History and Fantasy on Acholius, the Biographer

* Grup de Recerques en Antiguitat Tardana (University of Barcelona). This study was undertaken within the framework of the research project PID2019-104448GB-I00 (Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness) and the group 2017 SGR211 of AGAUR (Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca).

The Historia Augusta ( HA ) is infamous because of the invention of a large number of its sources. The procedures followed for devising the names of the authors are the same as for the other fictional characters.¹ This is one of the ways to free up its false erudition, which becomes more daring when the anonymous author is lacking in material, in the so-called secondary vitae and especially in the second half of the work, when the presence of apocryphal documents increases.

Nevertheless, sometimes it is not as simple as it might seem. For example, the bogus Aurelius Victor cui Pinius cognomen erat (SHA Macr. 4.2) is an obvious mask for the real author Aurelius Victor; also, he is followed by a certain Festus (4.4). Likewise, the alleged writers Fabius Marcellinus ( Alex. 48.6; Prob. 2.7) and Valerius Marcellinus ( Max. 4.5); Statius Valens ( Alex. 48.6), the translator Nicomachus ( Aur. 27.6) and Aurelius Verus ( Alex. 48.6) correlate with Ammianus Marcellinus, Eutropius, Nicomachus Flavianus and again Aurelius Victor,

respectively.² To those, we can add the biographer Suetonius Optatianus ( Tac. 11.7), a combination of Suetonius and the fourth-century poet Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius.³

However, none of the news that the biographer attributes to these bogus authors matches the accounts of their historical counterparts:

• 1.    First of all, “Aurelius Victor qui et Pinius” provides quote about the origins of Emperor Macrinus along with a detail about a fellow freedman named Festus. The quote does not exist in the real Victor’s Liber de Caesaribus , which is quite scarce in information about this emperor (Aur. Vict. 22), although his assessment does correspond with that of the HA ’s biographer.⁴

• 2.    “Aurelius Verus”, “Fabius Marcellinus” and “Statius Valens” (SHA Alex. 48.6) are said to have written the life of Trajan, which does not mention the fantastic episode of Ovinius Camillus (48). Of course, the omission of a spurious episode does match with their real counterparts, Victor, Ammianus and Eutropius–although Ammianus’ first books are lost. Also, the author’s sarcasm is clear at 48.8.

• 3.    The same alter ego for Ammianus Marcellinus reappears in a comment that is rather humorous, but without historical value ( Prob. 2.7). He is a subject of praise for putting sincerity before eloquence, on the same level as Suetonius, Marius Maximus whom the real Ammianus compares with Juvenal (28.4.14), Gargilius Martialis, or the HA ’s author himself. To complete the sarcasm, “Fabius Marcellinus” is contrasted instead with Sallust, Livius, Trogus and, of course, Tacitus.

• 4.    The comparison Ammianus receives in the form of “Valerius Marcellinus” is kinder ( Max. 4.5). The aforementioned resemblance to Suetonius is explained here in the description of the emperors in the Suetonian manner, per species . We can be generous on this one: despite Tacitus being the main model for Ammianus, the influence of Suetonius is indeed present in these parts.⁵

• 5.    Next, “Nicomachus” is said to have translated a letter by Zenobia from Syrian into Greek, which is quoted by the biographer after translating it into Latin. The mention of a certain Nicomachus as a translator refers to Nicomachus Flavianus, author of some Annales and translator of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana (Sid. Apoll. Ep. 8.3.1).⁶ Nicomachus’ work has not survived, but we can assure that the letter is spurious, just like the others cited by the author.

• 6.    Last, “Suetonius Optatianus” is said to have written a biography of Emperor Tacitus ( Tac. 11.7). Obviously, the only coincidence with Suetonius is the fact of being a biographer. As for Porphyrius, the composition of cryptic biographies with hidden messages, like the former’s poems, has been suggested in a hypothesis by Rohrbacher.⁷

In this paper, we will focus on one of these spurious authors used as a false pretence of historical accuracy, who are associated with equally spurious information. However, this character in particular is not as simple as has been thought and could possibly be added to the group of writers we have just detailed.

The author in question is named Acholius (PIR¹ A 31; PIR² A 36) and makes four appearances throughout the work. The first ones happen in different locations of Severus Alexander’s vita , the longest in the HA . This book, signed by Aelius Lampridius, makes use of the alleged writer to certify some aspects of the prince’s life (SHA Alex. 14.6 = Peter fr. 4, about his memory; 64.4-5 = Peter fr. 1, about the granting of the title of Caesar to Alexander and his travels⁸) and to settle a false scholarly debate (48.6-7 = Peter fr. 2, about the fantastic episode of Ovinius Camillus).

Furthermore, Acholius reappears much later in Aurelian’s vita , signed by Flavius Vopiscus (SHA Aur. 12.3-15.1 = Peter fr. 4). This is the longest fragment and the only one in the form of a literal quotation, a series of speeches delivered by three characters: Emperor Valerian and the generals Aurelian and Ulpius Crinitus. The scene is dated from 258 and takes place in Byzantium; the future emperor Aurelian is adopted by the dux Ulpius Crinitus with the placet of Emperor Valerian, who is present along with his political staff.

As for the genre of his presumed work, in the second mention, towards the end of Severus Alexander’s book, Lampridius describes Acholius as a biographer ( scriptor vitae , Alex. 48.7). In the first, only his name is given (14.6), and in the third, he is presented as historicus (64.5). Also, the only biographical note about Acholius in the book is in the third mention, which states that he was a writer coeval to Severus Alexander himself ( eius temporis ).

On the other hand, the long extract cited in the Vita Aureliani comes, according to Vopiscus, from one of Acholius’ books ( ex libris Acholi ): from the ninth book of some acta ( libro actorum eius nono ) to be precise. In this passage, the biographer describes Acholius as magister admissionum of Emperor Valerian ( Aur. 12.4), which should be authority enough to give credibility to the account, as claimed by the anonymous imposter.⁹ It is surprising, though, that, as such, he is not named among the officials who assisted Valerian in Byzantium.

Thus, he is a person who would have lived during the reign of Alexander (222/35), served as a high clerk under Valerian (253/60) and probably also under Aurelian (270/5), since his report in Valerian’s acta appears to be a compliment to the future emperor in the form of legitimist propaganda. Altogether, that covers between 35 and 53 years of his supposed life and implies that he would have written in his old age. There was some attempt to prove the historicity of this writer before the discovery of the farce in the HA in 1889.¹⁰ There were also subsequent attempts, based on an epigraphic document from Sardes and the rarity of the name; it was also assumed that Valerian’s acta was another biography.¹¹

Nevertheless, the tendency among modern scholars is to reject any historical echo behind the character of Acholius.¹² From all the information provided by the HA , Peter’s collection of fragments distinguishes two works by the author: a Vita Alexandri Severi and the Acta .¹³ Syme went further by separating two different fictional writers: the author of the biography and the author of the memories.¹⁴ The inscription from Sardes has acquired a new meaning, now as a possible hint for the deceiver’s inspiration when naming his character,¹⁵ and other options have been explored with the same purpose.¹⁶ This is usually the current posture on the question.¹⁷

The extract from the acta of Valerian, clearly apocryphal,18 includes an Antonine and, therefore, Theodosian propaganda theme,19 as well as one of the author’s favourite themes: the defence of the elective monarchy against the hereditary one. It also comprises a list of items, which is a kind of text often transmitted within bogus documents and widely used in the last vitae of the HA (Cl. 14; 17; Aur. 9; 12.1-2; Prob. 4.3-6), in this case a list of military decorations (Aur. 13.3; also in Prob. 5.1-3). Also, most of the names follow well-known patterns of the author’s inventiveness.20

These acta used to be mentioned by the author to introduce generic or spurious events.²¹ Despite that, as we have already seen, whether or not the content attributed to these masked authors corresponds to the original documents is irrelevant. In fact, logic suggests that there should be no notable coincidence since the blatant anachronism would expose the farce.

Besides, there is another pending question about the character, and it is about his libro nono . In the past, it was the subject of a light discussion whether the vita and the acta could be part of the same work, as we have seen before. But the dismissal of any historicity for Acholius has rendered this question pointless as well as any other questions concerning his alleged literary work. However, it is worth exploring this expression regarding the issue of the dispositio in the HA , which does matter.

It is well known that the anonymous biographer is incapable of following his own rules. Thus, in the middle of the work, the author abandons his ambitious initial intention of dedicating a separate book (liber) to each prince22 and, repentant, adopts a new criterion to group them.23 The reason is to avoid tiring Constantine, that is, the reader, with such a multitude of books (libri, codices).24 Actually, the real reason was foreshadowed before (Macr. 1): his wild initiative to dedicate a book to every caesar and usurper required too much inventiveness and empty rhetoric due to the scarceness of information, and it was the writer himself who was wearing out from writing so many books (volumines).25

One may note that the biographer, in this context, uses the words liber , volumen and codex synonymously, with the meaning of vita or group of vitae .²⁶ Note also that, for the new dispositio , he alludes to a preceding tradition, which he confirms with the example of the bogus Tatius Cyrillus .²⁷ And, in fact, the clue suggesting that Acholius could be indeed the shadow of a real author–although the content is fictitious–is provided by the mention to this liber nonus dedicated to Emperor Valerian ( Aur. 12.4).

Certainly, all we know about Acholius’ work (or works) is that he would have written a biography of Severus Alexander and some “ninth book” about Valerian, perhaps another biography as earlier scholars suggested. So, if Alexander’s is the first of a collection of biographies, for whom “Acholius” is introduced, and he followed the book structure of the second half of the HA , Valerian’s is indeed the ninth (Severus Alexander, Maximinus and son, the Gordians, Pupienus and Balbinus, the Philipps, the Decii, Hostilian and Gallus and son, Aemilian, Valerian or the Valerians).²⁸ If so, “Acholius” would be a continuator of Marius Maximus, whose last biography is for Elagabalus.

Actually, the rogue biographer is honest when he says that several references to this structure existed ( Maximin. 1.2).²⁹ Marius Maximus, continuator of Suetonious and editor of biographies from Nerva to his time, had to group the lives of some princes to fit the Suetonian number, twelve: Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (SHA Avid. 9.5 = Peter fr. 12) and, presumably, Caracalla and Geta, and Macrinus and Diadumenian. These are pairs of co-emperors. Ausonius repeats the scheme in his XII Caesares once he exceeds the chronological bound of Suetonius.³⁰ This how the HA follows from the book dedicated to Maximinus and his son Maximus, as seen before.

	I	II	III	IV	V	VI
Suetonius	Caesar	Augustus	Tiberius	Caligula	Claudius	Nero
Ausonius	Caesar	Augustus	Tiberius	Caligula	Claudius	Nero
	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Suetonius	Galba	Otho	Vitellius	Vespasian	Titus	Domitian
Ausonius	Galba	Otho	Vitellius	Vespasian	Titus	Domitian
	I	II	III	IV	V	VI
Marius Maximus	Nerva 31	Trajan 32	Hadrian 33	Antoninus Pius 34	M. Aur. & L. Verus 35	Commo-dus 36
Ausonius	Nerva	Trajan	Hadrian	Antoninus Pius	Marcus Aurelius	Commo-dus

	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Marius Maximus	Pertinax 37	Didius Julianus	Septimius Severus 38	Caracalla (& Geta?)	Macrinus (& Diadu-menian?)	Elaga-balus 39
Ausonius	Pertinax	Didius Julianus	Septimius Severus	Caracalla	Macrinus	Elaga-balus
	I	II	III	IV	V	VI
Acholius	Alexander Severus 40
SHA	Alexander Severus	The two Maximini	The three Gordians	Pupienus & Balbin.	The two Philipps 41	The two Decii 42
	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII
Acholius			Valerian 43		Claudius?	Aurelian?
SHA	Hostilian, Gallus & Volusian	Aemilian	The two Valerians	The two Gallieni	The thirty tyrants44	Claudius Gothicus

Probable distribution of the biographies

According to this hypothesis, the work of Acholius or whatever his true name was would end, at least, in a twelfth biography dedicated to Aurelian, made protagonist of the episode in Byzantium.

To sum up, we believe that the character named “Acholius” fits with an apparent continuator of Marius Maximus. Both the Acholius referred to in the

Vita Alexandri and the one in the Vita Aureliani are the same person, since the chronology offers no real hurdle, and his vita of Severus Alexander and his acta of Valerian do allude to the same work: another collection of imperial biographies, the most popular genre at the time. The coincidence of a “ninth book” with the one corresponding to Valerian implies that it follows an arrangement already established in the literary tradition of the genre. In short, it may suggest that, as in the case of other fictitious authors, “Acholius” is a pseudonym for a real author regardless of the fraudulent content that the imposter attributes to him.