Scriptores historiae augustae

by Scriptores Historiae Augustae

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: History, Roman, Classics

First published January 1, 500

Reviews

[Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Historia Augusta is pretty much an elaborately written satirical gossip-book of Roman imperial families, with the second half of the volume bordering straight fabrications and fantasies. I'd admit that they are highly enjoyable to read, not least because of their often comedic nature, but also due to the fact that many of those made-up anecdotes have become so embedded into our own reception of the Romans -- from Tadema's painting The Roses of Heliogabalus (an absurd-ish tale only testified in Historia Augusta) to the popular imagination of Rome's fraught relationship with Jews as exemplified by Hadrian's ban on circumcision (an account first documented in Historia Augusta and remained a controversial topic to this day), it's quite surprising to see how much of our contemporary perception of the Romans is actually borrowed from such an (historically) unreliable source.

That being said, the main values of Historia Augusta does not lie in its historical authenticity, but rather in its representation of Roman elite thoughts towards contemporary politics and social issues. In this regard, Historia Augusta did provide modern readers with a lot of stereotype-defying images of Roman aristocrats, among which are its overt pro-pagan rhetorics and sarcastic treatment of the Christian faith. As an non-professional reader who's chiefly interested in exploring the less-known corners of history, I find this book demonstrating to me the versatile nature of Roman literature and intellectual thoughts. Recommended.

[Carlos Wang · Rating 4 out of 5]

《羅馬君王傳》(Historia Augusta or Scriptores Historiae Augustae)，是一部爭議性頗大的古代史料。其內容主要講述從Hadrian 開始到 Carinus 為止的歷代羅馬皇帝(包括僭主、企圖篡位者)的個人傳記，是一部模仿著名的《羅馬十二帝王傳》的作品。本書乍看之下，似乎是極為重要的史料，但事實上，對史學家來說，卻是相當棘手的。因為它從作者身分，到成書年代，及內容可信度，無一不存在爭議。



一般據信本書是由六位作者分別撰寫，成書於四世紀末左右。但這些年來，經過學者考證，逐漸認為《羅馬君王傳》實出自同一人之手。而且書中內容錯誤極多，甚至有些虛構的橋段，讓許多研究者對其內容都持保留態度。著名史家吉朋就曾表示對本書的嫌惡，但卻又不得不引用的無奈。畢竟現存關於三、四世紀的史料不多，且許多都有殘缺，史家要且看且珍惜。



而這次，浙江大學出版社將本書列入其“西方傳記經典”之中，實屬英文不佳，又不通拉丁文的讀者之幸。譯者謝品巍之前就翻譯過同屬古史料的《羅馬新史》、《羅馬國史大綱》及《論迫害者之死》，都是成功的譯著。本書以 Loeb 叢書的拉英對照為底本，參看其他版本研究而成，從注釋上可以看出譯者花了不少心血。

其實，如果看過《羅馬十二帝王傳》，或讀過中國傳統史書中的本紀，應該對本書的文風寫法，甚至說“套路”並不會太陌生。《羅馬君王傳》是要獻給後來的戴克理先、君士坦丁，其中的“春秋筆法”自不待言，以馬可‧奧勒留及康茂德父子為例，前者被誇上青天，後者就被評：不如沒生下的好。這種史觀現在雖早已被研究者評為“過時”，但我們還是可以深思其背後的意義。至於裡面充斥著各種異相，後見之明，讀者就見怪不怪吧。



三世紀我最感興趣的有兩人，一個是帕爾米拉的女主 Zenobia，從本書中可以看出吉朋的故事也是從這引用過來的。另外一位是伊利里亞諸帝中的Aurelian，在他手中基本完成了帝國的再統一，而且展開不少改革，書中亦給予極高的讚譽，但他最後卻落得被禁衛軍刺殺的下場，是個值得深思的謎題。而本書作者倒是給出了自己的答案：欠缺仁慈。他認為Aurelian太過嚴苛，在蘿蔔跟鞭子之間掌握的失當，以至於屬下害怕犯錯，人人自危，最後誤信了偽書而先下手為強，將他刺殺。(如果這段史實可信)而我認為這個評論基本不錯，大家仔細觀察，舉凡任何一位成功的君王、掌權者，必然都是極善待身邊的人，因為他們清楚知道，這些人才是最有機會下手傷害自己的。Aurelian在這方面顯然失敗了。或許作者最後評論：“比起帝王，他更像位將軍”，才是中肯之論。說到此處，我腦海中不禁想起了後唐莊宗來。

最後，還是得感謝譯者的辛苦耕耘，把這部實屬冷門的作品譯介成中文，讓筆者有幸能看到這種一級史料。此外，謝先生也重新根據拉丁文翻譯了《羅馬十二帝王傳》，同屬本系列中，即將出版，非常令人期待！！！

[Santiago González · Rating 4 out of 5]

No es fiable históricamente pero está entretenida (tampoco es que haya donde elegir, es el único relato de decente envergadura sobre el periodo). Las anécdotas estrambóticas, me gustaron.

Me la he leído sin leerme las notas lo cual es peligroso, espero no haberme comido demasiados bulos que desconocía.

He leído la edición de Cátedra que según una reseña en una revista es más nueva y algo mejor a pesar de estar la de Akal también bien.

[Enrico · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was supposed to be a continuation of the work of Suetonius, however it can't keep that promise as it is rather boring in a lot of parts. A lot of the stuff in here is probably fabricated and more so to the end of the book. That is why it starts out pretty good and gets worse and worse the more you read.

[Timothy Frasca]

Lots of debunked tales, but still fascinating. The Elagabolus story at the end of worth waiting for (and apparently at least partially true).

[Robert Whelan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very boring to read, not like Suetonius at all. This book makes some of the most interesting emperors uninteresting and boring. Lacks the gossipy scandals of Suetonius.