Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts: Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity 3515106324, 9783515106320

Citation preview

Ekaterina Nechaeva

Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity

Alte Geschichte Franz Steiner Verlag

Geographica Historica 30

Ekaterina Nechaeva Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts

geographica historica Begründet von Ernst Kirsten, herausgegeben von Eckart Olshausen und Vera Sauer Band 30

Ekaterina Nechaeva

Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity

Franz Steiner Verlag

Satz: Vera Sauer Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2014 Druck: Laupp & Göbel, Nehren Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-10632-0 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-10801-0 (E-Book)

Vorwort der Herausgeber

Ekaterina Nechaeva hat sich in ihrer an der Universität Siena entstandenen Dissertation mit den weit gespannten diplomatischen Beziehungen des Kaiserhofs in Konstantinopel in der Zeit des 4. bis 6. Jh. befaßt. Nicht zuletzt aufgrund der Gesandtschaftsreisen, die für den diplomatischen Verkehr von fundamentaler Bedeutung waren, hat das Thema vielfältige und wesentliche historisch-geographische Bezüge. Die Geographica Historica bieten daher den angemessenen Rahmen für diese Arbeit – ganz im Sinne der Konzeption, die seinerzeit Ernst Kirsten zur Gründung dieser Reihe motiviert hat. Eckart Olshausen und Vera Sauer

To my parents – Nikita Nechaev and Tatyana Girbasova – to keep the promise.

Acknowledgments This book could never have been written had it not been for Barbara Scardigli under whose scientific supervision I was extremely fortunate to write my PhD thesis at the University of Siena, and who became my tutor in all the most sublime senses of the word, always being magnanimous, attentive, cordially ready to advise and to support, and wise in guidance. My affection, respect and gratitude are infinite and most sincere. I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the reviewers of my thesis – Walter Pohl and Luis A. García Moreno, whose observations have influenced my book as well as my further work. I am very much obliged to Anthony Kaldellis for his most intense reading of the whole draft of this book and his numerous and extremely constructive criticisms, comments, corrections and suggestions. I am deeply grateful to Mario Mazza for the privilege of conversing with him, his kind willingness to read my thesis and extremely valuable suggestions for the improvement of the text. I owe many acknowledgments to my instructors at the Saint Petersburg State University Department of the History of Ancient Greece and Rome and especially to Petr Shuvalov, the supervisor of my M.A. thesis, who introduced me to the Late Antique problematic, thus giving me an impulse to study East Roman diplomacy. I express my thanks for his plentiful advice on my PhD thesis, in particular regarding Late Antique bureaucracy and source study, as well as historical geography and the voyages of envoys. I am also grateful to Alexey Egorov for his remarks regarding my thesis. I feel deep gratitude to Mark Schchukin, a sentiment mixed with my deep sorrow for his recent death. He was a wise don, from whom it was a real pleasure to learn. My warm thanks also go to Oleg Sharov and to all my friends and colleagues in the Slavonic-Sarmatian archaeological expedition and to the participants of Mark Schchukin’s home seminar. To the late Dmitry Machinsky I am immensely indebted for my formation both as a scholar and a person. Most heartfelt thanks are addressed to Tamara Zheglova and Nadezhda Jijina for their inspiring professional influence. I must record my gratitude to the State Hermitage Museum and its Educational Department, namely to Ludmila Ershova and Sofia Kudryavtseva for making my work on this book possible, and to Marina Kozlovskaya for her support, countenance and friendship.

8

Acknowledgments

This study has benefited from a fellowship of the State Hermitage Museum and the Foundation Hermitage Italia in 2008. My investigation of the problem of diplomatic gifts was supported by a Diderot postdoctoral fellowship (MSH, EHESS, Paris) in 2009, which allowed me to research in the libraries of Paris. I am also grateful to Paolo Odorico for his stimulating seminars. My sincere thanks go to René Rebuffat for his interest in my work, his bonhomie and help. I am deeply indebted to Leandro Polverini for the chance to present and discuss my work. It is due to Elena Krichevskaya that I dared to write a book and due to Ludmila Voevodina that I dared to do it in English. If this book is comprehensible, this is because of Karen Whittle’s immense effort in turning my ponderous English phrases laden with long Russian periods (just like in this one) into a readable and clear text (where I so allowed it). It was a privilege and a pleasure to work with Karen, and I am most grateful for her thoroughness and professionalism. I was fortunate to prepare a considerable part of this work in one of the most inspiring places on Earth – at the American Academy in Rome – and I am very thankful to the staff of the Arthur and Janet C. Ross Library, now my colleagues and friends. I am especially grateful to Kristine Iara for her precious help. I am also thankful to Foteini Spingou for her aid. My special thanks go to Eckart Olshausen for accepting my book in the Geographica Historica series and to Vera Sauer for her help in the work on the manuscript. The backing and encouragement from all my family and friends were amazing and of immense importance.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Chapter I: Mechanisms of diplomacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

1. State structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Emperor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Consistorium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Sacrum cubiculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The magister officiorum and his personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Other administrative structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 23 25 25 26 26 29 33

2. Reception of embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Ceremonial of reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Non- or partial reception of an embassy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The release of envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 34 42 44

3. Diplomatic interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Open interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Embassies and negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Letters and speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Rules respected and not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4 Subsidies, gifts and titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.5 Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Secret interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Secret negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44 44 44 44 49 51 54 56 56 57

4. Diplomatic inviolability and the problem of the safety of diplomatic delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

10

Contents

Chapter II: Diplomatic negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

1. The negotiating parties and agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1.1 Rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 1.1.1 Relatively equal basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 1.1.2 Paradigm of the empire’s dominancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 1.1.3 Direct communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 1.1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 1.2 Ruler and representative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 1.2.1 ›Blocks‹ of embassies: initiative and response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 1.2.1.1 Relations with Persia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 1.2.1.2 Relations with the Goths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 1.2.1.3 Relations with the Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 1.2.1.4 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 1.2.1.5 ›Block‹ system of embassies. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 1.2.2 Single embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 1.2.3 Classification of embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1.2.3.1 Minor embassy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1.2.3.2 Major embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 1.2.3.3 Conventionally distinguished group of ›medium‹ embassies . . . 92 1.2.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 1.3 Negotiations between representatives of rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 1.3.1 Plenipotentiary and ›autocratic‹ embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 1.3.1.1 Authorized embassies. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 1.3.2 Local negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 1.3.2.1 Magistri militum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 1.3.2.2 Clergymen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 1.4 Agents of negotiation. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 2. The purposes of embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Negotiations of a ›peaceful‹ origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Negotiations held in consequence of a military conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Conclusion of peace/truce agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.1 Truce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.2 Peace treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Main questions of negotiations and clauses of treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102 103 106 106 106 107 110

3. Procedure of discussing and signing a treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Chapter III: Embassy structure and personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Titles and dignities of envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Qualities of a diplomat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 ›Professional diplomats‹ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118 118 123 127

Contents

11

2. Embassy personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Chief envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Companions of chief envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Messengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Οἱ περὶ. The ambassador’s satellites and suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 ›Outsiders‹ travelling with embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Lists of embassy personnel and the number of people in a diplomatic delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131 131 131 133 135 137 138

3. Diplomatic expeditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Ambassadors’ voyages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Transport and logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Conditions on diplomatic journeys. Envoys’ adventures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Hardships of the journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Duration of the diplomatic journeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Peculiarities and surprises of reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Departure of a delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141 141 145 148 149 150 150 151

4. Extra embassy functions. Information gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Envoys’ reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Ethnographical observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Clandestine tasks. Late Antique envoys’ spy activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

152 152 154 155

139

5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Chapter IV: Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 1. Etiquette and the system of gift exchange in diplomatic negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 ›State‹ gifts. From ruler to ruler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 ›Personal‹ gifts from diplomats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 ›Personal‹ gifts for diplomats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

165 165 167 168 169

2. Perception of the gift donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Gifts to the Persians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Gifts to the Avars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Gifts to the Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Gifts to the Sabirian Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Gifts to the Arabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Gifts to the rulers of Caucasian kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Gifts to the Goths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Gifts to the Franks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Gifts to the Chersonites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 Roman gifts. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

174 175 180 184 186 186 189 190 191 191 194

12

Contents

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Gifts from the Persians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Gifts from the Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Gifts from the Turks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Gifts from peoples of Africa and South Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Gifts from different barbarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Foreign gifts. A Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195 195 198 198 198 202 204

5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Chapter V: Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 1. Insignia of the Lazian kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Headdress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Chlamys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Chiton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Fibula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 The Lazian kings’ insignia. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

208 209 211 214 215 217 219 220

2. Insignia of the Armenian Satraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Chlamys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Chiton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Fibula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The Armenian satraps’ insignia. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

220 222 223 224 224 225

3. Insignia of the rulers of the Moors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Sceptre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Headdress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Chlamys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Chiton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Fibula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 The Moorish rulers’ insignia. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225 226 227 228 228 229 230 230

4. The insignia of Clovis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 5. Insignia distributed by the Roman Empire. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 1. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 2. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 3. Insignia Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Contents

13

Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principal primary sources and main editions and translations used . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

255 255 255 260

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographical names and places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notions, ideas and concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

279 279 283 287 296

Introduction The general aim of this book is to examine the phenomenon of Late Roman diplomacy, its formation and operation as a whole system during the Late Antique period. The Roman imperial diplomacy’s traditional sphere of activity was in relations with Iran – first Parthian and later Sassanian. The experience accumulated in this interaction formed the basis and standard of high-level diplomacy. The Late Antiquity brought new realities and protagonists, shifting the balance and roles. Studying the phenomena of the Great Migration period through the prism of the diplomatic structure and practices is one of the keys to understanding how that transformation could happen, how different masses of peoples and cultures – the existing ones and the newcomers from outside Europe – could be integrated into a cooperating system. A process of reciprocal influence was taking place: the Roman/ Byzantine Empire and the surrounding barbarians gradually accepted each other’s rules, norms and traditions. We can speak about the ›barbarization‹ of the Empire and about the newcomers’ imitation of that Empire. When the Roman Empire faced the barbarians of the Great Migration epoch it had to draw up new foreign policy methods. The Late Antiquity was the time for the formation of a very elaborate and accurate, future Byzantine system of diplomacy, based on rules and norms and ceremony. The system proved to be strict but flexible when necessary. It seems important to investigate the making (and the process behind it) of a diplomatic system in the Late Antiquity period which helped a state and society not to collapse in the collision with the new reality but to take a new life, and become involved in the new processes.1 Diplomacy can be regarded as an aggregate of methods, rules and norms adopted by the sides in their mutual communication that helped either to avoid or correct the consequences of conflicts. The main subject of the research is the structure of the diplomacy system, how it worked and its semantics and patterns of development. On the other hand, it is not intended to make a serious prosopographical analysis of the ambassadors and key decision-making figures. Aspects of matrimonial diplomacy are left apart, as they deserve a special study mostly within the context of the West. Neither is it the purpose of the current study to concentrate on the course of events and chronology of diplomatic actions, since this is already well reconstructed in the specialist literature. In this book I mean first of all to deal with the patterns of structural relations and communication, concentrating on the issues of negotiations and ambassadorial practices. I do not hazard to intrude into the economic basis and implications of diplomacy, but am more interested in the semantically symbolic language 1

»Diplomatie d’abord«, as formulated by Mario Mazza when explaining his will to analyse diplomatic relations and their political and socio-economical prerequisites as a reaction to numerous recent studies of military history and ›frontier archaeology‹ (Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 123).

16

Introduction

of diplomatic interaction, which seems to have been the most important foundation and expression of Late Antique diplomacy. That is why the work does not aim to analyse the subsidies and various payments released by the Empire in communication with its partners, but instead diplomatic gifts, which were not valued (at least not only or mainly) for their cost, but for their specific symbolic significance. It is not possible to cover all the spheres of the many-sided phenomenon in this book. Themes of inner imperial diplomacy are mainly left aside in favour of international diplomacy. However, a complex net of connections and treaties with the barbarians and their inclusion within the imperial boundaries does not always make such a distinction significant. International law and the juridical side of the problem of diplomacy are also outside my field of competence and the goals of this work. The scope of the study is to concentrate on the main working mechanisms of the diplomatic machine and the principles behind them, especially on various aspects of international diplomatic communication. The most important form of its realization were embassies which provided a system of negotiation functioning through representatives. It is essential for the present book to explore the organization of the negotiating process, its rules and regulations, the phenomenon of diplomatic mission and ceremonial forms of diplomacy. Another aspect is the role of diplomatic gifts as a method and language of communication. An investigation of the types of objects donated and the directions for distribution, semantics and status symbolism of these presents is a necessary element in the reconstruction of the diplomatic system as a whole. It is important to recognize, as noted precisely by F. Tinnenfeld, that the complex and increasingly ceremonial system was charged with »refined semiotics – to use a modern expression – which was open to any kind of sophisticated nuances in order to express meaningful variations of the political atmosphere«. Normally, the relations between nuances in ceremonial and political meanings are not expressly emphasized in our sources,2 and in general can be applied to different symbolic acts of East Roman/Byzantine diplomacy. The present book is an attempt to decipher and to interpret this system of codes. The geographical and chronological limits are as follows: it was not intended to investigate all the spheres of diplomacy in Late Antiquity in the vast territory covered by the Roman Empire’s diplomatic contacts. My concern is only to show the main characteristic features of the phenomenon. The chronological limits are the middle IV and the late VI centuries, i.e. beginning with Ammianus and finishing with Theophylact as sources. The research refers first of all to the Eastern Roman Empire in its relations with the peoples of the provinces, boundary and neighbouring areas, such as: the Pontic and Caucasian region, Eurasian steppes, Central and West Europe, Near East and North Africa. Diplomacy in the Western part of the Empire is not given specific attention here for various reasons. The Late Antique West, especially from the V century AD, was developing its own way, within a different paradigm from the Eastern, future Byzantine Empire. The system of Western political communication is a separate, vast field of research, which was recently undertaken by A. 2

Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 213.

Introduction

17

Gillett and by A. Becker.3 The time frames limiting the study to the IV–VI centuries AD seem logical as they allow us to look at the phenomenon within the historical epoch that can be regarded as a last stage of the Roman Antique world and also the time when a new one was born. A combination of general historical reasons (the IV century as the significant stage in the evolution of the Roman state and the formation of a system of domination; the VI century which marks the highest peak in the development of the Late Roman Empire, on the eve of the changes of the VII century), as well as the nature of the sources, make this period optimal for examining the phenomenon and system of late Roman diplomacy. My book is based on the written sources of Greek-Roman historiography. Mainly the works of Late Antique secular historians are used, the most important among them being: Ammianus Marcellinus, Procopius of Caesarea, Agathias of Myrina and Theophylact Simocatta. Most of my sources belong to the so-called classicizing direction.4 This group also includes historical compositions which have only survived in fragments, conserved in the conspectus by Photius, like Olympiodorus of Thebes for example,5 and especially in Constantine’s De legationibus excerpts. Compiled following the order of emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (945–959), this was a sort of moralistic ›encyclopaedia‹,6 perhaps it is better to say, ›bibliotheca‹, ›a library‹ or a ›collection‹,7 a sort of reference book that could also be used with educational purposes.8 Of special interest for this study is one of its 53 sections – the one ›on embassies‹. Its two parts, Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum and Excerpta de legationibus gentium are known to have been edited by an excerptor – a certain 3

4 5

6

7 8

Gillett, Envoys. The book of A. Becker on the fifth-century diplomatic relations (Paris 2013) discusses similar questions to this inquiry but from the western perspective. It appeared while this study was in press, so it was impossible to use it. See: FCHLRE. According to the evidence of the philosopher Hierocles, Olympiodorus served as ambassador (most likely of the Eastern Empire) to many ›great‹ barbarian peoples who are said to have honoured him greatly (Phot. Bibl. 214). He himself wrote about his participation in the embassy to the Huns (Olymp. 19). The date of this embassy is fixed by Gordon as 412 (Gordon, Age of Attila 186); the same date is given by Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 713. Shuvalov denies this date, demonstrating that any date between 408 and 411 is possible, but not the year 412 (Olimpiodor Fivanskii [Skrzhinskaia/Shuvalov] 33, 36). On the author in general: W. Haedicke, Olympiodoros (11; von Theben), in: RE 18, 201–207; FCHLRE 1, 27–47; 2, 152–220]; Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 281f. with references to bibliography; PLRE-II, 798f., s.v. Olympiodorus 1; Cameron, Wandering poets 470–509; Baldwin, Olympiodorus 212–231; Matthews, Olympiodorus 81f.; Thompson, Olympiodorus 43–52; Udal’tsova, Razvitie 143–145; Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 709–733. The term, used by K. Krumbacher and followers: Krumbacher, Geschichte (1897) 258; Büttner- Wobst, Anlage 88–120; Dain, L’encyclopédisme 64–81; Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 361–366. Odorico, Cultura 5. Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 361; see on the methods of work and about the Excerpta in general: Schreiner, Historikerhandschrift 1–29; Semenovker, Bibliograficheskie (esp. ch. 4 ›Bibliograficheskii apparat vizantiiskikh entsiklopedii. Enciklopedii i bibliografija‹, 67–73); Toynbee, Constantin Porphyrogenitus 20; A. Kazhdan, Excerpta, in: ODB 2, 767; Wilson, Scholars 140–145; W. Drews, Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos, in: RAC 21, 2006, 483–485; Lemerle, Byzantine Humanism 323–332 and note 49 with references to the bibliography (the original French edition: Lemerle, Premier humanisme 280–288); Smirnova, Evnapii i Zosim 71, 75.

