Gaëlle Herbeth
Abstract : Although the assassination of Flavius Stilicho, generalissimo of the Roman armies, on August 22nd, 408, is a well-known event, the many facets of this important figure’s status mean that there are still a few grey areas surrounding him. The death of Theodosius I in 395 left his two sons and heirs, Flavius Honorius and Flavius Arcadius, orphans. The youth of the two Augusti forced their father to choose a tutelary figure for them. Stilicho was entrusted with important and prestigious military activities. Moreover, he was a fully-fledged member of the imperial family. The example of Stilicho and his tragic fate should enable us to reassess the relationship between kinship and power in the late Empire, and to reconsider the various forms and designations of kinship.
Key Words : Late Antiquity, Flavius Stilicho, commendatio, Theodosian dynasty, patriciate.
Gaëlle Herbeth was born on 30 October 1992. After completing a master’s degree at the École normale supérieure in Lyon, she obtained the agrégation in geography in 2016. A secondary school teacher from 2016 to 2020, she also completed a master’s degree in ancient history at the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. She was a funded PhD student from 2020 to 2023 at the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and has been working as a non-tenured teaching and research fellow (ATER) at the same university since September 2023. Her thesis, supervised by Prof. François Chausson is entitled « Patriciens et patrices de la fin du IIIe siècle de notre ère à l’époque de Justinien Ier : du statut aristocratique à la dignité aulique ».
Gaëlle HERBETH, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne – UMR 8210 ANHIMA
gaelle.herbeth@gmail.com
« Protect these two brothers with your hand »[1]
Flavius Stilicho: dynasty, configurations and reconfigurations of kinship in the midst of political crises.
Introduction
On August 22nd, 408, Flavius Stilicho, generalissimo of the Roman armies, was assassinated[2]. Soon after, his son Eucherius met the same fate. The suppression of influential individuals, seen as conspirators for power, was quite usual[3]. Yet, Stilicho’s assassination must lead to a deeper analysis of a peculiar example of conflict and violence inside a family. The attack of such a prominent figure must be an occasion to reconsider some definitions and concepts of parenthood, as well as the diverse forms of kinship in the particular context of the instabilities and political transformations of Late Antiquity.
Stilicho’s various links to the imperial family as well as his guardianship on Honorius – and Arcadius? –, which would have been entrusted to him by Theodosius I, have been widely discussed and challenged, but may be a place to start. A special case of familial conflict, constituting a real government matter in the West and in the whole Empire because of the respective status of each protagonist, can be analysed through these different forms of connections. Stilicho’s figure has been prominently studied by scholars[4], and the forms of parenthood inside the Theodosian dynasty, more specifically Stilicho’s triple link with the family, have been the object of numerous essays, in more or less extensive analysis[5]. The case of Stilicho must be an occasion to reconsider the diverse forms of parenthood in the particular context of the instabilities and political transformations of Late Antiquity. By reassessing the different forms of kinship within the Theodosian family, both in literature and in epigraphy, we will also analyse how the sources and their authors refer to Stilicho. The question of kinship and paternity, particularly relevant in his case, should lead to a consideration of the notion of parricide, which will be included more broadly in the problem of family conflicts and political crises on an Empire-wide scale. The aim of this paper is therefore to consider the family conflict between Stilicho and Honorius from the point of view of Stilicho’s actual family ties, but also from the point of view of the diverse ways he is referred to in several late texts.
Stilicho’s links to the Theodosians and the problem of imperial guardianship.
The son of a romanized Vandal and of an unknown Roman woman, Stilicho has gradually risen through the ranks of the military from 383 until he was promoted as magister utriusque militiae in 392-393[6]. An embassy to Persia in 383-384 might have been the first notable step in his career[7], which led him to marry Serena, the adoptive daughter of the emperor Theodosius I[8], but it could constitute only a single reason among others. This union must have been indeed determined by other, more obscure, criteria. On the one hand, the uncertainties about Stilicho’s early career could lead us to think that he was no noble, and thus, he would have married up[9]. On the other hand, it is also very plausible to think that Stilicho must have been close to the imperial family even before his first assignments. R. W. Mathisen rightly showed that ambassadors who were sent to foreign kingdoms or empires were often, if not mostly, men of high status, with important offices, so that the prestige of the embassy could be perceived by the other party[10]. Stilicho was most probably, in some unclear way yet, an important character in the Eastern part of the Empire even before the two aforementioned events. His father was a Vandal who served as a cavalry officer during the reign of Valens. Networks within the Valentinian court had been likely set up by or around his father, including him and Stilicho in an Eastern aristocracy of service, which in turn could explain why Stilicho was given his first positions and why he married Serena[11]. A love marriage with Serena could also have enabled Stilicho to build up a circle by taking advantage of his wife’s status, which does not invalidate the possible existence of a network built up by Stilicho’s father in the past[12]. In fact, their union allowed the Theodosian dynasty to continue for a time, their first daughter Maria marrying Honorius in 398. Following Maria’s death, Stilicho wed their second daughter Thermantia to the same Augustus in 408, which was clearly part of a strengthening of the relationship with the dynasty and more particularly with Honorius[13].
The death of Theodosius in 395 orphaned his two sons and heirs to the Empire, Flavius Honorius and Flavius Arcadius. A few decades earlier, the Tetrarchy, followed by the reigns of the Constantinian dynasty and the beginning of the Valentinian era, had already established a more or less complete division of imperial power, so that the vast territories of the Empire could be managed in the best possible way. Collegial power, far from being new, became a rule under several princes of the Valentinian dynasty[14]. However, in most studies about Late antique historiography, 395 has traditionally been seen as the year of a genuine partitio imperii between the East, attributed to Arcadius, aged 18, and the West, given over to the care of Honorius, aged 11, although they had already been Augusti since 383 and 393 respectively. Honorius’ age raised the question of the existence of a child emperor, leading to « a necessary rethinking of the imperial function »[15]. Moreover, the uncertainty of the situation in which Theodosius may have entrusted the guardianship to Stilicho and the importance of the powers now in his hands led two authors, Claudian and Ambrose of Milan, to attribute to Stilicho a guardianship not only over Honorius, but also over Arcadius.
