Posthumous inscription in honour of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus former praet. prefect from Rome by Q. Fabius Memmius Symmachus
source date: 402 AD
edition published: 2021-05-14
availability: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Virio Nicomacho Flaviano,viro clarissimo, quaestori, praetori, pontifici maiori, consulari Siciliae, vicario Africae, quaestori intra palatium, praefecto praetorio iterum, consuli ordinario, historico disertissimo, Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus, vir clarissimus, prosocero optimo.

The text is based on CIL 06, 1783.

“Al chiarissimo Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, questore, pretore, pontefice maggiore, governatore di Sicilia, vicario d’Africa, questore nel palazzo (imperiale), prefetto al pretorio per la seconda volta, console ordinario, storico coltissimo, il chiarissimo Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus all’ottimo prosuocero (ha dedicato questa statua).”

“To Virius Nicomachus Flavianus of clarissimus rank, quaestor, praetor, higher pontiff, consular of Sicily, vicar of Africa, quaestor in the (imperial) palace, praetorian prefect for the second time, ordinary consul, highly cultured historian, by Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus of clarissimus rank, to the excellent grandfather-in-law (dedicated this statue).”

“Au clarissime Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, questeur, préteur, pontifex major, consulaire de Sicile, vicaire d’Afrique, questeur dans le palais (impérial), préfet du prétoire pour la seconde fois, consul ordinaire, historien le plus savant, le clarissime Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus à son excellent arrière beau-père (a dédié cette statue).”

The inscription was carefully carved into a moulded framed epigraphic field, adorning the front face of a marble statue base. The base was found in 1617 in the horti of Sertorio Teofili, then villa Casali. Acquired by the antiquarian Giuseppe Scalambrini after 1876, the base was bought at auction by the Capitoline Museum in 1888 (Santolini Giordani 1989; Velestino 2000). The base originally stood on the Symmachus’ family estate on the Mons Caelius, which was perhaps also the site of the domus (Symm., Epp. 03, 12, 88; Symm., Ep. 07, 18, 19; cf. Lanciani 1897, pp. 348-350; Vera 1983, pp. 27-28; Pavolini et alii 1993; Guidobaldi 1995; Carignani 2000; Machado 2019, pp. 243-248), where the Ospedale, now the Policlinico Militare is situated. The statue base, today located in the Capitoline Museum, is well preserved and its text is carved into the epigraphic field whose surface is deep and irregular, indicating a possible erasure of a previous inscription, of which neither the content nor the context is today known.

The inscription is a private dedication set up by the roman aristocrat Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus (PLRE II, pp. 1046-1047, Symmachus 10) in honour of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus senior (in brief see PLRE I, pp. 347-349, Flavianus 15), who was the grandfather of his wife. Flavianus, after a brilliant thirty year long career, 364 to 394 AD (see below), took part in the usurpation of Flavius Eugenius in 392 AD and, after the defeat in the battle of the Frigidus in 394 AD, he took his own life (on the usurpation, see Bloch 1945; Bloch 1964; Szidat 1979; Cameron 2011, pp. 93-131; on the final battle on the river Frigidus, see Rufin., HE, 11, 33; Zos. 04, 58; Carm. adv. Flav. 67; Aug., Civ. Dei 18, 53).

The inscribed statue base for Flavianus was created together with another statue base (CIL 06, 01699 = ILS 2946 = EDR 122113) dedicated by the same Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus to his father, the orator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (PLRE I, p. 865, Symmachus 4; Sogno 2006). Both bases were conceived together: not only does their size, material, layout and palaeography match, but both pieces were found in the same location inside the horti Theophili in the 17th Century (cf. Bloch 1945, p. 210; Matthews 1973, p. 187). The two statues probably stood together in the same room of the domus of Memmius Symmachus on the Caelian Hill (see Gehn 2012; about these roman monuments for Nicomachi and Symmachi, see Marcone 2008-2009).

