not have put him second in the dedication,[1] or, if Pollio had written in the third century, when the title Mater Castrorum was commonly given to the Empresses, he would never have spoken of it as a speciality in Victoria's case.[2] If Spartian wrote under Diocletian, it is obvious that he must have had a prevision of that Emperor's sudden change of plan as to the succession. Klebs[3] in the same year further modified Mommsen's position, and explained the similarities to Victor and Eutropius as due to the use of the same sources by these authors and by the Scriptores, and rejected the idea of a revision by a late hand on the ground that no one would be so foolish as to imitate the style of the original writers for the sake of inserting nonsense ; certainly not the most convincing of the arguments which might have been used by a man who presumably had at least heard the history of the Gospel additions. A later article (1892)[4] was more conclusive, as here he attempted to prove that no one forger could have adopted the variety of attitude towards both the Senate and Christianity which we find expressed in the various sections of the " lives," while the presence of geographical names and official titles, lost before the beginning of the fourth century, point to earlier authenticity, not later forgery.
Woelfflin[5] in 1891 supported Mommsen on
- ↑ Carinus, xviii. 3.
- ↑ T. Pollio, Trig. Tyr. v. 3, etc.
- ↑ Klebs, " Die Sammlung der S.H.A.," Rhein. Mus., vol. xlv., 1890.
- ↑ Ibid. vol. xlvii.
- ↑ " Die S.H.A.," Sitzungsber. der philos.-philol. Klasse der Bayer. Akad., 1891.
