23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In assessing the value of any historical work it is necessary for the investigator to undertake the often frustrating and tedious task of Quellenforschung. In the case of the De Caesaribus the first substantial attempts began in Germany in 1873 and 1874 with the appearance of two important studies by A. Enmann and A. Cohn. Enmann sought to explain the mass of verbal similarities, numerous errors and shared idiosyncrasies to be found in Victor's De Caesaribus, Eutropius' Breviarium 7–10, and parts of the Historia Augusta by postulating a common source which has subsequently come to be known as the Kaisergeschichte. He was so convinced by his findings that he stated (p. 459), ‘Victor und Eutrop es beide als Haupt – wenn nicht als einzige Quelle benutzt haben’.
Working quite independently Cohn's examination of the first eleven chapters led him to conclude that from the beginning of Augustus' sole reign to the death of Domitian Victor, Eutropius and the Epitomator followed a common source which he entitled Suetonius auctus, an account excerpted from Suetonius with some new material added. Enmann, however, had already described the Kaisergeschichte's early chapters in this way and the two were readily identified.
One major problem remained. The traditional date of the completion of the HA was still believed to be 305/6; consequently if the K.G. had been used by its authors then the K.G. must have been written by that year. Nevertheless notable similarities between Victor and Eutropius continued apparently till 357 and Enmann therefore suggested a continuation of the K.G. until that date.
1 Enmann, A., ‘Eine verlorene Geschichte der römischen Kaiser’, Philologus, suppl. 4 (1884), 335–501Google Scholar, published in June 1883 (Deutsche Literaturzeitung 4 (1883), 861Google Scholar); Cohn, A., Quibus e fontibus Sex. Aurelii Victoris et libri de Caesaribus et Epitomes XI capita priora fluxerint (Berlin, 1884)Google Scholar.
2 Cohn, op. cit. p. 48. Ebeling, P. had already suggested this as a source for Eutropius in Quaestiones Eutropianae (Diss. Halle, 1881)Google Scholar.
3 Enmann, op. cit. pp. 407 ff., 431 f.
4 Dessau, H., ‘Über Zeit und Persönlichkeit de S.H.A.’, Hermes 24 (1889), 337 ffGoogle Scholar.
5 Barnes, T. D., ‘The Lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin Historical Tradition’, B.H.A.C. 1968/69 (1970), pp. 13–43, esp. p. 20Google Scholar; The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels, 1978), p. 92Google Scholar. His view is shared by Syme, R., Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1971), p. 222Google Scholar; but cf. Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1968), p. 106Google Scholar.
6 De Caes. 41. 16–17; Eutrop. 10. 8. Cf. den Boer, W., Some Minor Roman Historians (Leiden, 1972), pp. 21–2, 67–8, 116–19Google Scholar, who denies the importance of verbal parallels.
7 De Caes. 41. 26; Eutrop. 10. 10.
8 Nixon, C. E. V., An Historiographical Study of the Caesares of Sextus Aurelius Victor (unpublished Univ. of Michigan dissertation, Ann Arbor, 1971), p. 341Google Scholar. Nixon, however, sensibly leaves open the possibility of a common source (see p. 344) while admitting the existence of the K.G. (p. 364).
9 De Caes. 42. 1–4; Eutrop. 10. 11.
10 De Caes. 42. 6; 42. 8; Eutrop. loc. cit.
11 Barnes, op. cit. p. 14.
12 op. cit. p. 21. He considered the K.G. a ‘historian manufactured in 1874’.
13 Oost, S. I., CP 71 (1976), 294–5Google Scholar. Ironically Barnes' review article on Schlumberger's Epitome de Caesaribus appeared in the same issue.
14 Chastagnol, A., B.H.A.C. 1971 (1974), pp. 55 fGoogle Scholar.
15 Dufraigne, P., Aurelius Victor: Livre des Césars (Paris, 1975), p. xxviiGoogle Scholar.
16 Rightly so, in my opinion, by Barnes, , The Sources of the Historia Augusta, p. 93Google Scholar.
17 Dufraigne, op. cit. pp. xxx, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxv, xxxvii. Most of these are noted by Tarrant, R. J., Gnomon 50 (1978), 356Google Scholar.