18

Introduction

Theodosius Minor.9 The texts by Priscus of Panium,10 Malchus of Philadelphia11 and Menander Protector12 referred to us in the De legationibus excerpts are of special value for the 9

The text survived only in one manuscript in the library of Escorial. This manuscript burnt in a fire in 1671 and is known to us from the copies made by Darmarius or his assistant in the XVI century. On the manuscripts and stemma: Levinskaia, Tokhtas’ev, Menandr 313–315 (critics against De legationibus [de Boor] and Blockley [FCHLRE], using the published and unpublished works of M. N. Krasheninnikov, O rukopisnom predanii). See also: Krasheninnikov, Novaia rukopis’-I; Krasheninnikov, Novaia rukopis’-II. 10 The fragment of text by Priscus is of primary importance for the study of diplomacy. He provides valuable data on different embassies and diplomatic actions, as not only did he have a particular interest in the problem and access to the sources (he served under the command of the magister officiorum, a figure traditionally involved in diplomatic activity), but he also participated personally in one of the Roman diplomats’ most dramatic missions to the court of Attila. According to the presumption of C. Zuckerman, the editors of the De legationibus transmitted Priscus’s text in a quite exhaustive manner, including full descriptions of the Roman and barbarian embassies (Zuckerman, L’empire 180). Perhaps he worked as a scriniarius, enabling him to become acquainted with Maximinus (with whom Priscus later travelled), who at that time was comes et magister scrinii memoriae. Maximinus participated in the composition of the Theodosian Code in December 435 (W. Ensslin, Priscus (35), in: RE 23.1, 1957, 9f.; W. Ensslin, Maximinus (17), in: RE Suppl. 5, 1931, 665). This hypothesis by W. Ensslin can well explain the fact that later Priscus was an assessor of Maximinus, the head of the famous embassy to the court of Attila described by Priscus in his composition. Later in the autumn of 450 he was in Rome, where Maximinus was sent at that time, perhaps with a letter announcing the enthronement of Marcianus. On November 9, 450 Maximinus received a letter from Pope Leo to carry to Constantinople. Later Priscus accompanied Maximinus who held negotiations with the Arabs at Damascus and then with the Blemmyes and Nobadae in Thebais. Later, after the death of Maximinus, Priscus was the assessor of the Master of Offices, Euphemius. Priscus disapproved the policy of Theodosius II and supported Marcianus. Perhaps this was one of the reasons why he created a positive, but realistic image of Attila. Priscus was not interested in military history, instead showing more interest in the political history and diplomatic relations. Diplomatic orations in his text are made on the basis of real facts, but are considered to have been rhetorically revised by the author. On Priscus see also: FCHLRE 1, 48–70; W. Ensslin, Priscus (35), in: RE 23.1, 1957, 9f.; W. Ensslin, Maximinus (17) in: RE Suppl. 5, 1931, 665 (I support the identification of PLRE-II Maximinus 10 and 11, and possibly 6, proposed by Ensslin against Blockley’s scepticism p. 48, 143 no. 5: the fact that Maximinus 17=11 was the strategos in his mission to make peace with the Nubades and Blemmyes after their defeat by the previous governor does not necessarily mean he had to be a soldier by profession); Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 1, 282–284, with references to bibliography; Gindin/Ivan chik, Prisk Paniiskii 81– 83; Zuckerman, L’empire 159–182; Udal’tsova, Ideino-politicheskaia bor’ba 100–142; Doblhofer, Diplomaten 11; Maltese, A proposito; Baldwin, Priscus 18. 11 The fragment of the texts by Malchus is important for the current study because of his objectivity and attention to the Empire’s ambassadorial problems and relations with the barbarians. Malchus had a strong interest in diplomacy issues. On Malchus see also: FCHLRE 1, 71–85; R. Laquer, Malchos (2), in: RE 14.1, 1928, 851–857; Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 1, 284–285, with references to the bibliography; Baldwin, Malchus 91–107. 12 Menander is a very important source for the present investigation, valuable due to his detail, wisdom, access to the primary sources and accounts about extremely important Roman relational issues with the Persians and the barbarians. Of outstanding significance is his account of negotiations with the Persians which provides the text of the treaty, based on the account by Peter the Patrician, the details about relations with the Avars and descriptions of imperial ambassadors’ journeys to the distant Turk territories. He seems, however, to have no personal diplomatic experience, being only a protector. On Menander see also: Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 1, 309– 312; Baldwin, Menander 100–125; Levinskaia/Tokhtas’ev, Menandr 311–313; Udal’tsova, Ideino-politicheskaia bor’ba 243–274; Grecu, Menander 78–84.

Introduction

19

studied subject, because they demonstrate a certain unity of style, methods, approaches and traditions, and provide a full picture of the historical process and diplomatic realities and the collisions within it. In addition to the main sources, chronicles, epistolographical13 and hagiographical sources and church histories have been occasionally used. The character of the material provided by these sources seems rather selective and less applicable to the reconstruction of the system of diplomacy than the data provided by historiography. Additional sources mainly of Oriental descent (from the Syrian, Arabic and Persian traditions) are used in translation. The diplomacy of Late Antiquity, having introduced and elaborated many principles which were later adopted and used by the Byzantine diplomatic system, inherited and developed many principles of the traditional Roman diplomacy and foreign policy of the Republican, Principate and Imperial periods, as well as those of Classical Greece deriving through Hellenistic traditions.14 The paradigm of Roman-Persian relations as the etalon of the relations of supreme status partners was being formed in the times of the early Empire with the Parthians to then develop in the later epoch. It is evident that from the times of the Principate the emperor started to play a dominant and decisive role in the conduction and formation of the diplomacy, while the senate tended to maintain more formal and consultative positions – such a scheme was partly relevant for Late Antiquity as well. It is important to note that it was the time of the early Principate when the special bureaucratic structures,15 which later played a significant role in making the diplomacy, were being formed and also applied for diplomatic use. Certainly in the situation of the new epoch and international circumstances, with the growing might of Persia, the great migration processes which brought numerous new partners and enemies into the orbit of the Roman world and changes in the situations within Empire, the Roman state had to develop and improve the diplomatic system, adapting it to the new circumstances. Thus it was the Late Antique period when traditional Roman diplomacy was partly changed, increased and greatly developed, and a new, complex, highly structured, hierarchical system of diplomacy was created, the one which was inherited by the Byzantine Empire. 13

Such a source as Variae by Cassiodorus is not studied here systematically due to a combination of different reasons. As already noted, the book does not aim to seriously investigate the diplomacy of the Western kingdoms and the post-Roman traditions of the Gothic Italian court. Instead, I mainly intend to concentrate on the ›classical‹ traditional diplomacy of the Eastern Empire, on traditional directions like Persia, first of all, and different barbarians. Furthermore, the text by Cassiodorus requires a special analysis to investigate the problem of the letters’ veracity and the correlation between diplomatic realities and influences from literature. A. Gillett has devoted a serious work to the subject of the West’s political communication and the Variae in particular (Gillett, Envoys 172–219). 14 See e.g.: Mosley, Envoys; Mosley, Griechenland; Jones, Kinship and Diplomacy; Piccirilli, L’invenzione della diplomazia nella Grecia Antica; Gazzano, Diplomazia; Orsi, Trattative; Angeli Bertinelli/Piccirilli  (eds.), Linguaggio; Matthaei, Classification; Ziegler, Beziehungen; Keaveney, Treaties; Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms; Campbell, War and Diplomacy; Affortunati, Ambasciatori; Scardigli (ed.), Trattati; Jäger, Unverletzlichkeit. 15 Potemkin (ed.), Istoriia diplomatii; Kovalev, Istoriia Rima; A. von Premerstein, Legatus, in: RE 12.1, 1924, 1138.

20

Introduction

Concept of diplomacy in Late Antiquity Diplomacy as an aggregate of methods, rules and norms which allowed domestic political aims to be fulfilled using alternative means to the military undoubtedly existed and was quite well developed in the Late Antiquity. Though, in spite of its Greek origin, the actual word ›diplomacy‹ only started to be used with this meaning in modern times.16 It seems important to try to reconstruct the perception of the phenomenon of diplomacy by Late Antique authors, a phenomenon whose very existence in that epoch is obvious for us now.17 Ancient authors rarely write about what we now call diplomacy as a whole. The majority of the evidence deals with concrete events of foreign policy: concluding treaties, exchange of embassies, etc. It is evident that in Antiquity the main components of what we today call diplomacy were embassies, conferences, meetings, receptions, negotiations, treaties, etc. One could analyse the evidence in the sources to see if there are any traces of the general notion of the phenomenon of diplomacy, guided mostly by the modern paradigm of this concept.18 First one can mark out ideas about the art of eloquence, oratory and persuasion (Men. Prot. 9.1; 6.1; 19.1).19 In the sources one can find some terms/notions/words, which, as I understand it, may be related to the perception of what we call diplomacy. It is the ›war – peace‹ contraposition that gives some possibilities to distinguish the notion.20 There are some examples when ancient authors characterize the barbarian chiefs not only as good warriors, but also as good diplomats. The authors used different terms, like ars, consilium, providentia and πρόνοια (Jord. Get. 168sq.; 183; 186; Proc. BV 1.4.12). In the context of these characteristics all of them should refer to what we today call ›diplomacy‹, but in the analysed texts they are not united by any common notion/term. Another theme often exploited by Late Antique authors is the contraposition of the ruler’s youth, when he is full of strength and leads aggressive policies and wars, with the senior age at which rulers tended to turn to peaceful life, using not instruments of war, but pacific tools instead (Proc. BV 1.4.12; Agath. 5.14; Men. Prot. 5.1sq.; 9.1; 12.5sq.; 15.1; 16.1; 20.2; 26.1; Agath. 5.24.2–25.6). Attitudes towards such a shift may have been different. As noted by E. Chrysos, most of the historical sources seem to favour the warlike attitude as synonymous with correct imperial behaviour, while the titles εἰρηνικός/pacificus remained in fashion only for a very short period in imperial rhetoric. At the same time E. Chrysos notes that less official sources tend to give emperors more merit for the advantages of peace than the imperial propaganda would admit.21 It is important, however, that the authors perceive and underline the differ16 17 18

19 20 21

A. Gillet emphasized that the information we have on the Late Antiquity is not enough to examine diplomacy itself: Gillett, Envoys 1–7. Nechaeva, Predstavleniia o diplomatii 77–86. The literature devoted to the problem is not very ample. The following works pay some attention to the theory of diplomacy, but not from the point of view of how the phenomenon was perceived by the ancients themselves: Kazhdan, Notion 3–21; Chrysos, Byzantine diplomacy, 25–39; Obolensky, Principles. Here and hereafter I quote Menander in the edition: The history of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley]. In general about the Roman concept of peace e.g.: Desideri, Varrone 107–119; Kaegi, Conceptions 502f. Chrysos, Buy the Peace 231.

Introduction

21

ence in methods and mark a contraposition between aggressive and ›diplomatic‹ ones. Pacific rhetoric which fills the speeches of diplomats, letters of emperors etc. could also give a key to distinguishing the concept of the means which helped to achieve peace, i.e. the various methods of diplomacy (Proc. BP 1.14.1–3; 1.16.1–3; 2.4.14; 2.10.10; 2.21.19–29; Proc. BG 3.21.18–22; Men. Prot. 6.1.50). Notable in this context is the characteristic of Julian provided by Ammianus:22 He gained a reputation among foreign nations for eminence in bravery, sobriety, and knowledge of military affairs, as well as of increase in all noble qualities; and his fame gradually spread and filled the entire world. Then, since the fear of his coming extended widely over neighbouring and far distant nations, deputations hastened to him more speedily than usual: on one side, the peoples beyond the Tigris and the Armenians begged for peace; on another, the Indian nations as far as the Divi and the Serendivi vied with one another in sending their leading men with gifts ahead of time; on the south, the Moors offered their services to the Roman state; from the north and the desert regions, through which the Phasis flows to the sea, came embassies from the Bosporani and other hitherto unknown peoples, humbly asking that on payment of their annual tribute they might be allowed to live in peace within the bounds of their native lands. Amm. 22.7.9sq.

Here we see both concepts together: the emperor is brave and strong and that is why peoples all over the world seek peace with him, employing diplomacy. In this case receiving various embassies appears very honourable and his role not only as a warrior, but also a diplomat, emphasizes the greatness. It may be concluded that ancient authors wrote rather often about diplomacy in our modern meaning of the word. In the source texts one can find a division between the comprehension of military and pacific methods of foreign policy. If a certain politician is described as a good diplomat such terms as ars, consilium, providentia, πρόνοια, εὐβουλία, προμήθεια and such characteristics as ῥάθυμος, μεγαλόφρων, μεγαλόδωρος, βασιλικός, ἤπιος, ἁβροδίαιτος and ὑπερηδόμενος τῇ εἰρήνῃ are used.23 But when his bellicose mood is emphasized, he is called ἐμβριθής, φοβερός, φιλοπόλεμος or φερέπονος. Their definitions are numerous and few of them are used systematically. It seems possible to suppose that in the period of Late Antiquity a general concept which would unite all the forms of foreign policy undertaken by alternative means to the military had not yet been found. Thus one faces a certain paradox – in this epoch diplomacy evidently existed, since it was quite developed and complete, but the term and the notion were lacking, hence the final, definitive perception did not occur.

22 23

See about this passage: Matthews, Empire 106. See also: Diehl, Justinien 412.

Chapter I

Mechanisms of diplomacy This chapter has above all an introductory character. Many problems are listed rather than actually dealt with here, with the aim to give the context for the study. The main thrust of the book is in the following chapters, where some of the questions touched in the first chapter are analysed in more detail.

1. State structures 1.1 Emperor The emperor must be regarded as a principal figure in the sphere of diplomacy, decisionmaking and elaboration of the general strategy and political tasks of diplomacy. Evidently the supreme ruler’s degree of personal involvement in these matters depended greatly on the sovereign himself. It is also important to note that the general principle of the organization of the late Roman Empire identified the actions of the state with the figure of its ruler. »Both in theory and in practice the constitution of the emperor’s powers were absolute. He controlled foreign policy, making peace and wars at will«.1 Officially all the letters and embassies from abroad were addressed personally to the emperor, and all the response actions derived from him.2 There were consulting bodies and various state structures that assisted him in different matters (see further). Throughout the period of Late Antiquity the extent of the emperors’ real personal involvement in the problems of wars, frontiers and diplomacy decreased with the evident »shift from the mobile emperors to the emperors resident in Constantinople«.3 So long as they remained personally active on the frontiers, emperors retained much more direct involvement in negotiations with foreign peoples,4 whereas, by relinquishing this role and remaining in the capital, emperors of the 5th and 6th centuries created greater scope for officials to play a mediating role in diplomacy.5 This process promoted the development of mediating shuttle diplomacy, which saw envoys, agents of international communication, travelling there and back to negotiate and make agreements. Mediatory diplomacy differed technically from diplomacy with more direct involvement from state rulers, but the principle of the superiority of all the monarch’s actions remained. It was carried out through sets of strict instructions for ambassadorial delegations which they 1 2 3 4 5

Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 321. See more about ›personal diplomacy‹: II.1.1. (the indications here and further on are to the chapter and sections of this paper). Paradisi, Storia 182. Lee, Information 42. Cf. Millar, Emperors 6. Lee, Information 42.