Claudian has often been – quite rightly indeed – introduced as the official panegyrist for the West and for Stilicho[16]. Claudian’s speeches provide the most relevant evidence to a guardianship over both Augusti. In his second Laus Stilichonis, Claudian refers to both sons and sets them on equal footing with Stilicho’s own children, yet without evoking a direct paternal bond between Stilicho and Theodosius’ scions[17]. Later in the same speech, Claudian mentions Arcadius and argues in favour of a tutela over the two sons[18]. His speech on Honorius’ third consulship recreates Theodosius’ dying wish, when the then emperor allegedly asked Stilicho to « protect these two brothers with [his] hand »[19]. The In Rufinum also mentions that both brothers and armies had been entrusted to Stilicho[20]. As for Ambrose’s De obitu Theodosii, it was pronounced at the court of Milan forty days after the death of the prince. The fifth part of the speech is undoubtedly the most significant, when Ambrose notes that « Theodosius is more glorious in this also, that he did not make a will in accordance with public law; he had nothing further to determine as regards his sons, to whom he had given everything, except to place them under the protection of a close relative who was present »[21]. Ambrose would seem to assert that Theodosius had not explictly written any kind of will concerning the Empire and his sons. Yet, while the expression praesens parens might refer to a relative of the Theodosian family, it has been fairly widely accepted that this alludes specifically to Stilicho. Indeed, it would seem that Theodosius never made a will, and that the aforementioned authors recount more of a private vow that could have no legal consequences for the imperial succession[22]. Another look at Zosimus reveals two very different situations within the same work. Whereas in the fifth book of the New History, Stilicho is said to have obtained guardianship over Honorius, while Rufinus obtained guardianship over Arcadius in the East[23], the account of Stilicho’s death in 408 refers to guardianship over the two Augusti[24]. Yet, the context in which Zosimus wrote differed a lot from the one in which Ambrose and Claudian did. Then, mentioning a double guardianship is not insignificant from them. As the panegyrist of the Western court, Claudian was also somehow Stilicho’s panegyrist, which gives a lot of information on the prestige attributed to Stilicho, but also on the perception that one could have of him.
A father for the emperor or for the Empire ? How to understand Stilicho’s title, powers and status.
Mentioning Stilicho’s guardianship and mentioning a parental link with the Augusti, which is the case in some of our sources, are also two different things[25]. Such an analysis can first help us to understand the position that was expected of Stilicho, then how it was perceived by the authors of these sources. The most used term, in Latin, to describe the aforementioned relationship is the word parens. However, Ambrose of Milan also uses the verb commendo from which derives, in modern scholarship, the term commendatio[26], a reality which is uneasy to grasp, since Theodosius’ will lacked any juridical frame. In Prudentius’ Contra Symmachum, the Roman senator writes that « to lead our army and our power we had a young warrior mighty in Christ, and his Companion and father Stilicho »[27], this « young warrior » being Honorius. Parens – κηδεστής in Greek – was in fact a fairly common word. It belongs first and foremost to the lexicon of kinship, the parens being above all the father, grandfather and great‑grandfather, very rarely the mother[28]. The term also became institutional, used in official correspondence by and with senators since the Republican era[29]. During the imperial era, this word emerged as a symbol of recognition of the social and political authority of an individual by the emperor. This was quite an important clarification, since the prince was then the only one able and legitimate to appoint someone as parens[30]. However, the word came to be associated to a very specific historical context during the 4th and 5th centuries, in relation to the aftermath of 395, which paved the way to a real legacy after Stilicho[31]. As already said, the De obitu Theodosii is the first source to use the term parens, being abundantly followed by Claudian’s works[32]. Stilicho has also been described as parens publicus in two letters sent by Symmachus[33]. This specific use of the word, in the case of Stilicho, was not a simple chancellery word as well as a simple polite form[34]. Parens was, in this specific context, an official term that Stilicho made his very own in order to describe an individual entrusted with important political charges[35]. In Greek, Eunapius, as well as Olympiodorus and Zosimus, also use the term ἐπίτροπος[36]. Zosimus uses it in a passage which was to take place just before the battle of the Frigidus[37]; he also employs the word ἐπιτραπείς (ἐπιτρέπω) to express Stilicho’s guardianship in his account of the plot against Stilicho which led to his assassination[38]. Photios kept a fragment written by Olympiodorus, following the same literary tradition[39]. The word can have several meanings which are unfortunately not always clear. Usually translated as « tutor », « guardian », even « regent », it actually carries a looser meaning, and mostly an idea of moral or familial obligation[40].
The diversity of terms used to express Stilicho’s kinship inside the Theodosian dynasty is shown in a very meaningful way through the surviving epigraphic documents, since they were the most public form of expression of Stilicho’s ties with the imperial family. The idea of a dual guardianship is expressed through the notable example of an inscription of Carsoli. This dedication to Arcadius and Honorius, commissioned by the Prefect of the City of Rome Quintilius Laetus, commemorates repairs to an aqueduct that were made possible by the seizure of the rebel Gildo’s possessions from 398 onwards[41]. This very fragmentary document mentions that the restorations were ordered by the emperors on the advice of Fl. Stilicho, parentis sui[42]. In addition, two inscriptions uncovered in the Roman Forum use other precise terms to highlight Stilicho’s family ties within the imperial family[43]. Stilicho is said to be socer (father-in-law) domini nostri Honori Augusti, a reference to the successive unions of his two daughters with Honorius[44]. The generalissimo is also described as progener (husband of the granddaughter) diui Teodosi, which is a reminder of his union with Serena, adoptive daughter of Theodosius I and granddaughter of Theodosius the Elder[45]. Both inscriptions note that Stilicho has been « progressing from an early age through the steps of the most glorious military service to the summit and advanced to royal kinship by marriage » (ab ineunte aetate per gradus clarissimae militiae ad columen gloriae sempiternae et regiae adfinitatis), or « progressing from an early age through the steps of the most glorious military service to the summit of eternal glory and advanced to royal kinship by marriage as son‑in‑law of the deified Theodosius » (ab ineunte aetate per gradus clarissimae militiae ad columen regiae adfinitatis euecto, socio bellorum omnium et uictoriarum, adfini etiam diui Theodosi Augusti)[46]. Adfinitas can be a tricky word in the Late Antique context, but it mostly indicates the relation by marriage, not the relation by blood[47]. Although a number of sources have focused on Stilicho’s guardianship after the death of Theodosius I and on his relationship to Honorius and Arcadius, it remains important to understand how and by what terms Stilicho was qualified in the context of the imperial family.