18 op. cit. pp. 92, 101, 110, 119. Yet den Boer admits that we know next to nothing of the current education, camp stories or stock anecdotes of the imperial service (p. 187).
19 See Dill, S., Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire (New York, 1899), p. 399Google Scholar.
20 Marrou, H. I., A History of Education in Antiquity (Eng. trans. Toronto, 1964), pp. 358 ffGoogle Scholar.
21 Nixon, , Phoenix 27 (1973), 408Google Scholar.
22 De Caes. 17. 10; Eutrop. 8. 16; Epit. 8. 16; HA Pert. 4. 3.
23 De Caes. 15. 2; Eutrop. loc. cit.; Epit. loc. cit.; HA Did. 3. 7; cf. HA Pert. 10. 8 ff. For the connection with Albinus see note 33.
24 Dio, 73. 9–10.
25 De Caes. 19. 1; 20. 1; Eutrop. 8. 17.
26 cf. Dio, 74. 17.
27 op. cit. p. 122. He notes that Orosius had it (7. 16. 6).
28 Nixon, (The Caesares of Sextus Aurelius Victor, p. 250)Google Scholar states that the hypothesis that Victor follows the Kaisergeschichte here seems to be confirmed by this..
29 De Caes. 19. 4.
30 Epit. 19. 2. But at Savaria, not Carnuntum (HA Sev. 5. 1). ‘Perhaps a simple mistake, due to the place's later importance. Savaria led to confusion with Niger's province, Syria’ (Birley, A., Septimius Severus: The African Emperor (New York, 1972), p. 158 n. 1)Google Scholar.
31 De Caes. 20. 8; Eutrop. 8. 18.
32 De Caes. 20. 9; Eutrop. 8. 18; HA Sev. 5. 8.
33 De Caes. 20. 9; Eutrop. 8. 18; HA Clod. Alb. 1. 1; 14. 2; 14. 6. This may have appeared in the official version of events in 193 and 195–6. Albinus and Julianus both had connections with Hadrumetum, which would have assisted Severus, the self-styled avenger of Pertinax, as he sought to legitimize his actions against his opponents: see Birley, op. cit. pp. 12, 46, 71, 135, 155, 159, 169 and esp. 185.
34 De Caes. 20. 14.
35 Dio, 77. 12. 1a; 80. 16. 2; Herodian. 3. 9. 3.
36 HA Sev. 18. 1.
37 De Caes. 20. 22.
38 op. cit. pp. 256–97.
39 Barnes, , The Sources of the Historia Augusta, pp. 90 ffGoogle Scholar.
40 op. cit. pp. xxviii, xxix.
41 op. cit. p. xxxi.
42 op. cit. p. 149. Cf. Cohn, op. cit. p. 49.
43 De Caes. 11. 13Google Scholar.
44 ibid. 5. 8–9.
45 ibid. 14. 8; 20. 10; 20. 34; 29. 5; 39. 48.
46 op. cit. pp. 49 ff.
47 De Caes. 3. 4Google Scholar.
48 Suet. Calig. 8.
49 Ann. 6. 50. 9. Tacitus and Suetonius generally use the the praenomen Tiberius to denote Rome's second emperor.
50 De Caes. 3. 1; cf. Suet. Tib. 73. I take Pichlmayr's reading of Febri an to be correct.
51 Epit. 2. 10; 3. 2.
52 op. cit. pp. 70 ff.
53 Suetonius (Calig. 1–7) actually writes a mini-biography of Germanicus in his life of Caligula though his treatment of Sejanus is extremely brief (Tib. 55).
54 De Caes. 4. 14Google Scholar.
55 Tac. Ann. 6. 28; Dio 58. 27. 1.
56 HN 10. 2. 5; also see Solinus 33. 14.
57 op. cit. pp. xxx–xxxi; 80.
58 Sen. Q.N. 6. 21. 1; Dio 60. 29. 7; Oros. 7. 6. 13.
59 ibid.
60 Dufraigne, op. cit. p. xxxv: cf. Nixon, op. cit. p. 363.
61 Hieron, , Ep. 10. 3Google Scholar.