24

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

were obliged to follow,6 and imperial ratification was required for all the acts of agreements and treaties.7 In the sphere of reception and negotiations with foreign embassies arriving in the empire, the emperor remained the most important figure in all the ceremonies and talks. So, in general, the emperor seems to have been the most significant figure in the regulation and conduction of the diplomatic process, and sources usually explained changes in the course of politics as the result of the will of emperor or the accession into power of a new ruler with a new political programme. According to F. Millar, emperors »both could and did draw on systematic sources of up-to-date information from beyond the frontiers«.8 At the same time it must be admitted that without a staff of professionals and experts responsible for the realization of concrete actions and orders, and those who could provide serious consultations on matters of diplomacy and foreign policy, the system would hardly have functioned. Scholars mark a notable tendency: through the period from the 4th to the 6th centuries the role of emperor in diplomacy was becoming more and more ceremonial,9 thus the role of consulting bodies and state bureaucratic structures involved in the diplomacy process must have increased. It also seems very important to underline that in different cases the patters could have been different, as they depended much (if not mostly) on the emperor’s personality, his own political will, programme and power, which determined the degree and level of the influence of bureaucracy and concrete figures. Empresses may also have played some role in diplomacy and foreign policy. Theodora seems to have been rather active in foreign policy.10 We are also informed about Empress Sophia’s involvement in the reception and dispatching of embassies (Men. Prot. 18.1–6).11 Thus, at least some of the empresses could act for the emperors in certain situations or even act in competition with them.

6 7 8 9 10

See: I.3.1.3; II.1.2. See: II.3. Millar, Emperors 19. Whitby, From Frontier; Lee, Information 42. According to Procopius, she wrote a letter to a Persian Zaberganes (PLRE-IIIB, 1410, s.v. Zaberganes 1), a close associate of Chosroes (whom she met during his diplomatic mission to Constantinople), asking him to persuade the shah to make peace with the Romans (Proc. Anecd. 2.32–36). She did not succeed, but her involvement is notable. Further evidence of her activity in foreign affairs is the episode of the Christianization of the Nobadae, when the empress dispatched her own Monophysite ambassador on a rival mission to the one sent by Justinian (Joh. Eph. HE 4.6; see: III.3.2). The same Theodora may have participated at least, or have been at the origin, of a plot to assassinate Amalasuintha (Proc. Anecd. 16.3; BG 1.4.30; see: I.3.2.2; Lee, Abduction 10f.) See Evans, Theodora, chapter 6 ›Theodora and Foreign Policy‹, 59–66. Diplomatic gifts may have been sent on behalf of the emperor and the empress, as noted by John Malalas about gifts to the Persians from Justinian and Theodora (Joh. Mal. 18.61.1–5; see: IV.1.2). See Evans, Theodora 63–66. 11 PLRE-IIIA, 1179f., s.v. Aelia Sophia 1. She took an active part in government when her husband Justin II was mentally ill.

1. State structures

25

1.2 Senate The role of the senate in Late Roman diplomacy is considered to have been minimal, which correlates with the general devaluation of its importance as an effective council of state as its role became more ceremonial throughout Late Antiquity.12 However, some diplomatic activity and involvement of the senate in discussing and decisions of international matters is evident. In some cases decisions were taken by the emperor in cooperation with the senate (e.g. Malch. 15.10–14; 17.2.7–11; Proc. BG 4.25; Theoph. Sim. 4.13.3–14.1). Priscus provides evidence of the episode when the envoy for the mission to the Huns was selected by the senate and then ratified by the emperor (Prisc. 2.16–18). The cases when the senate participated in diplomatic activities seem to have fully depended on the emperor’s will. Procopius characterizes the senate’s role in the times of Justinian as minimal and purely decorative (Proc. Anecd. 14.7sq.). The cases under Justinian when the senate participated in political decisions on the problems of foreign policy seem to have been mostly formal acts of approval.13 According to L. Bréhier and D. A. Miller, in the 5th and 6th centuries, especially after the death of Justinian, there was a great increase in the role of the senate: this body gained perceptible influence in matters of foreign policy and was more than a consultative organ.14 D. A. Miller provides references to cases of significant participation by the senate in discussions and its contribution to decisionmaking on the problems of diplomacy.15 One of the aspects that can be named was a tendency for a growing number of senators to act as ambassadors,16 but this argument cannot be used to seriously characterize the role of the senate as an institution, as the senate was formed of retired civil servants17 and ambassadorial business required a high status and position, a condition which was met by the senators. It was probably the principal position of the consistorium in the process of receiving embassies that limited the senate’s involvement. Perhaps there was some fluctuation in the roles of the »official bodies of advisors«,18 the senate and the consistory in their involvement in diplomatic affairs. Important influence by the senate in making principal decisions in diplomacy seems to have been limited and rare. 1.3 Consistorium This council of state, especially at the time when it was most active and efficient, in the 4th century,19 debated matters of foreign policy. Official receptions of embassies and diplomats’ communication with the emperor took place in the consistorium (de cer. 1.89),20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 329. Miller, Studies 140. Bréhier, Institutions 11949, 181f.; Miller, Studies 138f. Miller, Studies 139–141. See: III.1.1; Miller, Studies 138f. Miller, Studies 139. Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 329. Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 334. Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 334f.; Delmaire, Institutions 37f.; Boak, Master 92. In summer the hall of the so-called big consistorium was used, and in winter the small one (Guilland, Études topographique 57).

26

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

which is why, perhaps, the officials of the consistorium – notarii and silentiarii participated in the reception and escorting of embassies (de cer. 1.89 [399.4; 402.8]).21 It was the job of the silentiarii to accompany the envoys to the second reception with the emperor (de cer. 1.90 [408.10]), they transmitted the gifts received from ambassador and gave them to the sacravestis (office of comes sacrarum largitionum) (de cer. 1.89 [407.6]; Coripp. Iust. 3.255– 259)22 and carried letters. Belonging to the highest elite and very close to the emperor, they could have realized some of the emperor’s concrete ideas in diplomacy. They seem to duplicate and control the functions of the cursus publicus, admissionales in the diplomatic sphere, and perhaps also duplicated some functions of the agentes in rebus (which were subject to the master of offices). According to A. H. M. Jones, by the 6th century the consistorium itself had become as ceremonial a body as the senate: it merely ceremonially received foreign envoys while the real negotiations were held elsewhere.23 1.4 Sacrum cubiculum The sacrum cubiculum24 was also involved in diplomacy.25 After the citatio one decurio accompanied the candidati armati from the small consistorium and lined them up in the big consistorium. He gave an order ›to the left‹ (de cer. 1.89 [406.1; 406.5; 407.20]) and then brought them back to the small consistorium (de cer. 1.89 [407.20]).26 Another decurio transmitted greetings to the Persian embassy and a welcome to Chalcedon (de cer. 1.89 [403.15]) and invited, upon order from the emperor, the envoy to the first reception in Constantinople (de cer. 1.89 [403.19]). The role of the sacrum cubiculum in diplomacy is rather vague and uncertain. First: they provided security and were guards to the emperor during the receptions, second: they transmitted the emperor’s invitations. On the one hand, it seems that they only carried out a few additional functions. On the other hand, we are also aware of the main eunuch’s role in the plot against Attila,27 so it may be presumed that an important part of diplomacy, perhaps mostly clandestine, belonged to the sphere of the cubiculum.28 1.5 The magister officiorum and his personnel The general practical direction, realization and control of foreign policy are considered to have belonged to the master of officers, who during the later 5th and the 6th centuries played a significant role in diplomacy.29 This office was introduced by Constantine the Great. Representatives of foreign countries were under the care of the master of offices from the time they crossed the border of the empire. It was his responsibility to provide delegations with 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Here and hereafter, in brackets I refer to the Reiske edition: Constantini Porphyrogeniti [Reiske]. See: IV.1; Whitby, Omission 478–483. Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 337f. See about this structure with a list of the literature: Delmaire, Institutions 49–160. B. Kübler, Decurio, in: RE 4, 1901, 2319–2352. Helm, Untersuchungen 425f. See: I.3.2.2. Some of the eunuchs may have sometimes been quite powerful and played a large role in policy: Jones,  Later Roman Empire I, 341. Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 368f.; Haldon, Economy and Administration 41–43.

1. State structures

27

an escort, to receive and entertain them, to introduce them to the emperor, to give them suitable presents and to provide them with safe conduct upon their departure.30 The master of offices was also a permanent member of the consistorium31 and directed meetings there,32 which also provided him with influence over the emperor. He is sometimes called a ›minister for foreign affairs‹ and was also personally much concerned with negotiations and treaties (Prisc. 11.1.61–64).33 In analysing the evolution of the character of diplomacy and ambassadorial affairs throughout the period of Late Antiquity, A. D. Lee notes an evident change and shift in the emperor’s role, as in the 5th and 6th centuries he tended to be less personally involved in activity on the frontiers and negotiations.34 This evolution must have led to an increase in the officials’ role of mediating in diplomacy. An investigation into the personnel of the magistri and the ambassadors (who seem to have become more ›professional‹)35 in this period leads A. D. Lee to the conclusion that there was an »increasing recognition of the need for greater attention to the conduct of foreign relations« and »a more organized approach to the empire’s relations with neighborhood peoples«, which in many aspects was due to the fact that the magister officiorum had become more closely involved in foreign relations.36 The officium of master of offices included personnel37 with different diplomatic duties:38 The adiutor39 accompanied the ambassadors to the palace (de cer. 1.87 [394.4]);40 one of the subadiuvae adiutoris41 brought the invitation (de cer. 1.89 [403.18]).42 These officials were appointed and chosen by the master of offices himself. They were appointed each year (by the superior agentes in rebus), so they could hardly have a serious influence on the diplomatic process, as they did not have enough time to enter into matters deeply, unless specially desired by the magister officiorum. The adiutor himself, also an agens in rebus in his past, may also have been changed annually. The subadiuvae barbarorum and the scrinium barbarorum (formed in the 5th century) controlled the movements of foreign envoys in Roman territory on their way through Roman dioceses (thus controlling the territory according to their administrative division) and in the capital;43 acted as mediators and assisted the imperial envoys travelling abroad while 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43

Boak, Master 93; see about the master of offices’ role in the foreign embassy reception process Clauss, Magister 64–67. Helm, Untersuchungen 422. Delmaire, Institutions 91. Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 368f. See: II.1. See: III.1.3. Lee, Information 42–48. Giardina, Aspetti, 59–63. Boak, Master 94–96. Adiutor (Not. Dig. Or. 11.41; Occ. 9.41). Helm, Untersuchungen 425. Subadiuvae adiutoris (Not. Dig. Occ. 9.41). In Eastern part: two of the adiutores (Not. Dig. Or. 11.43), three on fabrics (Not. Dig. Or. 11.44; Occ. 9.43), four barbariorum (Not. Dig. Or. 11.45–49). One for each of the dioceses of: Oriens, Asiana, Pontica and the European part of Thracia and Illyricum. Helm, Untersuchungen 425; Boak, Master 102. See: I.2.1; Boak, Master 103; Clauss, Magister 64.

28

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

they were in the territory of the empire;44 and were concerned with the disbursement of funds.45 It was the scrinium barbarorum which preserved the accounts of the expenditures made for the conveyance of a Persian legate and his suite from the eastern frontier to Constantinople (de cer. 1.89 [400]).46 The head of the scrinium barbarorum, who was called the optio barbarorum, gave the Persian ambassador a sum of money for his stay on his arrival in Chalcedon (de cer. 1.89 [401.6; 402.13]).47 The chartularii barbarorum were responsible for protocol, registration,48 handling the paperwork involved in overseeing the affairs of foreigners,49 they accompanied envoys on the way from the schola of the magister to the anteconsistorium together with the admissionalis and interpretes, they transmitted a citatio to the admissionalis and read it to the emperor in the cubiculum before he entered the consistorium (de cer. 1.89 [404.15; 405.18]).50 Officers barbarorum were perhaps responsible for some organizational matters concerning receiving a foreign delegation, but they could hardly have had important influence over the really significant diplomatic problems, as they were involved in the attendant formalities. Besides these heads of the departments there were a number (perhaps a large number) of subordinate employees in every department. Their presence is evident but the numbers are not clear because there is no source for this office like we have for the comes sacrarum largitionum (CJ 12.23.7). The officers of the cursus publicus51 were responsible for the transportation of the foreign missions in the territory of the empire.52 The interpretes were responsible for translation.53 Formally the interpreters were only ›auxiliary‹ figures, and only responsible for translation, but one may suppose their deeper involvement in the diplomatic process, as translation always implies some interpretation and in many cases they could appear the only persons in the delegation to have direct communication with the receiving side. As noted by Miller: »There seems to be no evidence that formal training in foreign languages was available for persons in the diplomatic bureau, which probably was not necessary.«54 D. A. Miller distinguishes three possible sources of ›linguists‹: bilingual citizens of various nationalities; merchants and ›frontiersmen‹; immigrants and allies.55 It is important to perceive that most likely interpreters were very often natives of the peoples whose language they translated or were half-blooded barbarians, so they could hardly participate in elaborating general strategic plans, but their in44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55

Delmaire, Institutions 83; Boak, Master 95. Miller, Studies 2. Boak, Master 103; Clauss, Magister 65. Helm, Untersuchungen 423; Boak, Master 103. Clauss, Magister 65. Miller, Studies 12. Helm, Untersuchungen 423; Boak, Master 103. The curiosus cursus publici praesentalis (Not. Dig. Or. 11.50; Occ. 9.44) and curiosi per omnes provincias (Not. Dig. Or. 11.51; Occ. 9.45); interpretes diversarum gentium (Not. Dig. Or. 11.52; Occ. 9.46). See: III.3.2; Helm, Untersuchungen 423; A. Kolb, Cursus publicus, in: NP 3, 2003, 1022f. See: III.2.3; Helm, Untersuchungen 424, note 7 with the list of mentions of actual interpreters. Miller, Studies 19. Miller, Studies 19–21.

1. State structures

29

fluence in concrete cases could have been rather great (we are aware of some cases when interpreters acted as ambassadors;56 a significant example here is the case of the interpreter Vigilas who was the key figure in the plot against Attila).57 Besides the officium of master of offices, an important role in diplomatic relations belonged to the underlying officium admissionum (Not. Dig. Or. 11.17; Occ. 9.14). He was responsible for admissions, receptions and audiences in the consistorium (Prisc. 11.1.61– 64).58 The proximus admissionum or one of the admissionales, depending on the rank of the embassy (de cer. 1.87. [394.1]), accompanied envoys from their dwelling to the palace or from the schola of the master to the anteconsistorium and the consistorium (de cer. 1.89 [405.6]).59 One of the admissionales transmitted the master of offices’ order of entry to the standard-bearer during the reception (de cer. 1.89 [404.3]). These officials’ functions seem to have been similar to a herald’s – they were responsible for the ceremonial side of receiving embassies, assisting the master of offices,60 and, most likely, they accompanied the missions, gave them directions and made sure that the protocol worked correctly. So, this office’s main task must have been to maintain the ritual; their influence over diplomacy strategy was limited only to ceremonial aspects. Some other officials under the master of offices also took part in the diplomatic process. Scholarii (Not. Dig. Or. 11.4–11; Occ. 9.4–9) of a higher rank, i.e. candidati, stood in the guard of honour, headed by one decurio from the sacrum cubiculum, besides the emperor during the reception in the consistorium (de cer. 1.89 [406.4]).61 Some agentes in rebus (Not. Dig. Or. 11.11; Occ. 9.9)62 accompanied embassies on their way to the capital63 and brought letters. Details about the agentes in rebus’ role remain unclear.64 Some mensores (Not. Dig. Or. 11.12; metatores)65 could have been responsible for logging embassies during their journey (metata) according to the norms of hospitium.66 Evidently their role in ›grand-scale diplomacy‹ was additional and auxiliary. 1.6 Other administrative structures Officials from some other administrative structures (not those of the master of offices) were also involved in the diplomacy-making process, as well as in assisting and maintaining embassies. The rank and position of the quaestor sacri palatii, the post was created by Constantine the Great, was among the highest in the imperial civil hierarchy. He was a spokesman for 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

See evidence and reasoning on the problem: Miller, Studies 24f. See: III.2.3. Jones, Later Roman Empire 1, 368f. Helm, Untersuchungen 423f; Boak, Master 92. About this office: Boak, Master 66. O. Seeck, Candidatus, in: RE 3, 1899, 1468f. See about them Clauss, Magister 27–32. Clauss, Magister 63. Boak, Master 71–73. Boak, Master 81. Boak, Master 19f. Helm does not mention mensores as participants in the diplomatic process (Helm, Untersuchungen 422–426).