Several sources confirm that Stilicho was given at least the guardianship of Honorius in the West, while Rufinus, praetorian prefect in the East, was given the task of looking after Arcadius[48]. Stilicho was probably born in Constantinople or nearby, both because of his father’s career and because of his own initial duties, but he also carried out several missions in the West, perhaps as early as 388 during the campaign against Magnus Maximus[49]. He was at the Frigidus in 394, and guardianship over Honorius had to be obtained at least from 394, at the latest at the beginning of 395, necessarily obliging him to remain at the western court. 395 is the commonly accepted date for Theodosius’ final will, since it would have been at the time of his death that the emperor assigned the task of looking after Honorius to Stilicho. The prince died on 17 January, a few months after the battle of the Frigidus, which took place at the beginning of September 394. Stilicho was then magister utriusque militiae, an office he had held for a year or so. The events of early 395 may have forced him to be present in the West almost permanently. It still remains difficult to know and to put into clear words why Stilicho was entrusted specifically with the guardianship on Honorius apart from the fact that he was with Theodosius in the Julian Alps. A plausible possibility would be that Theodosius had indeed appointed Stilicho sooner, not on his deathbed, but just after the battle, without knowing that he was going to die soon[50]. With this special status, Stilicho would have had « full command of all troops stationed in Honorius’ portion of the Empire, which was to comprise Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Italy »[51], especially since Theodosius wanted to go back East, but also wished to stabilise the situation in the West. Stilicho would have been the main tool of this process, the choice being obvious since he was a member by marriage of the imperial family[52]. We can also argue that Theodosius’ state of health was so bad that it seemed that he was going to die: he was known to suffer from hydropisis generated by an unknown cause[53]. Thus, the disease could have shown signs of worsening between September 394 and January 395, leading the emperor to start thinking about the fate of the Empire[54].
The fact that Arcadius and Honorius were raised as Augusti in 383 and 393 respectively, and that the notion of regency had no real legal existence in the Roman world, must also lead us to believe that Stilicho’s commendatio was not, in this particular case, a legal concept. The whole status embodied by Stilicho towards at least Honorius after 395, if it had major consequences on politics at the scale of the whole Empire, was before all a moral obligation[55]. It seems that, from a very prestigious and powerful military office which would have been given to him by the emperor, jointly with him belonging to the imperial family, Stilicho draw the thought – or was seen to be fitted to such a position – that he had some kind of a right to be the guardian of both children[56]. We could link this situation to several well-studied cases during the Principate, and to the notion of capax/capaces imperii, which highlights the existence of powerful individuals, endowed with qualities that led to identify them as capable of wielding imperial power, therefore making them capable of usurpation[57]: entrusting Honorius to Stilicho’s care could have served as a barrier to any planed uprising, especially against a child emperor. The goals of Ambrose and Claudian’s works on the matter were also quite clear. For Ambrose, it was a necessity to avoid treating Stilicho like a liar and sparking a civil war after Theodosius’ death; for Claudian, it was before all a work of political communication[58]. Such elements were also part of a « voluntary and carefully considered », but also very free, construction of kinship[59].
The use of the word parens might also be linked with one of Stilicho’s hypothetical title: patricius. The most widely used prosopographic volume for the study of Late Antiquity, the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, does not include Stilicho in the list of patricians nominated during the 4th or 5th centuries[60]. However, Stilicho’s patriciate is mentioned several times in a single source, Jordanes’ Getica, in the context of the Vandal and Gothic invasions of Gaul[61]. This reference should not be outright rejected: the reliability of Jordanes’ work has been shown, notably since it derives from Cassiodorus’ work, now lost, and we know how close Cassiodorus could have been from the imperial records, given the positions he held[62]. It is more than likely that Stilicho obtained this dignity, if we take into account his career and his status in the Theodosian family. However, given the current state of documentation, we cannot know exactly when Stilicho became a patrician. The first mention by Jordanes of Stilicho’s patriciate is made in the context of a Vandal invasion of Gaul, « summoned thence by Stilicho » (ab Stilicone inuitati), which took place in 406[63]. The second mention of the dignity comes after the description of the retreat of the Visigoths from Italy, as Stilicho pursued them, which ultimately led to the sack of Rome in 410[64]. These elements invite to date Stilicho’s patriciate before 406. Stilicho’s career and family ties may naturally have played an important role, in particular with regard to the office of magister utriusque militiae (from 392-393 onwards) and that of consul[65]. As it was mostly the case during the 4th century, the patriciate may have been given to him simultaneously with one of these offices, or after. The situation remains obscure, and given the still quite young state of the Constantinian patriciate at the time, and the scarce examples of patricians during the 4th century, who mainly obtained the dignity together with the consulship or with an important military office, it also could have been the case for Stilicho. A difficulty remains: some inscriptions from Rome recount Stilicho’s career, and none indicates the dignity. The epigraphical dossier can be dated back to at least 393 or 394, when Stilicho obtained the office of magister utriusque militiae at court, and goes to the year of his death, in 408[66]. This seems rather surprising, since the patrician dignity was usually indicated on inscriptions. Exceptions were possible. It is also conceivable that some inscriptions were lost, maybe hammered when Stilicho became hostis publicus, but it is rather unlikely, as this process was applied unevenly across the imperial territories[67]. Another hypothesis could be that Stilicho, given his status inside the very core of the imperial family at the time, would not have needed the patriciate. Indeed, since the beginning of the Constantinian era, the dignity had been granted – generally and in very broad terms, as well as with notable exceptions – to individuals of modest status. However, it was also granted to men who showed an exceptional proximity to the imperial family, which makes Stilicho’s case even more complex. The absence of Stilicho’s patriciate from the epigraphic evidence is somewhat unexplainable, but this should in no way mean that he did not obtain it[68]. In fact, Stilicho’s patriciate, although confirmed by Jordanes and possibly by the iconography of the famous Monza diptych, has often been understood as being the title of parens principum, precisely because of his mission of guardianship. This diptych differs from the usual ones, mainly highlighting Stilicho’s military duties associated with his hypothetical patriciate[69]. Likewise, the equivalence between the terms patricius, pater and parens is primarily etymological, but during the late period, in literature as well as in epigraphy, we come across other expressions that may have been linked to or assimilated with the patriciate, such as parens imperii or πατήρ βασιλέως[70]. The attribution of the patrician title to Stilicho by Jordanes, as well as its etymological and political symbolism, would reinforce and explain, among other elements, the enmity towards Stilicho that led to his fatal assassination.