The date of the dedication is not explicitly specified but the latest office mentioned in either inscription is Flavianus senior’s term as ordinary consul in 394 AD, which consequently constitutes its terminus post quem. Since Quintus Fabius Symmachus refers to Flavianus as his prosocer, i.e. grandfather-in-law, the honorific inscriptions must certainly be dated after his marriage to Flavianus’ granddaughter, which was surely celebrated in 401 AD (Symm., Ep. 04, 14; Symm., Epp. 09, 93, 104-107; cf. Seeck 1883, p. LIX; Seeck 1931; PLRE II, p. 1047, Symmachus 10; O’Donnell 1978, p. 129 n. 3). As the bases are a pair, it is also likely to have been erected to commemorate the marriage alliance between the two families. The famous “diptych of the Symmachi and Nicomachi” was probably made for the same occasion (see Adamik 1995, pp. 185-186; Painter 2000; about different interpretations of this diptych cf. Kinney 2009; Abbatepaolo 2012, p. 18, nr. 17; Cameron 2013, pp. 179-185; Cameron 2017; Villegas Marín 2017). These statues might thus have been set up around 402/403 AD, soon after the death of Symmachus and while the marriage alliance was still relatively recent.

The nine lines of the inscription can be divided into three sections: Flavianus senior’s cursus honorum in chronological order (ll. 1-6), reference to his activity as a historian (l. 7), and mention of the awarder Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus (ll. 8-9).

1) Flavianus senior’s cursus honorum (ll. 1-6)

The inscription for Flavianus senior showing his cursus honorum from the domus on the Caelian hill was conceived and written at the same time and in parallel with the inscription with the cursus honorum of the orator Symmachus (CIL 06, 01699 = LSA 0270 = EDR 122113):

Eusebii. // Q(uinto) Aur(elio) Symmacho v(iro) c(larissimo), / quaest(ori), praet(ori), pontifici / maiori, correctori / Lucaniae et Brittiorum, / (5) comiti ordinis tertii, / procons(uli) Africae, praef(ecto) / urb(i), co(n)s(uli) ordinario, / oratori disertissimo, / Q(uintus) Fab(ius) Memm(ius) Symmachus / (10) v(ir) c(larissimus) patri optimo.

As we have already said, the two bases supporting the two statues of the father and of the grandfather-in-law of Memmius Symmachus were probably placed side by side in the same reception room of his roman domus. The careers of the two senators were concieved in such a way as to be read in parallel with each other. The capacities of these two men was highlighted by their prestigious careers which were similar: the traditional magistracies of the city of Rome (quaestor and praetor), the membership of the college of pontiffs, a provincial governorship in Italy (Sicilia / Lucania et Brittii), an office at the imperial court (quaestor / comitiva), the higher civil post over the African diocese (vic. Afr. / procos. Afr.), the great prefectures (praetorio / urbi), the ordinary consulate (394 and 391 AD); the praise of cultural excellence followed (historicus disertissimus / orator disertissimus); their praiseworthy family role concluded the inscription (prosocer optimus / pater optimus). The list of Nicomachus Flavianus’ offices also includes the ordinary consulship, which he held at the behest of the usurper Eugenius in 394 (CLRE, pp. 322-323). His consulate was interrupted on September 5th by the suicide of the senator and consul, after Theodosius’ victory at the river Frigidus. His consulship was branded illegitimate by the emperor Theodosius and his sons and cancelled (below). Memmius Symmachus’ desire to mirror the career of his father, legitimate ordinary consul in 391 AD, and his grandfather-in-law led him, some eight years after Flavianus’ death, to have the consulship, that had been abolished by Theodosius and his sons, engraved in the domestic inscription. A statue of the senator who had commited suicide, whose cursus would have boasted offices obtained from an usurper, would have been accommodated in a private room. We know that Nicomachus Flavianus was rehabilitated thirty-seven years after his death, and twenty-nine years after this honorary achievement in the house of Memmius Symmachus on the Caelian hill. The long inscription that rehabilitated him in 431 AD, located in Trajan’s Forum (PPRET 93), records Flavianus’ career (for his name carved on the podium slab of the Colosseum, see PPRET 94). Nicomachus Flavianus senior was rehabilitated by the young emperor Valentinianus III. Appius Nicomachus Dexter, perhaps a cousin of Flavianus iunior, was able to have an inscription engraved with the cursus honorum of his uncle Flavianus senior in this important public space of Late Antique Rome. This inscription was also made to honour Nicomachus Flavianus iunior, who in 431 AD was praetorian prefect of Italy-Illyricum-Africa; the letter of the Augustus to the Senate requesting the rehabilitation of the memory of Flavianus senior, who had committed suicide in 394 AD, followed the honorary texts for the Nicomachi, father and son. The inscription from Trajan’s Forum omits the ordinary Eugenian consulship of 394 AD in Flavianus senior’s cursus. The Eugenian consulate of 394 AD could not be mentioned in a public inscription since it had been invalidated by law (CTh 15, 14, 09, issued at Milan on April 21st 395 AD, states that the consulship obtained under the usurper should be abolished, see also PPRET 93) and concurrent with the consulate of the emperors Arcadius (tertium) and Honorius (iterum) (cf. Vera 1983; Honoré 1989, p. 11; Errington 1992, pp. 440-441; Hedrick 2000, pp. 23, 95-96; Orlandi 2004, p. 487). The cursus honorum carved in 431 AD on the base from Trajan’s Forum lists only Flavianus’ major offices: consularis Siciliae, vicarius Africae, quaestor aulae divi Theodosii, and, as in the inscription from the Caelian domus, two praetorian prefectures of Italy, Illyricum, Africa: praef(ecto) praet(orio) Ital(iae) Illyr(ici) et Afric(ae) iterum. The chronology of the two praetorian prefectures held by Nicomachus Flavianus senior is an open question. The question is complicated by the iteration of the praetorian prefecture in both of the inscriptions: the private inscription carved in 402 AD in Memmius Symmachus’ domus on the Caelian hill and the public inscription carved in 431 AD in Trajan’s Forum. It is not known if both praetorian prefectures were Theodosian ones, and therefore legitimate, or if the first one was Theodosian and the second one due to the usurper Eugenius and so illegitimate (see discussion in PPRET 93). Flavianus senior’s career is discussed in detail in PPRET 93, but in synthesis we can make some observations.