30

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

the emperor and his chief legal adviser.67 Initially he availed of no officium and from the time of Justinian he directed the work of the scrinium epistularum and scrinium libellorum. The imperial proclamations were written in his office and could be pronounced before the foreign envoys by his employees.68 According to R. Guilland, the figure of quaestor was comparable with that of the magister officiorum and in some cases the two responsibilities were executed by the same persons.69 The quaestor could play an important role in diplomacy,70 and in some cases directly participated in embassies.71 The duces limitanei would receive inquiries from an adversary (intending to establish negotiations) concerning the general possibility of sending a mission to the empire (the function which, as well as assistance in establishing contacts with the capital during times of military conflicts belonged to the generals)72 and they controlled the entry and departure of delegations.73 It seems possible that duces could have had some serious influence over the diplomatic process, perhaps even participating in the elaboration of strategy and foreign policy in some provinces or strategic directions. On the other hand, generals could hardly form the line of foreign policy and diplomacy on the scale of the whole empire, and instead perhaps had regional importance. The praefectus urbi, comes rerum privatarum and comes sacrarum largitionum were responsible for the registration and giving of gifts, furniture and implements: the comes rerum privatarum was responsible for providing the ambassador with beds; the praefectus urbi provided beds for his attendants and also provided delegations with table- and kitchenware, tables, braziers and provisions74 (de cer 1.89 [401.16]). The comes sacrarum largitionum was involved in the gift-giving part of diplomacy.75 He must have provided the emperor with a list of the precious items which were at his disposal and the emperor must have made the choice concerning the gifts from this list. The comes sacrarum largitionum received information from the master of offices about which gifts the emperor had decided were to be given to an embassy (de cer. 1.88 [397.9]).76 The comes sa67 68 69 70

71

72 73 74 75 76

Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 367f., note 3; II, 1143f.; see also: Γκουτζιουκώστας, Θεσμός; Guilland, Études sur l’histoire, 79–81. Guilland, Études sur l’histoire 84. Guilland, Études sur l’histoire 79–81. The influence that the quaestor could have had on the decision-making in foreign politics may be illustrated by the example of Proculus (PLRE-IIIB, 924f., s.v. Proculus 5), who held the office of quaestor sacri palatii during the reign of Justin I and according to Procopius was the emperor’s main advisor and in fact had a leading role in public affairs (Proc. BP 1.11.1–30; Anecd. 4.13; Joh. Lyd. de mag. 3.20.3). It was his opinion and arguments that led to Justin I declining the Persian proposal to adopt Chosroes (Proc. BP 1.11.1–30; see: II.1.2.1.1). I am grateful to A. Kaldellis who attracted my attention to the role of Proculus in this context. See also about Proculus and his role in this affair: Börm, Prokop 312–315. E.g. Epigenes (PLRE-II, 396), fellow ambassador of Plintha to the Huns of Attila (Prisc. 2.18–20; see: III.2.2); Traianus, patricius and quaestor (PLRE-IIIB, 1334, s.v. Traianus 3) headed an important embassy to the Persians under Justin II (Men. Prot. 18.3; see: II.1.2.3.2); Cosmas (PLRE-IIIA, 358, s.v. Cosmas 20) was sent by Heraclius to the khagan of the Avars (Nic. Brev. 10.5). See: II.1.3.1; II.1.3.2.1. Helm, Untersuchungen 425; see also CJ 1.31.4; 1.46.4; O. Seek, Dux, in: RE 5, 1905, 1869. See: I.2.1. Delmaire, Largesses 539–546. O. Seek, Comites, in: RE 7, 1900, 671.

1. State structures

31

crarum largitionum received the gifts which were brought by the diplomats from the silentiarius. The scrinium of sacravestis (Not. Dig. Or. 13.28; Occ. 11.94) evaluated the gifts received and gave a list of them to the master of offices (de cer. 1.89. [407.10]).77 The imperial largesse was also responsible for payments to the barbarians, allies and ambassadors, which could have been made in the form of precious objects deriving from ateliers of the fisc (decorations, gold and silver objects, precious items) or in the form of a stipendium given to the barbarians.78 These three dignitaries, the praefectus urbi, comes rerum privatarum and comes sacrarum largitionum, most likely had no influence over the course of diplomatic negotiation and foreign relations strategy. So we see that none of the described administrative bodies was capable of controlling and at the same time elaborating foreign policy strategy or diplomacy as a whole, because they either did not have wide enough powers, or did not possess enough information. This evidently does not refer to the emperor himself, who had full control over all spheres, or perhaps to the master of offices who had at his disposal not only many of the officials listed above, but also the diplomatic correspondence. It is not absolutely clear from the sources or from the literature which administrative body was really responsible for the conduction and keeping of international correspondence. Most likely this role belonged to sacra scrinia, maybe namely to the scrinium epistularum with its magister at the head.79 Thus it is interpreted by R. Helm.80 The basis for this presumption must have been the widely known fact that from the beginning of its existence this scrinium was responsible for the emperor’s official correspondence with the officials and cities within the empire, both in Greek and in Latin. In addition, military reports must have been sent to this scrinium and the provincial embassies must have been directed there. It seems, however, that we are not directly aware of the scrinium epistularum’s involvement in international correspondence. The role of the magister epistularum was to give written answers to foreign delegations.81 R. Helm supposed that it was the magister epistularum who wrote the text of a letter when they were not composed by the emperor himself. The magister epistularum graecarum either composed letters in Greek or translated them from Latin. Thus we are informed that Constantine wrote a letter to Sapor himself (Eus. V.Const. 2.47sq.; 4.8sq.).82 A. H. M. Jones names the magistri of the three departments as the emperor’s principal secretaries and, in his view, the magister memoriae was a chief legal adviser and, »in so far as such an office existed, foreign minister«.83 The author also notes that when Constantine the 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

See: I.2.1; IV.1. Delmaire, Institutions 138f.; see especially for details about the tributes and donativa paid to the barbarians: Iluk, Aspects 78f. Boak, Master 84. Helm, Untersuchungen 424. Clauss, Magister 17f. See more about this in Helm, Untersuchungen 424, note 3f. Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 367f., see also about the magister memoriae Jones,  Later Roman Empire I, 50f.

32

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

Great created the office of quaestor of the sacred palace, the magistri of the scrinia »sank to a secondary position«84 (see about quaestor above). In any case there was an archive at the disposal of the magister epistularum, which was most likely kept in the neighbouring scrinia memoriae. If R. Helm’s presumption concerning the responsibility of the scrinium epistularum over international correspondence is right (which seems very possible since correspondence with legations coming from within the empire was transacted through the scrinium epistularum),85 it should be admitted that the real specialists in carrying and keeping the correspondence lay among the scriniarii of these two scrinia (memoriales and epistulares) and thus they could have conducted different models of diplomatic communication. In at least one case we have the certain proven authorship by one person of letters which were sent from the head of a state – letters from the Gothic kings were written by Cassiodorus when he was a master of offices and quaestor sacri palatii.86 In this matter we are faced with a talented and highly educated chief (like in the case of Proculus, mentioned above), but in the cases when officials were less prominent figures and especially in situations when one master of officers was substituted by another the tradition and continuity of the empire’s external diplomacy must have been provided and guaranteed by the officials belonging to the middle rank, i.e. possibly representatives of the sacra scrinia. Another very important aspect, perhaps also connected with sacra scrinia, is the problem of archives, where not only international correspondence, but also various documents concerning diplomacy could have been stored. It seems evident that the accounts which were written by envoys,87 records taken during negotiations, minutes of the imperial consistory taken by shorthand writers (acta consistorii: CTh 1.22.4) and perhaps some accounts on intelligence matters must all have been collected somewhere. Indeed, the texts of treaties were stored in an archive.88 We know of recording by notarii89 (or maybe also libellenses by scrinia a libellis)90 of the discussions in the consistorium,91 where envoy receptions were held and questions of foreign policy were discussed. According to logical reasoning by A. D. Lee, »these minutes must have contained material of possible value on subsequent occasions – and why was a written record of consistory meetings taken down if not for subsequent consultation?«92 If all these materials were stored and collected in the archive of sacra scrinia we should per84 85 86 87 88

89 90 91 92

Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 367f., note 3; II, 1143f. Boak, Master 84, 96. 507–511 quaestor sacri palatii, 523–527 magister officiorum, from 533 praefectus praetorii; see for his career: Krautschick, Cassiodor 8–13; Meyer-Flügel, Bild 34–39. See: III.4.1; Lee, Information 39. Seeking the information about the Byzantine frontier in Spain, the Visigothic king Reccaredus I (PLRE-IIIB, 1079f.) wrote to Pope Gregory and asked him to write to Emperor Maurice for a copy of the treaty between the Visigoths and Justinian. The pope answered that the text was unavailable, because the relevant archive (chartophylakeion) had been accidentally destroyed in a fire before Justinian’s death (Greg. Ep. 9.229). Thompson, Goths 332. I am very grateful to A. Kaldellis for this reference. Boak, Master 65. Delmaire, Institutions 70. Delmaire, Institutions 54. Lee, Information 40.

1. State structures

33

haps suppose that it was this administrative body which provided some continuity and succession in the principles of the general line of Late Antique diplomacy.93 It may be concluded that in the sphere of decision-making in diplomacy and foreign policy the main roles belonged to the emperor and master of offices, possibly with some participation of the sacrum cubiculum. Materials for these decisions as well as the organization of the process were provided by different offices and services, and the general coordination, accumulation of various data and elaboration of concrete algorithms of actions must have belonged to the activity of the sacra scrinia. An important aspect which also remains rather vague is where the different intelligence materials were accumulated, analysed and kept. The first stage of accumulation must have been dependent on who gathered the information, but, as noted by A. D. Lee, »the agency by which information was acquired is not specified«.94 As a result, it is difficult to judge who analysed the intelligence material. Perhaps they were also among the specialists under the master of offices or the sacra scrinium also accumulated this type of material. 1.7 Decision-making To summarize the outline provided above, it can be concluded that decision-making95 in the sphere of diplomacy and the concept of the development of foreign policy was greatly dependent on the emperor. It seems that his role in the different sides of international communication can not be defined as merely or mainly ceremonial, but often as paramount. When reasoning about ›grand strategy‹,96 one should pay attention to the evident fact that, throughout the period of Late Antiquity, policy, including foreign policy, and the paradigm of relations with different peoples changed rather often because of the new ideas and programmes of a new emperor who had decided to abrogate his predecessor’s activity and introduce a new policy. It is hard to speak about state structures and administration which would be able to create and be responsible for maintaining some general strategy in foreign policy actions, to keep the universal line. For some periods we can suppose there was more influence on the emperor and his actions by some figures in his civil or military administration or palatine offices, while for other periods the supreme ruler’s dictatorship was stronger. Consulting and cooperation in decision-making certainly did happen, and the right to make decisions in the sphere of current diplomacy could have even been delegated to some officials, e.g. to military commanders, like plenipotentiary generals.97 Evidently the emperor was not able to explore and analyse all the data needed to draw up concrete decisions and a general line of behaviour. Hence the offices and scrinia of his administration seem to have 93

94 95 96

97

I am grateful to P. Shuvalov for his advice regarding the workings of Late Antique bureaucracy and in particular concerning the officium of the master of offices, sacra scrinia and other administrative structures involved in the diplomatic process. Lee, Information 147. D. A. Miller about decision-making in Byzantine diplomacy: Miller, Studies 133f. Concepts of and polemics around grand strategy: Luttwak, Force; Luttwak, Strategy Roman Empire – who insisted on the existence of a planned strategy within the empire; Isaac, Limits – who objected to Luttwak by diminishing the role of general plans in policy-making; see also: Wheeler, Limits. See: II.1.3.1; Millar, Emperors 136f.

34

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

possessed the necessary structures, instruments and specialists, and data to carry out the routine diplomatic process and guarantee some inner continuity in the system.

2. Reception of embassies 2.1 Ceremonial of reception In the Late Roman/Early Byzantine Empire protocol and ceremonial played a significant and increasing role in different spheres of court life and politics. In the area of diplomacy, ceremonial and etiquette were mainly concentrated around the reception and dispatching of embassies, and regulating the behaviour of envoys and those who received them. As A. Cameron noticed: »By the sixth century, it is very clear that court ceremony had decisively increased, for it is now possible for Peter the Patrician to think of codifying it.«98 The book, which the master of offices Peter the Patrician99 seems to have written (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.25), probably survived in sections in the Book of Ceremonies.100 Some rules on the subject may also be found in the text Peri Presbeon:101 »Envoys are sent to us and by us. Those who are sent to us should be received honorably and generously, for everyone holds envoys in esteem« (Peri Str. 43).102 It is important to recognize that the complex and increasing system of ceremonial for ambassadors was charged with »refined semiotics – to use a modern expression –, which was open to any kind of sophisticated nuances in order to express meaningful variations of the political atmosphere«.103 As noted by F. Tinnenfeld, »nowhere in the Book of Ceremonies the relations between nuances in ceremonial and political meanings is expressly emphasized«,104 and in general it can be applied to different symbolic acts of East Roman/Byzantine diplomacy. The emperor was at the centre of the impressive ritual »performed by officials in resplendent robes, to better overawe foreign envoys at court … an instrument of persuasion in itself«.105 Late Antique texts and some sources from the Byzantine period, based on compositions from previous epochs, allow us to imagine the procedure of reception of a foreign delegation in Constantinople. Receptions of foreign embassies in Constantinople are described at length in the Book of Ceremonies, which preserves a set of instructions for such a reception from the 6th century, traced back to the work by Peter the Patrician.106 Two sections of De ceremoniis provide ac98 99 100 101

102 103 104 105 106

Cameron, Construction 126; also: Cameron, Images 7. See about him: PLRE-IIIB, 994–998, s.v. Petrus 6; Rapp, Literacy Culture 390; Grecu, Menander 78–84; Αντωνόπουλος, Πέτρος. Cameron, Construction 126; Bury, Ceremonial Book 209–227, esp. 212ff.; Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 364; Krumbacher, Geschichte (1891), 237–239. Most scholars also assign this text to the 6th century, dating it to Justinian’s reign (see e.g.: Three Byzantine Military Treatises [Denis] 115), but Lee and Shepard instead assign it to the 10th century (Lee/Shepard, Double Life 15–39). According to the edition: Three Byzantine Military Treatises [Denis]. Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 213. Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 213. Luttwak, Strategy Byzantine Empire 125. Cameron, Construction 119; A. Kazhdan, De ceremoniis, in: ODB, 595–597; for an account of the diplomatic traditions and practice of receiving embassies in the times of Constantine himself,

2. Reception of embassies

35

counts of procedures for the reception of envoys sent from the Western Empire (de cer. 1.87) and a delegation from the Persian shah (de cer. 1.89). The reception of the Avar delegation by Justin II is described by Corippus, though in less detail, following the same protocol (Coripp. Iust. 3.220sqq.).107 Two specific embassies from the West to Constantinople are described. The first one is an account of a visit by Heliocrates the envoy of Emperor Anthemius in 467 and by Liberius the ambassador of the Gothic king of Italy Theodahad in 534.108 According to the Book of Ceremonies, it was a responsibility of the master of offices to receive envoys, to arrange different aspects of their audience and their meetings with the delegates, and to provide them with accommodation and financial maintenance. An important aspect of the imperial audience of the Western palatine officials was particular attention to rank, because »the rank of western palatine officials is to be equated with that of their eastern counterparts for the purpose of their disposition in audiences«.109 When the envoys were summoned to court, they assembled, with special attendants, at the schola of the magister officiorum. When the emperor was seated and ready to receive the embassy, the comes admissionum gave the command that the curtain be raised (de cer. 1.87 [394.18]).110 The envoys entered the consistorium, paid obeisance to the emperor and reported the aim of their visit. In the consistorium silentiaries received a present from the new Western emperor (de cer. 1.87 [395.9–14]).111 During a later audience, the Western envoys again assembled with their Eastern counterparts, and received donativa determined by their rank. Upon their departure from the imperial consistorium, the magister officiorum received letters from the emperor, and in turn formally presented them to the envoys for transmission to the Western Augustus (de cer. 1.88 [397sqq.]).112 The second description provides an account of the reception of the Persian diplomat Iezdekos, presumably the famous ambassador Isdigousnas,113 in Constantinople in 551 (de cer. 1.89).114 The text is so important, detailed and eloquent that it seems worth citing at length, in spite of its size:115

106 107 108 109 110 111

112 113 114 115

see: Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 498–509; Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 364; Αντωνόπουλος, Πέτρος 241. Pallas-Brown, Perception. See about this Whitby, Omission 462–488; Gillett, Envoys 227–243. Gillett, Envoys 224. For analysis of the details of the court official’s roles during the reception of an embassy see: Whitby, Omission 463–488. Whitby, Omission 480. In the case of the embassy from Anthemius, the ambassador Heliocrates brought the laureate portraits of his ruler, and their acceptance by Leo signified ratification of Anthemius’s imperial status (see more on portraits in diplomacy: Nechaeva, The Sovereign’s Image). Whitby, Omission 478; Ando, Imperial Ideology 250. Gillett, Envoys 224. See PLRE-IIIA, 722f., s.v. Isdigousnas Zich; Proc. BP 2.28.31; BG 4.15; Men. Prot. 6.1.105–108. Greatrex/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier 124. I cite here the translation of Greatrex/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier 124–128.

