Provenance and location

Ancient city: Roma
Modern city: Rome (Italy)
Province: Urbs
Diocese: Italiciana
Regional prefecture: Italia Illyricum Africa
Provenance: Roma, Trajan’s Forum: the statue base was discovered in 1849; the fragment of the left side of the base with the date was discovered in 1933 by R. Paribeni (1933, p. 493, nr. 167) but only reunited with the statue base in 1969 by G. Barbieri (1969-1970, pp. 73-74).
Current location: Rome, Trajan’s Forum, reserve of the Basilica Ulpia. The base (inv. 3434) and a fragment are located in different parts of the storeroom: one near ‘‘cancello’’ IV, the other near VI.
Ancient location: Public space: Trajan’s Forum

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Honorary inscription for the former praetorian prefect Virius Nicomachus Flavianus

Latin text

Critical edition

The text is based on CIL and Hedrick 2000.

4: redita: EDH.
11: De Rossi does not restore the lacuna; [antiquam?]: CIL; a[etemam]: Seeck; ạet[ern]a[m?]: ILS; Grünewald; EDH; EDR; LSA.
12: De Rossi does not restore the lacuna; [detrim]entum: CIL; ILS; Seeck; Grünewald; EDH; EDR; [supple]mentum: Hedrick; LSA.
13: [faustoque] omine: CIL; fau[stoq](ue) omine: Seeck; [fausto(que)] omin[e]: ILS, Grünewald; EDH; EDR; [faustoq(ue)] omin{i}<e>: LSA.
14: De Rossi does not restore the lacuna; [honoris? (primitivam?) nom]inis: CIL; pr[istini honor]is: ILS; Seeck; Grünewald; EDH; EDR; aput recor/dationis: EDH.
16: verba eius aput: CIL; ILS; Seeck; Grünewald; EDH; EDR; verba aput: Hedrick; LSA.
19: benivolentia: De Rossi; CIL; ILS; EDH; EDR; LSA.
21-26: ILS does not copy the text after “inproborum” and before “ex quo”.
27: praestitistis: CIL; Seeck; Grünewald; EDH; EDR; praestitis: Hedrick; LSA.
29-33: ILS does not copy the text after “vedeamur” and before “gaudete”.
30-31: filiu[s ei]: De Rossi; fili[us]/ honor: CIL; fili[us sit, cui]/ honor: Seeck; fili / honor: Grünewald; fili(us) / honor: EDH; EDR.
32: abs[q(ue) ullo re]ligiosi: De Rossi; CIL; Seeck; Grünewald; EDH; EDR; abs[olutus] / [r]eligiosi: Hedrick; LSA.
33: nobi[scum]: CIL; EDR.
34-35: vobis e[t] / patriai: CIL; vobis e[sse et] / patriae: Seeck; vobis e[t] / patriae: ILS; Grünewald; LSA;
39: ILS does not restore the lacuna; [dedicata]….Sept(em)b.: De Rossi; CIL; Id[u]s Sept(em)b(res): EDH; EDR.

Translations

English

(based on Hedrick 2000)

“To Nicomachus Flavianus, consular of Sicily, vicar of Africa, quaestor at the court of the deified Theodosius, twice praetorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum, and Africa, because of his worth and prestige in the senate and as a judge, (his statue) was put back in honour of his son, Nicomachus Flavianus, consular of Campania, proconsul of Asia, several times urban prefect, at this moment praetorian prefect of Italy, Illyricum, and Africa.

The emperors FlaviusTheodosius and Flavius Placidus Valentinianus, ever August, greet their senate.

«To defend the honour of renowned and illustrius men in the state against the pitfalls of mankind’s state, corrupted to some extent, and to recall the recollection of a deceased man to eternal light may be regarded as a sort of correction of his fate, which is considered as a detriment and the ultimate debasement of its virtues. Conscript fathers, on this noble and auspicious occasion surely you join us by recognizing that, whatever we accomplish in restoration of the illustrious and the most reverend among all (men) remembrance of Flavianus senior we do honour to our deified grandfather if we recall to the monuments and inscriptions of his worth the man whom our grandfather desired to survive for us and be spared for you – many of you remember his words spoken before you – so that you may judge whatever has been committed against him by means of a blind accusation was far from the wish of that prince. The benevolence of which showered upon him and tendered even to his Annals, that he wanted his quaestor and prefect dedicate to him, (this benevolence) excited the jealousy of scoundrels. Now, if we have amply confirmed with you the reasons for our devoted affection, consider also another aspect: that we are fortified by your feelings for him and by the judgments of all the provinces, in which thanks to him the funds of the state he made wealthier were either preserved or even increased; and (such feelings and judgments) have infused in us also such a deference as to make us aware that what we are doing today has been in your hearts and minds and far from any interruption of intervening forgetfulness. For this very reason, conscript fathers, you have provided the greatest support to his memory no less than you do to our persons, so that not undeservedly do we thank your forbearance, because it appears that what we have done for the rehabilitation of his honour we have done spontaneously and without being prompted. Furthermore, even the very honour of the son of Flavianus, which has often been found true both by us and by our relatives in accordance with the education received from that great man, is half complete even when crowned by the praetorian prefecture which he daily increases by his prudence and industry, and may be thought to have been diminished if he is not absolved at last and released from his duty of filial piety towards his entire house and family. Rejoice then, conscript fathers, with us, in an excellent work of our governance, in order that you may join with us in acknowledging that the memory of this senator has been restored both to you and to his country, in sharing which you have become more distinguished, while you grow in the same respect that we also have for his descendants.

Me, Appius Nicomachus Dexter, of clarissimus rank and former urban prefect, I supervised the erection (of the statue) for the best of grandparents. Dedicated on the Ides of September, in the consulship of the eminent Bassus and Antiochus.”

French

(Chastagnol 1976, pp. 107-109; cf. aussi Callu 1997, pp. 81-82 [= 2003, 369-370])

“À Nicomaque Flavien, consulaire de Sicile, vicaire d’Afrique, questeur à la cour du divin Théodose, préfet du prétoire à deux reprise d’Italie, Illyricum et Afrique, réhabilité à cause de ses mérites et de son autorité en tant que sénateur et juge et pour honorer son fils Nicomaque Flavien, consulaire de Campanie, proconsul d’Asie, préfet de la Ville plusieurs fois et actuellement préfet du prétoire d’Italie, Illyricum et Afrique.