The inscription from the Caelian hill lists Flavianus senior’s offices in chronological order, starting with the oldest, including posts held during his youth: the quaestorship and the praetorship, neither of which are mentioned in his rehabilitation or are precisely datable. The indication of the pontificate (l. 2) in the cursus of the two senators is noteworthy. This choice underlines the traditionalism of the dedicator and the epigraphic preferences of the aristocratic milieu of the city of Rome.

In the 4th century, the first important step to make as a member of the senatorial class was the governorship of a province: our inscription notes Flavianus’ term as consularis Siciliae, i.e. governor of Sicily, a post he held in 364/365 AD (for family estates near Henna cf. PPRET 93). For the next ten years he was without a post: Olszaniec (2013, p. 175) conjectured that Flavianus did not hold offices for such a protracted period of time because of Valentinianus who was indifferent to senators and their careers. Since then, however, Porena (2014, pp. 196-197) has pointed out that during the 4th and 5th centuries senatorial careers were often put on hold for periods of ten or fifteen years, with no apparent detriment to their long term prospects. Indeed, such periods of apparent inactivity were often filled with other types of posts or indeed by works of patronage.

In 377 AD Flavianus senior was vicarius Africae, and during his mandate he acted in favour of the cities of Tripolitania (cf. Amm. 28, 06, 28; Tantillo, Bigi 2010, nr. 27; bibliography cf. PPRET 93).

He next served as quaestor sacri palatii: this office is described differently, here (l. 5) as quaestor intra Palatium and in the rehabilitative inscription (ll. 1-2) as quaestor aulae divi Theodosi. This is the first of a series of appointments whose chronology is disputed. For the sake of simplicity, some scholars place the questura and the first praetorian prefecture one after the other in 381/383, while others place them in 388/392 (cf. PPRET 93). Flavianus senior was certainly quaestor before being praetorian prefect two times (l. 6), between 382 and 394 AD: for an overview on the debate concerning the number of Flavianus senior’s praetorian prefectures (two or three), their chronology, their legitimacy and their administrative boundaries, see PPRET 93.

The last appointment mentioned in our inscription is consul ordinarius under Eugenius in 394 AD, an office he held right up to his suicide at the beginning of September. For 394 AD, Eugenius chose Flavianus senior as consul, leaving the selection of the second consul to Theodosius, who, however, ignored him and chose consuls of his own: his sons Arcadius and Honorius. As said, the ordinary consulate of 394 AD cannot be mentioned in a public inscription in Trajan’s Forum (PPRET 93), but could be recorded on the statue base in Memmius Symmachus’ house on the Caelian hill.