36

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

Meeting at the frontier When a great ambassador116 is announced, the magister should send to the frontier one illustris magistrate, or silentiarius, or a tribune, if indeed one of the nobles or magistriani, or whomever he sees fit to send for the honour of the personage coming,117 so that he may receive and guide him safely from one place to another.118 He who is sent comes to Nisibis, and greets him, and, if he has a letter from the emperor, he hands (it) over; if not, then (he hands over one) from the magister, summoning him.119 Equally, the magister may not write either, but the invitation is issued only by mandata, (bidding him) come with good spirits and a retinue;120 and he (the Roman envoy) goes out with him (the ambassador). The commanders of Dara should meet him with (their) soldiers at the frontier, and receive the ambassador and his men. And if there is anything that must be discussed at the frontier, it is discussed, while the ruler of Nisibis has come with him (the Persian ambassador) as far as the frontier with a force of Persians.121 If nothing is discussed, in this case too it is absolutely necessary for him to come with a force, and while the Romans receive him and those with him, the rest of the Persians must stay in Persian territory and he alone with his followers is to come to Dara and be entertained. It is the duty of the commander of Dara to display much alertness and foresight, so that a force of Persians does not come along too, by a pretext of the ambassador, and closely follow after (him) and gain control of the city by cunning. The magistrate must pay great attention to this contingent and be discreetly vigilant and guard against this plan.122 (de cer. 1.89 [399]123)

Escorting, transport and conditions of travel The ducici, according to custom, pay the cost of the journey here (Constantinople) for 103 days.124 This many (days) have been determined from the start as sufficient for an ambassador going up (to Constantinople), and as many for one going down. Sometimes he is slow on the road, and the emperor issues a command, and an extra payment is made to him. The record of expenses for him is conserved in the scrinium (office) of the barbarians. Five post-horses and thirty mules are assigned to him according to the agreements (reached) when Constantine was praetorian prefect.125 The emperor, should he wish to entertain him (the ambassador), orders a lot more to be given to him. And should he wish to honour him as well, he should send for and receive him through men of good repute in Galatia and Cappadocia and provide food (for him); similarly he should send (a message) to Nicea to look after him and entertain

116 117 118 119 120 121 122

123 124 125

See for great/major embassies: II.1.2.3. Thus the rank of those who met an embassy and accompanied it through the Roman territory depended on the status of the ambassador. See about escorting of embassies: I.4. Whitby, Omission 478; Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 198. Probably whether the letter of greetings was issued by the emperor or by a magister also depended on the status of the embassy. For the negotiations on the frontier and the presence of the local rulers see: II.1.3.1, II.3. This explanation must have been caused by the special circumstances of Isdigousnas’s embassy. According to Procopius the intentions of Chosroes were to capture Dara under the guise of embassy: 500 Persians were to enter to Dara together with Isdigousnas and to light the fire, and the Persian army prepared near Nisibis was to enter to Dara after. The plan failed, being revealed by a Roman turncoat. Thus Isdigousnas, in spite of his protest of violating an ambassador’s rights, was only let into Dara with a few attendants (Proc. BP 2.27.17–37). See more about this embassy: Nechaeva, Double Agents 137–147. Page numbers according to Constantini Porphrogeniti [Reiske]. For the duration of diplomatic voyages see: III.3.3.2. For transport used by embassies see: III.3.2.

2. Reception of embassies

37

(him). The magister too, when (the ambassador) reaches Antioch,126 should send a magistrianis, charged with greeting and welcoming him, and to learn how he is being guided from place to place. If the emperor wishes, he does this once, and then for a second time, writing (to him) and greeting (him), and asking how he is being looked after. Both beasts and dromons127 should be made ready for him at Helenopolis,128 so that, if he wishes he may depart on foot for Nicomedia or, if he wishes, he may cross in the dromons. It is vital that horses and beasts be made ready in Dakibyza so that they may receive him and convey to Chalcedon. In Chalcedon the magister should prepare lodgings both for him and his men; he should also send the optio of the barbarians to entrust to him ready cash for expenses incurred in the day or days in Chalcedon. And he sends gifts to him. It is the duty of the magister to send (a message) to him to greet him and to ask him how his journey was, whether he is weary or not, and simply to entertain him in suitable fashion. (de cer. 1.89 [400])

Lodging in Constantinople His (the ambassador’s) lodging in Constantinople must be prepared in advance in accordance with the man’s rank129 and the escort he brings with him; and there must be made ready in it beds, bedclothes, ovens, fireplaces, tables, and buckets to carry water and help with other hygienic services. But the comes rei privatae, that is the sacellarius of the emperor – for now this duty has been transferred to him – provides the mattresses in accordance with a token of the magister. The praefectus urbi (city prefect) provides the beds and small cans and tables and ovens and pots, again in accordance with a tablet of magister. The men of the arsenals provide the braziers. Workmen are also allotted to him by the prefect from warehouses. And the bath of that house where he is to stay must be ready, or one near him, so that he himself and those with him may bathe when they want; and for them alone is the bath available. (de cer. 1.89 [401])

Welcome and reception by the master of offices Whenever he comes ashore, the magister should send imperial horses (to him); the spatharius (bodyguard) of the emperor provides them. They receive him off the dromons and they carry him off to his house and immediately the magister sends (a message) to him and greets him and again asks him how he was looked after. He also sends [small] gifts – the things he wishes130 – through the optio; generally the ambassador too sends [(a message)]131 to the magister and greets him in return. And the magister should receive kindly him who comes and should give a fitting reply to the greeting. The magister through his own man informs him (the ambassador), ›Refresh yourself, and when you see fit, I (shall) greet you‹. And that man on the next day or the one after makes an announcement in advance and comes and greets the magister, and the magister receives him in person and asks him before anything (else) about the health of his king, and about the children of his king, and about the magistrates and about his own health and that of his household. (He also 126

127 128

129 130 131

In the opinion of Güterbock it was Antioch in Pisidia (Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien 19, note 2), but the suggestion of Greatrex (Eastern Frontier 275f., note 8) about Syrian Antioch seems more reasonable, as the points mentioned in the text (Nicea, Galatia, Cappadocia) show that Pisidian Antioch was outside the ambassador’s route. The delegation must have followed the road from Dara to Syrian Antioch; see for this road: Miller, Itineraria 751f.; Barrington Atlas 67, 89. A dromon was a Roman military ship: Greatrex/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier 276, note 9. The route from Antioch of Syria must have then been towards Tyana, Ancyra, Nicea and Helenopolis to reach Constantinople by sea or by land via Nicomedia: Miller, Itineraria 629f.; Barrington Atlas 52, 66f., 86. Another indication that the level of reception depended on the rank of the diplomat. For different categories of diplomatic gifts see: IV.1. I would exclude the explanation ›a message‹ from here, as, in my view, the text allows us to suppose that the ambassador could also respond with gifts: πέμπει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ξένια διὰ τοῦ ὀπτίονος, ἃ βούλεται· ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ καὶ ὁ πρέσβεις πέμπει.

38

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy asks) how his journey was, whether anything was amiss en route, if anything was passed over and says ›We have been charged by our pious master to do everything for your entertainment. If therefore anything was remiss, that is our failure. We invite you not to be aggrieved or silent, but to tell us, so that correction may be made.‹ And all those with the ambassador too do obeisance to the magister, throwing themselves to the floor. (de cer. 1.89 [402])

Welcome from the emperor and invitation to the first imperial audience And when the emperor decides to receive him, the magister sends for him and informs him ›The master has bid you come to (him).‹ The master (emperor), when he (the ambassador) is in Chalcedon, and when he has come here, should send a decurion132 to greet him and to enquire concerning the health of the king, and how he himself was looked after. When he (the emperor) receives him, the magister sends a subadiuva in the evening and informs him that ›The emperor has bid you come forward, and (so) come forward.‹ And the emperor similarly sends a decurion and greets him and informs him that ›On the morrow we (shall) receive you, and (so) come forward‹. (de cer. 1.89 [403])

First imperial audience Preparative part Mandata are given in the evening for a silentium133 and it receives the ambassador of the Persians. The admissionalis should go and ask the magister about the labaresioi (standard-bearers), and mandata are given, so that they too come and meet (him), and they must stand in their position with the chariot. All the magistrates who have worn silk garments go forward, and the ambassador enters through the Regia (Royal Door), and the magister receives him in his schola and asks him whether he has the gifts to the king; he must see everything before they go in and receive a record of them.134 The magister goes to the emperor and reports to him concerning the gifts, and hands over to him the record. The ambassador waits in the schola of the magister. Then after that the magistrates are received and advance to the consistorium; the admissionalis and the chartularii of the barbarians and the interpreters must give a decree (citatorium) of the magister to the admissionales, and the other (proceedings) take place as in a silentium. (de cer. 1.89 [404])

Audience in the Great Consistorium The magister should prepare armed candidati and handsome boys to follow them. And the emperor comes out of the cubiculum, preceded by the patricians, and takes his seat in the great consistorium;135 the magistrates come in, naturally with dark brown (cloaks) according to custom. At this point the admissionalis should lead the ambassador and bid him stand at the wall opposite the curtains of the great summer consistorium. The three doors of the consistorium are opened, if he (the ambassador) has horses among the gifts;136 and three all-silk curtains are hung. After the magistrates are received, the magister pronounces (as an example), ›Let Yezdekes, the ambassador of Khusro, the king of the Persians, and those coming with him, be called.‹ And he brings forward the guards. The (chartularii) of the barbarians should give this pronouncement to the admissionales, as had been said; and the admissionales make two tablets, one inscribed with large letters, and (this) they give to the silentiarius, and he in turn to the ostiarius. And it is read to the emperor 132 133 134 135 136

Here the term refers to a high-ranking member of the corps of silentiarii (palace attendants): Great rex/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier 276, note 11, with references. The gathering of the most important bodies of state, the senate and the consistorium: Greatrex/ Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier 276, note 14. For the ceremony of diplomatic donations see: IV.1. See: Guilland, Études topographiques 56–59. For animals as diplomatic gifts see: IV.4.

2. Reception of embassies by the chartularius in the cubiculum. The other tablet they give to the magister for his acknowledgement. The terticerius receives a copy of the decree, stands behind the magister, and informs him (of it). Therefore, according to the pronouncement of the magister, the decurion enters the small consistorium and takes (with him) the armed candidati; and he moves them on, placing them on the right and left in front of the magistrates, with the consulars. At that point he goes out, and if he observes that the ambassador is ready, the decurion shouts, ›Leva‹. When the curtain is raised, the ambassador outside throws himself to the floor, where (there is) purple marble, does obeisance, and arises. And then he enters the gate, (and) he throws himself (down) and does obeisance on the floor and arises. Again in the middle of the consistorium he does obeisance likewise, and then he comes and adores the feet (of the emperor) and stands in the middle;137 he hands over the letter138 and declares the greetings to the king. The emperor should then ask ›How fares our brother in God? We rejoice in his good health.‹ And he says to the ambassador any other words he wishes that occur to him. After this, the ambassador says ›Your brother139 has sent you gifts and I invite you to receive them.‹ The emperor permits this. The ambassador goes out, and with his men, carries the gifts; and he enters (again), himself carrying either a mantle or an ornament, whatever it is valuable, and each of the other men carries out some. They (the men) should be prepared by the interpreters in the anteconsistorium, and all go in carrying (something). All of them stand at the wall opposite the chair outside the curtain; when the curtain is raised, they throw themselves to the floor, and again go through the door, and throw themselves down again, and do this for a third time. Then the silentiarii accept all the gifts, and they have the task of conveying them to the vestosacra according to the record of the magister, and of handing them over; and the evaluation of the gifts take place. The vestosacrani must immediately take the evaluation of the gifts to the magister, so that he may know what has been brought, and, at the time of the exchange of gifts, he may remind the emperor what he should send in return through his own ambassadors.140 When therefore the gifts have been offered, the emperor says to the ambassador, ›Refresh yourself for a few days, and if we have something to discuss, we (shall) discuss it; and with good manners we (shall) dismiss you to our brother.‹ The ambassadors thanks (him), and does the obeisance, and again does obeisance at the same place, and withdraws. (de cer. 1.89 [404–407])

Final part When the curtain has been released, the decurion stands up, (and) the magister pronounces (the command) ›Transfer‹, and the decurion takes armed candidati, and moves (them) to the small consistorium. And then the emperor rises and the rest (of the proceedings) take place as usual. The ambassador must remain below at the schola of the magister, and the magister must go down and bid him farewell and dismiss him. (de cer. 1.89 [407])

Second imperial audience Preparative part (What should be observed with regard to the ambassador during the other days.) The emperor, once he has read the letter, permits, when he wishes, the magister to inform the ambassador that he may come to the palace on the following day. And he (the magister), if he wishes, informs him through a silentiarius that he may come. A silentium is held, the band of troops is held still, and the labaresioi stand, and when he comes forward, the magister receives him in his schola; and he leaves him seated and goes up and reports to the emperor. (de cer. 1.90 [408]) 137 138 139 140

For the proskynesis performed by the ambassadors see: IV.1.1, IV.2. For diplomatic letters see: I.3.1.2. For the brotherhood rhetoric between the emperor and shahenshah see: II.1. For the ceremony of diplomatic donations and the practice of contre-don see: IV.1.

39

40

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

Audience in the Golden Hand Portico or in the Augusteus He receives him (the ambassador) within, either in the portico141 or in the Augusteus142 itself. If the ambassador has gifts of his own,143 he asks the day before through the magister that they may be received; and if the emperor allows, he (the ambassador) shows them to the magister in the schola, and a record is made for him. And the magister should go first to the emperor and show the record of the gifts to him. The ambassador, if he wishes his gifts to be received, goes in and asks the emperor to receive them; and if the emperor allows, his (ambassador’s) men go in, carrying his gifts, following the same plan as for the royal gifts; and a conversation is held. The emperor should again continuously recall the Persian king in pleasant fashion, as well as (asking about) his health; and if there is peace, they talk of such things, and the emperor dismisses him … (de cer. 1.90 [408])

Final part … and he awaits the magister outside. (Then) the magister comes out and takes his leave of him, and also himself dismisses him. (de cer. 1.90 [409])

Third imperial audience Discussion of matters On the other day, he (the emperor) summons him, and they discuss matters.144 (de cer. 1.90 [409])

Discussions with the master of offices And if he sees fit, he allows the magister or even other magistrates with him to hold discussions with the ambassador outside. (de cer. 1.90 [409])

Care, provisions and signs of respect If there is complete peace between the states, the emperor should send (messengers) to him to visit him continuously and to find out how he is; and he should send to him portions (of food) and gifts both on our feast days and on his notable ones; and in every way he should look after him.145 (de cer. 1.90 [409])

As noted by the scholars, there are several procedural differences between the reception of Western imperial and Persian legations. It appears that the Persian ambassador was treated in more privileged way. Consequently, expressions of honour through the selection of officials to greet the envoys were a matter for the judgement of the magister officiorum; and at court, the Persian envoys were conducted by chartularii of the scrinium barbarorum, part 141 142

143 144

145

Or the Passage of the Golden Hand served as an antechamber of the Augusteus. See: Giulland, Études topographiques 82–86; Paspates/Metcalfe, Great Palace 240f. Or the Triclinium of Augustus – a big hall of the Palace of Daphne, constructed by Constantine the Great. In the Byzantine epoch the coronations of the Augusta were often celebrated there. See: Giulland, Études topographiques 81f.; Paspates/Metcalfe, Great Palace 324–236. For the diplomats’ personal gifts see: IV.1.2. Thus, the real talks took place on the third day of reception, while the two previous sessions were mostly of a ceremonial character, dedicated to the greetings and reception of diplomatic letters and gifts. It is notable that the envoys are treated in an extremely preferential way if no conflict is underway with their state (de cer. 1.90.409sq.).