Murdering Stilicho, killing the father? Reflecting on the notion of parricide.
The aforementioned texts have shown the variety of terms, in the lexical field of parenthood, which were used to describe Stilicho and his very position inside the Theodosian family. Yet, this diversity lacks to give the meaning and the implications behind them. Especially, we have dealt with what was behind the most used expression to describe Stilicho, parens principum, in order to reassess Stilicho’s dignities, and to examine once again the understanding of these titles. A variety of sources refer to Stilicho as the parens of the Augusti and socer of Honorius, albeit in very specific contexts. There is more, since the generalissimo is also described as the « Empire’s father »[71]. In addition to family ties, it is important to understand Stilicho’s status within the Empire’s dynastic and governing structures, and the consequences of this status in his tragic destiny.
The story of Stilicho’s assassination in 408 is well known, and there is no need here to dive into the details of the troubled political context that prevailed at the time. Let us simply recall that the crisis began well before 408. Stilicho had been declared hostis publicus in 397 by Arcadius and the senate of Constantinople, accused by Eutropius of collusion with Alaric, leader of the Tervingi[72]. Despite Stilicho’s condemnation, he was still, at least in the West, seen in high regard, and still tenured with high military offices and missions. However, the unexpected death of Arcadius in 408 created a dangerous context in which Stilicho could have implemented, in the eyes of his detractors, a pro-Barbarian policy. In particular, an accusation made by Olympius, cited as one of the main players in Stilicho’s downfall, was that Stilicho wanted to put Eucherius either in charge of the West instead of Honorius, either in charge of the East instead of Theodosius II, Arcadius’ son, co‑Augustus and heir[73]. Eucherius was the grandson of Theodosius I through Serena: as such, it constituted an accusation of crimen maiestatis and high treason against both emperors. This was in fact an accusation of conspiracy, real or fictitious. These accusations were not the only ones, and the downfall of Stilicho and his network was also due to a number of other factors[74]. Another notable source, Rutilius Namatianus, presents Stilicho in this way: in the De redito suo, he is described as « sinister », a « traitor » and possessed of a « bloodthirsty madness », accusing him of having given the empire to the barbarians[75].
An important question remains: did Honorius consider that he was putting an end to the life of a tutor who had replaced Theodosius I for a large part of his life, or did the notion of parricide also come into play? This term – which can be defined as a fundamental trangression, which covers all murders committed against a relative or ally in the direct or collateral line[76] – is not directly used by the authors to describe the assassination carried out on imperial orders. However, that is what it was all about, but the executor was the emperor. As already established, the recognition of Stilicho’s guardianship did not always go hand in hand with an equivalence as father of the Augusti. While some sources emphasise the idea of tutela, completed by a military office, others refer more to Stilicho’s kinship with the Augusti and the imperial family, going so far as to call him the father of the Empire, but also of the emperor Honorius in one instance, raising the question of the links and assimilation between the Empire and its ruler. Stilicho is mainly described as a parens, which puts him in the realm of both family parentage and institutional paternity[77].
However, it is important to separate the literary tradition from the legal tradition. A discrepancy exists between the different ways in which Stilicho’s guardianship is evoked, of which we know very little from a legal point of view, and the way in which it is presented in the sources. As a result, it is difficult to think of Stilicho as the actual father of Honorius, even though some sources otherwise favourable to him described him in the same way to some extent. In addition to Stilicho’s more or less precarious legal position, there is a more informal meaning to his guardianship, more along the lines of symbolic paternity, which would then have been echoed in the sources. Various links of kinship had been built up through marriage between Stilicho, the imperial family and, more specifically, Honorius. Stilicho was not Honorius’ and Arcadius’ father, but he was their guardian. He did not adopt them legally speaking, but had been entrusted with a tutela that was completed by a high military office. Stilicho is only said to be pater imperii in Claudian’s speeches: when it comes to Honorius, he is a parens, and the use of such a word is being explained by his position within the imperial family.
Conclusion
If Theodosius’ aim was certainly to provide his sons with a guardian after his death, both the chronology and the legal nature of the guardianship are uncertain. Though some precise sources refer to Stilicho as a parens or by terms belonging to the field of adfinitas, it remains uncertain whether there was any question of real paternity. This relationship must have been more symbolic. Yet, Stilicho’s eminent position within the family and his political position may well have led to his downfall: it also did not protect him from Honorius’ and his court’s enmities.