«Les empereurs Césars Flavius Théodose et Flavius Placidus Valentinien adressent leur salut à leur Sénat. – Contre les malheurs de la condition humaine, l’honneur, pour un temps perdu, d’hommes célèbres et illustres dans l’État peut être défendu et la mémoire d’un défunt rendue à sa lumière ancienne par une mesure corrective de ce destin, qui lui a causé préjudice en lui retirant totelement ses mérites. Puisque, pères conscrits, tout bien et toute faveur émanent de nous, vous comprenez que tout ce que nous entreprenons pour restaurer l’honneur antérieur de Flavien l’Ancien, d’illustre et très sainte mémoire auprès de tous, est un acte de respect envers notre divin aïeul, car ce dernier aurait souhaité – la plupart d’entre vous se souviennent des paroles qu’il prononça devant vous – qu’il fût demeuré en vie pour nous et conservé pour vous. Aussi rappelons-nous les monuments et titres de ses mérites pour que vous jugiez combien tout ce qui lui avait reproché par une accusation aveugle était loin de correspondre aux voeux de ce prince, puisque c’est la bienveillance abondante dont notre aïeul fit preuve à son égard – et jusqu’à propos des Annales qu’il voulut voir dédiées à lui-même par son questeur et préfet – qui provoqua la jalousie des gens improbes. Maintenant, si nous avons invoqué auprès de vous suffisamment de raisons de piété, ajoutez cet autre argument que nous tirons de vos sentiments à son égard et du jugement de toutes les provinces. À celles-ci les biens conservés et même augmentés par lui d’un État qu’il a rendu encore plus riche ont apporté tant – et nous avons obtenu plus d’hommages – que ce que nous faisons aujourd’hui, nous savons que cela était dans vos coeurs et vos sentiments, sans la moindre possibilité que vous ayez oublié cela entre-temps. En agissant de la sorte, vous avez ouvré avant tout aussi bien pour sa mémoire que pour nous, pères conscrits: ce n’est pas sans raison, en effet, que nous rendons grâce à Votre Patience, afin que rien de ce qui touche à la restauration de son honneur ne semble avoir été fait sur suggestion plutôt que spontanément. Comme au reste nos parents et nous-mêmes avons souvent eu beaucoup d’estime pour le fils de Flavien lui-même, du fait de l’éducation qu’il lui avait donnée, que cet honneur de médiocre valeur soit estimé par celui-ci inférieur au sommet que constitue la préfecture du prétoire dont sa prévoyance et son activité augmentent chaque jour la dignité, si ce n’est qu’il récupère enfin, ainsi, l’intégrité de toute sa maison et sa famille sans aucun manque dans ses obligations pieuses [de fils]. Réjouissez-vous donc avec nous, pères conscrits, de cette grande oeuvre de notre empire, soyez-nous en reconnaissants et approuvez de voir restituée la mémoire [de Flavien] comme sa dignité de sénateur et à vous et à la patrie: vous avez été plus illustres à l’avoir eu pour collègue, et, avec la même gratitude anvers nous, vous vous trouverez revigorés dans sa postérité».

Appius Nicomachus Dexter, clarissime, ancien préfet de la Ville, a pris soin d’élever [cette statue] à son excellent grand-père. Dédiée aux ides de septembre, sous le consulat des clarissimes Bassus et Antiochus.”

Italian

“A Nicomachus Flavianus, governatore di Sicilia, vicario d’Africa, questore dell’aula palatina del divo Teodosio, prefetto al pretorio d’Italia, Illirico e Africa per la seconda volta, per la virtù e il prestigio in senato e come giudice, (la statua) è stata ricollocata in onore del figlio, Nicomachus Flavianus, consolare di Campania, proconsole d’Asia, prefetto urbano più e più volte, ora prefetto al pretorio di Italia, Illirico e Africa.

Gli imperatori Cesari Flavius Theodosius e Flavius Placidus Valentinianus, sempre Augusti, salutano il loro Senato:

«Difendere l’onore degli uomini celebri e illustri nello Stato, alterato in qualche modo, perché opposto ai casi della condizione umana, e richiamare alla luce eterna la memoria di un defunto, appare una forma di emendazione del suo destino, il quale è ritenuto un danno e il massimo svilimento delle sue virtù. In questa buona e propizia occasione, o padri coscritti, certamente converrete con noi che qualunque cosa intraprendiamo per la restituzione del ricordo illustre e reverendissimo presso tutti di Flavianus senior è un atto di devozione verso il divino avo nostro, se richiamiamo in vita colui che (egli) volle che vivesse per noi e fosse preservato per voi – e la maggior parte di voi ricorda le sue parole, proferite in vostra presenza – sui monumenti delle sue virtù e nelle iscrizioni, così che giudichiate qualsiasi cosa sia stata commessa contro costui con cieca accusa essere stata estranea al volere del suo principe; la sua benevolenza, riversata su di lui ed estesa addirittura fino agli Annales, che volle fossero a lui dedicati dal suo questore e prefetto, suscitò l’invidia dei malvagi. Ora se abbiamo consolidato ampiamente presso di voi le ragioni del nostro devoto affetto, prendete atto anche di un’altra cosa, e cioè che siamo fortificati dai vostri sentimenti per lui e dai giudizi di tutte le province, alle quali per opera sua furono custoditi o addirittura aumentati i beni di uno Stato che egli ha reso ancora più ricco, ed essi (sentimenti, giudizi, beni) hanno infuso in noi una deferenza tale da renderci consapevoli che quanto facciamo oggi era nei vostri cuori e nei vostri sentimenti, lungi da qualunque vuoto prodotto da una sopraggiunta dimenticanza. Proprio per questo, o padri coscritti, voi avete offerto un sostegno straordinario alla sua memoria non meno che a noi, sì che ringraziamo non senza merito la vostra pazienza, perché appare che quanto abbiamo fatto per la riabilitazione del suo onore l’abbiamo fatto spontaneamente e non pungolati. Peraltro, benché anche lo stesso figlio di Flaviano sia stato sperimentato spesso da noi e dai nostri padri in ragione della formazione ricevuta da quel grande, il suo onore è considerato dimezzato, quand’anche giunto al fastigio della prefettura al pretorio, che egli accresce ogni giorno con la sua lungimiranza e con il suo impegno, se alla fine non sia reso integro e egli sia sciolto dal doveroso obbligo di pietà filiale verso tutta la sua casa e la sua famiglia. Rallegratevi dunque con noi, padri coscritti, per questa eccellente azione del nostro governo, affinché vi uniate a noi nel riconoscere che la memoria di questo senatore è stata restituita a voi e alla sua patria, e accordate il vostro consenso a questo onore, condividendo il quale siete diventati più insigni, mentre crescete nel medesimo rispetto che abbiamo anche noi verso la sua discendenza».

Appius Nicomachus Dexter, chiarissimo, ex prefetto urbano, curai di erigere (la statua) all’avo ottimo. Dedicata alle Idi di Settembre, durante il consolato dei chiarissimi Bassus e di Antiochus [13 Settembre 431].”

The inscription and its prefects: critical commentary, updating, overviews

The inscription in Trajan’s Forum is carved on a monument (431 AD) that aimed to restore the memory and honour of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus senior, after his suicide and damnatio memoriae thirty-seven years previously. After a brilliant thirty year career, 364 to 394 AD (see below), Flavianus had supported the usurpation of Flavius Eugenius in 392 AD, only to take his own life after the defeat in the battle of the Frigidus on September 5^th 394 AD (about the usurpation, see Bloch 1945; Bloch 1964; Szidat 1979; Cameron 2011, pp. 93-131 with Bonamente and Cecconi 2013; main sources on the final battle on the river Frigidus: Rufin., HE, 11, 33; Zos. 04, 58; Carm. adv. Flav. 67; Aug., Civ. Dei 18, 53, discussed recently and among others by Springer 1996; Salzman 2010; Harris 2016). His son Nicomachus Flavianus iunior (PLRE I, pp. 345-347, and below) had also supported the usurpation and so was forced to retire from public life until 399 AD. However, in 431 AD the statue of Flavianus senior was relocated in Trajan’s Forum. The monument, dated to 431 AD, also honours his son, Flavianus iunior (ll. 4 and 29-33) and probably reproduces an earlier statue on an inscribed base that was already in Trajan’s Forum. The latter was removed in 394/395 AD, as suggested by the verbs reddere and revocare in the inscription and in the text of the imperial letter (ll. 4, 17-18, 34; so Hedrick 2000, p. 11: «the statements of the imperial letter, like the erasure of the earlier text on the statue base, help to mark the cursus and monument as restorations, that is, as modified representations of some other, earlier cursus and monument»). It is unlikely that the same base was used for both inscriptions written some forty years apart. In 431 AD the monument was allegedly commonissioned by the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinianus III (in fact only the latter is responsible) and erected in Trajan’s Forum, which was the most prestigious public space of Rome (on Trajan’s Forum in Late Antiquity, see Bauer 1996, pp. 93-97, 409-412; Niquet 2000, pp. 18-20; Chenault 2012, pp. 118-124, 130-131; also PPRET 46, 48, 51, 54, 62, 98 all originate from the same forum). The monument was actually not made by the Senate or by the emperor Valentinian III, but by Flavianus senior’s grandson, Appius Nicomachus Dexter (ll. 37-38). It originally consisted of a statue representing Flavianus senior, today lost, and its base. The inscription on the base, however, extolled both Flavianus senior and his son Flavianus iunior. Not only does the inscription cite their respective careers, it also provides an entire epistle from the emperor Valentinian III to the Senate, in which the memory of Flavianus senior was rehabilitated. After the text of the letter, the editor of the work, Dexter, Flavianus senior’s grandson, celebrats himself (about the monument and the editing of its particular Latin inscription cf. Hedrick 2000, pp. 247-258; Niquet 2000, pp. 79-83; for the context of the imperial letters carved in the ancient forums in Rome cf. Weisweiler 2012a-b).

