1870, who declared that the documents and letters in the Life of Avidius Cassius were spurious ; and in 1880 Klebs[1] destroyed the authenticity of those at the end of Diadumenianus' Life. Things were more or less quiet until the year 1889, when Dessau[2] opened his attack on the general authenticity of the Scriptores' work, asserting from the strongest internal evidence, such as their mention of persons and things — in lives dedicated to Constantine as Emperor — which did not happen till after his death, that the lives were the work of a forger in the later part of the fourth century ; a man who had been stupid enough to give an appearance of antiquity to his work by the use of names and dedications borrowed from older sources, but not smart enough to avoid the inclusion of glaring anachronisms.
Mommsen[3] at once undertook to defend the authenticity of the collection, asking saliently why a forger of Theodosius' time should undertake to praise the extinct dynasty founded by Constantius. The very patchwork, he says, is enough to prove the collection no forgery. Again, the use of pre-Diocletian geographical names, such as those given to the legions, all date from a period prior to Diocletian. Mommsen then proceeds to his criticism, in the course of which he divides the lives into primary and secondary, which to his mind solved the problem, and on this basis he drew
- ↑ "Die 'Vita' des Avidius Cassius," Rhein. Mus. vol. xliii., 1888.
- ↑ Dessau, "Uber Zeit und Personlichkeit der S.H.A.," Hermes, xxiv. 337-92, 1899.
- ↑ "Die S.H.A.," Hermes, xxv. 228-92.
