Bryn Mawr have a review of a Cassius Dio study. The study compares him with Herodian. These authors wrote in Greek. Traditionally we in the west tend toward the Latin works of Tacitus and Suetonius; as a result, schoolkids don't much get into the Severans.
The review faults the study for not noting beyond Herodian. I was of the notion that there simply wasn't that much; even the review points to work as isn't strictly historical. Syriac won't kick in until the Christian emperors. I wonder if the reviewer has in mind such later "minor historians" as Eutropius and Aurelius Victor, maybe Eustathius. It doesn't look like Historia Augusta is used.
Cassius Dio is here revealed as a Senator like Tacitus but a monarchist, where Tacitus was cynical toward even Augustus. Dio figures the Severans as the dynasty it was, but a false dynasty - born in iron, doomed to rust. The Severans may well have felt insecure, themselves; they renamed young Bassian "Antoninus". (Hence that "Constitutio", beside which we'd just call him Caracalla.) The HA on the other hand will promote Severus Alexander if only as foil to Elagabalus. Keeping in mind HA already untrustworthy doesn't even seem to own direct sources past Elagabalus.
No comments:
Post a Comment