2) Reference to Flavianus’ activity as a historian (l. 7)

The tandem careers of Flavianus and Symmachus on the Caelian hill statue bases are not the only elements to be compared: the adjective disertissimus is used for both senators, in Symmachus’ case attributed to his renown as a public speaker (orator), while in Flavianus’ case, to his reputation as a historian (historicus) (see Girotti 2015, pp. 127-128). Compared to other senatorial dedications, this pair is somewhat peculiar: in effect more emphasis is placed on their cultural excellence rather than their administrative and political virtues (Neri 1981-1982). That said, the adjective disertus is not completely unknown: the urban prefect Anicius Auchenius Bassus is described as disertus in his inscription in Trajan’s Forum (CIL 06, 01679 = ILS 1262 = LSA 1354 = EDR 079520); at the same time the praetorian prefect Petronius Probus is disertissimus in his large inscription from Verona (PPRET 63). In the letter to the roman Senate carved on the monument built in Trajan’s Forum, the emperor Valentinianus III praises Flavianus as the author of the Annales that the emperor Theodosius I «wanted his quaestor and prefect to dedicate to him» (PPRET 93, ll. 19-20; it seems that Theodosius I appreciated literary talents and appointed authors of historical works to prestigious positions; see Vitiello 2015, pp. 571-573). Although almost nothing is known about Flavianus’ work, his Annales have fuelled a considerable debate on its precise nature, typology, dimensions, date and chronology, and not to mention its influence upon later Latin and Greek historiography (see now Baldini 2005; Van Hoof, Van Nuffelen 2020, pp. 36-58, in part. pp. 46-50). The Quelleforschung on the Annales really is an open field, especially since not a single fragment of it remains.

Recently a lively debate has begun, pitting Al. Cameron (2011, pp. 627-690) against F. Paschoud (1994; 2006; 2012) and B. Bleckmann (1992, pp. 396-410; 1995; 2015; see also Prchlík 2011 and 2015). Not only do the the latter consider the Annales to be an extensive and fundamental work, they make it the principal source for the period 270/378 AD (used by Jerome, Ammianus, the Epitome de Caesaribus, the Historia Augusta among latin historians; by Eunapius/Zosimus, and by Petrus Patricius up to Zonaras, the so called ‘Leoquelle’, among greek historians). His narrative may be reconstructed through later Byzantine historiography up to Zonaras, of which Flavianus’ work would have been an authoritative source. Criticism of Christian emperors appears to be a tendency of Flavianus’ historical work. Conversely, Cameron argues that the Annales was nothing but a short, hastily composed and insignificant work that even Symmachus and Macrobius could not remember (2011, p. 690: «a trivial epitome»; similar opinion by Burgess 2011, pp. 168-169, and Cecconi 2013, p. 152; Van Hoof, Van Nuffelen 2020, p. 48). One heavily disputed aspect of the Annales is it’s particular historical slant - was it pagan or more middle of the road and what was its influence on later Greek and Latin historiography. Zecchini (1993), discerns an anti-christian tendency and offers a balanced reconstruction of Flavianus’ influence on the late Latin historiographical tradition (above all on his late-symmachian tradition). A. Baldini is closer to the hypothesis of Paschoud and Bleckmann (2000, 97-177; Baldini 2005) and identifies the Annales as the Latin source of Peter the Patrician (on the critical Latin tradition of christianism known in Constantinople between the 5th and 6th Centuries, cf. Mecella 2017). S. Ratti (1999; 2007; 2010, 217-223, 239-248, 252-276; 2012, 139-148 e 154-164; 2014, 425-428) identifies Flavianus senior as the author of the Historia Augusta, which is, according to him, the modern title for the Annales cited in the inscription from Trajan’s Forum (similarly Nardelli, cf. Nardelli, Ratti 2014; but Paschoud 2013 and 2017 desagrees). Festy (1997; 2004; 2007) attributes the Historia Augusta to Flavianus iunior, but underlines the importance of his father’s historical perspective (but Rohrbacher 2013 desagrees). On this line, Vitiello (2104) adheres to the hypothesis of considering the entire historiography from the Annales to the Historia Augusta, as a work that does nothing more than allude to Theodosius and his family. The common fascination with antiquarianism may have brought Flavianus senior and Theodosius together. In this optic, some scholars have conjectured that the work of Nicomachus Flavianus was principally focused on republican Roman history (Matthews 1975, p. 231; Barnes 1976, p. 268; possibly Hedrick 2000, p. 146), while others thought it likely that it was a collection of exempla maiorum (Schlumberger 1985; see also Seeck 1909, col. 2508; Grünewald 1992, pp. 471-473; Festy 1997; Festy 2004; Baldini 2005; Ratti 2010; Vitiello 2014; for more information on the exempla maiorum in 4th Century literature, see Portmann 1988; Felmy 2001, pp. 88-124; 231-280; Sehlmeyer 2009, pp. 174-178). Nevertheless, it is often assumed that the Epitome de Caesaribus largely uses Flavianus’ Annales as its source (cf. Schlumberger 1974; Festy 1999; Vitiello 2015, pp. 584-588).