Bibliography
Epigraphic and prosopographic collections and databases
AE : L’Année Épigraphique, Paris, 1888-.
CIL : Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, 1863-1986.
EDR : Epigraphic Database Roma. http://www.edr-edr.it/
ILS : H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin, 1892-1916.
LSA : Last Statues of Antiquity. http://laststatues.classics.ox.ac.uk/
PLRE : A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, volume I: A. D. 260-395, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Sources and translations of sources (quoted in detail in the article)
Ambrose of Milan, Political Letters and Speeches, transl. John H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Carole Hill, Liverpool, 2005.
Roger C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, Liverpool, Francis Cairns, 1981 (ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts. Papers and Monographs 6).
Claudian, The Complete Works of Claudian, transl. Neil W. Bernstein, 2022.
Jordanes, The Gothic History, transl. Charles C. Mierow, Princeton, 1915.
Prudentius, Against Symmachus, transl. Henry J. Thomson, Cambridge, 1953 (Loeb Classical Library).
Symmachus, Letters, ed. Otto Seeck, Monumenta Germaniae historica. Auctores antiquissimi, VI, I, 1883.
Tacitus, The Histories, transl. C. H. Moore, Cambridge, 1962 (Loeb Classical Library).
Zosimus, New History, transl. Ronald T. Ridley, 1982 (Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Byzantina Australiensa 2).
Secondary works
Bruno Bureau, « Modeler le prince ou critiquer le prince. Claudien et Rutilius Namatianus, du panégyrique impérial au pamphlet politique », Interférences, n°9, 2016 [en ligne, consulté le 4 juillet 2024].
Alan Cameron, « Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho », Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, volume 73, 1969, p. 247-280.
– Claudian, Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970.
Edward Champlin, Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills, 200 B.C. – A. D. 250, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1991.
Isabelle Cogitore, La légitimité dynastique d’Auguste à Néron à l’épreuve des conspirations, Rome, École française de Rome, 2002 (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 313).
Mireille Corbier, « Construire sa parenté à Rome », Revue Historique, tome 284, fascicule 1, 1990, p.3‑36.
Brian Croke, « Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes », Classical Philology, volume 82, n°2, 1987, p. 117-134.
Richard Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, Berlin-Leipzig, De Gruyter, 1929.
Roland Delmaire, « La “damnatio memoriae” au Bas-Empire à travers les textes, la législation et les inscriptions », Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz, volume 14, 2003, p. 299-310.
Émilienne Demougeot, De l’unité à la division de l’Empire romain. 395-440. Essai sur le gouvernement impérial, Paris, Maisonneuve, 1951.
Héloïse Harmoy Durofil, « Les groupes aristocratiques autour de Silvanus et de Stilicon », in Sylvie Crogiez‑Pétrequin (dir.), Dieu(x) et Hommes. Histoire et iconographie des sociétés païennes et chrétiennes de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Mélanges en l’honneur de Françoise Thélamon, Mont‑Saint‑Aignan, 2005, (Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre), p. 389-396.
Martin Heinzelmann, « Pater populi. Langage familial et détention de pouvoir public (Antiquité tardive et très haut Moyen Âge) », in Françoise Thélamon (dir.), Aux sources de la puissance : sociabilité et parenté. Actes du colloque de Rouen, 12-13 novembre 1987, Rouen, 1989, (Publications de l’Université de Rouen n°148), p. 47-56.
Virginie Hollard, Le rituel du vote : les assemblées romaines du peuple, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2010.
Frédéric Hurlet, Les collègues du prince sous Auguste et Tibère. De la légalité républicaine à la légitimité dynastique, Rome, École française de Rome, 1997 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 227).
Camille Jullian, « Le diptyque de Stilicon au trésor de Monza », Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, tome 2, 1882, p. 5-35.
Bente Kiilerich, Hjalmar Torp, « Hic est: hic Stilicho. The Date and Interpretation of a Notable Diptych », Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, volume 104, 1989, p. 319-371.
Frank Kolb, « Politische Terminologie und historisches Milieu : Kinderkaiser und parens principis in der Historia Augusta », Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bonnense. Atti dei Convegni sulla Historia Augusta, Bari, Edipuglia, 1997 (Centro interuniversitario per gli studi sulla Historia Augusta), p. 153‑160.
Ernst Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium romanum, Leipzig-Berlin, Teubner, 1930.
Michael Kulikowski, Rome’s Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Bertrand Lançon, Théodose, Paris, Perrin, 2014.
Barbara Levick, « Imperial Control of the Elections under the Early Principate. Commendatio, Suffragatio and “Nominatio” », Historia, 1967, p. 207-230.
Alberto Magnani, Serena, l’ultima romana, Milan, Jaca Book, 2002 (Donne d’Oriente et d’Occidente).
Pierre Maraval, Théodose le Grand. Le pouvoir et la foi, Paris, Fayard, 2009.
Arnaldo Marcone, « Simmaco e Stilicone », in François Paschoud (dir.), Colloque genevois sur Symmaque à l’occasion du mille six centième anniversaire du conflit de l’autel de la Victoire, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1986, p. 145‑162.
– « Stilicone ‘parens publicus’ », Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, volume 70, 1987, p. 222-224.
Ralph W. Mathisen, « Patricians as Diplomats in Late Antiquity », Byzantinische Zeitschrift, volume 79, n°1, 1986, p. 35-49.
– « Patricii, episcopi, et sapientes : le choix des ambassadeurs pendant l’Antiquité tardive dans l’Empire romain et les royaumes barbares », in Audrey Becker, Nicolas Drocourt (dir.), Ambassadeurs et ambassades au coeur des relations diplomatiques : Rome – Occident médiéval – Byzance (VIIIe siècle avant J.-C. – XIIe siècle après J.‑C.), Metz, 2012, (Éditions du CRULH, 47), p. 227-238
John Matthews, « The Regime of Stilicho », Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A. D. 364‑425, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975, p. 253-283.
Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone. La crisi imperiale dopo Teodosio, Rome, Angelo Signorelli, 1942 (Studi Pubblicati dall’Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica).
Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367-455, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 2013.
Philippe Moreau, « Adfinitas. La parenté par alliance dans la société romaine (Ier siècle av. J.‑C.-IIe siècle ap. J.-C.) », Parenté et stratégies familiales dans l’Antiquité romaine. Actes de la table ronde des 2-4 octobre 1986 (Paris, Maison de sciences de l’homme), Rome, École française de Rome, 1990 (Publications de l’École française de Rome, 129), p. 3-26.
John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire, Edmonton, University of Alberta Press, 1983.
Jean-Rémi Palanque, « Collégialité et partages dans l’Empire romain aux IVe et Ve siècles », Revue des Études Anciennes, tome 46, 1944, p. 47-64.
Anaïs Perret, « Le Contre Rufin et le Contre Eutrope de Claudien : un miroir des princes inversés », Interférences, n°11, 2018 [en ligne, consulté le 4 juillet 2024].
Jérôme Sella, Tenir le loup par les oreilles. Prendre le pouvoir et le conserver dans la Rome impériale des premiers siècles : d’Auguste aux Sévères, Ceyzérieu, Champ Vallon, 2020.
Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes, and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth, Copenhague, Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002.
Johannes Straub, « Parens principum. Stilichos Reichspolitik und das Testament des Kaisers Theodosius », La Nouvelle Clio, n°3-4, 1952, p. 94-115.
– Regeneratio imperii. Aufsätze über Roms Kaisertum und Reich im Spiegel der heidnischen und christlichen Publizistik, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972-1986.
Yan Thomas, « Parricidium. I. Le père, la famille et la cité (La lex Pompeia et le système des poursuites publiques) », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, volume 92, n°2, 1981, p. 643-715.
– « La famille à Rome », La Famille dans la Grèce antique et à Rome, Bruxelles, Éditions Complexe, 2005.
– La Mort du père. Sur le crime de parricide à Rome, Paris, Albin Michel, 2017.
[1] Claudian, III Consulatu Honorii Augusti, 153: Geminos dextra tu protege fratres.
[2] As stated in Zosimus, New history, V, XXXIV, 2-6.
[3] See Isabelle Cogitore, La légitimité dynastique d’Auguste à Néron à l’épreuve des conspirations, Rome, École française de Rome, 2002 (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 313), p. 211-228, with the example of Sejanus.
[4] Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone. La crisi imperiale dopo Teodosio, Rome, Angelo Signorelli, 1942 (Studi Pubblicati dall’Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica) ; Émilienne Demougeot, De l’unité à la division de l’Empire romain. 395‑440. Essai sur le gouvernement impérial, Paris, Maisonneuve, 1951, notably p. 99-105 ; John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire, Edmonton, University of Alberta Press, 1983. Stilicho is abundantly mentioned in other central works, notably in those dealing with the late Western aristocracy: see John Matthews, « The Regime of Stilicho », Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A. D. 364-425, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975, p. 253-283.
[5] Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone, p. 75-83 ; John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 15-23. See also Johannes Straub, « Parens principum. Stilichos Reichspolitik und das Testament des Kaisers Theodosius », La Nouvelle Clio, n°3-4, 1952, p. 94-115 ; Alan Cameron, « Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho » Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, volume 73, 1969, p. 247-280 ; Arnaldo Marcone, « Stilicone ‘parens publicus’ », Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, volume 70, 1987, p. 222-224. A more general article on the political terminology based on the term parens was issued by Frank Kolb, « Politische Terminologie und historisches Milieu : Kinderkaiser und parens principis in der Historia Augusta », Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bonnense. Atti dei Convegni sulla Historia Augusta, Bari, Edipuglia, 1997 (Centro interuniversitario per gli studi sulla Historia Augusta), p. 153-160. Martin Heinzelmann, « Pater populi. Langage familial et détention de pouvoir public (Antiquité tardive et très haut Moyen Âge) », in Françoise Thélamon (dir.), Aux sources de la puissance : sociabilité et parenté. Actes du colloque de Rouen, 12‑13 novembre 1987, Rouen, 1989, (Publications de l’Université de Rouen n°148), p. 47-56, is a core article on the topic.
[6] For a reminder of Stilicho’s career, see PLRE, I, Flavius Stilicho, p. 853-858.
[7] Claudian, Laus Stilichonis, I, 61-73. See also Émilienne Demougeot, De l’unité à la division, p. 131 ; John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 15 ; Ralph W. Mathisen, « Patricians as Diplomats in Late Antiquity », Byzantinische Zeitschrift, volume 79, n°1, 1986, p. 38 ; Pierre Maraval, Théodose le Grand. Le pouvoir et la foi, Paris, Fayard, 2009, p. 184-185 ; Ralph W. Mathisen, « Patricii, episcopi, et sapientes : le choix des ambassadeurs pendant l’Antiquité tardive dans l’Empire romain et les royaumes barbares », in Audrey Becker, Nicolas Drocourt (dir.), Ambassadeurs et ambassades au coeur des relations diplomatiques : Rome – Occident médiéval – Byzance (VIIIe siècle avant J.-C. ‑XIIe siècle après J.‑C.), Metz, 2012, p. 237 (Éditions du CRULH, 47).
[8] The adoption is mentioned in Claudian’s Carmina minora (30), in the Laus Serenae, 105‑107. He is yet the only author to tell us about the process, and we cannot know for sure the juridical reality of it, since adoptions of women were particularly scarce. See Mireille Corbier, « Construire sa parenté à Rome », Revue Historique, tome 284, fascicule 1, 1990, p. 27.
[9] About Serena’s status and prestige, see Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone, p. 101 ; Alberto Magnani, Serena. L’ultima Romana, Milan, Jaca Book, 2002 (Donne d’Oriente et d’Occidente).
