Product Code Database
Herodian or Herodianus (), sometimes referred to as " Herodian of Antioch" (c. 170 – c. 240), was a minor Roman civil servant who wrote a colourful history in Greek titled History of the Empire from Marcus onwards (τῆς μετὰ Μάρκον βασιλείας ἱστορία) in eight books covering the years 180 to 238. His work is not considered entirely reliable, although his less biased account of Elagabalus may be more useful than that of Cassius Dio. The origin of Herodian is contested in scholarship, popular hypotheses being Syria, Alexandria in Egypt and Asia Minor.. He writes on the many hypotheses regarding Herodianus' origin: "Neben Alexandria nehmen hierbei Syrien und Kleinasien die prominentesten Plätze ein" Besides. However, he appears to have lived for a considerable period of time in Rome, possibly without holding any public office. From his extant work, it seems that he was still living at an advanced age during the reign of Gordianus III, who ascended the throne in 238. Beyond this, nothing is known of his life.
Herodian writes (1.1.3; 2.15.7) that the events described in his history occurred during his lifetime. Photios I of Constantinople (Codex 99) gives an outline of the contents of this work and passes a flattering encomium on the style of Herodian, which he describes as clear, vigorous, agreeable, and preserving a happy medium between an utter disregard of art and elegance and a profuse employment of the artifices and prettinesses which were known under the name of Atticism, as well as between boldness and bombast. He appears to have used Thucydides as a model to some extent, both for style and for the general composition of his work, often introducing speeches wholly or in part imaginary.
Another popular speculation, however, is that Herodian was a Syrian,"The exotic baetyl itself is described with suspicion by Herodian (conceivably himself of Syrian origin)": Stewart, Peter (2008). " Baetyls as Statues? Cult Images in the Roman Near East". In: Eliav, Yaron Z.; Friedland, Elise A.; Herbert, Sharon (eds). The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power. Leuven/Dudley: Peeters, , pp. 297–314, quotation on pp. 299–300. maybe from Antioch. Herodian describes the character of the Syrians as quick-witted and mentions them twice more. However, there are also gaps in Herodian's knowledge of Syrian affairs which lead one to believe that he might not have been from the region at all. For example, he confuses two kings, and his chronology and geography of the Parthian campaign in 197–198 are deeply flawed. These flaws could be explained with a lack of knowledge of a small part of the empire; however, one would assume that an inhabitant of Syria would have had access to this knowledge.
The third hypothesis regarding his origin is that Asia minor was his home. This assumption is based, among other factors, on the frequent mention of cities in Asia Minor in his work and the fact that he doesn't make factual errors in this passages (unlike in his comments on other regions). Since its first publication in the mid-20th century, this hypothesis has become the most widely accepted of the possible origins.: "Die Mehrheit der Interpreten folgt mittlerweile F. Cássola, der eine Herkunft Herodians aus dem westlichen Kleinasien für die wahrscheinlichste Lösung hält" The., according to whom "it is generally agreed" that Herodian came from western Asia Minor. However, unless an inscription is discovered, Herodian's place of birth will never be known for certain.
Herodian has been both praised and criticized by scholars. The first person on record to review Herodian is the ninth-century patriarch of Constantinople, Photius. Photius wrote of Herodian: "he neither exaggerates with hyperbole nor omits anything essential; in short, in all the virtues of historiography there are few men who are his superior.” Zosimus used him as a source as did John of Antioch when writing his World Chronicle. An English translator of the Roman History wrote in 1705 that Herodian "still preserves a Majesty suitable to the Greatness of the Subject which he treats, and has something in him so pleasing and comely, as perhaps all the Art and Labour of other Men can never reach.” Altheim commended Herodian's wide vision of the period, and F.A. Wolf acclaimed Herodian's lack of bias and superstition. However, not all views of Herodian are positive. For example, Wolf also charged Herodian with a deficiency in critical faculty. While the author of the Historia Augusta drew from Herodian, he also censured him for bias, and 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 a lack of historical accuracy, but recent studies have tended to side with him, legitimizing his historical facts.9780674995017, Harvard University Press. . ISBN 9780674995017 In the second book, Herodian states that his intention was to “narrate only the most important and conclusive…actions separately and in chronological order.” (2.15.7) Because of this, Herodian sometimes conflates a large number of events into a single reference or two. For example, all of Caracalla's campaign in the north during 213 through 214 is condensed into two short allusions. Similarly, a single reference to a winter in Sirmium sums up Maximinus’ battles on the Rhine and Danube in 236 through 238. Herodian also occasionally falls short in his descriptions of geography. He confuses Arabia Scenite with Arabia Felix and claims that Issus was where the final battle and capture of Darius III took place.
In regard to Cassius Dio, both he and Herodian admittedly make many errors in their histories. Dio is credited as the expert when it comes to the senate; however, Herodian challenges Dio on his description of the people's reaction to the proclamation of Septimius Severus as their new emperor. Dio's work is not always the more accurate of the two and must not be immediately chosen over Herodian's.
|
|