A closer look at the details of the Caelian hill inscription, tells us that Flavianus senior and his Annales were praised in documents produced by Flavianus’ family. Our inscription from the domus of Memmmius Symmachus and a late passage from the Ordo generis Cassiodororum (7-8, Galonnier 1996, p. 306), also mentions the seven books of roman history written by Memmius Symmachus, consul in 485, a descendant of the commissioner of our private inscription (PLRE II, pp. 1044-1046; about his work cf. Van Nuffelen, Van Hoof 2020, pp. 146-165): his history emulated the Annales and was the source for the Romana by Jordanes (Girotti 2009; Van Nuffelen, Van Hoof 2020). Although Flavianus’ historical work is entirely lost, and is mentioned only by Symmachi, there is no doubt that the Annales still won the approval and admiration of Valentinian III. Dedicated to Theodosius I, the work was cited in an official communication of the emperor to the Senate of Rome and was commemorated in the inscription in Trajan’s Forum (PPRET 93).

3) Mention of the awarder Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus (ll. 8-9)

The last two lines mention the awarder of both dedications: Quintus Fabius Memmius Symmachus who, as we said, was the son of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus and the grandson-in-law of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus (PLRE II, pp. 1046-1047). Nothing is known of his life after his quaestorian games in 393 AD, his praetorian games and his marriage with a granddaughter of Nicomachus Flavianus senior in 401 AD. His family connections with both honorands clearly shows the private character and purpose of the dedication: Roman aristocracy needed models to emulate among their ancestors, in an attempt to keep alive an identity that was inevitably fading into a Christianized society (Vera 1983, 28; on inscribed monuments as a vehicle for aristocratic pride cf. Niquet 2000; Weisweiler 2012; Bodnaruk 2019; in sociological perspective cf. Näf 1995; Meurer 2019). This purpose reflects what the orator Symmachus openly expressed in one of his official reports when he was urban prefect: ancestor’s images lead us towards virtue (Symm., Rel. 12, 02).

CIL 06, 01782 (p. 4760) ILS 2947 Santolini Giordani 1989, p. 164, nr. 137, Tav. XXVI (with photo) Hedrick 2000, p. 13 = AE 2000, 0136 Velestino 2000, pp. 464-465, nr. 67 (with photo) Velestino 2015, p. 133 (with photo)