The front part of the inscription was discovered in August 1849 by workmen constructing a drain in the west porch of the Basilica Ulpia in Trajan’s Forum (PPRET 54 comes from the same area). A fragment of the left side of the base, detached from the base itself, was found in the same area in 1933. However it was only in 1969 that G. Barbieri joined the fragment to the left side of Flavianus’ base (cf. Barbieri 1969, pp. 73-80 and AE 1971, 24). The inscription is now in a storeroom beneath the modern street near the ruins of the Greek library of the Forum of Trajan.

The height of the statue base is 151 cm, the width 72,5 cm and the maximum preserved depth is 42,5 cm (before its discovery, De Rossi 1849 informs us that the rear of the statue base was sheared away). The base is crowned by a molding (22 cm high) so that the top is wider and deeper than the rest of the base. The epigraphic field measures 105 x 67,5 cm and it is recessed.

The inscription was first published in 1849 by Matranga and re-edited later the same year by De Rossi. This edition has been the basis for the editors of the CIL; Hedrick 2000 examined the stone but still retains De Rossi.

The text of Flavianus’ rehabilitation can be divided into four sections: the two cursus honorum of Flavianus and his son (ll. 1-3 and 4-6), the imperial letter of Valentinianus III and Theodosius II to the Senate of Rome (ll. 7-36), a postscript stating the circumstances of the erection of the statue by Appius Nicomachus Dexter (ll. 37-38), and, on the left side, the consular date of the dedication.

The two cursus of Flavianus and his son (ll. 1-6)

The first six lines of the inscription list the offices held by Flavianus and his son. The cursus of Flavianus senior (ll. 1-3) probably reproduces the text carved on the honorary inscription(s) deleted after the damnatio of 394 AD; the cursus of Flavianus iunior was inserted in 431 AD to restore visibility and prestige to this senator and his family (cf. references to the restoring of their honours in ll. 4, 28, 31). The cursus are examined separately.

Flavianus senior (ll. 1-3)

Born around 330 AD (see Musso 1979, pp. 31, 185-240; O’Donnell 1978; Cracco-Ruggini 1979; Barnes 1990) into a noble Roman family (Chausson 1996; see his seat in the Colosseum PPRET 94), Virius Nicomachus Flavianus senior had an important and prestigious high-level civil administrative career in the second half of the 4^th Century (364-394 AD). Another inscribed monument in his honour, a private one, comes from the domus of Memmius Symmachus, his grandson-in-law, on the Celian Hill (PPRET 92). It was made after the senator’s death probably in 402 AD and contains a cursus honorum similar to that of the monument from Trajan’s Forum. The Caelian inscription of Flavianus senior is very traditional and was conceived and written by Aurelius Memmius Symmachus at the same time and in parallel with the inscription for his father, the orator Symmachus, which also includes a cursus honorum (CIL 06, 01699 = LSA 0270 = EDR 122113; on the three inscriptions, see Hedrick 2000, pp. 13-15; Marcone 2008-2009). As a point of pride, these aristocratic inscriptions also list the Roman magistracies and the priesthood (pontifex maior), which were omitted in the public inscription in Trajan’s Forum. The Caelian dedication to Flavianus senior (PPRET 92) mentions two early offices, neither of which can be precisely dated: the quaestorship and the praetorship (for these offices, see Chastagnol 1958, pp. 221-253; Chastagnol 1960, pp. 74-75, 405-406; for the period of Flavianus’ youth, see Orlandi 2004, p. 485 and Olszaniec 2013, p. 175). On the inscription from Trajan’s Forum, the old magistracies may have been omitted because only the offices assigned by the emperor through imperial codicils are recorded (magistrates were appointed by the Senate, priesthoods were, as a rule omitted from the inscriptions citing the cursus honorum of praetorian prefects in the Roman forums; see PPRET 46, 48, 51, 54, 62, 78, 96, 98). While De Rossi (1849, p. 293) thought that the omission of the pagan priesthood in 431 AD was both normal and unavoidable, Hedrick considers it deliberate and sees in it a religious allusion, all the more so since this seemingly "neutral" monument was dedicated on the Ides of September which were sacred to Jupiter (see Scullard 1981, pp. 186-187, 254 nt. 243; Vera 1983, p. 32; Hedrick 2000, pp. 18, 35, 66-71, 86, 226-229). On the significance of Flavianus senior in the Saturnalia by Macrobius cf. Cameron 2011, pp. 231-272 with Consolino 2013.

With regard to their civil administrative careers, the cursus honorum of Flavianus senior found in Trajan’s Forum, concurs with that found on the Caelian hill (PPRET 92). In 364/365 AD he was consularis Siciliae, i.e. governor of Sicily (cf. Symm., Ep. 02, 27; Symm., Ep. 02, 44 for the chronology; Seeck 1883, pp. CXIV; PLRE I, p. 347; Cecconi 2002, pp. 227-228 and 295-296; Orlandi 2004, p. 485; Olszaniec 2013, p. 175). Flavianus’ family owned properties in Sicily and his father had been consularis of the island (Symm., Ep. 02, 30; Symm., Ep. 06, 57; Symm., Ep. 06, 66; on their villa cf. Steger 2017; for subscriptions of a Livius codex, Books III-VII, emended by Nicomachi Flavianus iunior and Dexter at Enna cf. Wallenwein 2017, pp. 224-226).

In 377 AD Flavianus senior was vicarius Africae (CTh 16, 06, 02, October 17^th 377 AD; Florianum vic. Asiae to be emended to Flavianum vic. Africae; cf. Seeck 1909, Flavianus 14, col. 2507; PLRE I, p. 347; Olszaniec 2013, p. 175; Wiewiorowski 2015, p. 200). During his vicariate he succeeded in incriminating and condemning Romanus comes Africae (PLRE I, p. 768), who had allowed the Austurians to devastate Tripolitania and attack Leptis Magna (Amm. 28, 06, 28; on this fourteen year dispute cf. Coşkun 2004; Di Paola 2012; Tantillo 2014; Wiewiorowski 2015, p. 259-280). At the end of his vicariate, Flavianus senior received a magnificent honorary monument in Leptis Magna that praises his virtues; IRT 475 = Tantillo, Bigi 2010, nr. 27:

Flavianii v(iri) c(larissimi). / Nicomacho Flaviano agenti{s} / tunc vicem praefectorum praetorio / per Africanas provincias, / (5) pubescente Romani nominis gloria / et vigente fortuna (vac.) / dominorum principumq(ue) nostrorum / Valentis Gratiani et Valentiniani / perpetuorum semper Auggg(ustorum) et ubiq(ue) / (10) vincentium, (vac. ca. 2) Lepcimagnensis / fidelis et innocens ordo cum populo / pr(a)estantissimo patrono / votis omnibus conlocavit.

