textual grounds. He traces the differences of style to the fact that certain authors had used Suetonius, others Maximus, while others again had trusted to their own retentive memories, not altogether a safe historical criterion. He states that the traces of similarity running through the works are due certainly to a reviser, but that the reviser was Vopiscus,[1] which either puts Vopiscus at a much later date than had ever been done before, or resigns the idea of a late reviser in the Mommsen sense.
Dessau[2] in 1892 replied with a scathing attack on this same Vopiscus, from the point of view of his age and the impossibility of his having seen and heard all he claims to have done. Seeck[3] in 1894 published a second article supporting Dessau with six points culled from titles and names not known till after the reputed dates of the Scriptores. He now considers that plurality of authors, or forgers, as the case may be, is certain, and that they wrote, or forged, as Diocletian and Constantine gave command, using for their work many sources, including the Imperial Chronicle. But it is an inconclusive article.
In 1899 an American, Dr. Drake[4] of Michigan, published some studies in detail on the life of Caracalla, which tended to establish the genuineness of certain portions which had been thought spurious. Heer[5] of Leipzig followed in 1901 with a
- ↑ Op. cit. p. 479.
- ↑ "Über die S.H.A.," Hermes, vol. xxvii., 1892.
- ↑ "Zur Echtheitsfrage der S.H.A.," Rhein. Mus. vol. 49.
- ↑ "Studies in S.H.A.," Amer. Journ. Phil. vol. xx., Baltimore, 1899.
- ↑ Der historische Wert der Vita Commodi.