EDCS 18100597 LSA 271 EDR 122108 TM 279422

Abbatepaolo M., Parole d’avorio. Fonti letterarie e testi per lo studio dei dittici eburnei, Bari 2012 Adamik B., Das sog. Carmen contra paganos, AAntHung, 36, 1995, 185-233 Baldini A., Storie perdute (III secolo d.C.), Bologna 2000 Baldini A., Considerazioni in tema di Annales ed Historia Augusta, in Bonamente G., Mayer M. (a cura di), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcinnonense, Bari 2005, 15-46 Barnes T.D., The Epitome de Caesaribus and Its Sources, CP, 71, 1976, 258-268 Bleckmann B., Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras, München 1992 Bleckmann B., Bemerkungen zu den “Annales” des Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia, 44, 1995, 83-99 Bleckmann B., Last Pagans, Source Criticism and Historiography of the Late Antiquity, Millennium, 12, 2015, 103-116 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 Burgess W., Chronicles, Consuls, and Coins. Historiography and History in the Later Roman Empire, Aldershot 2011 Cameron Al., The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford 2011 Cameron Al., The Origin, Context and Function of Consular Diptychs, JRS, 103, 2013, 174-207 Cameron Al., Presentation diptychs or fancy stationery?, JLA, 10, 2017, 300-324 Carignani A., La domus “dei Simmaci”, in Ensoli S., La Rocca E. (a cura di), Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana, Roma 2000, 149-151 Cecconi G.A., Alan Cameron’s Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, in Lizzi Testa R. (ed.), The Strange Death of Pagan Rome. Reflections on a Historiographical Controversy, Turnhout 2013, 151-164 Errington R.M., The Praetorian Prefectures of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia, 41, 1992, 439-461 Felmy A., Die Römische Republik im Geschichtsbild der Spätantike: zum Umgang lateinischer Autoren des 4. und 5. Jahruhnderts n. Chr. mit den exempla maiorum, Berlin 2001 Festy M., Le début et la fin des “Annales” de Nicomaque Flavien, Historia, 46, 1997, 465-478 Festy M., Aurélius Victor, source de l’Histoire Auguste et de Nicomaque Flavien, in Paschoud F. (a cura di), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense, Bari 1999, 121-133 Festy M., Les Nicomaques, auteurs de l’Histoire Auguste. La jalousie des méchants, CRAI, 148, 2004, 757-767 Festy, M., L’"Histoire Auguste" et les Nicomaques, in Bonamente G., Brandt H. (a cura di), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bambergense, Bari 2007, 183-195 Galonnier A., Anecdoton Holderi ou Ordo Generis Cassiodororum. Introduction, édition, traduction et commentaire, AntTard, 4, 1996, 299-312 Gehn U., Ehrenstatuen in spätantiken Häusern Roms, in Birk. S., Poulsen B. (eds.), Patrons and Viewers in Late Antiquity, Aarhus 2012, 15-30 Girotti B., Ricerche sui Romana di Jordanes, Bologna 2009 Girotti B., Nicomaco Flaviano, “Historicus disertissimus”?, Hermes, 143, 2015, 124-128 Grünewald T., Der letzte Kampf des Heidentums in Rom? Zur posthumen Rehabilitation des Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia, 41, 1992, 462-487 Guidobaldi F., Domus: Q. Aurelius Symmachus s. Eusebius, in Steinby E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, vol. II, Roma 1995, 183-184 Hedrick C.W., 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 Kinney D., “Old Friends”, in Alchernes J.D., Evans H.C., Thomas T.K. (eds.), Anathemata Heortika. Studies in Honor of Thomas F. Mathews, Mainz 2009, 195-203 Lanciani R., The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome. A Companion Book for Students and Travelers, London 1897 Machado C., Urban Space and Aristocratic Power in Late Antique Rome, AD 270-535, Oxford 2019 Marcone A., L’ultima aristocrazia pagana di Roma e le ragioni della politica, Incontri triestini di filologia classica, 8, 2008-2009, 99-111 Matthews J.F., Symmachus and the Oriental Cults, JRS, 63, 1973, 175-195 Matthews J.F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, A.D. 364-425, Oxford 1975 Mecella L., Gli Excerpta Planudea, Pietro Patrizio e la tradizione storiografica occidentale, in Neri V., Girotti B. (a cura di), La storiografia tardoantica: bilanci e prospettive, in memoria di Antonio Baldini, Milano 2017, 153-168 Meurer T.L., Vergangenes verhandeln. Spätantike Statusdiskurse senatorischer Eliten in Gallien und Italien, Berlin 2019 Näf B., Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein in spätrömischer Zeit, Freiburg (CH) 1995 Nardelli J.F., Ratti S., Historia Augusta contra Christianos: recherches sur l’ambiance antichrétienne dans l’Histoire Auguste, AntTard, 22, 2014, 