He was their beloved patron and his name was not erased (covered with stucco?). Patron of Leptis Magna, praetorian prefect of Italy and Africa, he also collaborated with the proconsul of Africa, Decimius Hilarianus Hesperius in absolving Romanus of the charges laid against him. Also Hesperius was patron of Leptis Magna and praetorian prefect of Italy and Africa (IRT 526 = Tantillo, Bigi 2010, nr. 23, see PPRET 69). On a religious level, while vicar, Flavianus favoured the Donatists (Aug., Ep. 87, 8; CTh 16, 06, 02). Flavianus senior then went on to hold an important palatine office at the court of Emperor Theodosius: he was quaestor sacri palatii, i.e. quaestor aulae divi Theodosi according to the inscription from Trajan’s Forum (ll. 1-2); and quaestor intra Palatium according to the inscription from the Caelian Hill (PPRET 92, l. 5). In the inscription from Trajan’s Forum the questura and the praetorian prefecture of Flavianus are juxtaposed, both assigned to him by the emperor Theodosius (l. 20: a quaestore et praefecto suo). Honoré (1989, pp. 14-17 and 26-43; 1998, pp. 59-63 and 69-70) has proposed to date the Flavianus palatine quaestura to the period of October 388 / May 390 AD on the basis of the style of 38 constitutions of the legislative codes, but his hypothesis is not unanimously shared. Symmachus seems to confirm that the transition from quaestura to prefecture was close in time in Flavianus’ case (Symm., Ep. 03, 81 and Symm., Ep. 03, 90, but the chronology is disputed; for quaestores or comites at court who become praetorian prefects slightly later in this period cf. Porena 2019, pp. 287-288).

Flavianus’ quaestura is the first of a series of appointments that have caused many interpretative issues. Since there is no direct evidence of his quaestura, the date must be determined on the basis of his first term as praetorian prefect, but the chronology of his first and second praetorian prefecture is disputed (Orlandi 2004, pp. 484-487 offers the best synthesis on the matter, but takes no position; Cecconi 2002, pp. 168-169 offers a useful outline of the reconstructions proposed by historians up to 2002; a broad discussion can be found in Hedrick 2000, pp. 13-25; see also Coşkun 2004, pp. 470-474; Olszaniec 2013, pp. 174-190). Some facts, however, are certain. The quaestura, assigned by Theodosius I, must precede the two praetorian prefectures, of which at least one was assigned by Theodosius I (l. 20). The two prefectures (iterum) appear – somewhat surprisingly – on the private Caelian Hill inscription (where the Eugenian consulate is mentioned; PPRET 92, l. 6) and on the public inscription from Trajan’s Forum (l. 2; where the Eugenian consulate is omitted, just as the Eugenian urban prefecture of Flavianus iunior was hidden beyond the adverb saepius, l. 5). Both seem to have been served in the same prefecture of Italy-Illyricum-Africa. The entire second book of Simmachus’ epistolary contains 91 letters to Flavianus (cf. the detailed analysis by Cecconi 2002, with datation at pp. 137-140), but the chronology of the texts is debated. There is no agreement on the dating of the extant 9 constitutions from the Theodosian Code adressed to Flavianus praetorian prefect; they can be grouped into two periods: three in 382/383 AD, i.e. CTh 09, 40, 13 (August 18^th 382 AD, but 390 AD Mommsen, Seeck, PLRE); CTh 07, 18, 08 and CTh 09, 29, 02 (February 27^th 383 AD, but 391 AD Mommsen; Seeck and PLRE 383 to Flavianus iunior procos. Asiae); six in 391/392 AD, i.e. CTh 11, 39, 11 and CTh 16, 07, 04 and CTh 16, 07, 05 (May 11^th 391 AD); CTh 01, 01, 02 and CTh 03, 01, 06 (May 27^th 391 AD); CTh 10, 10, 20 (April 08^th 392 AD). At the end of his career and indeed his life, Flavianus was the praetorian prefect of the usurper Eugenius in Italy, at the latest from Spring 393, to early September 394 AD, when the senator committed suicide (Paulin. Med., V. Ambr. 26, 03; Paulin. Med., V. Ambr. 31, 02; Rufin., HE 02, 33; Soz., HE 07, 22; for the restitution of the salaries of Flavianus prefect imposed on his son between 395 and 399 cf. Marien 2020). In 394 AD he was also the ordinary consul of Eugenius (CLRE, pp. 322-323; cf. Symm., Epp. 02, 83-85; PPRET 92, l. 6). The problem of the chronology of the praetorian prefectures held by Flavianus now needs to be addressed.

For his first term as praetorian prefect two possible dates are commonly proposed: 382/383 AD and 389/390 AD. Scholars have thus attempted to structure Flavianus’ quaestorian and prefectural career in two different ways:

1) Quaestor sacri palatii in about 381/382 AD; praetorian prefect for the first time in 382/383 AD; praetorian prefect for the second time, during a long term of office 390-394 AD (starting under Theodosius, but continuing under Eugenius), or for the second time under Theodosius in 390-392 AD, then for the third time (illegitimate) under Eugenius in 392-394 AD. Scholars supporting this first hypothesis are: Seeck 1883, pp. CXII-CXIX, Hartke 1938, Callu 1974 and 1999, Grünewald 1992, Cecconi 2002, pp. 165-169 (first prefecture under Theodosius in 382/383; second under Theodosius, then Eugenius in 389/394); Seeck 1909, Vera 1983 (first praefecture under Theodosius in 382/383; second in 390/392 AD only under Theodosius, the third illegitimate one under Eugenius).

2) Quaestor sacri palatii in about 388/389 AD; praetorian prefect for the first time in 390-392 AD under Theodosius; praetorian prefect for the second time in 392-394 AD under Eugenius. Scholars supporting this second hypothesis are: Stein 1934, pp. 333-335, Levy 1935, pp. 27-31, PLRE I, p. 348, Matthews 1989 and 1997, pp. 210-211, Honoré 1989 and 1998, pp. 63-70, PChBE II, p. 827, Cameron 2011, pp. 631-632, Olszaniec 2013, pp. 185-186 (who nevertheless attributes the appointment to the first prefecture to Valentinianus II in 390/392, and not to Theodosius), Vitiello 2018, p. 324. According to them in the Trajan’s Forum inscription, the prefecture assigned by the usurper Eugenius was considered to be legitimate.

Slightly different reconstructions do however exist. Mommsen (commentary to CTh 07, 18, 08) and Seeck 1919, pp. 116, 261, 278-279, 453, gather seven constitutions of the Theodosian Code ad Flavianum praefectum praetorio in 390/392 AD, but avoid delimiting the two prefectures. According to Palanque 1933, pp. 68-69 and O’Donnell 1978, Flavianus was quaestor sacri palatii in 381/383 AD, then, seven years later, praetorian prefect for the first time in 390/392 (Theodosius) and for the second time in 393/394 AD (Eugenius). According to Errington 1992, Flavianus was praetorian prefect in 382/383 AD, followed by the questura in 388/389 AD (but it is an unusual sequence), which was then followed by a second praetorian prefecture in 391/394 AD (both legitimate under Thedosius, but continued under Eugenius). According to Coskun 2004, Flavianus gained his first praetorian prefecture under Valentinianus II in 390/392, and his second under Theodosius as an iteration of the first mandate after the death of Valentinianus II (although the two prefectures would be legitimate, it is unlikely that Valentinian II would have appointed prefects of Italy-Illyricum-Africa after 387). According to Porena 2020, pp. 151-152, a prefecture in 382/383 AD under Gratianus is possible, and a prefecture in 390/392 AD under Theodosius is certain.

