Thanks for your review. There's a fairly detailed discussion of the use made of the Historia Augusta in the Sources Notes. It reads:
The Augustan History, written in Latin, provides the most detailed biographical account of Marcus Aurelius. Its chapters on the lives of Hadrian, Aelius Caesar, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, Avidius Cassius, Commodus, and Pertinax, and some passages in other chapters also contain useful information about Marcus’s life. The work purports to be by six different authors; the life of Marcus Aurelius is attributed to one Julius Capitolinus. However, modern scholarship has suggested that the entire history may be the work of a single author writing under several pseudonyms. It is addressed to the emperors Diocletian and Constantine I, who ruled from 284 to 305 and from 306 to 337, respectively. Modern scholarly consensus indicates a date of composition closer to the start of the fifth century CE.
It must be stressed that this text is notoriously problematic. It appears to contain a mixture of details derived from earlier historical sources and fabricated elements. Some of the letters and speeches are considered especially dubious. The work repeatedly claims, though, to be drawing on the lost biography of Marcus Aurelius written by Marius Maximus at the start of the third century, which is much closer to the period in question, although it may also be incorporating propaganda, gossip, or satire, alongside trustworthy historical details.
The Life of Marcus Aurelius is among the somewhat more reliable parts of the book. For instance, the men named as Marcus’s philosophy tutors in the Augustan History are all mentioned by him in the Meditations, in a manner that appears consistent with this claim. The Augustan History’s comments about Marcus’s legislative interests are also largely corroborated by the evidence found in Roman legal digests. Indeed, it contains many details that accord with information found in other sources.
More caution is needed with regard to certain other parts of the text, often viewed with suspicion, especially the lives of Lucius Verus and Avidius Cassius, and some of the speeches and letters purportedly being quoted. Geoff Adams provides a recent analysis of the key chapters in Marcus Aurelius in the Historia Augusta and Beyond, which concludes “In general terms the HA will always be problematic, but it does provide historical value for us.”
The Augustan History, written in Latin, provides the most detailed biographical account of Marcus Aurelius. Its chapters on the lives of Hadrian, Aelius Caesar, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, Avidius Cassius, Commodus, and Pertinax, and some passages in other chapters also contain useful information about Marcus’s life. The work purports to be by six different authors; the life of Marcus Aurelius is attributed to one Julius Capitolinus. However, modern scholarship has suggested that the entire history may be the work of a single author writing under several pseudonyms. It is addressed to the emperors Diocletian and Constantine I, who ruled from 284 to 305 and from 306 to 337, respectively. Modern scholarly consensus indicates a date of composition closer to the start of the fifth century CE.
It must be stressed that this text is notoriously problematic. It appears to contain a mixture of details derived from earlier historical sources and fabricated elements. Some of the letters and speeches are considered especially dubious. The work repeatedly claims, though, to be drawing on the lost biography of Marcus Aurelius written by Marius Maximus at the start of the third century, which is much closer to the period in question, although it may also be incorporating propaganda, gossip, or satire, alongside trustworthy historical details.
The Life of Marcus Aurelius is among the somewhat more reliable parts of the book. For instance, the men named as Marcus’s philosophy tutors in the Augustan History are all mentioned by him in the Meditations, in a manner that appears consistent with this claim. The Augustan History’s comments about Marcus’s legislative interests are also largely corroborated by the evidence found in Roman legal digests. Indeed, it contains many details that accord with information found in other sources.
More caution is needed with regard to certain other parts of the text, often viewed with suspicion, especially the lives of Lucius Verus and Avidius Cassius, and some of the speeches and letters purportedly being quoted. Geoff Adams provides a recent analysis of the key chapters in Marcus Aurelius in the Historia Augusta and Beyond, which concludes “In general terms the HA will always be problematic, but it does provide historical value for us.”