Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367–455 by MEAGHAN A. MCEVOY

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS 369 * * * Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367-455. By MEAGHAN A. MCEVOY. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xi + 367. Hardcover, $160.00. ISBN 978-0-19-966481-8. Over an eighty year period at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries ad, the Roman empire in the West experienced the unprecedented phenomenon of the elevation of a series of children to the imperial throne—Gratian (367–83) aged 8, Valentinian II(375–92) aged 4, Honorius (393–423) aged 10, and Valentinian III (425–55) aged 6. Although the reigns of some of these emperors (particularly Gratian and Valentinian II) have been the subject of recent scholarly attention, the phenomenon of child-rule itself and the impact it had on the operation of the Roman state in the West has until now largely been overlooked or attributed simply to dynastic necessity. In this volume—a revised version of her Oxford doctoral thesis—McEvoy offers detailed examination of each reign, particularly the political circumstances which brought about each child-emperor’s elevation and the methods by which each administration accommodated a minor on the throne. She also traces the developments in the imperial office as child-emperor rule became institutionalized between 367 and 455. After an introduction, an initial chapter establishes the outline of an ‘ideal’ emperor based upon the precepts of Menander Rhetor’s Basilikos Logos and their realization in the panegyrics of the Paengyrici Latini and Themistius, as well as in the work of the historian Ammianus Marcellinus. This sets a framework within which the later chapters judge how the child-emperor regimes reshaped the traditional role of theemperor. The reigns of the four child-emperors are treated in the remaining nine chapters: Gratian and Valentinian II, the sons of Valentinian I, together in chapters 2–4; Honorius in 5–7; and Valentinian III in 8–10. What emerges is a gradual institutionalization of several methods for dealing with minority government. Most notable is the need for someone to take care of the crucial military role traditionally played earlier in the fourth century by emperors who were routinely on campaign with their armies. It took some time for Merobaudes to carve out the role ofa single ‘manager’ behind the throne under Gratian and Valentinian II, but by the elevation of Honorius the role was sufficiently indispensable that Stilicho 370 BOOK REVIEWS was appointed immediately, and after Stilicho’s demise he was swiftly replaced by Flavius Constantius. McEvoy thus presents us with a concept of ‘partnership’ rule between boyemperor and general, whereby the traditional roles of the ‘ideal’ emperor (set out in chapter 1) are divided between the two: the child taking on an increasingly ceremonial and religious role, whereas his ‘manager’ would take care of military affairs. Failure of the ‘manager’ to deal successfully with military crises could easily lead to his downfall (as in the case of Stilicho under Honorius) whereas any attempt by the emperor as he approached adulthood to appropriate a military role would be equally disastrous: Valentinian III was assassinated within six months ofkillinghis‘manager’Aetiuswith hisown hands(asMcEvoypointsout, a sign of Valentinian’s lack of support from the other members of the imperial consistory). Indeed, one of the most tragic strands that McEvoy traces through these reigns is the struggle each boy-emperor faced in negotiating the transition from minority to adulthood and recasting himself in the mold of an active military leader after years of passivity and lack of experience on the battlefield. Honorius, McEvoy argues, chose to remain in the guise of the passive child-emperor even into his adulthood, leaving successive generals to fight it out for the role of ‘manager ,’ but successfully remaining on the throne himself for thirty years. Valentinian ’s attempt to assert himself, as mentioned above, soon resulted in his death. One of the (very few) shortcomings of this study of political history is that we never find out exactly what the contemporary cultural or legal definition of a Roman ‘boy’ was, and therefore at what point the age of majority became a real issue for each emperor. Structurally the work falls into...