MARTIAL AND THE HISTORIA AVGVSTA

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
David Rohrbacher

The short-lived emperor Macrinus had a son whose name, inscriptions reveal, was M. Opellius Antoninus Diadumenianus. Little is known about this figure, who is remembered through brief references in the late Roman breviaries and in Herodian, and in a short biography in the collection of imperial lives now known as the Historia Augusta (= HA). In 1889, Dessau argued that the lives of the Historia Augusta, which present themselves as written by six different authors in the Age of Constantine, were in fact written by a single writer closer to the year 400, an argument that has now all but prevailed in scholarly circles. Some of the biographies depend on reliable sources, at least in part, and thus can provide actual historical information; others do not, and are mostly or entirely the result of authorial invention. The life of Diadumenianus fits clearly in the latter category. The secondary lives (Nebenviten) of the Historia Augusta contain no original information, but rather are constructed from a combination of information derived from their ‘parent’ life and invented fiction. So, for example, the life of the Caesar Aelius combines information from the life of Hadrian with fiction, the life of the usurper Avidius Cassius combines information from the life of Marcus Aurelius with fiction, and the lives of Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus combine information from the life of Severus with fiction. In the case of Diadumenianus, the life is even more thoroughly fictional, since the life of Macrinus from which it is derived is itself a kind of secondary life; Cameron suggests that Marius Maximus, the probable source for the author of the Historia Augusta, treated Macrinus as a usurper in the life of Elagabalus. Almost every detail of the life of Diadumenianus is therefore the fictive invention of the author.

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-92
Author(s):  
Orsolya Bobay

Joachim von Watt (Ioachimus Vadianus) kommentárja, amely az első tudományos igényű Mela-kommentárnak tekinthető, elsőként 1518-ban jelent meg. Előzményének Ermolao Barbaro velencei humanista Castigationes Plinianae et in Pomponium Melam című filológiai kommentárját tekinthetjük. A lemmák vizsgálata során az ókori és a kora újkori uralkodóportrék két csoportját különíthetjük el, a jó és a rossz királyokét, illetve császárokét. A kommentárnak ez az olvasata az antik mű új tartalommal való felruházására irányuló törekvést példázza, amelynek során a lemmaíró Vadianus a korabeli olvasó számára hasznos ismereteket kíván közvetíteni. Ez az olvasat Vadianus későbbi munkájában, a Sankt Gallenben írt Epitome trium terrae partiumban már nem jelenik meg, ami bizonyítja a kommentár uralkodóképében rejlő propagandisztikus célokat. A rossz és jó uralkodók legkiemelkedőbb példái Nagy Sándor és I. (Jagelló) Zsigmond, a többi uralkodó e két pólus között helyezkedik el. Az ókor rossz uralkodóinak bemutatásakor Vadianus az ókori toposzokat követi: olvashatunk Neróról és Caliguláról, de a lemmákban rossz uralkodóként szerepel a késő római Pertinax császár is. A helvét humanista utóbbit erkölcsi szempontból ítéli el, bár a Historia Augusta leírásában nem szerepelnek az általa leírt morális aspektusok. Az antikvitás jó uralkodói, Antoninus Pius és Marcus Aurelius is erkölcsi szempontból kiemelkedőek Vadianus számára, azonban a modern uralkodók tekintetében a morális jó tulajdonságok mellett a hadi jártasság is a jó uralkodó ismérve. Véleménye szerint a jó uralkodó képes a kettőt összeegyeztetni egymással, és emellett emberi vonásait is megőrizni, ahogy I. Miksa és I. Zsigmond is.


2021 ◽  
pp. 422-435
Author(s):  
B. D. Tsybenov

A little-known source — the manuscript “Historical information on the fragility of the political situation of Hulunbuir”, stored in the State Archives of the Irkutsk region is considered. Description of the manuscript, clarification of its dating, determination of the probable source base was performed by the author of the article. A comparative analysis of the historical facts presented in the manuscript was carried out. It was found that in the first two sentences the anonymous author outlined the essence of the uncertain situation that developed with the annexation of Hulun Buir to Outer Mongolia in 1912. Other components of the text are characterized: little-known information about the trip to Urga of the Bargut lama Lobsanchjamba and then about the visit of the delegation of Hulun-Buir; data on the meeting of the delegates with the Russian consul V. F. Lyuba and a description of his reaction to the fact of the annexation of Hulun-Buir to Outer Mongolia; finally, it is said about the disappointment of the ruler of Hulun-Buir — Shenfu, who realized the dependence of Hulun-Buir on the dependent, in turn, Outer Mongolia, etc. An analysis of the contents of the last page of the manuscript allows us to conclude that part of the Hulunbuir officials, close to the Manchus, expressed open dissatisfaction with the situation. The author of the article suggests that some of the Daurian officials, unlike the Barguts, who sincerely believed in the creation of a unified Mongolian state, tended to restore the Manchu dynasty and were unhappy with the unclear future of Hulun Buir.


2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
ERIC W. GROVES

ABSTRACT: This paper includes a short biography of Menzies and an outline of the historical events on the northwest Pacific coast leading up to Vancouver's voyage. A table listing the botanical visitors to that area prior to 1792 is given followed by a résumé of the evolution of Menzies's journal. Sources used in compiling the chronology of his movements during Vancouver's voyage are then set down, ending the section with an account of Menzies's own visit, 1792–1794. His method of plant collecting is discussed along with an account of his collections and their subsequent disposal. The paper concludes with details of Menzies's later life, his connection with other botanists of the day, and an assessment of his achievements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document