Philhellene Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 In Russian historical science Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 In Russian historical science Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted January 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 It's after the absence of other detailed ancient sources that its credibility spirals into the historical abyss. I can`t understand why? Why Suetonius is more reliable than SHA? Or even Eutropius or Orosius? They are not very detailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 It's after the absence of other detailed ancient sources that its credibility spirals into the historical abyss. I can`t understand why? Why Suetonius is more reliable than SHA? Or even Eutropius or Orosius? They are not very detailed. Frankly, I'm rather in agreement with you. Seems the largest point of contention is its dubious origin. Claims of varying authors along with 3rd, 4th or even 5th century origination (even possible forgery) had made the content as questionable as the source. There are some clear errors, but could it not simply have been written by a rather poor historian(s) rather than an actual attempt to mislead or fictionalize? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 The historia has long been treated as a fiction based on reality but not usefull for the study of the history of the period. But currently we see a current which gains weight that tends to take it much more seriously. In fact the ancient vision came from the article of DESSAU, H., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Suetonius was a known person , acting in the Caesar's palace (not the casino) and had access to documents etc' , so his material is considerd solid . We do not know who wrote the S.H.A (a big debate for more than 100 years) so we have doubts about its materials . When H. Dessau began his great work PIR (I) in c. 1890 he saw that many of the S.H.A names (for the 2nd and 3rd centuries) were actualy from the 4th and 5th centuries ! He and many others came to the (right) conclusion that the S.H.A. is not a real history but something else . What exactly ? For answers see "The Historia Augusta: A Call of Clarity" by Ronald Syme , "Ammianus and the Historia Augusta" by Ronald Syme , "Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta" by Ronald Syme and more of the syme We should remember that criticism is O.K. but without the S.H.A. our knowledge about the 2nd and 3rd centuries was very poor . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted January 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 We do not know who wrote the S.H.A (a big debate for more than 100 years) so we have doubts about its materials . Their sources are, for example, Marius Maximus and Dexippus, we know them from other authors, not only from SHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divi Filius Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Ronald Syme and more of the syme biggrin.gif Syme presents us with just one of the sides in this huge debate, there are others, namely Birley, who views the first part(the part he chose to print for Penguin Classics) as having a good amount of truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.