No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Historia Augusta: Its Date and Purpose
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
My suggestion that the H.A. was written during the reign of the Emperor Julian and in his interest has had, on the whole, ‘a bad press.’ Reviewers who have not thought it necessary to support with argument their doubts or their rejection of the theory are in a strong position: they remain practically unassailable. ‘The theory seems on a priori grounds improbable:’ a historical student can only reply that so is human nature—distressingly improbable, as he knows to his cost. ‘After reading this book one puts it down “met een zekere onvoldaanheid:”’ what can an author do save express his regret for having caused Dr. Van de Weerd this discomfort? But two stalwart defenders of the conservative position—De Sanctis and Lécrivain’—have sustained with detailed argument their unqualified rejection of my theory; in their cases it is possible to attempt a rejoinder.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1928
References
page 166 note 1 Cf. C.R. XXXVIII. 165–9; The Historia Augusta: Its Date and Purpose, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1926Google Scholar.
page 166 note 2 But cf. C.R. XLI. 82–3; Journal of Roman Studies, XVI. 137–140.
page 166 note 3 American Historical Review XXXII. (1927), 638Google Scholar.
page 166 note 4 Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire VI. 373.
page 166 note 5 Rivista di Filologia, N. S. V. 402–406.
page 166 note 6 Revue Historique CLIV. 113–4.
page 166 note 7 Cf. especially Goyau, G., ‘La Tetrarchie: Sommaire d'une étude d'ensemble,’ in Études d'Histoire juridique offertes à Paul Frédéric Girard par ses Éièves, Vol. I., pp. 68–85Google Scholar. Paris, 1912.
page 168 note 1 The ‘discretezza’ and ‘cautela’ with which Vopiscus has proceeded in his defence of paganism are emphasized by Giovanni Costa in his valuable and suggestive study of the Vita Aureliani: Un Libello anticristiano del secolo IV. ? Il Divus Aurclianus di Vopisco. Bilychnis XXII. (1923), 127–133. Costa would place the composition of Vita Aureliani, cc. I. to XXXVII. 4, between the years A.D. 343 and 360; the rest of the Vita, which he would regard as an appendix by another hand, he is inclined to date in the reign of Gratian, at the time of the controversy between Symmachus and Ambrose over the altar of Victory. See further his paper on ‘L'opposizione sotto i Costantini’ in Scritti, Raccolta di in Lumbroso, onore di Giacomo (=Pubblicazioni di ‘Aegyptus,’ Série Scientifica, Vol. III.), Milan, 1925, pp. 293–8Google Scholar. I had not seen either of these papers when I wrote my book.
page 169 note 1 If Giri is right, however, in his contention (pp. 31–3) that Vopiscus has carefully constructed a chronological scheme for his authorities—written sources for the period to which oral memory would not reach (Vita Aureliani 15, 2; Vita Probi 3, 4); the authority of his grandfather for the period from the death of Probus until after Diocletian's, accession (Vita Saturnini 9, 4Google Scholar; Vita Bonosi 15, 4; Vita Numeriani 13, 3; 14, 15; 15, 5); and that of his father for the period after Diocletian's, abdication (Vita Aureliani 43, 3)Google Scholar—then my interpretation of the last-mentioned passage (pp. 97–8 of my book) will not stand.
page 170 note 1 If the conjecture ‘ius confarreationis’ is adopted in 26, 3, the marriage law cannot be dated, for no such constitution has been preserved.
page 170 note 2 There is one misprint in my book, for which I apologize: for Gothic war on p. 119 read Gallic
- 2
- Cited by