[10] Ralph W. Mathisen, « Patricians as Diplomats », p. 40 ; Ralph W. Mathisen, « Patricii, episcopi, et sapientes », p. 230.
[11] See Alberto Magnani, Serena, p. 15-27, on the wedding and on Stilicho’s hypothetical origins.
[12] Héloïse Harmoy Durofil, « Les groupes aristocratiques autour de Silvanus et de Stilicon », in Sylvie Crogiez‑Pétrequin (dir.), Dieu(x) et Hommes. Histoire et iconographie des sociétés païennes et chrétiennes de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Mélanges en l’honneur de Françoise Thélamon, Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2005 (Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre), p. 389-396.
[13] Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367-455, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 160-161 and p. 180.
[14] See Ernst Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium romanum, Leipzig-Berlin, Teubner, 1930 ; Frédéric Hurlet, Les collègues du prince sous Auguste et Tibère. De la légalité républicaine à la légitimité dynastique, Rome, École française de Rome, 1997 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 227), who notably uses the term of « co-régence », p. 25 ff. ; Jean-Rémi Palanque, « Collégialité et partages dans l’Empire romain aux IVe et Ve siècles », Revue des Études Anciennes, tome 46, 1944, p. 47-64.
[15] Bruno Bureau, « Modeler le prince ou critiquer le prince. Claudien et Rutilius Namatianus, du panégyrique impérial au pamphlet politique », Interférences, n°9, 2016, § 19 [online]. See also Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 137‑184.
[16] See John Matthews, « The Regime of Stilicho », p. 257.
[17] Claudian, Laus Stilichonis, II, 52-55: « You care for your children no more than for his, whom he entrusted to you to protect and instruct. »
[18] Claudian, Laus Stilichonis, II, 78-79: « You oversaw his brother Arcadius with no less concern. »
[19] Claudian, III Consulatu Honorii Augusti, 142-153.
[20] Claudian, In Rufinum, II, 5-6: « Theodosius entrusted both his sons’ majesty to you, and both courts’ armies ». On the opposition between Stilicho and Rufinus in Claudian’s work, see Anaïs Perret, « Le Contre Rufin et le Contre Eutrope de Claudien : un miroir des princes inversés », Interférences, n°11, 2018 [online].
[21] Ambrose of Milan, De obitu Theodosii, 5. On Theodosius’ will, see Johannes Straub, « Parens principum ». For wills at the beginning of the imperial era, see E. Champlin, Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills, 200 B.C. – A. D. 250, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1991.
[22] John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 47.
[23] Zosimus, New history, V, I, 1: « The empire now devolved on Arcadius and Honorius, who, although apparently the rulers, were so in name only: complete control was exercised by Rufinus in the East and Stilicho in the West. » ; V, IV, 1: « Stilicho, the administrator of the western empire […]. »
[24] Zosimus, New history, V, XXXIV, 6 : « […] he married Theodosius the Elder’s niece and was entrusted with the empires of both his sons […]. »
[25] Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 160-168, also uses the term « partnership ».
[26] The term commendatio was used primarily in the context of elections and vote in Rome, and is linked in particular to the emperor’s recommendation and choice of candidates. See Barbara Levick, « Imperial Control of the Elections under the Early Principate. Commendatio, Suffragatio and “Nominatio” », Historia, 1967, p. 209‑214 ; Virginie Hollard, Le rituel du vote : les assemblées romaines du peuple, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2010, p. 164 and p. 179‑182. Obviously, this is not the kind of commendatio which concerns Stilicho.
[27] Prudentius, Against Symmachus, II, 708-771.
[28] Yan Thomas, « « La famille à Rome », La Famille dans la Grèce antique et à Rome, Bruxelles, Éditions Complexe, 2005, p. 78. More broadly, on fatherhood, p. 67-80.
[29] Frank Kolb, « Politische Terminologie », p. 153 and p. 160.
[30] Ibidem, p. 160.
[31] Ibidem, p. 153 ; Martin Heinzelmann, « Pater populi », p. 47 ff.
[32] Claudian, Laus Stilichonis, II, 166-168: « […] you’re the emperor’s father-in-law, the empire’s father […]. » ; Laus Stilichonis, III, 52: « Fortunate man, whom rescued Rome calls its father ! »
[33] Symmachus, Letters, IV, XII, 1 and IV, XIV ; Arnaldo Marcone, « Simmaco e Stilicone », in François Paschoud (dir.), Colloque genevois sur Symmaque à l’occasion du mille six centième anniversaire du conflit de l’autel de la Victoire, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1986, p. 145‑162 ; Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 169.
[34] Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone, p. 108 ff. ; Johannes Straub, Regeneratio imperii. Aufsätze über Roms Kaisertum und Reich im Spiegel der heidnischen und christlichen Publizistik, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972-1986. p. 230 ; John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 65.
[35] Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone, p. 106-113 ; Johannes Straub, Regeneratio imperii, p. 222 and p. 229-233.
[36] Eunapius, fr. 62.
[37] Zosimus, New history, IV, 59, 1.
[38] Zosimus, New history, V, 34, 4.
[39] Olympiodorus, fr. 1.
[40] Alan Cameron, Claudian, Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970, p. 39. For John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 47, it is a « legalistic term », and we can see the discrepancy between the use of this word and the absence of juridical base of Stilicho’s commendatio.
[41] Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone, p. 108.
[42] CIL, IX, 4051 (ILS, 795).
[43] CIL, VI, 1730 (CIL, VI, 31913 ; ILS, 1277 ; EDR 127908 ; LSA 1436) ; CIL, VI, 1195 (CIL, VI, 1731 ; 31913 ; EDR 111525 ; LSA 1437).
[44] Jordanes, in his Getica, XXX, 154, writes that Stilicho is « socer Honorii imperatoris ».
