Exercitationes criticae, which was devoted to a study of the text. By these articles, a firm basis for the work of succeeding years was laid.

PERIOD II, 1865-1887: THE ERA OF ACCEPTANCE

The appearance of the editions of Jordan-Eyssenhardt in 1864, and of Peter in 1865, placed the study of the Scriptores on a much firmer footing. Since the evidence of the manuscripts was now for the first time brought before the public, great interest was aroused. The fruits are seen in the increased activity of the time.

The great mass of criticism which appeared during this time may be grouped under four heads:

1) Textual criticism.

2) Study of the language and style.

3) Attempts to prove from what sources the Scriptores drew.

4) Attempts to solve the problem of the authorship of the lives and of the time at which they were written.

Since the new editions naturally differed from the accepted versions in many points, there was great activity in textual emendation. In consequence, about 1250 conjectures were published between 1865 and 1882. Since these do not fall within the scope of our outline, they may be passed by without further notice.

2

Three men devoted their attention to a study of the Latinity. Of these, Paucker made a study of the words

3

1 Roesinger, De S. H. A. commentatio critica, Progr. Schweidnitz, 1868, p. 1. Jordan published the text as it stood, confining emendations to the foot notes. Peter, however, while no less careful, admitted emendations freely.

3

2 Peter, Bericht, 1865-1882, p. 139.

Paucker, De latinitate S. H. A. meletemata ad apparatum vocabulorum spectantia, Dorpat, 1870.

used by the Scriptores. Under separate headings,' he grouped the new words used by the Scriptores, the words. already in use under the empire, those found in old Latin, and those derived from the poets. Changes in gender or declension were also noted. Less comprehensive than his work was a study of the prepositions by Krauss, and Cotta's investigation of the particles in use in the Scriptores.

3

The problem of the sources for the history of the later empire was attacked with great interest at this time. In the discussion of this question, the Scriptores were by no means neglected. Since the statements found in the lives that certain authors had been used were accepted as literally true, the main aim was to find out how much of the life in each case was drawn from them. On the basis of these references, the problem of the sources of the Scriptores presents two phases:

1) The use of Latin sources. 2) The use of Greek sources.

Foremost among the Latin writers was Marius Maximus. During this period he was thought to have been the main source for the lives from Hadrian to Heliogabalus because he was cited more often than any other author." The questions which must be answered in this connection

are:

1

1) The extent of the period covered by Maximus? 2) Of whom he wrote?

This outline is drawn from Peter, op. cit., p. 176.

2 Krauss, De praepositionum usu apud sex S. H. A., Vienna,

1882.

3 Cotta, Quaestiones grammaticae et criticae de vitis a S. H.

A. conscriptis, Breslau, 1883.

Cf. Gemoll, Die S. H. A., Leipzig, 1886, pp. 10-12.

"His work is cited twenty-eight times, Mueller, p. 20.

3) How closely the Scriptores followed him in content and form?

4) Was the Maximus cited by the Scriptores identical with the Maximus who was city prefect under Macrinus?

One of the earliest advocates of the theory that Maximus was the chief source for the first part of the Scriptores was Mueller. After a careful investigation of the various references to this author found in the Scriptores, he concluded that, under Alexander Severus, Maximus wrote the lives of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus, Commodus, Pertinax, Julianus, Severus, Caracalla, and Heliogabalus. These were collected in a book entitled Vitae or De Vitis Imperatorum. By an analysis of such of these lives as appear in the Scriptores, and of the supplementary biographies of Albinus, Macrinus, and Diadumenus, Mueller attempts to prove that:

1) These lives were either wholly or in great part' drawn from Maximus.

2) From these, the plan of treatment which Maximus followed can be reconstructed.

The dangers which this hypothesis involves are patent. Nevertheless Mueller's conclusions found general acceptance. Proceeding from them as a basis, several of his contemporaries attempted to show what parts were drawn from Maximus. The great obstacle in their path, however, was

1 Mueller, Der Geschichtschreiber L. Marius Maximus, Buedinger, Untersuch., vol. 3, Leipzig, 1870.

2 Op. cit., p. 30.

3 Since no references to a life of Alexander by Maximus are found, the conclusion is that the historian died during this reign.

4

* The exceptions are Marcus, Commodus, Severus, Caracalla, Albinus, and Macrinus where traces of the work of other authors are seen.

4

the fact that the citations were not all equally valuable. In one place, we find an account of some miracle' cited from him, in another, traditions about the ancestry of some emperor, in a third, a document of historical value." Unless this could be explained, the value of his work as a source might well be called in question.

Ruebel accepted Mueller's view of the use of other authors to supplement Maximus. Dreinhoefer, an advocate of the single source theory, at once replied that other authors were used only to supply the parts not found in Maximus, as in the case of those emperors who were less well known.

6

The difficulty occasioned by the fluctuation in the historical value of the references to Maximus still remained. Plew attempted to explain this by advancing the theory that the better material was taken from Maximus directly, while that of lesser value was drawn from authors of inferior rank who had used his work; among others, from Cordus.

The result of the work of these men, and of others who followed their example, was to establish the position of Maximus as the chief source of the lives from Hadrian to

1 Had. 25, 4.

2 Marc. 1, 6.

3 Comm. 18, 2.

* Ruebel, De fontibus quatuor priorum H. A. S. pars prior, Bonn, 1873, p. 61.

5 Dreinhoefer, De fontibus et auctoribus vitarum quae feruntur Spartiani, Capitolini, Gallicani, Lampridi, Halle, 1875, pp. 18-35.

Plew, M. M. als directe und indirecte Quelle der S. H. A., Strassburg, 1878, pp. 18, 19, 21, and 45. In his Kritische Beitraege zu den S. H. A., Strassburg, 1885, he forcibly restates his position in answer to Peter's criticism, Bericht, 1865-1882, p. 167f.

Heliogabalus so firmly that it has been but recently assailed.'

Whether the author cited so often by the Scriptores is the same as the L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus who played an important part in the history of the early part of the third century, is a much mooted question. Mueller, Ruebel, and Plew' deny the identity; Dessau," on the contrary, accepts it. The most that can be said is that it is possible.

Aelius Junius Cordus' is also frequently cited by the Scriptores. He is thought to have written of those emperors who were less well known, and to have handed down all kinds of petty trivialities. It is, therefore, surprising to find that the Scriptores occasionally cite him as a source for more valuable material," and, in some cases, prefer his account to any other. From the fragmentary nature of the citations, the scope of his history is uncertain. The use of his work seems to have been confined to the lives of Albinus, Macrinus, Diadumenus, the Maximini, the Gordiani, and Maximus and Balbinus. Various attempts have been made to determine the sources used by Cordus in certain passages ascribed to him, but with little success.

11

1 By Heer, Schulz, and Kornemann.

He

2 From inscriptions we learn the details of his official career; cf. Dion. 78, 14, 3; 36, 1; 79, 2, 1.

5

"Op. cit., 1885, pp. 29 ff.

6 Prosopographia Imper. Rom., vol. 2, p. 346.

7 Niehues, De Aelio Cordo rerum Augustarum scriptore com

mentatio, Muenster in Westphalia, 1885.

Macrin. 1, 3.

'Albin. 11, 2; Maxim. 4, 1; 6, 8.

10 Gord. 17, 1-3; 19, 9; 22, 2; 31, 6; 33, 4; et al.

11 Niehues, op. cit., p. 9.