The Inadequate Heirs of Theodosius. Ancestry, merit and divine blessing in the representation of Arcadius and Honorius

Although Arcadius (AD 395–408) and Honorius (AD 395–423) occupied the throne in times of great political and military turmoil, their reigns marked a decisive shift to a ‘palace emperorship’ in which rulers no longer led armies in person, but cultivated their ceremonious and religious roles. In this article, I examine how the traditional aspects of imperial legitimacy – in particular, dynastic arguments, personal qualities and achievements, and divine approval, or even appointment – were adapted and rearranged during this transformational period. Although performances and speeches which were tied to specific events still emphasized the emperors’ Theodosian ancestry and the military victories that were achieved in their names, the coins and titulature of Arcadius and Honorius contain no reference to these elements whatsoever. Instead, these media represent the reign of the brothers as eternal and unchanging, without any focus on its origins or the reason for their accession to the throne. In marked contrast to Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius never emphasized popular consent as a relevant factor in their legitimation, deriving their authority directly from the blessing of God. From this perspective, imperial successes such as military victories confirmed, rather than generated their right to rule. As the emperors maintained, as long as they were steadfast in their piety, no amount of political or military upheaval could undermine their claim to power. In AD 379, Themistius came to visit the newly appointed emperor Theodosius at Thessalonica and held a speech in his honour. ‘It was not family connection which advanced you to the purple,’ the famous orator declared, ‘but virtue in superabundance, not close kinship but display of strength and manhood.’ The emperor Gratian, too, was praised because he had selected the best man for the job, instead of granting imperial powers to his nearest relative. Perceptive listeners would surely have understood this comment as a veiled attack on the recently deceased Valens, who had been appointed as co-emperor by his brother without possessing the necessary qualities to govern the Empire.1 The soldiers had acclaimed this inadequate candidate half-heartedly, not daring to contest Valentinian’s choice. Theodosius,  Themistius, Oratio 14.182b–c; see also p. 228 n. 65 (P. Heather & D. Moncur [eds. & transl.], 2001. Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century: Select Orations of Themistius, Liverpool). For Valens, see Noel Lenski’s lucid study, which describes the emperor’s reign as ‘something of a failure’ (N. Lenski, 2002. Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century A.D., Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 373). however, had been summoned to rule by the Roman people themselves – or so Themistius claimed – because they knew that only he could save them from the threatening barbarian hordes.2 In AD 389, the western orator Pacatus expressed a similar sentiment when he addressed the emperor at Rome, stating that Theodosius had risen to the purple in a time of great need and that everyone in the world would have selected him as ruler because of his extraordinary qualities.3 Clearly, the notion that it was merit, rather than ancestry, which should determine the appointment of emperors was not new. Two and a half centuries earlier, Tacitus had already spoken out against dynastic succession, warning that ‘to be begotten and born of princes is mere chance’, whereas ‘the judgment displayed in adoption is unhampered’.4 Unlike the adoptive emperors from Tacitus’s time, however, Theodosius had two healthy sons, and in spite of all the meritocratic arguments that had been formulated to justify his own elevation, the emperor did not hesitate to appoint them as his successors. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that Arcadius and Honorius were particularly unsuited to wear the purple. In the East, the powerful eunuch Eutropius allegedly ‘ruled Arcadius like a fatted animal’.5 The weak government could not stop Alaric and his Visigoths from ravishing Thrace, while failure to deal effectively with the rebellions of Tribigild and Gainas led to the occupation of Constantinople by Gothic troops for several months in AD 399–400. It is small wonder, then, that Alan Cameron has described Arcadius as ‘notoriously and beyond any possibility of confutation a spineless booby’.6 In the West, matters were even worse. The young emperor Honorius – who came to the throne at the tender age of ten – was overshadowed by his magister militum, the formidable Stilicho. During the long and troubled reign of Theodosius’s youngest son, Africa rebelled against the western government, barbarians crossed the Rhine in droves, the Goths plundered Italy and Rome itself was sacked for the first time in eight centuries. Moreover, the emperor was confronted with a whole string of pretenders and was not able to maintain a strong Roman presence in less central regions of his domain, such as Gaul and es Ammianus Marcellinus 26.4.3 (acclamation of Valens) (J. Henderson [ed.] & J.C. Rolfe [transl.], 1939. Ammianus Marcellinus:With an English Translation by John C. Rolfe, 3 volumes, Cambridge, MA – London); Themistius, Oratio 14.182c.  Pacatus, Gratiarum actio (Panegyrici Latini 2) 3.1–6 (C.E.V. Nixon & B.S. Rodgers [eds. & transl.], 1994. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini: Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary, with the Latin Text of R.A.B. Mynors, Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford, 448–516).  Tacitus, Historiae 1.16 (J. Henderson [ed.] & C.H. Moore [transl.], 2006. Tacitus, The Histories: With an English Translation by Clifford H. Moore, 2 volumes, Cambridge, MA – London, 11 unrev. ed.). The words were allegedly spoken by Galba to his intended successor, Piso, but clearly reflect sentiments from the age of the adoptive emperors.  Zosimus 5.12.1 (R.T. Ridley [ed. & transl.], 2006. Zosimus, New History: A Translation with Commentary by Ronald T. Ridley, Sydney, 5 unrev. ed.).  A. Cameron, 1970. Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius, Oxford, 422. For a milder verdict on Arcadius, see W. Hagl, 1997. Arcadius Apis Imperator. Synesios von Kyrene und sein Beitrag zum Herrscherideal der Spätantike, Stuttgart, 62. 70 Martijn Icks