[45] Theodosius the Elder had been divinised, and is styled as « diuus Teodosius » on CIL, VI, 39960 (ILS, 8950).
[46] Transl. Carlos Machado, LSA 1436 and 1437, slightly amended.
[47] Dig. 38, 10, 4. See also Philippe Moreau, « Adfinitas. La parenté par alliance dans la société romaine (Ier siècle av. J.‑C.-IIe siècle ap. J.-C.) », Parenté et stratégies familiales dans l’Antiquité romaine. Actes de la table ronde des 2-4 octobre 1986 (Paris, Maison des sciences de l’homme), Rome, École française de Rome, 1990 (Publications de l’École française de Rome, 129), p. 3-26 ; Mireille Corbier, « Construire sa parenté », p. 6-7.
[48] Eunapius, fr. 62: « The sons of Theodosius succeeded him as Emperor. But to give the truer interpretation of the situation (which is the goal of history), they had the name of Emperors whereas the real and absolute power lay with Rufinus in the East and Stilicho in the West ». Zosimus must have partially followed Eunapius writings, since he mentions the same division, and further on in his work, that Stilicho governed the West as a regent (see above). Other similar references to Stilicho’s power and guardianship over Honorius can be found in other texts, such as Orosius, Historiae aduersus paganos, VII, 3, 7, Philostorgius, Church History, XI, 3, and John of Antioch, fr. 188.
[49] PLRE, I, Flavius Stilicho, p. 854.
[50] Alan Cameron, « Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilico », Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, volume 73, 1969, p. 247-280 ; Alan Cameron, Claudian, p. 38 ; John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 17 ; Michael Kulikowski, Rome’s Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 164 ; Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 140-142.
[51] Alan Cameron, Claudian, p. 38.
[52] Id. ; John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 17.
[53] On Theodosius’ illness, see Pierre Maraval, Théodose, p. 282 ; Bertrand Lançon, Théodose, Paris, Perrin, 2014, p. 213‑215 ; Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 141.
[54] Which goes against Claudian: see VI Consulatu Honorii Augusti, 581-583, where the panegyrist writes that Stilicho was given guardianship over Honorius clearly at the moment of Theodosius’ death, in the uncertainty of the moment.
[55] Émilienne Demougeot, De l’unité à la division, p. 102.
[56] Alan Cameron, Claudian, p. 38. John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 50-51, has a more psychologizing take, since to him, Stilicho could have extrapolated a vague remark of Theodosius on his deathbed, a thing that we will surely never know of.
[57] The expression comes from Tacitus, Histories, I, 49, 4: maior priuato uisus dum priuatus fuit, et omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset. « He seemed too great to be a subject so long as he was subject, and all would have agreed that he was equal to the imperial office if he had never held it ». Some capaces – and the notion of capacitas – are discussed by Jérôme Sella, Tenir le loup par les oreilles. Prendre le pouvoir et le conserver dans la Rome impériale des premiers siècles : d’Auguste aux Sévères, Ceyzérieu, Champ Vallon, 2020 (such as Lentulus Gaetulicus, p. 95, or Vespasian, p. 303 ff).
[58] Alan Cameron, Claudian, p. 38.
[59] Mireille Corbier, « Construire sa parenté », p. 4 and p. 28 mainly.
[60] PLRE, I, Flavius Stilicho, p. 853-858.
[61] Jordanes, Getica, XXII, 115 ; XXX, 154.
[62] Brian Croke, « Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes », Classical Philology, volume 82, n°2, 1987, p. 117‑134 ; Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes, and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth, Copenhague, Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002, p. 113-123.
[63] Jordanes, Getica, XXII, 115.
[64] Ibidem, XXX, 154.
[65] PLRE, I, Flavius Stilicho, p. 853-858, and John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 17-18.
[66] See Roland Delmaire, « La “damnatio memoriae” au Bas-Empire à travers les textes, la législation et les inscriptions », Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz, volume 14, 2003, p. 310.
[67] Ibidem, p. 302-303.
[68] See also Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone, p. 80-81 ; John M. O’Flynn, Generalissimos, p. 65-66.
[69] Camille Jullian, « Le diptyque de Stilicon au trésor de Monza », Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, tome 2, 1882, p. 34, thought that it could celebrate Stilicho’s patriciate. See also Richard Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, Berlin-Leipzig, De Gruyter, 1929, p. 242‑248 ; Bente Kiilerich, Hjalmar Torp, « Hic est: hic Stilicho. The Date and Interpretation of a Notable Diptych », Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, volume 104, 1989, p. 319‑371.
[70] See AE, 1937, 98, p. 40-41 (AE, 1941, 138, p. 43 ; AE, 1948, 43, p. 21 ; AE, 1950, 83, p. 33 ; IBulgarien, 206) for parens imperii in a Bulgarian inscription of Basiliscus. See Sozomenus, Ecclesiastical History, VIII, 7, 1 ; Anthologia Graeca, Anthologia Planudea., XIII, 73 ; Anthologia Graeca, VIII, IX, 674 for πατήρ βασιλέως. The expression pater patriae also comes to mind, but is applied to emperors.
[71] See n. 32.
[72] Zosimus, New history, V, XI, 1.
[73] Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 182 and p. 182, n. 160.
[74] Émilienne Demougeot, De l’unité à la division, p. 417 ; Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 153-184.
[75] Rutilius Namatianus, De redito suo, 2, 41-46 and 55-56, in Bruno Bureau, « Modeler le prince », § 81 [online].
[76] Yan Thomas, « Parricidium. I. Le père, la famille et la cité (La lex Pompeia et le système des poursuites publiques) », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, volume 92, n°2, 1981, p. 645-651 ; Yan Thomas, La Mort du père. Sur le crime de parricide à Rome, Paris, Albin Michel, 2017, p. 17-46 mainly.
[77] Meaghan McEvoy, Child Emperor Rule, p. 168, goes as far as to describe Stilicho as an « adoptive father to Honorius. »