2. Reception of embassies

41

of the officium of the magister etc. The essential elements, however, were the same as for the reception of Western imperial envoys: the magister officiorum acted as host (cf. Coripp. Iust. 3.220sqq.), intermediately, and was perhaps the substantive negotiator with the envoy, as well as the stage manager of the envoy’s imperial audiences, which took place in the full consistorium (de cer. 1.88 [397.1]; 1.89 [406.1sq.]).146 The general scenario and the procedure of reception of Western Roman and Persian envoys were similar.147 Among the occasions when the foreign ambassadors came into contact with the emperor, following the evidence in the Book of Ceremonies, F. Tinnefeld lists banquets, which are however not mentioned in the report of Peter the Patrician.148 As far as we know, in Late Antiquity the display of splendour was not as sophisticated as it was to become in later centuries, when the will to impress the ambassadors and demonstrate the power of the emperor of the world reached its peak (e.g. in using the famous automata – de cer. 2.15 [569]; Liutpr. Ant. 6.5).149 Other sources also provide some descriptions of the reception in the empire of foreign diplomatic delegations, though they are not so detailed as those in the Book of Ceremonies (see e.g. Men. Prot. 9.3; 25.2; Coripp. Iust. 3.267sqq.; Proc. BP 2.28.31; Theoph. Sim. 4.13.3). In some cases, when speaking about the actions of envoys or of those who received them, authors mentioned that they followed the usual norms and rules, as was settled (Proc. BP 2.28.39; Men. Prot. 10.1.64; Theoph. Sim. 4.13.3). It seems that official letters brought by envoys were usually handed over and read first, before any talks with envoys started (Men. Prot. 10.1.64sq.; 68sq.). This order seems natural for the system of Late Antique diplomacy in which the ambassadors were regarded as mere mediators in negotiations between the rulers,150 so at first the greatest attention was paid to the letters, because they were addressed personally from one sovereign to another, and after that additional information and details were reported by the envoy. In the Theodosian Code the requirement is found that »when delegates of barbarians come, their documents must be sealed,151 so that both the trustworthiness of the letters and the full number of those sent by the petty princes shall be conveyed to Our Clemency, in order that through such an occasion there may be no opportunity for the letters to be opened and for anything to be added« (CTh 12.12.5).152 Response letters, as well as gifts, were given to ambassadors after the negotiations were finished.153 So, the sources demonstrate that reception of foreign embassies by the East Roman emperor was performed according to strict, elaborate rules which differed depending on the status and level of the delegation received. Reception was divided into several phases, each of which had a particular significance and was accompanied by a complex ceremonial. It 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

See: Gillett, Envoys 226. Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 207. Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 202, 204–206. Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 202–204. See: II.1.2. Obsignari eorum tabulas oportet. The Theodosian Code [Pharr] 380. See: I.2.1.5, IV.1.

42

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

should be underlined, that »the whole ritual of diplomacy in the palace was to impress the foreigner with Byzantine superiority«.154 Special rules must have also existed for maintaining foreign delegations during their stay in the East Roman capital, which not only regarded providing them with all that was necessary, but also limiting their freedom. Procopius of Caesarea demonstrates his discontent at the exceptional honours and privileges which were given to the Persian envoy Isdigousnas (Proc. BP 2.28.31; Proc. BG 4.15).155 Procopius points out that Isdigousnas was the only ambassador who had no experience of being guarded in any way and who with his numerous companions enjoyed complete freedom throughout his mission, which doubtless was against common practice. These envoys were allowed to buy and sell anything they wanted; to walk freely around the city and communicate with anyone they wanted (Proc. BG 4.15.19sq.). The list of exceptional advantages which were given to Isdigousnas demonstrates that usually the freedom of foreign ambassadors was very limited. As it seems, the main aim of most of these restrictions against the actions of diplomats was to prevent spying and to reduce the possibility of collecting intelligence.156 The arrival of foreign ambassadors could sometimes become of particular attention and curiosity for the local population, especially in the cases when the diplomats had some exotic appearance and their nation was not yet well known.157 Rules for the reception of embassies also existed among different peoples to whom the empire dispatched its delegations. Roman embassies abroad were received according to different local traditions, as well as according to the international norms. Escorts accompanied Roman delegations to Persian and various barbarian territories. From some of the descriptions of Roman missions travelling abroad on diplomatic affairs it is possible to distinguish certain universal norms and principles for the behaviour of envoys and those who received them.158 2.2 Non- or partial reception of an embassy In some cases a ruler to whom an embassy was dispatched could refuse to receive it. According to usual protocol the embassy remained at the border until the ruler decided whether to receive it, whereupon an announcement of invitation or refusal was sent (de cer. 1.89 [403.11sq.]).159 Several sessions of Roman-Persian negotiations were dedicated to the diplomatic fight for the territory of Suania. After a mistake that was made by a Roman diplomat, the negotiations seemed to come to a dead end and Emperor Justin did not want to receive a further 154 155 156 157

158 159

Cormack, Art 222. See about the circumstances of this visit and the figure of envoy Nechaeva, Double Agents 137– 147. See: III.4.3. Thus the Chronicle of Theophanes tells that when in 558 the Avars came to Constantinople, »everyone in the city thronged to gaze at them, as they had never seen such a people. They wore their hair very long at the back, tied with ribbons and plaited. The rest of their dress was like that of the other Huns« (Theoph. AM 6050). Here and further cited in translation of: The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor [Mango/Scott/Greatrex]. See more: III.3.1. See: FCHLRE 396, note 161.

2. Reception of embassies

43

Persian embassy (Men. Prot. 9.1–3). It was decided to let the envoy know while he was still on his way »that he would by no means achieve what he desired« (Men. Prot. 9.3.6sq.). A letter was written in the name of John, who had conducted the previous talks, and was carried to the Persians by John’s companion from the previous embassy. Having received this denial, the Persian envoy fell into depression and died (Men. Prot. 9.3.10–28). It is interesting that formally the letter was not dispatched from the emperor, who insisted on cancelling the negotiations, but from the envoy who had participated in this block of discussions before, and thus had to finish it.160 In some cases the emperor could not perform the full reception of a delegation. When diplomatic relations with Persia were in crisis, first Emperor Justin refused to receive an incoming delegation from Persia and then, when another one was dispatched, it was received only in part. When in 567 the Persian envoy Mebodes161 arrived, »the emperor, who had already learned his pretensions and with what expectations he had come, consented to receive the greetings from the Persian king in the usual manner but treated Mebodes with scorn and contempt and offered him no opportunity at all for discussions« (Men. Prot. 9.3.35–40). Barbarian rulers were also not always willing to receive imperial embassies. Thus, for a long time Attila refused to receive the embassy of Maximinus, having been informed of a plot against him (Prisc. 11.2). Though the reasons which first inspired Attila to reject the delegation were exceptional, the actual refusal to receive it seems to correspond with usual practices. Another imperial ambassador dispatched to Attila, Apollonius, had crossed the Danube »but was not given admittance to the barbarian« (Prisc. 23.3.8sq.). Attila was angry because the tribute which he was waiting for had not been brought and that is why he refused to receive the ambassador or to speak with him, but at the same time »he ordered him to send whatever gifts he had brought from the Emperor, threatening to kill him if he did not hand them over« (Prisc. 23.3.14–17). The envoy bravely refused to do so (Prisc. 23.3.17–20). Had he given the gifts, the embassy would be analogous to the ›partial‹ one of Mebodes, when greetings and presents were handed over, but serious negotiations were not held (Men. Prot. 9.3). Priscus also mentioned a case when an imperial envoy did not receive an audience from a barbarian ruler. Emperor Leo dispatched his ambassador Tatian to the Vandals, but the diplomat returned immediately »having accomplished nothing since Geisericus would not give him an audience« (Prisc. 41.2.1–6). Another envoy sent simultaneously by Leo to the Persians, Constantinus, had to wait on the border of the state, at Edessa, »since the Parthian monarch delayed receiving him for a long time« (Prisc. 41.2.3–9). Thus, the decision concerning the reception or rejection of an incoming delegation fully depended on the ruler and was announced to the diplomats when they were on their way. In some cases if the envoys insisted, they could make the ruler change his mind. Another form of ›freezing‹ the diplomatic process was to only carry out the formal-ceremonial part of the embassy reception, avoiding real negotiations.

160 161

See: II.1.2.1. PLRE-III B, 868–870, s.v. Mebodes 2.

44

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

2.3 The release of envoys When abroad with a diplomatic mission, envoys depended fully on the will of the hosting side. Diplomats usually stayed under strict control and could not leave on their own initiative, until they were officially allowed to do so.162 An embassy was only allowed to return home when the receiving ruler considered it necessary. It seems to have been a general rule for the Romans, the Persians and the barbarians. Much evidence proves this. No envoy was allowed to leave the empire without a special order (Malch. 2.10; 15.21; Men. Prot. 5.4.36– 38; 9.3.111–115; 12.6.80; 12.7.17; 16.1.56sq.; 23.8.48–57; Proc. BP 1.11.1; 1.26.1–4; Proc. BG 2.22; 4.4; 4.15). In some cases envoys were intentionally detained. Thus Belisarius did not hand the Goths back their envoys until the imperial envoys had been dismissed from Italy (Proc. BG 2.22). Failing to release ambassadors on time could even provoke an international conflict (Men. Prot. 5.4.34–38). The Persians (Men. Prot. 23.9.117; Proc. BP 1.16.1; 2.4.14; 2.5.12), Goths (Proc. BG 2.22; 3.22), Huns (Prisc. 14.51–53), Vandals (Proc. BV 1.9.8) and Turks (Men. Prot. 10.3.72sq.; 10.3.102; 19.1.132sq.; 19.2.5sq.) acted similarly. Envoys could be detained due to a change in the international situation or the will to provoke a conflict. In some cases the reason was to influence the αὐτοψία of the envoys, showing them what they wanted to demonstrate to their ruler.163 These norms of releasing envoys, who found themselves under the full power of the hosting side demonstrates the ambassadors’ level of dependence on the wishes and decisions of the receiving side.

3. Diplomatic interchanges 3.1 Open interchanges 3.1.1 Embassies and negotiations Embassies and negotiations had to refer to the most important and permanently used methods of official diplomacy. The diplomatic process itself could not be performed without these elements and an essential part of the present work is devoted to these subjects.164 3.1.2 Letters and speeches An indispensable part of diplomatic communication and negotiations belonged to diplomatic correspondence, the exchange of letters between the rulers and leading negotiations.165 As noted by L. R. Cresci, in the Byzantine epoch a letter was a diplomatic instrument par excellence, which was reflected not only in the historiographical, but also iconographical tradition.166 For the later Byzantine epoch we know that normally diplo162 163 164 165

See: III.3.4. See also: III.4.3. See: II, III. For different words in Greek to define a diplomatic letter see: Dölger/Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 24, 89. 166 Cresci, Eredità 90; in general for the problem of correspondence in the epoch under examination see: Delmaire/Desmulliez/Gatier (eds.), Correspondances.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

45

matic letters had an outstanding exterior and quality and were often richly decorated;167 the same can also be supposed for earlier times. In their standard work, Franz Dölger and Johannes Karayannopulos establish a scheme of the order and parts of a Byzantine diplomatic letter, which in general seem to be applicable for the Late Antique period as well, though certainly it should be taken into consideration that for the period under examination we do not possess any original document of this type (the oldest authentic imperial document dealing with foreign policy is the so-called St. Denis Papyrus, dating back to the 9th century) and the authors, citing diplomatic letters in their texts, could follow more a rhetorical than bureaucratic mould. In the Byzantine epoch a standard diplomatic letter usually consisted of: – the protocol, containing: the invocatio (a divine invocation), intitulatio (the rulers’ titles), and inscriptio (inscribing the recipient) – the text, usually containing: the short prooimion, narratio, and despositio – the eschatokollon, normally consisting of: a short greeting, the legimus (i.e. the emperor’s autograph), and the date.168 A source that can illustrate the norms of diplomatic correspondence is certainly the Variae by Cassiodorus, demonstrating in a certain sense an imperial practice reflected through the prism of the barbarian courts.169 Letters were always brought by envoys and the recipients of diplomatic missions normally first paid their attention to the letters and then started negotiations.170 This order is evident because such types of letters, ›primary‹ in the classification of M. McCormick,171 were the sources of first-hand information addressed directly from one sovereign to another and in a certain sense letters occupied a higher status than consultations with diplomats. It is worth noting, however, that in the diplomatic letters collected in the Variae, it was said several times that the envoys were to transmit »an oral message« (Cass. Var. 8.1.5): »because a letter cannot include everything« (Cass. Var. 10.22.3; also 10.32.4). Very interesting is the evidence given by Procopius, who tells of the Koutigours’ envoys arriving in the presence of Justinian without any letter from their leader because the Huns were illiterate. These ambassadors, as was usual for the most barbarian peoples, explains Procopius, were to tell the message to the emperor orally (Proc. BG 4.19). Within one session of negotiations several letters could be exchanged between rulers: in the case when some matters in the resulting discussion deviated from the original plan, all the changes were to be consulted and approved by the supreme rulers, so additional written communication was needed (e.g. Proc. BP 1.22.11). 167 168 169

Dölger/Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre, 89–91. Dölger/Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 89–94; Lounghis, Diplomacy, 27f. For analysis of the diplomatic correspondence in the Variae see the 5th chapter of the book by A. Gillett: Gillett, Envoys, esp. 172–190. 170 Though B. Paradisi (Paradisi, Storia 182), citing the Carolingian laws, notes that in some cases, because of the fear that the letters could be taken by enemies during the embassy’s voyage, as well as for more vivacity and persuasion in what was to be communicated, ambassadors were to present their message orally. The imperial tradition, however, seems to have relied on letters. See also: Löhren, Beiträge 39. 171 McCormick, Lettre 136.

46

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

Thus, the first method of realizing necessary policy through the means of diplomacy may be called a communicative one, and is characterized by negotiations first of all. A necessary element of the diplomatic ritual was public speaking.172 Oration skills and a mastery of rhetoric were essential and very important qualities for envoys and it was often the case that rhetoricians accompanied ambassadors or they themselves were dispatched with diplomatic missions.173 Libanius is extremely proud of his cousin Spectatus, because his rhetoric was successful during his Persian embassy (Lib. Ep. 331.2–6).174 The text of fragments of the composition by Menander the Guardsman demonstrates the significance of rhetoric in the diplomatic process. Menander often and at length cites the diplomats’ speeches. It is difficult to tell if he invented the texts of the speeches himself or really transmitted the envoys’ discourse175 (as is a problem for speeches in ancient literature in general).176 Perhaps there are reasons to suppose that some of the speeches represent real examples of ambassadorial communications. Menander, upon describing the embassy of Peter the Patrician, which was mainly based on the book written by Peter himself,177 insisted on the accuracy of transmission of Peter’s texts and also on the veracity of the speeches reproduced by Peter. Menander notices, that he had »made no substitutions of vocabulary except that … [he] altered an excessively lowly expression into better Attic« (Men. Prot. 6.2.4–6). Later Menander explained that he »did not wish to change the form of the exact words used which … were transmitted … accurately, nor, by using polished expressions, to communicate the force of the rhetoric rather than what was said« (Men. Prot. 6.2.6–9). He also recommends reading the collected writings of Peter where it »is written precisely what Chosroes and the Roman and Persian envoys said and heard« and where »the exact words of the speakers are reproduced« (Men. Prot. 6.2.12–16). The text by Peter is characterized as »reliable, except that Peter, for the sake of his own reputation, had placed somewhat too much emphasis upon himself in order to appear to posterity as a very effective and convincing speaker …« (Men. Prot. 6.2.22–26). This remark illustrates the degree of veracity of Peter’s book, and specially relates to speeches. Menander explains that he himself has »selected from it what is necessary and … set it down briefly« (Men. Prot. 6.2.32sq.). This detailed clarification by Menander is very important. He underlines that as a basis he had used the text by Peter, which relayed the text of agreements as well as the speeches’ verbatim,178 and Menander did not invent the speeches he provided, but had only 172 173

174 175 176 177 178

Udal’tsova, Diplomatiia 381; Piccirilli, L’invenzione della diplomazia: temi 74–76; Jones, Kinship and Diplomacy 123–131. See: III.1.2; L. R. Cresci’s investigation of the rhetoric and ideological components of Byzantine diplomacy makes an in-depth analysis of the tradition and veracity of the πρεσβευτικοὶ λόγοι in the monographs by Procopius, Agathias and Theophylact Simocatta: Cresci, Diplomazia 112–166. Here and hereafter the letters of Libanius are numbered according to the Teubner edition Libanii Opera [Foer ster]. With an explanation of the scholars’ different versions and investigation: Cresci, Teoria e prassi, 63–96. See for example about speeches in Thucydides: Cresci, Diplomazia 115; Piccirilli, L’invenzione della diplomazia: temi. Bury, Ceremonial Book 212f.; Cameron, Construction 126 and note 40; Vizantiiskie istoriki [Destunis] 214; Grecu, Menander 78–84. The special problem is whether the assurance by the authors of their word-to-word reference of the originals means that they really were representing original texts. The same question arises for

