D. chose the challenging aim of reappraising the importance of the late Roman emperor Honorius in a handy manual of most help to undergraduates not yet acquainted with late antiquity, but also useful to research students and scholars. Students will find the chronological outline (pp. xviii–xx), the maps (pp. xxi–xiii), the glossary of ancient terms (pp. 192–5) and the bibliography provided at the end of each chapter very helpful to engage with the dense years of Honorius’ reign. A detailed narrative of the emperor's life and deeds is accompanied by good-quality and well-captioned illustrations of coins, modern paintings and diptychs representing the emperor in many different attires according to the aim of each work. This helps readers to grasp visually the overall cautiousness needed to embark on a historical evaluation of the debated ruler. Overshadowed by the omnipresence of the commander in chief Stilicho both in the historical and in the rhetorical narrative, Honorius played the part of the weak child-emperor incapable of defending or ruling his empire. D. attempts to answer a legitimate question, prompted by M. McEvoy (Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, ad 367–455 [2013]): if Honorius was merely an inept heir to power, too young to rule when his father died, how could he possibly have survived on the throne for 28 years?
The question affects the approach to the primary sources. D. rightly questions the reliability of late antique historians and quotes passages demonstrating the difficulties for a historian in accessing documents and ‘pure information’ on emperors (e.g. Eunapius, fr. 50 Blockley, on Gratian). He distinguishes between rumour and historical events in the opening chapter ‘Opinion and Source’. Within a broad evaluation of ancient and modern representations of Honorius in paintings, cinema (esp. 1950s and 60s) and academia from Gibbon to Cameron, D. traces the tendency for scapegoating, which – he remarks – is not different to modern-day blaming of state leaders (p. 5). Reprising S.I. Oost, D. holds that ‘a characteristic feature of the history of the fifth century is the habit of making some individual responsible for the successive disasters which befell the Roman Empire’ (Oost, Gallia Placidia Augusta [1968], pp. 75–6). However, where D. claims that it was to Honorius’ credit to withstand the turmoil of his years, he adds that his biggest accomplishment was to survive and not yield to barbarians, usurpers and the delegation of much of his power.
Honorius’ marginality was rooted in the fact that Theodosius had left his younger son too early and devoid of proper preparation for the throne: D. shows sympathy for the ‘orphaned boy who grew up while performing the duties of the loneliest job that there could possibly be in the Roman Empire’ (p. 6). However, while both pagan and Christian accounts of Honorius’ life and reign do not point towards a reappraisal of his military or political stature, Honorius’ personal voice remains inaccessible; so any attempt to sense his inner struggles can only be hypothetical. Similar challenges confront the attempt to reconstruct the physical appearance of the emperor from the few sculptures to survive (pp. 20–1) or from rhetorical passages exclusively aimed at praising the beauty of the emperor and the light mirrored by his jewels in official parades (e.g. D. mentions Claud. Fesc. 1–9 and VI Cons. Hon. 547–65).
The longest section of the first chapter (pp. 11–24) provides a methodological vade mecum about some of the authors writing about Honorius, on laws and on the relevant material evidence (numismatics, epigraphy). Honorius fades away here, in favour of a generic and basic introduction to fundamental tools of the disciplines. The neat distinction between pagan and Christian sources simplifies the complexity of judgement many late antique historians expressed about Honorius and his entourage (e.g. D. quotes Eunapius, Olympiodorus and Zosimus as particularly critical of Honorius, but he does not place their criticism in the broader context of the Western Court, where Stilicho is no less despised than his emperor). If we should not deny weight to the religious belief of historians and chroniclers (regrettably overlooked in this volume), we certainly must take into account the geographical provenance, quality of information, ideological adherence or disagreement with the Theodosian dynasty of each source we study. D.'s consideration that panegyrics, imperial laws, public inscriptions, coinage, art and sculpture were ‘favorable’ (p. 8) to the memory of Honorius, lacks nuance, because the dynamics of official communication are at work in each of these fields.
In the second chapter D. traces the Theodosian family from their Spanish origins to Constantinople, where they experienced problems because of their foreignness – which made Theodosius’ choice of collaborators careful. Another problem was the proximity of the barbarians, who had won the Battle of Hadrianopolis in 378 ce. While addressing such a specific problem, D. sets out the courtly landscape, where the brothers Arcadius and Honorius grew up: his initial focus on Christian sources (John Chrysostom, Rufinus, Orosius etc.) results in a restricted account of the aftermaths of Hadrianopolis; but in the final section of the chapter, ‘The selling of a compromise’, the testimony of Themistius (Or. 16.211a–b) widens the perspective about the agreement with the Goths signed by Theodosius in 382 (cf. recently R. Stone, in A. Omissi and A.J. Ross, Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius [2020], pp. 233–54).
In the third chapter the focus on Honorius starts narrowing down, bringing along some thought-provoking observations like that on the favourable approach Theodosius had towards his son since the time of his co-regency with Valentinian II (Valentinian II and Honorius were designated respectively by an unbroken and a broken formula on coins, pp. 60–1). In Chapter 4 D. analyses Honorius’ transition into manhood with his marriage to Maria in 398, right after the defeat of the comes Africae Gildo, which is developed in Chapter 5, ‘Crisis in North Africa’. This analysis is continued in Chapter 6, ‘Restoration and Manipulation’, where consideration is given to the role of Stilicho alongside Honorius in Claudian's praise for recent military accomplishments. This over-exposure of the general compared to the emperor prompts D. to doubt the extent to which Claudian was allowed to present Stilicho ‘as Honorius’ guardian, mentor, father figure, and all-round Roman hero’ (p. 112). However, caution should be exercised when hypothesising that Claudian's silence after 404 ce could have been caused by Honorius’ impatience at being infantilised and always to be saved by Stilicho (p. 117: ‘In effect, though, Claudian's praise for Stilicho, especially in relation to Alaric's invasion, made a coward of Honorius. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the poet disappears entirely without trace sometime around 404’).
In the last three chapters D. moves from the narrative of the last usurpations that occurred under Honorius’ reign to the emperor's policy in matters of religion – the role of the bishops, the fight against heretics and the peculiar treatment of Jewish communities, with constant referencing to the Codex Theodosianus. While Honorius’ role in the forced conversion and eviction of Jews from Minorca in 418 is not attested, the emperor was involved in the dispute between Boniface and Eulalius in the following years, culminating in a Council held in Spoleto in 420 ce. Even in this case, Honorius proved to be not too meddling in church affairs, but to act predominantly as a moderator, legislator and magnate of many monuments in Rome celebrating the Christianity of his empire.
D.'s enquiry highlights the unanswered questions relating to a figure of such a long-lasting reign and sketches the limits of modern judgement on his historical value. Honorius’ stature certainly fell short of the military exemplarity provided by his father, but the sheer fact that he survived the recurrent menaces of the Visigoths in Italy, of Gildo in Africa and of the many usurpations in Gaul, Spain and Rome asks for a critical reading of the historical sources that stress mainly his inferiority to Stilicho and his secluded way of life. His promotion of the Christianisation of the state makes him something of a deserving descendant of Theodosius, who had initiated such a policy, and, even if we reject D.'s hypothesis that he chose not to have descendants because of his faith (pp. 156–7), his appointment of his nephew Theodosius II in the East and the marriage of his sister Placidia to Constantius III in the West allowed the Theodosian dynasty to outlive his reign.