The matter is still open. The first hypothesis allows to consider the two prefectures of Flavianus senior mentioned in the two inscriptions as both legitimate, and at least the second one assigned by Theodosius. This hypothesis would identify the prefecture given to Flavianus in 393-394 AD by the usurper Eugenius as the third one, which, strictly speaking, should be recorded in the inscription on the Caelian Hill (PPRET 92), unless Eugenius confirmed Flavianus in the post given by Theodosius (without giving him any new appointment codicils). The first hypothesis evenly distributes the senator’s career, and expands the space devoted to the writing of the Annales. This hypothesis agrees with the first three constitutions of the Theodosian Code sent to the prefect (but the date of CTh 09, 40, 13 is suspected of being linked to the 390 AD Thessalonica massacre) and with some letters of Symmachus (Symm., Ep. 02, 19, Symm., Ep. 02, 22, Symm., Ep. 02, 24, Symm., Ep. 02, 69, cf. Cecconi 2002, pp. 165-168), but leaves open the problem of the letter to Rufinus announcing Flavianus’ promotion from quaestor to praetorian prefect (Symm., Ep. 03, 90: Rufinus was magister officiorum at the imperial court in Milan in 389 AD and he does not appear in Symmachus’ correspondence until that year). The first hypothesis leaves open the question of the extent of the prefectorial area possibly administered by Flavianus in 382/383 (Italy-Illyricum-Africa under Gratianus or perhaps only the Illyricum if it was at that moment in the empire of Theodosius) and the presence of Hypatius as praetorian prefect, perhaps in the same area (see PPRET 73).

The second hypothesis obliges us to consider the praetorian prefecture given to Flavianus by the usurper Eugenius as the second legitimate prefecture referred to in the two inscriptions. This anomaly remains, despite the interpretation proposed by Honoré (1989, pp. 11-12): he thinks that CTh 15, 14, 09 would not have eliminated the appointments of officers made by the usurper, but this reconstruction is contradicted by CTh 15, 14, 11. The second hypothesis compresses the career of Flavianus into the years 389/394 AD and the writing of the Annales into the period 389/392 AD. It requires the displacement of the Theodosian constitutions of 382/383 AD and some of the letters of Symmachus, but seems better suited to the tenor of the letter to Rufinus (Symm., Ep. 03, 90), particularly with regard to the potential extent of the praefectural areas and to the chronology of the quaestura based on Honoré’s studies.

Neither hypothesis on the chronology of the questura and the praetorian prefectures can explain the celebration of two praetorian prefectures of Flavianus senior in Italia, Illyricum Africa in the inscriptions from the Celian Hill and Trajan’s Forum.

Flavianus iunior (ll. 4-6)

The first six lines of the inscription also list the offices held by Flavianus’ son, Nicomachus Flavianus iunior who must have been born around 358 AD (see PLRE I, pp. 345-347, Flavianus 14). In addition a statue base erected in his honour by the city of Naples in or after 408 AD (ILS 8985 = LSA 0327 = EDR 071611, during or after his second legitimate urban prefecture and before his praetorian prefecture in 431 AD) gives us Flavianus iunior’s cursus honorum, which is identical to that of the inscription in Trajan’s Forum. First consularis Campaniae, i.e. governor of Campania (for the office, see Chastagnol 1963, pp. 362-365 and Matthews 1975, pp. 14, 26; Savino 2005, p. 257). This governorship is difficult to date, but he must have held this post before he went to Asia as proconsul in 383 AD. The name of the family itself may suggest a connection with Campania (other Virii are attested in the 4th Century holding the same office; cf. PLRE I, p. 22, Aemilianus 4 and PLRE I, pp. 522 f., Lupus 7). His father had proprieties near Naples, in the neighborhood of Symmachus’ property (cf. Symm., Ep. 02, 60; D’Arms 1970, pp. 226-229). Flavianus iunior was also connected to the local aristocracy of Campania for being married, early in his life, to the daughter of Appius Claudius Tarronius Dexter (cf. PLRE I, p. 251, Dexter 4; CIL 10, 01479 = ILS 4196). The second prestigious office for Flavianus’ son was the proconsulship of Asia in 383 AD. The date of this office is confirmed by two sources: CTh 12, 06, 18 dated May 10th, 383 AD and addressed to Flavianus proc(onsul) Asiae and Symmachus’ mention of Flavianus iunior’s departure for Asia (Symm., Ep. 02, 24, cf. Symm., Ep. 02, 22). As we know from a letter of Symmachus, Flavianus iunior was dismissed for having broken imperial law by having a local councillor flogged (CTh 12, 01, 085 and Lib., Or. 28, 05; allusion in Symm., Ep. 03, 69).

Long after these events, he was appointed praefectus Urbi by Eugenius in 392 AD. Of course, his first urban prefecture is not explicitly mentioned in any of his public cursus, but the evidence can be found in the correspondence of Symmachus. During Flavianus iunior’s later term as urban prefect under Honorius, he talks about his earlier appointement which he received from the usurper (Symm., Ep. 07, 104). Although Flavianus iunior survived the usurpation, the emperor forced him to repay his father’s wage, received while serving Eugenius (Symm., Ep. 04, 04; Symm., Ep. 04, 06; Symm., Ep. 04, 19; Symm., Ep. 04, 51; Symm., Ep. 05, 47; Symm., Ep. 06, 12). Flavianus iunior converted to Christianity after the battle of Frigidus (cf. Aug., Civ. Dei 05, 26, 01). Symmachus wrote a lot of letters on his behalf (Symm., Ep. 04, 02; Symm., Ep. 04, 05; Symm., Ep. 05, 05; Symm., Ep. 05, 06; Symm., Ep. 06, 10; Symm., Ep. 06, 30; Symm., Ep. 06, 36; Symm., Ep. 06, 52; Symm., Ep. 06, 56; Symm., Ep. 06, 59; Symm., Ep. 06, 63; cf. Hedrick 2000, p. 28; Marion 2020), and the emperor seems to have granted him the inheritance of his dead father (Symm., Ep. 04, 19). Towards the end of 398 AD, by intervention of the magister utriusque militiae, Stilicho (cf. PLRE I, pp. 853-858; Symm., Ep. 04, 06; Symm., Ep. 06, 10; Symm., Ep. 06, 36), the emperor Honorius sent a letter (Symm., Ep. 06, 30; Symm., Ep. 06, 36; Symm., Ep. 07, 95) inviting him to the celebration of Flavius Mallius Theodorus’ consulship (January 1st 399 AD). Now in the good graces of the emperor Honorius, from about June 399 AD to around the end of 400 AD, Flavianus iunior was allowed to hold the urban prefecture, this time legitimately in contrast to the one he had held under the usurper (this office was long and it is well attested, see sources in Chastagnol 1962, p. 243; PLRE I, p. 346).

Afterward, Flavianus iunior was appointed urban prefect for the third time overall, but for the second time by the same Honorius, a legitimate emperor. The chronology of his second legitimate urban prefecture is not certain. Seeck 1909 places it between 402 and 412 AD: during his prefecture, Flavianus iunior rebuilt the Secretarium Senatus, which had burned down (CIL 06, 01718 = CIL 06, 31911 = ILS 5522 = EDR 111471). In 402 AD Symmachus dies, bringing to an end the correspondence. However, a law of Justinan’s Code (CI 02, 15, 01), issued on 29^th November 408 AD which was addressed to Flavianus praetorian prefect, whose office could easily have been emended to urban prefect, suggests 408 AD as the year for his second legitimate (third in total) urban prefecture (Seeck 1919, pp. 114, 316; Chastagnol 1962, p. 243; PLRE I, p. 346).

