criticism of the text, there remains one important contribution which was made during this period.

Mommsen had, stated that the Bamberg manuscript, which Peter thought independent of the Palatine, was really a copy of the latter. Dessau at once began investigations and found that not the Bamberg alone, but several other manuscripts had been copied from the Palatine. While this discovery is important for textual criticism, it will probably not have so much effect on the text as one might suppose, since Peter says that, in his editions, he never follows the unsupported testimony of the Bamberg manuscript. Dessau's stemma is:

3

The influence of the period lies not in the number of facts proved, but in what the criticism which appeared during this time showed must be done. No one could now fail to see that side by side with a certain falsified portion lay a residue of fact. The value of this latter portion could be determined only by the most minute and careful investigation of the whole collection. On this belief, rests the work of the succeeding period.

1 Hermes, vol. 25 (1890), p. 281.

2

Dessau, Die Ueberlieferung der S. H. A., Hermes, vol. 29 (1894), pp. 393 ff. 3 Bericht, 1893-1905, p. 36.

PERIOD IV, 1899-1907: THE ERA OF SOURCE STUDY

1

In his reply to Dessau, Mommsen had said "we need a commentary which brings before our eyes the parallel passages, both inside and outside the collection, for each single statement, or shows their lack; we also need a complete, comprehensive, chronologically arranged word index of the really important expressions. Not until we have this will it be possible for the historian to accept or reject any statement in proper fashion." In order to carry out such an investigation successfully, a restricted field is necessary. For this reason, the critics of the present, as a rule, confine their studies to one life or to a small group of lives.

The first systematic investigation of the sources for any portion of the text of the Scriptores was Professor Drake's study of the fifth chapter of the life of Caracalla. By a careful comparison of the literary, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence for this period, he showed that certain statements, long considered false, were correct.

3

Two years later, Heer applied the same methods to the life of Commodus. As a result of his investigation, he concluded that this life was composed of two parts, chronological and biographical. The former included chapters 1, 1-6; 1, 10-2, 5; 3, 1-9, 3; and 17, 1-12; the latter is subdivided into two parts, the first comprising 1, 7-9 and 2, 6-9, the second, 9, 4-16, 9. To these was added an appendix, chapters 18-20. The chronological part is trustworthy, technically exact in its terminology, fond of giving personal names, and often superior to Dion. The biographical portion indulges in broad generalizations, gives but few per

1 Hermes, vol. 25 (1890), p. 281.

2 Drake, Studies in the S. H. A., Amer. Jour. Phil., vol. 20 (1899), pp. 40 ff.

3 Heer, Der historische Wert der Vita Commodi, Leipzig, 1901, in Philol., supplb. 9, pp. 1 ff.

sonal names, does not follow the chronological order of events, and is hostile toward the emperor. Some of the biographical portion is from Maximus, the chronological is not.

After a careful study of the lives of Pertinax, Julianus, Severus, Niger, Albinus, Caracalla, and Geta, Schulz' decided that similar elements appeared there also. In this study the author has relied mainly upon a comparison of the literary sources with the Scriptores. Beside the excellent historical part, abbreviated more or less judiciously from the work of a contemporary superior to Dion in penetration, he finds a biographical part derived from several poor sources only partly contemporaneous. Beside these, there are the additions of the reviser and the inventions of the Theodosian reviewer. His study of the life of Hadrian led to similar conclusions. In his opinion, the work of this unknown author from whom the chronological part is drawn ends with Caracalla.

5

Kornemann attempted to bring together the similar portions in these and other lives. The results of the first part of his work, which deals with the life of Hadrian, differ but little from those gained by Schulz's study of this life. In the second portion, the author attempts to bring together all the material in the lives from Hadrian to Alexander Severus which throws light upon the personality and method of the author from whom the chronologi

1 Schulz, Beitraege zur Kritik unser litterarischen Ueberlieferung fuer die Zeit von Commodus' Sturze bis auf den Tod des M. Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla), Leipzig, 1903.

2 Op. cit., pp. 122-124.

3 Schulz, Leben des Kaisers Hadrian, Leipzig, 1904.

* Kornemann, Kaiser Hadrian und der letzte grosse Historiker von Rom, Leipzig, 1905; cf. Beitraege zur alten Geschichte, vol. 5 (1905), p. 290.

"Peter, Berlin. phil. Wochenschr., vol. 25 (1905), p. 1467 f.

cal portion is drawn. Besides the qualities which Heer and Schulz had already pointed out as characteristic of the chronological source, Kornemann produces evidence to show that the author of this history was more interested in the affairs of state than in those of war, especially in those of Rome and northern Africa. He was an ardent partisan of the senate and an enemy of Severus and his house. Alexander Severus, because of his kindness to the senatorial order, is idealized. This fondness for Alexander and the author's thorough knowledge of the affairs of state during this reign, lead Kornemann to think that his history was written at that time. Further, no traces of his work are seen in the subsequent lives. In other words, this unknown writer falls heir to much that was formerly assigned to Maximus. Not content with this, Kornemann must have a name for his author. Accordingly, from a most suspicious passage in the life of Diadumenus, one of the most corrupt in the collection,' he draws the name Lollius Urbicus. Because Borghesi identifies this man with a certain African family, Kornemann fixes upon him as the author of this chronological source. The doubtful nature of the source for the name, and the fact that Urbicus was past eighty at the accession of Alexander, are not calculated to gain general acceptance for this bold theory.

3

2

With the application of the modern methods of source criticism to the Scriptores, faith in Maximus as the chief source declined. Heer refuses to give him any share in the chronological source, and calls attention to the fact that the citations from Maximus fall outside the chronological part of the life. It is not even possible to cite him

1 Diad. 9, 2; cf. Peter, Die S. H. A., p. 219, and Berlin. phil. Wochenschr., vol. 25 (1905), p. 1467 f.

1

2

as the author of the biographical source, for there were many other such works, and no one would merely mention one of his chief authorities in passing. Schulz's view is the same. The references to Maximus are, to his mind, inserted by a later hand. The theory of Kornemann, of course, excludes Maximus. Peter, on the contrary, is not inclined to yield, but still claims Maximus as the author of the chronological source. This much may be said, that many of the citations from Maximus stand in passages of questionable value, or seem to have been thrust into the text. The position of Maximus must be carefully re-established pro or con on the basis of the more recent investigations before any final decision can be reached.

3

Among the special studies which have appeared during this period may be counted Winterfeld's attempt to determine, by a study of the rhythmical conclusions to many of the sentences, how much of the life of Hadrian was drawn from the autobiography. The rest he attributes to Maximus.

One of the most pressing needs of those who have worked with the Scriptores has been a special lexicon. This has now been supplied by Lessing. In compiling it, the author has taken advantage of the recent discoveries about the relations of the manuscripts to introduce some improvements in the text. The work is valuable because it aims to give the number of times each word is used, together with examples of such occurrences as are most distinctive.

1 Beitraege, pp. 14, 49, 73, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 115; Hadrian, pp. 9, 16, 55, 58, 88, 94, 99, 123.

2 Berlin. phil. Wochenschr., vol. 22 (1902), p. 489; vol. 25 (1905), p. 1471.

3 Winterfeld, Satzschlussstudien zur H. A., Rhein. Mus., vol. 57 (1902), pp. 549 ff.

Lessing, S. H. A. Lexicon, Leipzig, 1901-1906.