3. Diplomatic interchanges

47

changed their lexicon and adopted them for the aims of his composition, perhaps also under some influence of the tradition of his predecessors, mainly Thucydides.179 On the other hand, even if Menander has not changed much in the text by Peter, the problem of the degree of rhetorical editing of the speeches in Peter’s original text remains. Diplomatic speeches in ancient literature are usually considered mostly to be rhetorical exercises by the authors, and in many cases they probably are.180 In the particular case of Peter/Menander, it is worth noting that initially the speeches were in ›lower‹ language and were changed to the more elevated Attic by Menander (Men. Prot. 6.2.4–6). It is probable that this indication shows that Peter really did include quotations of the real negotiation in his text. I believe, however, that the real diplomatic negotiations comprised different registers of communication: a solemn level for speeches, with ceremonial orations, and a more practical level of speaking when the concrete problems were discussed. Most of the diplomatic speeches that we find in ancient texts refer to the first category and thus, even if they were just the result of literary exercises by the authors, they were probably written according to the traditions of the ambassadorial oration, the Presbeutikos (see further). The ›lower‹ register of Peter’s text mentioned by Menander was probably a rare case of the representation of the second type of the more concrete, ›business-like‹ communication. Important speeches for serious negotiations were probably prepared in advance and thus envoys could posses written versions which could be included in their accounts. It is also quite possible that the course of the talks during a diplomatic mission was fixed in some kind of notes for proceedings, which could become a necessary argument in order to prove some position or statement in following negotiations. This idea may perhaps be proved by the evidence from Theophylact Simocatta: he describes the negotiations between the Romans and the Persians about concluding a truce. The Persian ambassador Mebodes pronounced a speech that was not welcomed by the Romans, and several days later the Persians undertook a second attempt, but without success. The Roman general Philippicus, embarrassed, preferred to address Emperor Maurice and sent to him »the words of the Persians«. The emperor, having read the message, decided to stop the negotiations and resume the war (Theoph. Sim. 1.15.13). It is hard to tell without any doubt how the words of the Persians were fixed; most likely, as can be understood from the text by Theophylact, the emperor received them in the general’s interpretation. But it is also possible that some quotations of the speeches were sent – this would be logical, otherwise Philippicus would be responsible for interpreting the Persians’ initiatives.181 It also seems likely that speeches were prepared in advance and may have been given to the adversary for translation. So, it may be assumed that such texts, together with other ambassadorial documents, could have been among the materials used by authors who described the diplomatic negotiations. 178

scholars of diplomatic correspondence. C. A. Ciancaglini’s investigation of the ›Persian letters‹ in the text by Theophylact Simocatta demonstrates the authenticity of the letters he cited, which derived from the Middle Persian: Ciancaglini, Lettere Persiane 640, 657. 179 About influences over Menander see: Cresci, Teoria e prassi 92f. 180 I am grateful to A. Kaldellis who drew my attention more closely to the examples of the barbarians’ speeches in Procopius’s text – with a great deal of florid rhetoric and classical allusions – they seem to be the result of the historian’s writing rather than real conference talks. 181 Another possibility is that these were simple letters from the Persians.

48

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

It is significant that in the diplomats’ speeches cited by Menander we find several opinions from envoys about the importance of rhetoric. Peter, when speaking before a Persian delegation during peace negotiations in 561/562,182 noted: »if what is naturally just always prevailed, there would be no need of orators or the careful distinctions made by the laws or meetings or complex discussions on these issues« (Men. Prot. 6.1.40–43). Here Peter in fact defines diplomacy as the sum of jurisprudence and rhetoric, emphasizing the particular importance of the latter. He continues: »But since we all consider what we support to be just, debate with its complex argumentation is also necessary. For this reason we have come together in congress, so that each of us, through his skill in argument, might try to persuade the others that his position is reasonable« (Men. Prot. 6.1.43–47). Rhetoric became an argument in achieving justice. The envoy John, who came to Persia after Peter, said in his speech: »Peter, our predecessor as envoy, who recently came to you and settled the details of peace, was able through his eloquence and skill of persuasion to refute the charges …« (Men. Prot. 9.1.59–61). Certainly such discourses by envoys may just be rhetorical figures, but on the other hand, the ability to present the situation in a profitable way, to lead to success in the negotiations, really often depended not only on the will of the ruler, but on the oratorical skill of his envoys. Procopius described the situation of conflict between the Romans and the Persians: Chosroes’s envoys insisted that the war had started because Justinian violated the peace. East Roman diplomats managed to decline these accusations and refute them, proving that the circumstances were totally different and finally an agreement was achieved (Proc. BP 2.10.10–23). In such situations it was essential to deflect the blame from the emperor and, ideally, to show the adversary as an aggressor – thus more profitable agreements could be reached. In negotiations with the Persians, Roman oratorical skill met a strong adversary. The Persian envoy Isdigousnas, in response to the speech of Peter the Patrician, sceptically remarks: »I should have been taken in by your fine words, were you not the Romans and we Persians. Do not imagine that your convoluted arguments hide from us what kind of men you are who have come here, seeking your own advantage« (Men. Prot. 6.1.105–108). The Persians were perfectly aware that treacherous intentions could be hidden beneath the loyal wording. A Persian commander, in response to the proposal of the Roman generals Belisarius and Hermogenes, replied: »I should have been persuaded by what you write, and should have done what you demand, were the letter not, as it happens, from Romans, for whom the making of promises is easy, but the fulfillment of the promises in deed most difficult and beyond hope, especially if you sanction the agreement by any oaths« (Proc. BP 1.14.4sq.). Not only the Persians were well informed about the resourcefulness and insidiousness of Roman diplomacy and policy. The Turkish ruler, indignant with the Roman alliance with the Avars, who had fled from the Turks, accused the Roman diplomats of falsity in their words: »Are not those very Romans who use ten tongues and lie with all of them?« and as he spoke, he placed ten fingers in his mouth. »As now there are ten fingers in my mouth, so you Romans have used many tongues. Sometimes you deceive me, sometimes my slaves … In a word, having flattered and deluded all the tribes with various speeches and your treacherous designs, when harm descends upon their heads you abandon them and take all the benefits for yourselves. Your envoys come to me dressed with lies and he who 182

Averil, Justin I and Justinian.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

49

has sent you deceives me equally« (Men. Prot. 19.1.50–63). Turxanthus183 seems to be angry not only with the actions of the Romans, but even more with the deceitful speeches of the envoys. As it may be seen, the problem of rhetoric was often reflected in the very negotiations themselves. Sometimes it was commonplace in many speeches for the spokesmen to use their oratorical skill in a paradox way. On speaking with Peter, Persian King Chosroes exclaims: »O Roman ambassador, no one should blame me for not knowing the art of persuasion, which would be fair only if I had been nurtured in that wisdom through which you have learned how to prevail with words. However, even I cannot express it in brilliant words, nevertheless, as best I can, I shall set forth clearly what is in my opinion just« (Men. Prot. 6.1.489–494). The remark »is perhaps intentionally disingenuous, since according to Agathias (Agath. 2.28.2) many Romans admired Chosroes for his learning and knowledge of philosophy«.184 The same rhetorical figure is used by ambassador John in negotiations with the Persians: »Although I am not trained to oratory or persuasion …« (Men. Prot. 9.1.62sq.). Almost every big speech performed by diplomats started with pacific rhetoric, emphasizing the absolute value of peace and the horrors of war (e.g. Men. Prot. 6.1.34–36; Proc. BP 1.16.2; Theoph. Sim. 1.15.3–10). Similar rhetoric was used also in diplomatic correspondence (Proc. BP 1.14.1; Proc. BP 2.4.17–19).185 Evidently such peaceful rhetoric was a necessary part of standard diplomatic speech in peace negotiations. Perhaps training was given for such speeches at oratorical schools.186 Thus in the 3rd-century handbook on rhetoric one finds recommendations for the ambassador’s speech, the presbeutikos (Men. Rhet. 2.13.423.6–424.2).187 3.1.3 Rules respected and not When an agreement was reached and a treaty was signed it was customary for the sides to swear to maintain and follow the contract. Each side did it according to their national traditions. Priscus described how after concluding the Peace of Margus:188 »The Romans and the Huns made a treaty, having sworn their native oaths, they returned each to their own country« (Prisc. 2.38–40). Procopius tells of the Tzanic nation, to whom the »Roman emperor sent … each year a fixed amount of gold, with the condition that they should never plunder the country thereabout. And the barbarians had sworn to observe this agreement with the oaths peculiar to their nation, and then, disregarding what they had sworn, they had been accustomed for a long time to make unexpected attacks« (Proc. BP 1.15.22sq.). Later the barbarians broke the oaths and promises they had made and the Roman envoys pointed out that thus the barbar183 184 185

Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 328. The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 259, note 74. Official diplomatic letters and speeches seem to have been composed according to common principles, but this theme deserves a special study. 186 Cresci, Eredità 89. 187 Menander Rhetor [Russell/Wilson], treatise II, 13,180sq.; Matthews, Empire 385, note 5; Wooten, Ambassador’s Speech. 188 The first treaty that was concluded between Attila (and Bleda) and the Empire in 434 (435) or after 438, after the death of the previous Hun king Rua. See: Thompson, History 216.

50

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

ians had betrayed their own gods (Theoph. Sim. 1.5.10). The Persians and the Avars had a custom to swear on salt. Procopius tells how Persian Shah Perozes swore not to break peace with the Ephthalitae, but later »disregarding the oath he had sworn, he was eager to avenge himself upon the Huns« (Proc. BP 1.4.1). When organizing the defence, the king of the Ephthalitae invented a trick to overcome the Persians and, upon starting the operations »he hung from the top of the royal banner the salt over which Perozes had once sworn the oath which he had disregarded in taking the field against the Huns« (Proc. BP 1.4.9). The Persian manner to swear on salt is confirmed by other sources. As noticed by the scholars, salt was a symbol of friendship and hospitality among many peoples. The Armenians, for example, accompanied a pledge with an oath which was symbolically represented by salt.189 Upon blaming the Romans for breaking the peace, the Avar envoy exclaimed that the salt of the agreements was washed away (Theoph. Sim. 6.6.7). Diplomats could give each other oaths to guarantee actions and these oaths were not necessarily mentioned in treaties. Thus, the Persian ambassador Isdigousnas »swore by the usual Persian oath« to support his Roman colleague, diplomat Peter the Patrician, in his future negotiations with the Persian shah (Men. Prot. 6.1.285–287). Evidence from Menander shows that the text of oaths, common for both sides, could have been included in the text of a treaty. Article 12 of the Roman-Persian peace contract of 561/562 contained imprecations to the gods and damnations to those who broke them (Men. Prot. 6.1.384–389). As was noticed by K. Güterbock, this clause was worded in such a way as to be acceptable both to the Christian Romans and the Zoroastrian Persians.190 The idea that by breaking the treaty the adversary violated not only human promises, but also oaths given before God/the gods, was often used by envoys in their rhetoric (Proc. BP 1.14.7–10; 2.4.25; Men. Prot. 25.2; Theoph. Sim. 1.5.1; 6.6.7). The oaths and agreements, according to which the diplomatic process should have functioned, sometimes got violated. Sources provide information that the envoys’ rights were violated rather often during their missions, and they were treated badly by the receiving side, in spite of all the international laws concerning diplomatic immunity.191 In some situations, on the contrary, the actions of the envoys themselves did not correspond with rules and expectations and they were accused of so-called παραπρεσβεία – faithless or dishonest embassy, the term already used in Ancient Greece.192 Such a case is described by Menander in connection with the mission of John son of Domnentiolus to Justin II (Men. Prot. 9.1sq.). John did not manage to deny the provocative offer of Chosroes and agreed to an ambiguous proposal to send delegates to the Suani, who rejected it. As Menander characterizes John’s behaviour, »he gave insufficient thought to 189

Adonz, Armeniia 469, note 3; A. A. Chekalova, Commentary to Proc. BP 1.4.9, in: Prokopii Kesariiskii [Chekalova] 461, note 30. 190 Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien 258, note 64. 191 See: I.4, III.3.3. There is a very interesting article on this matter by Corey T. Brennan, who attracts attention to the problem of »embassies gone wrong«, analysing different cases, and the reasons and circumstances of the failure of diplomatic missions mostly in Republican times. Though the author explores the earlier epoch, his study is mostly based on the evidence from the Excerpta de legationibus, which provides an important analogy for the current work. See: Brennan, Embassies gone wrong. 192 Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1322, s.v. παραπρεσβεία, with references to the texts.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

51

the views of the emperor and acted very unwisely« (Men. Prot. 9.1.108–110). When John’s embassy was over and he returned to Constantinople, the emperor was enraged with his envoy: »He judged that John had failed in his mission, since he had acted contrary to the good of the state. For, Justin said, he should have sent no one since the emperor had not ordered him to do this, and as a result of his actions he had given the Persians an opportunity to veil their unjust behavior and to claim that the Suani themselves rejected the Roman Empire« (Men. Prot. 9.2.3–9). Because of this, the emperor »despised John and classed him as an incompetent« (Men. Prot. 9.2.12sq.). It is very significant that the diplomat’s main blame was not just for his wrong actions, but his personal initiative and deviation from the instructions that he had been given. All the logic of Late Antique diplomacy was formally wholly concentrated on the figure of emperor and his personal involvement and regulation of the whole diplomatic process. Therefore, one can presume that any independent action taken by diplomats outside their embassy brief could have fallen into the category of παραπρεσβεία, but naturally it was punished in the case of a failure. A similar matter is described by Ammianus Marcellinus: two envoys were dispatched to negotiate with the Persians. Ammianus noted that the embassy acted firmly and boldly, but was blamed for accepting a Persian offer which was not directed by their instructions (Amm. 30.2.4). Perhaps this case was also classified as a kind of παραπρεσβεία.193 3.1.4 Subsidies, gifts and titles Among the diplomatic methods as opposed to military ways of solving international problems, the method of paying subsidies may be ranked among the most important. This theme could be split into several aspects. Paying subsidies, i.e. a tribute which the Roman Empire used to give to surrounding peoples, first of all to protect itself from their aggression. R. Blockley distinguished two types of such payments: 1. as a reward for loyal behaviour or military help; 2. payment for loyal behaviour. The first case is understood as a reflection of power and the second – of weakness.194 There are many terms which were used to define various types of payments. As is noted by J. Iluk in his paper, there intentionally existed no fixed term devoted to the problem of the export of gold to the barbarians. Every time a contribution was paid a correct and considerably neutral ›diplomatic‹ name was found.195 The main aspect which defined the character of payments was their regularity. Sums paid regularly according to an agreement were considered a tribute and money which was paid from time to time tended to be attributed as a present.196 The regularity of payments implies a state of certain dependency, whereas gifts were more neutral in this context. Such regularity was perhaps the most essential indication of the status of the payments, as described by our sources, though we must take into account their possible tendentious193

About this passage by Ammianus see: Chrysos, Aspects 38–40; Blockley, Division 227; for further references and discussion: Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 155 and note 116. 194 Blockley, Subsidies 62; see for a more broad categorization of the six categories identified: Blockley, Foreign Policy 149–151; another classification, depending on the time and circumstances, is offered by Iluk, Aspects 79. 195 Iluk, Export 81. The following terms were most often used for the subsidies: φόρος (Proc. BP 1.4; 2.10.22; Men. Prot. 21), δασμός (Proc. Aed. 6.2.21), εἰσφορά (Zos. 4.10), μισθός (Olymp. 7.2; Agath. 3.15.20;), λύτρον (Malch. 6.2; Proc. BP 2.7.1), τέλος (Prisc. 2). 196 Iluk, Aspects 78; for a discussion of this problem: Heather/Matthews, Goths 21, note 30.

