonius and Marius Maximus were fashionable reading and Ammianus Marcellinus was producing sober history in the manner of Tacitus. (The History implausibly makes the Emperor Tacitus (275-276) a descendant and connoisseur of the historian.) In fact in a passage on the Quadriga tyrannorum — the 'four-horse chariot of usurpers' said to have aspired to the purple in the reign of Probus — the History itself accuses Marius Maximus of being a producer of 'mythical history': homo omnium verbosissimus, qui et mythistoricis se voluminibis implicavit ('the most long-winded of men, who furthermore wrapped himself up in volumes of historical fiction'). The term mythistoricis occurs nowhere else in Latin.[13]

Of considerable significance in this regard is the opening section of the life of Aurelian, in which 'Flavius Vopiscus' records a supposed conversation he had with the City Prefect of Rome during the festival of Hilaria in which the Prefect urges him to write as he chooses and invent what he does not know.[14]

False documents and authorities

A peculiarity of the work is its inclusion of a large number of purportedly authentic documents such as extracts from Senate proceedings and letters written by imperial personages. Records like these are quite distinct from the rhetorical speeches often inserted by ancient historians – it was accepted practice for the writer to invent these himself – and on the few occasions when historians (such as Sallust in his work on Catiline or Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars) include such documents, they have generally been regarded as genuine; but almost all those found in the Historia Augusta have been rejected as fabrications, partly on stylistic grounds, partly because they refer to military titles or points of administrative organisation which are otherwise unrecorded until long after the purported date, or for other suspicious content. The History moreover cites dozens of otherwise unrecorded historians, biographers, letter-writers, knowledgeable friends of the writers, and so on, most of whom must be regarded as figments of the author's fertile and fraudulent imagination.

Examples of falsehood

The untrustworthiness of the HA stems from the multifarious kinds of fraudulent (as opposed to simply inaccurate) information that run through the work, becoming ever more dominant as it proceeds. The various biographies are ascribed to different invented 'authors', and continue with the dedicatory epistles to Diocletian and Constantine, the quotation of fabricated documents, the citation of non-existent authorities, the invention of persons (extending even to the subjects of some of the minor biographies), presentation of contradictory information to confuse an issue while making a show of objectivity, deliberately false statements, and the inclusion of material which can be shown to relate to events or personages of the late 4th century rather than the period supposedly being written about. For example:

Marius Maximus or 'Ignotus'?

Certain scholars have always defended the value of specific parts of the work. Anthony Birley has argued, for instance, that the lives up to Septimius Severus are based on the now-lost biographies of Marius Maximus, which were written as a sequel to Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars. As a result, his translation of the History for Penguin Books covers only the first half, and was published as Lives of the Later Caesars, Birley himself supplying biographies of Nerva and Trajan (these are not part of the original texts, which begin with Hadrian).

His view (part of a tradition that goes back to J. J. Müller, who advanced Marius's claims as early as 1870) was vigorously contested by Ronald Syme, who held that virtually all the identifiable citations from Marius Maximus are essentially frivolous interpolations into the main narrative source, which he postulated was a different author whom he styled 'Ignotus ("the unknown one"), the good biographer'. He argued that Marius did not write a biography of Lucius Verus, even though the biography of that prince in the History is mainly of good quality, and that 'Ignotus' only went up to Caracalla, as is revealed by the biography of Macrinus.

Historical value

Ever since it was first published the Historia Augusta has been known not to be particularly reliable. However as it is also the principal Latin source regarding a century of Roman history and so historians must use it..." but only with extreme circumspection and caution"[20]

Criticism of the current mainstream view

Not all scholars have accepted the theory of a forger working around the last decades of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th. Arnaldo Momigliano and A.H.M. Jones[21] were the most prominent 20th century critics of the Dessau-Syme theory amongst English-speaking scholars. Momigliano, summarizing the literature from Dessau down to 1954, defined the question as "res iudicanda" (i.e. "a matter to be decided") and not as "res iudicata" ("a matter that has been decided"). Momigliano reviewed every book published on the topic by Sir Ronald Syme, and provided counter arguments to most if not all of Syme’s arguments.[22] Alan Cameron rebutted a number of Syme's and Barnes's arguments for a composition date c.395-400, suggesting a composition date between 361 and the 380s.[23]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 75.
  2. ↑ David Magie, Introduction to the Loeb translation, p. xi.
  3. ↑ Magie, pp. xxiv-xxv.
  4. ↑ The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Volume 2, Latin Literature, Part 5, The Later Principate, E. J. Kenney, Wendell Vernon Clausen, pp43, 45, Cambridge University Press, 1983,ISBN 0521273714
  5. ↑ Magie, p. xxxii; Syme (1971), p. 1.
  6. ↑ Syme (1971), p. 2.
  7. ↑ Momigliano (1984), p. 113.
  8. ↑ Prickman, Greg; Head of Special Collections & University Archives at the University of Iowa Libraries, (2013) The Atlas of Early Printing "Ninth Century - The Text"
  9. ↑ Syme (1971), pp. 54ff.
  10. ↑ Syme (1971), pp. 56-7.
  11. ↑ Syme (1971), pp. 57-9.
  12. ↑ Syme (1971), pp. 146ff.
  13. ↑ Syme (1971), p. 76.
  14. ↑ Syme (1968), p. 192.
  15. ↑ R. Syme, Emperors and Biography, pp. 21–24.
  16. ↑ "The Christian Ministry",Joseph Barber Lightfoot, p70, org pub 1868
  17. ↑ Syme, op. cit., p. 215
  18. ↑ Syme, op. cit., p. 216
  19. ↑ Syme, op. cit., pp. 238–239
  20. ↑ The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Volume 2, Latin Literature, Part 5, The Later Principate, E. J. Kenney, Wendell Vernon Clausen, pp43, 45, Cambridge University Press, 1983,ISBN 0521273714
  21. ↑ See publications by Momigliano in the bibliography; A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, Oxford, 1964, p.1071n.1; also cited in the preface of Birley's translation, but with disagreement
  22. ↑ See publication by Momigliano in the bibliography
  23. ↑ Cameron 2011: 743ff

References

An English translation of the complete work (by David Magie, London & Harvard 1921) with facing Latin text, is available in the Loeb Classical Library. Partial translation by Anthony Birley as Lives of the Later Caesars in Penguin Books.

External links