The statue base in honour of the emperor Arcadius from the Forum of Caesar, erected by Flavianus iunior praefectus urbi iterum vice sacra iudicans , is attributed to the senator’s first legitimate urban prefecture (399-400 AD.) His title, which we interpret as “urban prefect with appellate jurisdiction in lieu of the emperor for the second time,” refers to his special proconsular jurisdiction as proconsul Asiae (383 AD), which is not without ambiguity (cf. Hedrick 2000, p. 28-31, but see C. Machado in LSA 0784). Recently Al. Cameron (2011, pp. 498-526) has proposed another chronology of Flavianus iunior’s three urban prefectures: Flavianus iunior was first appointed Urban Prefect in 388/389 AD, then again under Eugenius in 393/394 AD, and for the third and last time in 399/400 AD (see in particular p. 519). This chronology best fits the content of the subscriptions to Livy’s edition, which may have been made by Victorianus, Flavianus iunior and Dexter in Sicily when the orator Symmachus was still alive (before 402 AD, cf. Cameron 2011, pp. 498-516; on subscriptions cf. Wallenwein 2017, pp. 224-226; for the Sicilian estates cf. Steger 2017). In the subscription at the end of the books VI-VIII, Flavianus iunior signed himself as ter praefectus urbis, i.e. “urban prefect three times.” Thus, by 400/408 AD, in the codices stored in the libraries of the Nicomachi and the Symmachi, Flavianus iunior could refer to himself explicitly as ter praefectus urbi, and in so doing include the urban prefecture granted to him by the usurper Eugenius. As regards the urban prefectures indicated in the inscription from Trajan’s Forum, Flavianus iunior, on l. 5 is listed only as praefectus urbi saepius, since it was impossible to explicitly cite his three urban prefectures, since the first under the usurper Eugenius in 393-394 AD was illegitimate; the other two date maybe to 388/389 AD and 399/400, or 399-400 and 408 AD. In the public rehabilitative inscription in Trajan’s Forum (l. 5) the ambiguous expression was meant to be evocative, without being explicit. The adverb saepius, i.e. “rather often, several times” is rare in epigraphy (it was probably chosen by Flavianus iunior himself or by Dexter). In 1992, Panciera published an inscription in which the emperor Maxentius is described as saepius, i.e. “having held the consulship rather often” (cf. PPRET 05). The scholar argued that the word would have the same connotations in our inscription since saepius would have served to «emphasize the extraordinary honour of the younger Flavianus’ three terms as urban prefect, which he had held many years before, in different circumstances» (Panciera 1992, pp. 253-255). According to Hedrick, in the formulaic environment of the cursus, the adverb was all the more incisive because of its vagueness (Hedrick 2000, p. 31: «Instead of concealing the illegitimate term, it draws attention to it, giving the younger Flavian credit for his term without doing so overtly and explicitly»; similarly Porena 2014, pp. 208-210).

In the years following his last term as urban prefect Flavianus iunior vanished from political life. All we know is that in 414 AD, he was sent on a mission in Africa (CTh 07, 04, 33). The sources go quiet for for seventeen years and then in 431/432 AD, under Valentinianus III and his mother Galla Placidia, he held his last and highest political position: the praetorian prefecture of Italy-Illyricum-Africa (CTh 11, 01, 36 and CTh 06, 23, 03). He was by then an elderly senator (about 70 years old) and held the office which was widely celebrated in Valentinian III’s letter which is engraved on our statue base (ll. 31-32).

The imperial letter of Valentinianus III and Theodosius II (ll. 7-36)

The second part of the inscription contains the text of the imperial letter, written in 431 AD to the Roman senate by the emperor Valentinianus III (formally with Theodosius II; about this large section, see Hedrick 2000; Cameron 2011, pp. 198-205). Such a dense, rhetorical and richly allusive text cannot be treated here, so just a few observations will suffice. The letter is the formal rehabilitative document, written thirty-seven years after the damnatio memoriae of Flavainus senior, by a young emperor living in a completely different context from the one in which Theodosius operated in 394 AD. The imperial letter takes the form of a hortatory address to the Curia (ll. 28-30), when the now elderly Flavianus iunior (he was about seventy years old) was praetorian prefect of Italy Illyricum Africa. Valentinianus III’s intervention was very probably prompted by Flavianus iunior and the monument to his father contains an inscription that aims to glorify the son, who was still alive and at the height of his career in 431 AD. This intention explains the anomalous presence on a monument in honour of Flavianus senior of the name and the career of Flavianus iunior as well (ll. 4-6) and his eulogy (ll. 29-33). Some scholars (Hedrick 2000, pp. 224-225; Baldini 2004 and 2009, p. 374; Festy 2007) would like to identify the author of the imperial letter as Flavianus iunior himself, but this is unlikely. The text is a traditional oratio senatus sent by Valentinianus III from Ravenna to the illustrious assembly in Rome and must have been drafted and sent by the court chancellery. Certainly it is likely that Flavianus iunior personally inspired Valentinianus III, who was then only twelve years old, about the contents of the letter. The text suggests a dialogue between the elderly senator and the young prince and his advisors, not between the emperor and the Curia. A literary forgery on a monument in the Trajan’s Forum is an unthinkable act of lese majesty. The monument, furthermore, was decreed with the approval of the Senate (l. 35).

The words of the Augustus reveal that the Senate had not pressed for a rehabilitation, the onus was on the emperor to urge the Curia to support the initiative. Valentinianus III offers his version of the events that took place almost forty years earlier: a) Flavianus senior was admired by Theodosius, who would never have wanted his death and condemnation (Theodosius I is blameless in Flavianus’ suicide); b) Flavianus senior’s condemnation was caused by the malevolence of wicked individuals (l. 21: livor inproborum; cf. Baldini 2009; Ratti 2010, pp. 262-264; the same rhetorical argument Theodosius gave in 389 AD for the case of the usurper Magnus Maximus: he would have forgiven him if only the soldiers had not killed him; cf. Pac., Pan. Lat. 02 [12], 44, 02; Pac., Pan. Lat. 02 [12], 45, 04-07); c) no mention is made of Flavianus’ responsibilities during Eugenius’ usurpation (he appears overwhelmed by fate, ll. 9-10, and to be a victim to the envy of unnamed enemies, ll. 18-21, and so not guilty of a revolt against Theodosius I); d) the senate’s inertia towards the memory of this great senator now offers Valentinianus III the opportunity to glorify the memory of an aristocrat who appears devoted to the State and loved by the Theodosian dynasty. The rehabilitation of Flavianus senior is an opportunity to praise his son (ll. 29-33), and explains why a monument that had been removed for decades, was put back up in an illustrious square of Rome.

Valentinian III’s assertion (ll. 16-17) that the senators in 431 AD could recall the words concerning the fate of Flavianus senior, addressed by Theodosius I to the Curia after the victory of Frigidus in 394 AD, has caused some perplexity. After thirty-seven years few senators would even have been present (Baldini 2009 excludes the presence of Theodosius I in the Curia after the victory of Frigidus).

In lines 19-20 the emperor recalls that the harmony between Theodosius I and Flavianus senior was so solid and deep that the Augustus wanted the Annales written by the senator to be dedicated to him. This part of the letter ties in with line 7 of the honorary base of Flavianus senior made by Memmius Symmachus in his domus on the Caelian Hill, in which the senator is called historicus disertissimus (see PPRET 92). This statement in Valentinian III’s letter sheds a little bit of light on Flavianus senior’s capacity as a historian. The short sentence states that he wrote the Annales and that he finished and offered them to Theodosius when he was his praetorian prefect (almost all scholars lean towards the years 388/390). The concordance in the expression benevolentia usque ad annalium provecta is wrong, but the meaning is clear (for a possible integration cf. Baldini 2004, p. 256). This passage undoubtedly suggests that Flavianus senior wrote a history, but it is not certain that the Annales was its title. This work was known and praised almost forty years later by Valentinianus III, and it is unlikely that it had anti-Christian tendencies. The indication of the two offices given by Theodosius to Flavianus senior as historian could be an indication that the work circulated when Flavianus senior was at the height of his career (388/392 AD). The hatred of certain wicked people (l. 21 livor improborum) was not caused by the publication of his historical work, but by jealousy for the evident benevolence of the emperor Theodosius towards Flavianus senior (for criticism of this passage of the letter cf. Van Hoof, Van Nuffelen 2020, pp. 46-49; cf. PPRET 92).

