Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte (in English often called Enmann's Kaisergeschichte) is a modern term for a hypothesized Latin historical work, written in the 4th century but now lost.

The German scholar Alexander Enmann made in 1884 a comparison of several late Roman historical works and found many similarities, which could not be explained by a direct literary relationship between the extant works (Eine verlorene Geschichte der roemischen Kaiser und das Buch De viris illustribus urbis Romae). Enmann postulated a theory of a lost historical work, which was the common source for authors including Aurelius Victor, Eutropius and the author of the Historia Augusta.[1] The work is not mentioned by any late Roman historian, but Enmann's analysis is today largely accepted and modified.[2] However, there are some scholars, especially den Boer, who would question its existence, but the majority accept it.[3]

The Kaisergeschichte (History of the Emperors) was a brief historical work. It had covered the time from emperor Augustus to 337 or 357.[4] It was used by Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Festus, the Historia Augusta, Jerome, the anonymous Epitome de Caesaribus, and other late Roman histories.


  • Alexander Enmann, Eine verlorene geschichte der römischen Kaiser und das buch de viris illustribus urbis romae. Philologus, no. Supplement-Band 4, Heft 3. (1884). p. 337-501.
  • Willem den Boer, Some Minor Roman Historians. Leiden, 1972.
  • Timothy David Barnes, The Sources of the Historia Augusta. Collection Latomus v. 155. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1978.
  • R. W. Burgess, On the Date of the Kaisergeschichte. In: Classical Philology 90 (1995), 111–128 (with bibliography); JSTOR.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Burgess, On the Date of the Kaisergeschichte, p. 111-114.
  2. ^ Cf. Richard W. Burgess: A Common Source for Jerome, Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and the Epitome de Caesaribus between 358 and 378, along with Further Thoughts on the Date and Nature of the Kaisergeschichte. In: Classical Philology 100 (2005), p. 166–192.
  3. ^ Burgess, On the Date of the Kaisergeschichte, p. 113-114.
  4. ^ Burgess, On the Date of the Kaisergeschichte, p. 113-114.