CONTENTS PART I. STUDIES IN THE LIFE OF HELIOGABALUS. By Orma PAGE Fitch Butler. PART II. THE MYTH OF HERCULES AT ROME. By John Gar- PRELIMINARY STUDY AN ANALYSIS OF THE MODERN CRITICAL LITERATURE DEALING WITH THE SCRIPTORES HISTORIAE AUGUSTAE The person who attempts to solve any one of the numerous problems presented by the collection of imperial biographies attributed to the Scriptores, finds himself involved in a maze of difficulties. One of the greatest of these difficulties lies not alone in the extent of the modern criticism dealing with the lives, but also in the variations in the standards of judgment which have given rise to this mass of highly technical literature. A survey reveals four periods of critical activity more or less distinctly marked. It is not the business of this outline to give a careful analysis1 of each and every work dealing with the Scriptores, but rather to point out, as briefly and clearly as possible, the dominant idea of each period as it is reflected in the most important articles of the time. This critical literature owes its existence to the confusions and contradictions inherent in the collection of lives. Reduced to outline, the problem is as follows: The lives of the emperors attributed to the Scriptores cover the period 117-284 A. D. They purport to be the work of six 1 1 Extended analyses of all important articles may be found in Peter's three Jahresberichte; 1865-1882, Philol., vol. 43 (1884), pp. 137-194; 1883-1892, Jahresb. Fort. class. Altert., vol. 76 (1893), pp. 119-161; 1893-1905, Jahresb. Fort. class. Altert., vol. 130 (1906), pp. 1-40. These will be cited as Bericht, 1865-1882, etc. 2 The lives covering the period 244-260 are, in part, lost. authors; viz., Aelius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Vulcacius Gallicanus, Aelius Lampridius, Trebellius Pollio, and Flavius Vopiscus. Of these, the first four dedicate their work to Diocletian and Constantine, the others address theirs to private individuals. While this would seem to be a very simple classification, a close examination shows that it is full of pitfalls. No satisfactory answers can be found to the questions: 1 1) If, as certain references in the lives seem to show, each of these six men wrote a more or less complete series of imperial biographies, how and by whom was the selection made? 2) Why is it that the lives, as they stand in the manuscripts, do not follow the chronological order of the emperors? 2 3) How was it possible for one and the same author to write lives dedicated in part to Diocletian, in part to Constantine? This question is especially hard to answer when lives which deal with a period earlier than those addressed to Diocletian are dedicated to Constantine. 3 4) From what sources did the authors draw their material? 5) How can the similarity between the various authors be explained? 6) How much can be inferred from allusions in the lives about the time when they were written? 1 References of this kind are Helius 1, 1; 7, 5; Av. Cass. 3, 3; Marc. 19, 5; Comm. 1, 1; et al. 2 Peter, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, editio altera, vol. 1, pp. iii and xi. 3 According to the manuscripts, Capitolinus wrote the lives of Marcus (161-180 A. D.) and Macrinus (217-218 A. D.) for Diocletian. The life of Albinus (196-197 A. D.) is also attributed to him. 7) Are the lives ascribed to the right authors? 8) Are the imperial dedications authentic? How these questions have been answered at different times will be shown in the following pages. PERIOD I, 1838-1865: PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION Modern German criticism of the Scriptores began in 1838. Before this time, the collection of lives had aroused great interest among scholars, and men like Salmasius, Erasmus, Casaubon, and Dodwell had written' on different phases of the subject. Unfortunately, most of their work, together with much of that of the period under discussion is now of little or no importance. The early attempts to improve the text, which was known to be very corrupt, went astray since, inasmuch as there was no complete and careful collation of the manuscripts, these scholars fell into the pitfalls prepared by the work of Bonus Accursius, the first editor, and some of his immediate successors. The results of their work were seen not only in the body of the lives, but also in the imperial dedications. A comparison of the editions of Obrecht and Peter shows this clearly. Of the twenty-one lives in which dedications to the emperors appear, the two editors agree in regard to fifteen. In 2 3 1 Some idea of the general trend of their work can be gained from references in the work of the writers of this period; cf. Bernhardy, Proem. I, p. vii; Richter, Rhein. Mus., vol. 7 (1850), pp. 16, 29, 33, and 42; Becker, Observat. crit., p. 3, et al. Peter, Hist. crit., p. 23; cf. p. 33 and Bernhardy, op. cit., p. vii. Accursius changed the text at will, cutting out or adding as he chose. Some fourteen years later, the two Venetian editions (1489 and 1490) followed his example. The first of these changed the order of the text and interpolated freely, the second attempted to correct the Latin. Historiae Augustae Scriptores sex cum notis Ulrici Obrechti, Strassburg, 1677. |