Postscript stating the circumstances of the dedication by Appius Nicomachus Dexter (ll. 37-38)

The last part of the inscription provides us with the name of the curator of the monument, Appius Nicomachus Dexter, the grandson of Flavianus senior (l. 37: avus). Although Dexter could be the son of Flavianus iunior (Weisweiler 2012, p. 318), it seems more likely that Flavianus senior was Dexter’s grandfather via iunior’s brother, so that Flavianus iunior was his paternal uncle (so the PLRE; on family ties cf. Chausson 1996, pp. 245-262; Hedrick 2000, pp. 32-33). The urban prefecture held by Dexter is only mentioned here. Its date is hypothesised to have occured between 427 and 430 AD (see Seeck 1883, p. LI, and there are no new sources). Since Appius Nicomachus Dexter was no longer in office as urban prefect (l. 37), when the monument was dedicated, its erection cannot be deemed an official act and should be considered a family dedication. In the final dedication of the monument there is no mention of the Senate, only the intervention of Appius Nicomachus Dexter (cf. Niquet 2000, pp. 79-83, epigraphic contest pp. 226-234; Bodnaruk 2019, p. 380). The first section of the inscription (ll. 4-6) insists that the relocation of the statue of Flavianus senior in Trajan’s Forum was done to honour the reputation of his son Flavianus iunior. The text of Valentinian III’s letter to the Senate also insists explicitly that the restitution of this monument would have enabled Flavianus iunior to fulfil a moral debt to both his father and his family (ll. 29-33). It therefore seems highly probable, on the basis of the tenor of the letter, that the emperor Valentinian III received a supplication from Flavianus iunior for the rehabilitation of his father who committed suicide in 394 AD. The letter to the Senate seems to be aimed at requesting the approval of the Curia for the relocation of the monument in Trajan’s Forum. It therefore seems likely that Appius Nicomachus Dexter, former urban prefect, was the executor of a political initiative promoted by Flavianus iunior (for the creation of the famous dyptich on this occasion see Villegas Marín 2017). In the letter, Valentinian III proclaims the innocence of Theodosius I regarding the dire fate of Flavianus senior, caused by the jealousy of unknown men (l. 21: livor improborum), and extols the trust and appreciation of the Flavians, both father and son, to their loyal subject. In such a way, a monument honouring a father, also glorifies the son, the praetorian prefect of Valentinian III.

Formula providing the date when the inscription was set up (left side)

The dedication is precisely dated. On the left side of the base, the consular date is given as September 13^th 431 AD. The monument was dedicated on an important day in the pagan calender of Rome. The Ides of September were consacrated to the cult of Jupiter. C.W. Hedrick (2000, pp. 226-230) argues that this together with the omission of Flavianus priesthood as pontifex maior, was all deliberate. It thus seems likely that the readers of the inscription were still able to make a connection between the day of the dedication and the ancient pagan feast. Macrobius’ Saturnalia show that Senators were still able make this connection around 431 AD. It is possible that the date of the dedication was another one of the allusions contained within the subtle rhetoric of Valentinian III’s letter to the Senate.

Bibliography

Baldini A., Nota a margine di CIL, VI, 1783, Epigraphica, 66, 2004, 251-256 (= AE 2004, 0193).

Baldini A., CIL VI, 1783,16-17: plerique meministis (e considerazioni sparse sull’impiego di plerique), AntTard, 17, 2009, 365-374 (= AE 2009, 127).

Barbieri G., Revisioni di epigrafi, RPAA, 42, 1969-1970, 73-80 (= AE 1971, 22, 24).

Barnes T.D., Religion and Society in the Reign of Theodosius, in Meynell H. (ed.), Grace, Politics and Desire. Essays on Augustine, Calgary 1990, 157-175.

Bauer F.A., Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos, Mainz 1996.

Bloch H., A New Document of the Last Pagan Revival in the West, 393-394 A.D., HThR, 38, 1945, 199-244.

Bloch H., The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century, in Momigliano A. (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century: Essays, Oxford 1964 (repr. ed. 1963), 193-218.

Bodnaruk M., Production of Distinction: the Representation of Senatorial Elites in the Later Roman Empire, 306-395, PhD Diss. Central European University, Budapest 2019.

Bonamente G., Chapter 3: the Frigidus, in R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), The Strange Death of Pagan Rome. Reflections on a Historiographical Controversy, Turnhout 2013, 53-70.

Callu J.-P., Les préfectures de Nicomaque Flavien, in Mélanges d’histoire ancienne offerts à William Seston, Paris 1974, 73-80 (= Id., Culture profane et critique des sources de l’antiquité tardive. Trente et une études de 1974 à 2003, Roma 2006, 51-58).

Callu J.-P., En amont de l’Histoire Auguste, 357-387 (notes sur quelques réflexes politico-culturels de la génération de Symmaque), in Paschoud F. (a cura di), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense, Bari 1999, 87-107.

Cameron A., The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford 2011.

Cecconi G.A., Commento storico al Libro II dell’Epistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco. Con introduzione, testo, traduzione e indici, Pisa 2002.

Cecconi G. A., Alan Cameron’s Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, in R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), The Strange Death of Pagan Rome. Reflections on a Historiographical Controversy, Turnhout 2013, 151-164.

Chastagnol A., Observations sur le consulat suffect et la préture du bas empire, RH, 219, 1958, 221-253.

Chastagnol A., La Préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire, Paris 1960.

Chastagnol A., Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire, Paris 1962.

Chastagnol A., L’Administration du diocèse italien au Bas-Empire, Historia, 12, 1963, 348-379.

Chastagnol A., La fin du monde antique. De Stilicon à Justinien (Ve siècle et début VIe). Recueil de textes présentés et traduits, Paris 1976.

Chausson F., Venustus, père de Nicomaque Flavien senior, AntTard, 4, 1996, 245-262.

Chenault R., Statues of Senators in the Forum of Trajan and the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity, JRS, 102, 2012, 103-132.

Consolino F.E., Macrobius’ «Saturnalia» and the «Carmen contra paganos», in R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), The Strange Death of Pagan Rome. Reflections on a Historiographical Controversy, Turnhout 2013, 85-107.

Coşkun A., Die Karriere des Virius Nicomachus Flavianus. Mit Exkursen zu den praefecti praetorio Italiae, Africae et Illyrici 388-95, Athenaeum, 92, 2004 (a), 467-491.

Coşkun A., Der «comes» Romanus, der Heermeister Theodosius und die drei letzen Akte der ‚Lepcis-Magna-Affaire‘ (A. 373-377), AntTard, 12, 2004 (b), 293-308.

Cracco-Ruggini L., Il paganesimo romano tra religione e politica (383-394 d.C.): per una reinterpretazione del “Carmen contra paganos”, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie, serie 8, 23, 1979, 1-144.

D’Arms J.H., Romans on the Bay of Naples. A Social and Cultural Study of the Villas and Their Owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400, Cambridge 1970.

De Rossi G.B., Iscrizione di Nicomacho Flaviano, Annali dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica (n.s.), 6, 1849, 283-356.

Di Paola L. Il comes Romanus e la rivolta dei Mauri tra connivenze, inganni e accuse, in Bastiana Cocco M., Gavini A., Ibba A. (a cura di), L’Africa Romana XIX. Trasformazione dei paesaggi del potere nell’Africa settentrionale fino alla fine del mondo antico (Atti del XIX convegno di studio, Sassari, 16-19 dicembre 2010), I, Roma 2012, 1063-1076.