143-155 Neri V., L’elogio della cultura e l’elogio delle virtù politiche nell’epigrafia latina del IV secolo d.C., Epigraphica, 43-44, 1981-1982, 175-201 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 Painter K.S., 68-69. Dittico dei Nicomachi e dei Simmaci: valva dei Simmaci, valva dei Nicomaci, in Ensoli S., La Rocca E. (a cura di), Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana, Roma 2000, 464-468 Paschoud F., Nicomaque Flavien et la connexion byzantine (Pierre le Patrice et Zonaras): à propos du livre récent de Bruno Bleckmann, AntTard, 2, 1994, 71-82 Paschoud F., Preuves de la présence d’une source occidentale latine dans la tradition grecque pour l’histoire du 4e siècle, in Id., Eunape, Olympiodore, Zosime: scripta minora: recueil d’articles, avec addenda, corrigenda, mise à jour et indices, Bari 2006, 413-422 Paschoud F., On a Recent Book by Alan Cameron, AntTard, 20, 2012, 359-388 Paschoud F., La Storia Augusta, in Lizzi Testa R. (ed.), The Strange Death of Pagan Rome. Reflections on a Historiographical Controversy, Turnhout 2013, 189-198 Paschoud F., Tre studi sulle "vite del 238" della Historia Augusta, in Neri V., Girotti B. (a cura di), La storiografia tardoantica: bilanci e prospettive, in memoria di Antonio Baldini, Milano 2017, 37-46 Pavolini C., Carignani A., Pacetti F., La Topografia antica della sommità del Celio. Gli scavi nell’Ospedale Militare (1987-1992), MDAI(R), 100, 1993, 443-505 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 Portmann W., Geschichte in der spätantiken Panegyrik, Frankfurt am Main 1988 Prchlík, I., Zosimus, Praetextatus, and Valentinian I. The Quellenforschung note on Zosimus, Historia nova, IV, 3, 3, and the possible purpose of the Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus, LF, 134, 2011, 309-322 Prchlík I., The Fiery Eyes of Augustus and the Annales of Nicomachus Flavianus, GLP, 25, 2015, 9-20 Ratti S., D’Eutrope et Nicomaque Flavien à l’Histoire Auguste: bilans et propositions, DHA, 25, 1999, 247-260 Ratti S., Nicomaque Flavien senior et l’Histoire Auguste: la découverte de nouveaux liens, REL, 85, 2007, 204-219 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 Ratti S., Polémiques entre païens et chrétiens, Paris 2012 Ratti S., Fiction, déconstruction et religion: l’effacement du sens dans l’Histoire Auguste, in Bertrand-Dagenbach C., Chausson F. (a cura di), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Nanceiense, Bari 2014, 419-434 Santolini Giordani R., Antichità Casali. La Collezione di Villa Casali a Roma, Roma 1989 Rohrbacher D., The Sources of the Historia Augusta Re-examined, Histos, 7, 2013, 146-180 Schlumberger J., Die Epitome de Caesaribus. Untersuchungen zur heidnischen Geschichtsschreibung des 4. Jahrunderts n. Chr., München 1974 Schlumberger J., Die verlorenen Annalen des Nicomachus Flavianus: ein Werk über Geschichte der römischen Republik oder Kaiserzeit? in Béranger J., Birley E., Bowersock G. (hrsg.), Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1982/1983, Bonn 1985, 305-329 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., Symmachus 27, RE, IV A,1, Stuttgart 1931, 1159 Sehlmeyer M., Geschichtsbilder für Pagane und Christen: Res Romanae in den spätantiken Breviarien, Berlin 2009 Sogno C., Q. Aurelius Symmachus. A Political Biography, Ann Arbor 2006 Szidat J., Die Usurpation des Eugenius, Historia, 28, 1979, 487-508 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 Velestino D., Base con dedica a Virio Nicomaco Flaviano, in Ensoli S., La Rocca E. (a cura di), Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana, Roma 2000, 464-465 Velestino D., La Galleria Lapidaria dei Musei Capitolini, Roma 2015 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., L’imperatore che amava la storia e i suoi amici. Nicomaco Flaviano e Teodosio fra «Annales» e «Historia Augusta», in Bertrand-Dagenbach C., Chausson F. (a cura di), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Nanceiense, Bari 2014, 483-503 Vitiello M., Emperor Theodosius’ Liberty and the Roman Past, HSPh, 108, 2015, 571-620 Vitiello M., Theodosius, Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, and the Preservation of Rome’s Mores, JLA, 11, 2018, 319-338 Weisweiler J., From Equality to Asymmetry: Honorific Statues, Imperial Power and Senatorial Identity in Late-Antique Rome’, JRA, 25, 2012, 319-350 Zecchini G., Da Nicomaco Flaviano a Memmio Simmaco. La fine della storiografia classica in Occidente, in Id., Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica, Roma 1993, 51-63

v(iro) c(larissimo)

praefecto praetorio

PPO II