394: fin de la rédaction de l’Histoire Auguste?

The author makes new points wich represent as many responses to possible objections to the thesis he exposed at the Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bambergense 2005, identifying the Historia Augusta with the Annales written by Nicomachus Flavianus senior.

1. Annales and imperial biographies: Actually, the difference between the two styles in Late Antiquity is groundless.

2. The seven books of the Historia Augusta and the Murbach catalogue: The text of the catalogue wich says that the Historia Augusta was written in seven books [Vita cesaru(m) u(e)l tira(n)noru(m) ab helio adriano us(que) ad Car(u)m carinu(m) libri VII] is reliable and does not need to be corrected.

3. The seven books: The structure of the Historia Augusta in seven books may have an ideologic and religious mean.

4. Chronological issues: a/ The composition’s date of the Historia Augusta: The Historia Augusta was composed between 392 and 394 in the form that we can read it. — b/ An allusion to the miraculous wind of the Frigidus’ battle? The theme of the storm (Gord. 16, 2) may be topical. It is not an allusion to the Frigidus but to a real storm that Zosimus knows. — c/ Probinus’ and Olybrius’ consulates: The Vita Probi probably contains a reference to the consuls of 395. As their nomination has been known in 394, that doesn’t provide any clue that the Historia Augusta is later than 394. — d/ Did the author of the Historia Augusta read Claudian? None of the presumed echoes of Claudian in the Historia Augusta is proved. — e/ The motif of the Kinderkaiser: Honorius became Augustus on january 23^th, 393, whereas he was less than nine years old. Arcadius became Augustus on january 19^th, 383, when he was six. This motif must have been developed by the Historia Augusta before 394. — f/ The religious atmosphere: The series of laws against pagans between 392 and 394 created a religious atmosphere wich perfectly fits with what we read in the Historia Augusta. — g/ Aurelianus, Stilicho and Eucherius in the Historia Augusta? References to the consuls of 400 in the Historia Augusta are not proved. Some allusions to Stilicho might be possible. But they don’t imply that the Historia Augusta was written later than 394. An allusion to Eucherius in the life of Maximinus Iunior is possible, but it doesn’t imply that the Historia Augusta was written later than 394. Reading the lives of the Maximini duo as a satirical tract against Stilicho is hard to admit. At any rate, it does not fit with the ascription of the Historia Augusta to Nicomachus Flavianus iunior.