Errington R.M., The Praetorian Prefectures of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia, 41, 1992, 439-461.

Festy M., L’"Histoire Auguste" et les Nicomaques, in Bonamente G., Brandt H. (a cura di), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bambergense, Bari 2007, 183-195.

Grünewald T., Der letzte Kampf des Heidentums in Rom? Zur posthumen Rehabilitation des Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia, 41, 1992, 462-487.

Harris W.V., Religion on the Battlefield: from the Saxa Rubra to the Frigidus, in Gasparini V. (a cura di), Vestigia: miscellanea di studi storico-religiosi in onore di Filippo Coarelli nel suo 80° anniversario, Stuttgart 2016, 437-450.

Hartke W., Zwei chronologische Fragen um Nicomachus Flavianus, Klio, 31, 1938, 430-436.

Hedrick C.W.Jr., History and Silence. Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity, Austen 2000.

Honoré T., Some Writings of the Pagan Champion Nicomachus Flavianus, in Id. (hrsg.), Virius Nicomachus Flavianus. Mit einem Beitrag von John F. Matthews, Konstanz 1989, 9-17.

Honoré T., Law in the Crisis of Empire 379-455 AD. The Theodosian Dynasty and its Quaestors, Oxford 1998.

Levy H.L. (ed. with introd. and textual comm. by), The Invective In Rufinum of Claudius Claudianus, Geneva-New York 1935.

Marcone A., L’ultima aristocrazia pagana di Roma e le ragioni della politica, Incontri triestini di filologia classica, 8, 2008-2009, 99-111.

Marien B., Symmachus’ Epistolary Influence: The Rehabilitation of Nicomachus Flavianus through Recommendation Letters, in Choda K.S., de Leeuw M.S., Schulz F. (eds), Gaining and Losing Imperial Favour in Late Antiquity. Representation and Reality, Leiden-Boston 2020, 105-124.

Matranga P., Archeologia, in Giornale di Roma, 63 (19 Settembre 1849), Supplemento, 269-270 Matthews J.F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364-425, Oxford 1975.

Matthews, J.F., Nicomachus Flavianus’ Quaestorship: The Historical Evidence, in Honoré T. (hrsg.), Virius Nicomachus Flavianus. Mit einem Beitrag von John F. Matthews, Konstanz 1989, 18-25.

Matthews J.F., “Codex Theodosianus” 9.40.13 and Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia, 46, 1997, 196-213.

Musso L., Il praefectus del Carmen contra paganos: tra vecchie e nuove interpretazioni, ArchClass, 31, 1979, 185-240 .

Niquet H., Monumenta virtutum titulique. Senatorische Selbstdarstellung im spätantiken Rom im Spiegel der epigraphischen Denkmäler, Stuttgart 2000.

O’Donnell J.J., The Career of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Phoenix, 32, 1978, 129-143.

Olszaniec S., Prosopographical Studies on the Court Elite in the Roman Empire (4th Century AD), Toruń 2013.

Orlandi S., Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente romano, VI, Roma: anfiteatri e strutture annesse, con una nuova edizione e commento delle iscrizioni del Colosseo, Roma 2004.

Palanque J.-R., Essai sur la Préfecture du Prétoire du Bas-Empire, Paris 1933.

Panciera S., Un prefetto del pretorio di Massenzio: Manilius Rusticianus, in Institutions, société et vie politique dans l’Empire romain au IVe siècle ap. J.-C. Actes de la table ronde autour de l’œuvre d’André Chastagnol (Paris, 20-21 janvier 1989), Rome 1992, 249-263 (= Id., Epigrafi, epigrafia, epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956-2005) con note complementari e indici, Roma 2006, 1137-1146).

Paribeni R., Iscrizioni dei Fori Imperiali, NSA, 9, 1933, 431-523.

Porena P., La scelta fra iterazione e durata delle cariche nei cursus honorum epigrafici dei senatori tardoromani in Occidente, in Caldelli M.L., Gregori G.L. (a cura di), Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, 30 anni dopo (Tituli 10), Roma 2014, 195-214.

Porena P., “Rebus prosopografico”: considerazioni sui due Syagri, consoli ordinari nel 381 e nel 382, ZPE, 211, 2019, 279-292.

Porena P., Ipotesi sull’istituzione di una prefettura del pretorio autonoma d’Illirico nel decennio 378-87, in Bigi. F., Tantillo I. (a cura di), Senatori romani nel Pretorio di Gortina, Le statue di Asclepiodotus e la politica di Graziano dopo Adrianopoli, Pisa 2020, 143-166..

Ratti S., Nicomaque Flavien démasqué, in Id., Antiquus Error: les ultimes feux de la résistance païenne. Scripta varia augmentés de cinq études inédites, Turnhout 2010, 261-269.

Salzman M.R., Ambrose and the Usurpation of Arbogastes and Eugenius: Reflections on Pagan-Christian Conflict Narratives, JECS, 18, 2010, 191-223.

Savino E., Campania tardoantica, 284-604 d.C., Bari 2005.

Scullard H.H., Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, London 1981.

Seeck O., Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt, (MGH AA, VI/1) Berlin 1883.

Seeck O., Flavianus 14, in RE, VI/2, Stuttgart 1909, 2506-2511.

Seeck O., Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Vorarbeit einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 1919.

Springer M., Die Schlacht am Frigidus als quellenkundliches und literaturgeschichtliches Problem, in Bratož R. (hrsg.), Westillyricum und Nordostitalien in der spätrömischen Zeit, Ljubljana 1996, 45-94.

Steger B., Piazza Armerina: la villa romaine du Casale en Sicile, Paris 2017.

Stein E., A propos d’un livre récent sur la liste des préfets du prétoire, Byzantion, 9, 1934, 327-353.

Szidat J., Die Usurpation des Eugeneius, Historia, 28, 1979, 487-508.

Tantillo I., Praesides, comites, duces. La Tripolitania e l’amministrazione dell’Africa tardoromana, AntTard, 22, 2014, 177-194.

Tantillo I., Bigi F. (a cura di), Leptis Magna. Una città e le sue iscrizioni in epoca tardoromana, Cassino 2010.

Van Hoof L., Van Nuffelen P., The Fragmentary Latin Histories of Late Antiquity (AD 300-620). Edition, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge 2020.

Vera D., La carriera di Virius Nicomachus Flavianus e la prefettura dell’Illirico orientale nel IV secolo d. C., Athenaeum, 71, 1983, 24-64, 390-426.

Villegas Marín R., El „Sueño de Escipión“ (Cic. rep.), el „díptico de la Consecratio“ (British Museum) y la rehabilitación oficial de Virio Nicómaco Flaviano (431), Klio, 99, 2017, 644-675.

Vitiello M., Theodosius, Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, and the Preservation of Rome’s Mores, JLA, 11, 2018, 319-338.

Wallenwein K., Corpus Subscriptionum. Verzeichnis der Beglaubigungen von spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Textabschriften (saec. IV-VIII), Stuttgart 2017.

Weisweiler J., Inscribing Imperial Power: Letters from Emperors in Late-Antique Rome, in R. Behrwald, C. Witschel (eds), Rom in der Spätantike. Historische Erinnerung im städtischen Raum, Stuttgart 2012 (a), 309-330.

Weisweiler J., From Equality to Asymmetry: Honorific Statues, Imperial Power and Senatorial Identity in Late-Antique Rome’, JRA, 25, 2012 (b), 319-350.

Wiewiorowski J., The Judiciary of Diocesan Vicars in the Later Roman Empire, Poznań 2015.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit