Epitome de Caesaribus
4th century Latin historical work
The Epitome de Caesaribus is a 5th-century Latin historical work based on the Liber de Caesaribus (also known as Historiae abbreviatae) by Aurelius Victor.
It is a brief account of the reigns of the Roman emperors from Augustus to Theodosius the Great. It is often attributed to Aurelius Victor, but was written by an anonymous author who was very likely a pagan. The author used the so-called Enmannsche Kaisergeschichte and the (now lost) Annales of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus (a friend of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus). Although very brief in length and not always reliable, it also contains some useful information such as how the late Romans perceived the Sassanian wars and descriptions of the affairs of the Tetrarchy as well as anecdotes of various emperors. The work also shows numerous anachronisms and inaccuracies, such as referring to Caracalla as the father of the later emperor Elagabalus, a rumour perpetuated by the Severan dynasty.
Bibliography
Schlumberger, Jörg A. (1974). Die Epitome de Caesaribus. Untersuchungen zur heidnischen Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrhunderts n.
“Epitome de Caesaribus” enters the record as 4th century Latin historical work. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Epitome, Caesaribus and century can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Epitome de Caesaribus” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Epitome, Caesaribus and century provides the most credible route into that argument.
Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 31, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q426008. VIAF identifies the subject as 203012470. The Library of Congress control number is n86113782. 2 of 5 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1974.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Epitome de Caesaribus”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Epitome de Caesaribus primary sources, Epitome de Caesaribus archive and Epitome research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Epitome de Caesaribus”?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Epitome de Caesaribus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.