Herodian

• 1. Identity And Origins

  ›

  Herodian or Herodianus lived between the years 170 and 240. He wrote a history in Greek titled History of the Empire from Marcus onwards. The origin of this author remains one of the great mysteries of classical scholarship. Some scholars argue he came from Syria, while others point to Alexandria in Egypt. A third group believes his home was Asia Minor. One passage suggests he viewed the Alps as larger than anything in his part of the world. This description has led some to believe he was not Italian. Another theory links him to Caracalla's massacre of Alexandria. Yet errors in his account speak against this specific origin. He calls Alexandria the second city of the empire, but also applies that title to Antioch and Carthage. A proposal exists that he was the son of Aelius Herodianus, an Alexandrian grammarian. That fits chronologically, yet no other evidence supports it. A popular speculation identifies him as Syrian, perhaps from Antioch. He describes Syrians as quick-witted and mentions them twice more. However, gaps in his knowledge of Syrian affairs suggest otherwise. He confuses two Parthian kings and gets the geography of the Parthian campaign in 197 through 198 deeply flawed. An inhabitant of Syria should have had access to such knowledge. The third hypothesis places his home in western Asia Minor. This assumption relies on frequent mentions of cities there. It also rests on the fact that he makes no factual errors in those passages. Since its first publication in the mid-20th century, this view has become the most widely accepted. F. Cássola considers Herodian's origins in western Asia Minor to be the most likely solution. Unless an inscription is discovered, his place of birth will never be known for certain.

  6

• 2. Life And Service

  ›

  Herodian writes that events described in his history occurred during his lifetime. One can assume he must have reached the age of ten by the year 180 due to attentive detail in descriptions. He states he had a personal share in some events during imperial and public service. All available information concerning his life derives from what he himself wrote. Evidence remains scarce throughout the historical record. One notion suggests he finished writing around 240, which would make him about 70 years old. His description of Gordian III is less than flattering. It is doubtful he released such a negative review of a current emperor. Logic suggests his history was finished in 244 at the earliest when Gordian III died. In his first book, Herodian mentions the games of Commodus in 192. The third book discusses the Secular Games of Septimius Severus in 204. If Herodian attended the games of Commodus, he had been at least 14 at the time. This means he was born in 178 at the latest. Neither occupation nor social status is known with certainty. News of the senatus consultum tacitum leaked by senators contradicts claims of secret knowledge. It certainly would not have remained hidden for the entirety of his lifetime. A possibility exists that Herodian was a freedman. That fits the profile perfectly as he might not care for larger political issues. Instead, he would concentrate on personalities and intricacies. He could have been an apparitor, scribe, or attendant to the emperor. Such roles suited him well since they provided access to senatorial documents. They allowed extensive travel and knowledge in fiscal affairs. Herodian repetitively stressed fiscal matters throughout his history. Bartolomeo Borghesi suggested CIL 10, 7286 refers to a legate of Sicily in his honor.

• 3. Historical Scope

  ›

  Herodian's Roman History spans eight books covering years 180 to 238. The first book describes the reign of Commodus from 180 to 192. The second discusses the Year of the Five Emperors in 193. Book Three encompasses the reign of Septimius Severus from 193 to 211. The fourth book covers the reign of Caracalla from 211 to 217. Book Five details the reign of Elagabalus from 218 through 222. Book Six deals with the reign of Severus Alexander from 222 to 235. The seventh book recounts the reign of Maximinus Thrax from 235 to 238. The final one describes the Year of the Six Emperors in 238. Most likely, Herodian writes for an eastern audience. He often explains different Roman customs and beliefs that would seem foreign to Easterners. His work provides a first-person account of one of the most politically diverse times of the Roman Empire. He states his intention was to narrate only the most important actions separately and in chronological order. Because of this approach, he sometimes conflates large numbers of events into single references. All of Caracalla's campaign in the north during 213 through 214 is condensed into two short allusions. A single reference to a winter in Sirmium sums up Maximinus' battles on the Rhine and Danube in 236 through 238.

  17

• 4. Stylistic Approach

  ›

  Photios I of Constantinople gives an outline of contents in Codex 99. He passes a flattering encomium on the style of Herodian. Photius describes it as clear, vigorous, agreeable, and preserving a happy medium between disregard of art and elegance. It balances profuse employment of artifices known under Atticism with boldness and bombast. An English translator wrote in 1705 that Herodian preserves a Majesty suitable to Greatness of Subject. The translation notes something pleasing and comely within him that other men can never reach. Altheim commended Herodian's wide vision of the period. F.A. Wolf acclaimed Herodian's lack of bias and superstition. However, not all views are positive. Wolf also charged Herodian with deficiency in critical faculty. Zosimus used him as a source while writing his World Chronicle. John of Antioch did the same when composing his own history. The author of Historia Augusta drew from Herodian but censured him for bias. Joannes Zonaras only utilized Herodian where Cassius Dio's history leaves off. Herodian appears to have used Thucydides as a model to some extent. He adopted both style and general composition from the earlier historian. He often introduces speeches wholly or partly imaginary.

  8

• 5. Scholarly Reception

  ›

  The first person on record to review Herodian is the ninth-century patriarch of Constantinople. Photius states he neither exaggerates with hyperbole nor omits anything essential. In short, few men surpass him in all virtues of historiography. Zosimus used him as a source alongside John of Antioch. An English translator wrote in 1705 praising his Majesty suitable to Greatness of Subject. Altheim commended Herodian's wide vision of the period. F.A. Wolf acclaimed Herodian's lack of bias and superstition. Yet Wolf also charged Herodian with deficiency in critical faculty. The author of Historia Augusta drew from Herodian but censured him for bias. Herodian was by no means Zosimus' first choice. Similarly, Joannes Zonaras only utilized Herodian where Cassius Dio's history leaves off. Herodian has long been criticized for lack of historical accuracy. Recent studies tend to side with him, legitimizing his historical facts. Both he and Cassius Dio admittedly make many errors in their histories. Dio is credited as expert when it comes to senate matters. However, Herodian challenges Dio on description of people's reaction to proclamation of Septimius Severus. Dio's work is not always more accurate than Herodian's.

  9

• 6. Factual Reliability

  ›

  Herodian sometimes conflates large numbers of events into single references or two. All of Caracalla's campaign in north during 213 through 214 condenses into two short allusions. A single reference to winter in Sirmium sums up Maximinus' battles on Rhine and Danube in 236 through 238. He occasionally falls short in descriptions of geography. He confuses Arabia Scenite with Arabia Felix. He claims Issus was where final battle and capture of Darius III took place. These flaws could be explained with lack of knowledge of small part of empire. An inhabitant of Syria should have had access to such knowledge. Errors in account speak against origin theories linking him to Alexandria. He calls Alexandria second city of empire but applies same title to Antioch and Carthage. Gaps in knowledge of Syrian affairs lead one to believe he might not be from region. His chronology and geography of Parthian campaign in 197 through 198 are deeply flawed. Despite these issues, recent studies tend to side with him. They legitimize his historical facts regarding the period covered.

  5