52

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

ness and rhetoric. The accents in this rhetoric depended on the author’s position. If they were pro-emperor, defending the policy of the empire, they tended to underline that the money and values distributed were not paid regularly to the Persians or barbarians, but were presented on a free-will basis, either as a salary for defending the borders of the empire as mercenaries (Theoph. Sim. 3.9.4; Proc. BP 2.10.22sq.), or as a sign of a ruler’s extreme generosity and magnanimity (Men. Prot. 12.6). In the case when our sources were for some reason inclined to oppose the policy of the ruling sovereign within the traditions of Kaiserkritik, or, more often, criticized the policy of previous emperors, they emphasized that money was given regularly, annually, as a tribute, putting the Roman state in a dependent position and the emperor in a situation of ›slavery‹ (Prisc. 9.3; 15.2; Proc. BP 2.10.22sq., BG 4.15.7–17; Men. Prot. 6.1.288–303; 522–528; 9.1.75–90) so that the barbarians became owners of Roman wealth (Proc. Anecd 19.13; 30.32sq.). An important aspect of these arguments concerned the problem whether the subsidies were paid on a regular basis according to a treaty, or voluntarily as a gift, and its connection or not with the actual emperor himself and the obligation or not to resume the payments after his death (Men. Prot. 9.1.75–90; 12.6sq.; 23.9.99–101; 27.3; Theoph. Sim. 1.8.1; Prisc. 23.3.9–12). The payments were often given at the imperial court, where the emissaries of the barbarian chiefs used to come to receive them under the control of the comes sacrarum largitionum. In some cases imperial gold could also have been transported to the point of destination by a special person (ἀγγελιαφόρος; Men. Prot. 6.1.295), sent by the emperor.197 Gold, counted in kentanarion, could have been transported in bags, bearing the name comitis sacrarum largitionum. The barbarians may also have received gold in ingots which, with the same inscription, have been discovered from time to time in the territory of Barbaricum.198 In the 5th century, the Goths and the Huns were the main addressees of imperial gold, while during the first half of the 6th century it was mostly the Persians. J. Iluk provides an analysis of the sums that were paid by the empire. The calculations are approximate, because gold was not paid in the regular way and the information we have from the sources is limited. The Huns in the period from 433 to 474 (the sources only allow us to judge approximately these years) received from the empire about 53,950lbs of gold, the Ostrogoths in the period of 450–491– at least 16,461lbs of gold and 40,000lbs of silver. The Visigoths were sent about 900lbs of gold and 30,000lbs of silver.199 Under Zeno important sums of gold were destined to the Isaurians and a special tax ἰσαυρικὰ was introduced; during the 17 years of Zeno’s reign probably 25,500lbs of gold or 85,500lbs of silver were paid to the Isaurians.200 The Persians in the 6th century, in the period from 517 to 578, received at least 67,900lbs of gold and 6,000lbs of silver from the empire, in the form of regular imperial payments and the compensations which the cities were obliged to pay in order not to be plundered during military conflicts. The Avars in the second half of the 6th century seem to have received about 41,944lbs of gold from the empire. The most important question, notes J. Iluk, is, however, what the relation was between subsidies paid and income and the state 197 198 199 200

Iluk, Aspects 79. Iluk, Aspects 81 and note 29 with references to the literature. Iluk, Aspects 82–87, with tables. Iluk, Aspects 84, 86 and notes 50, 51 with a comparison of the more and less reliable sources concerning the sums of these payments.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

53

of the imperial treasury. In his opinion these payments were just a very small part of the treasury’s expenses. J. Iluk defines these payments as »an economic way of protection against the military conflicts« and underlines that the diplomacy of the empire did not allow for a drastic growth in the subsidies, which remained at a more or less stable sum, in spite of changes in the political situation and modifications in the balance of power. The level of expenses, according to J. Iluk, could satisfy the emperor and the comes of the imperial largesse, since for 350, 500 or 1,000lbs of gold it was possible to guarantee certain peace on the frontiers and to avoid organizing very expensive military expeditions. Thus, Leo’s tribute to guarantee peace with the Vandals cost 65,000lbs of gold and 700,000lbs of silver. The tributes were no more than a small charge in comparison with the expenses for the army. The comparison with treasury income is even more eloquent: under Honorius the annual income of the state was about 305,555lbs of gold and the tribute paid to the Huns in this period was about 350lbs of gold, that is, one thousandth of the imperial income. The book by J. Iluk demonstrates that the imperial treasury’s wealth of precious metals at the end of the 5th – beginning of the 6th centuries shows that the tributes paid did not represent any danger for the finances of the state. The private storage of gold and the accumulation of precious metals by the church could weaken the imperial economy in the same, or in an even more serious way than tributes. In the author’s opinion the rhetoric of Procopius in which he blames Justinian for paying too large sums to the barbarians is an exaggeration.201 Rather often our sources speak about these payments ruining the empire. The real matter of the problem seems to have been exaggerated. This aspect can be perceived as principal and crucial for Late Antique diplomacy and its rhetoric on the question of subsidies: since it is considered that »the tributes paid out to the barbarians did not directly threaten the financial state of the Empire«,202 particular attention to this subject and its use in argumentation by rulers, their diplomats and authors pertained more to the sphere of rhetoric and self-positioning in policy and diplomacy, rather than reflecting the real cost of the problem. Paying tributes, distributing subsidies and giving gifts should be associated with questions of status and prestige rather than considered an economic element of imperial policy. The subject which perhaps still deserves special analysis is the rhetoric, prestige and status of the subsidies problem and its role in the empire’s policy and diplomacy in correlation with the real economic meaning of the payments and gifts. The distribution of diplomatic gifts had a special meaning within the structure of Late Antique diplomacy, since it was not only a formal part of the necessary protocol and ceremonies of international communication, but was also a method of influencing the position and conduct of a partner/adversary, and hence held particular significance in terms of status.203 A special way of influencing the barbarians and involving them in the imperial system of values and hierarchy was the distribution of honour titles and ranks. It was common prac201 202 203

Iluk, Aspects 85f. with note 61, 87. Iluk, Export 97; see also on the subject: Korsunskii/Günter, Upadok i gibel’ 108. See: IV; Besides regular payments and tributes, the empire often used methods of ›economic stimulation‹ to win over or win back allies or to spark a fight between adversaries (Proc. BG 4.11.25; BP 2.1.1; Men. Prot. 18.5; 22; 24; Malch. 18.2; Agath. 1.21; 5.23sq.).

54

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

tice of the Later Roman Empire to give different military and civil titles and offices among the barbarian rulers, thus making them part of imperial system of offices and combining their national royal authority with the concept of service to the emperor and securing strict subordination. The practice was very widespread and marked a high honour. Including the barbarians in the imperial hierarchy was at the same time a sign of evident dependence, because the rulers of different barbarian peoples did not receive royal status204 from the empire but a status denoting military or civil service.205 This subject has been investigated by scholars from various angles206 and cannot be looked into here due to the limits of the preset study.207 3.1.5 Persons A traditional means of spreading the empire’s influence and at the same time of controlling that the sides observed agreements was to hold hostages. For Roman diplomacy hostages were first of all the sons of different barbarian rulers and nobility who spent a long time in the empire as host-guests.208 In the Late Antique period this tradition continued.209 Such distinguished hostages served »as important pledges of the continued permanence of peace« (Amm. 28.2.6). Some very interesting evidence on the choice of persons to be hostages is provided by Menander: Tiberius, not yet emperor, was a magister of the army of Justin II and as such conducted the peace negotiations with the Avars. It was agreed that the Romans should receive »the sons of their leading men as hostages« (Men. Prot. 15.1.7),210 but the emperor insisted on receiving of »some of the sons of the Avar leader as hostages« (Men. Prot. 15.1.11sq.).211 Tiberius’s argument is very significant – if the hostages were the sons of the leading men, even in case that the khagan should wish to break the agreements, the fathers of the hostages would not let him. Justin’s claim seems to be more formal and relate to status, whereas the initiative of Tiberius is probably more practical and secure: even

204 205 206

207

208 209

210 211

See about this aspect: Chrysos, Basileus 29–75. See about this dichotomy and concrete examples of the distribution of various titles: Bréhier, Institutions 241f. See e.g.: Chrysos, Byzantine diplomacy, with other historiographical references; Lounghis, Ambassades 1–117; Roberto, Socrate; Goffart, Barbarian tides 119–186; Cameron, Mediterranean World 33–56; Luttwak, Strategy Byzantine Empire 113; Barlow, Kinship. The same may be said about another method of spreading the influence of the Roman and later Byzantine Empire – missionary activities by the Christian church and the diffusion of Christianity among imperial subordinates, partners and adversaries. The baptism of barbarian rulers was definitely often used as an instrument of the empire’s influence. About the subject see e.g.: Ivanov,  Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo 376 with references to the literature on the subject. The traditions of the Roman system of hostage-taking and its importance as a feature of client kinship is investigated by D. Braund: Braund, Friendly King 12–16. See for the term, as well as the phenomenon: Allen, Hostages 67–94; Scardigli, Ostaggi 121– 136, with a very full bibliography (137–143). E.g.: with the Allemanni (Amm. 16.12.23; 28.2.6); the Sarmatians (Amm. 17.12.11–16); the Quadi (Zos. 3.7.7); the Moors (Amm. 29.5.11; Proc. BV 1.25.4; 2.8.9–11); the Goths (Zos. 4.26.1–9; Jord. Get. 271; 281); the Vandals (Proc. BV 1.4.12–15); and the Avars (Men. Prot. 15.1). Σφίσιν ἀρχόντων λήψονται τοὺς παῖδας ὁμηρεύσοντας. Τοῦ Ἀβάρων ἡγουμένου λάβοι τῶν παίδων τινὰς ἐς ὁμήρους.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

55

if for any reason the khagan did not have power, it would be possible to control ›the top‹ and therefore have influence over a new ruler.212 The practice aimed not only to secure treaties, but also to promote Roman interests and influence.213 The very act of giving/receiving hostages certainly also had a symbolic significance, emphasizing the dependent status of the side which was giving hostages to Rome.214 On the other hand, it is important to note that the vector of development of the barbarian kingdoms was orientated towards ›adapting‹ itself up to the standards of the empire. As such, sending hostages to the empire was also perceived as a kind of honourable obligation, which could raise their status215 (a clear example is the case of Theodericus the Great).216 While the real importance of the institution of hostage-taking for guaranteeing treaties may not always be evident,217 it was without doubt an instrument of influence and a way of romanizing the empire’s partners/adversaries. In some situations the Roman Empire itself acted as the side giving hostages, which put it, in some senses, in a subordinate position to the hostages’ recipients. Of special significance in the context of the practice of giving and taking hostages in Late Antiquity is an example from Fl. Aetius. He spent three years as a hostage with the Visigoth Alaricus (Greg. Tur. HF 2.8), was demanded again by Alaricus, but was not given (Zos. 5.36–45), and later was a hostage with the Huns (Greg. Tur. HF 2.8). Aetius’s son Carpilio was also a hostage with the Huns (Prisc. 11.2.193). These cases are probably characteristic of the situation of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century and the reduction of its status. According to A. D. Lee, special rules were applied to the norms for the exchange of hostages in Roman-Persian relations: hostages were only given (and exchanged) for short periods to guarantee a truce or intentions to conclude a peace treaty and there were no longterm hostage exchanges between Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity.218 In some cases, however, this scheme (with the Romans exchanging, giving or taking hostages during a truce or negotiations) was used also in relations with the barbarians, especially with the Goths (Amm. 31.12.14–16; Malch. 20.146; Proc. BG 2.7.13). It is probably not so important that we find this method applied with the Goths – this may be due to the nature of our sources – but it seems significant that the examples are from the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, so the practice seems rather stable and not exclusively Roman-Persian. Belonging to a separate group is the evidence of how the Roman side used to take hostages from cities or ter212 213 214 215

216 217 218

The hostage tactics, however, were not always successful: in some cases the barbarians acted »taking no account of their hostages« (Men. Prot. 18.5; cf. Proc. BV 2.8.9). Aymard, Otages 136–142; see also in general: Matthews, Hostages. Lee, Hostages 366. When the highborn hostages returned home they could find themselves beyond the traditions, culture and the way of life of their people. Yet this still did not provoke serious conflicts (at least not for this reason). In the epoch under examination, especially in the 5th and 6th centuries, it seems the gulf with the world of the barbarians, surrounding the Roman Empire, and even becoming a part of it, was not enormously wide. See about the subject: Shepard, Manners maketh Romans? 138–141. See for the possibility of hostages suffering retributions when the terms were broken: Lee, Hostages 366. The problem is analysed in particular by A. D. Lee in his article: Lee, Hostages.

56

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

ritories during military actions as a guarantee of an alliance’s reliability and a pledge that they would not pass to the enemy side or capitulate.219 So, in general we can distinguish two types of using hostages in foreign policy and diplomacy: the complex cultural phenomenon of long-term hostages and hostages exchanged within the paradigm of a short stay to guarantee concrete agreements or the security of the diplomats during their mission.220 An important matter which can also be included in the list of diplomacy methods is matrimonial diplomacy. Roman-barbarian marriages can be regarded as a means of realizing some policy and was a process which actively stimulated Roman-barbarian communication and mutual influence. Nevertheless, it is perhaps not to be perceived, at least for the period of Late Antiquity, as a part of the diplomacy system. It seems it was more a method applied ad hoc, varying in its principles in different circumstances and it was much more widespread in the Western part of the Empire. The phenomenon of Roman-barbarian marriages in Late Antiquity has been studied in particular by R. C. Blockley, who provided his article with an enumeration and analysis of actual cases of marriage,221 and by other scholars.222 3.2 Secret interchanges Besides regulated official diplomacy, East Roman politics did not rarely use undercover methods and ways of solving complex international problems. 3.2.1 Secret negotiations Among the other methods which were applied by clandestine diplomacy in the sphere of international communication we should also include the holding of secret negotiations. Spying activities by embassies were an important part of the empire’s intelligence system and in some aspects can also be referred to as a method of diplomacy.223 Clandestine diplomacy rather often used the method of secret negotiations. A series of such negotiations is mentioned by Procopius in his Gothic Wars. Justinian several times dispatched diplomats to Italy with tasks to carry out official negotiations on certain questions, and at the same time in secret talks to solve problems of the Eastern Roman Empire annexing Italian territories. With such an embassy, under the cover of negotiations about Lilybaeum, envoy Alexander was sent to Amalasuintha, who in private talks with him had to speak about her plans to leave Italy, thus giving the territory to the East Romans (Proc. BG 1.3.13–28). Later 219 220 221 222

E.g. Agath. 1.12; 1.18.5; 4.15.1–3; 4.20.8–10. II.2.3. Blockley, Marriages 63–77. Παναγοπούλου, Διπλωματικοί γάμοι; Sivan, Appropriation; the model of familial diplomacy also extended into adoptions. The form of adoptio per arma was a rather ancient traditional practice, especially in relations between the Romans and Germans. It was continued in the Late Antique period in relations of the empire with the barbarians. See e.g.: Bréhier, Institutions 240; Blockley, Marriages 73; applying the practice to relations with the Persians proved to be impossible – see: Christensen, L’Iran 355; Pieler, Adoption 399–433. 223 See: III.4.3; with a note on Nechaeva, Les activités secrètes.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

57

Peter went to the Goths with preliminary instructions to meet secretly with Theodahad224 to agree with him about Etruria and then to also talk secretly with Amalasuintha to conclude a treaty about Italy (Proc. BG 1.4.17sq.). Peter did not manage to meet Amalasuintha, but he held secret talks with Theodahad (Proc. BG 1.6.1–13).225 Envoys with secret missions were also dispatched by the Goths. A Gothic embassy, according to Procopius, arrived to Belisarius with the clandestine aim of offering for the general to become an emperor of the Italians, and the negotiations took place (Proc. BG 2.29.18–28). There were several more secret talks between the Byzantines and the Goths, which all could be united under the slogan ›peace and lands in exchange for ranks and titles‹ (Proc. BG 1.3.28–30; 1.6.19–22; 3.2.15sq.). Secret negotiation methods were used also in relations with Persia. Menander informs of peace negotiations between the two powers. When in 577 the official negotiations led by the diplomats Zacharias226 and Mebodes reached a deadlock, the men »conferred together in private« (Men. Prot. 20.2.110). The main subject of negotiations was the city of Dara, which the Romans wanted to return to the empire. During these talks Zacharias »asked whether it were possible to hand over an agreed sum of gold for the city of Dara in absolute secrecy and with the knowledge of no one. Zacharias asked this confidentially and on instruction from Caesar, and no one else was privy to this approach except for Maurice the son of Paul, who was especially well-disposed towards the Caesar and on this occasion acted as imperial secretary, so that, to protect the secrecy of the Caesar’s plan, the instructions were not even written out by the imperial scribes« (Men. Prot. 20.2.118–125). The Persian envoy refused to conclude such an agreement, giving his lack of authorization as the motivation (Men. Prot. 20.2.128–131). It is worth noting that the level of secrecy in which the clandestine plan was kept was very high, which was emphasized by Zacharias. Perhaps many envoys received ›double‹ instructions for their missions – for official sessions and for clandestine ones. Official talks had to be led according to protocol and most likely the course of negotiations was fixed; secret meetings, on the contrary, were held ›behind closed doors‹, with the participation of the envoys alone, maybe with interpreters, and the content of their speeches was hardly ever written down. 3.2.2 Plots First of all, the tactics of plots should be placed in this sphere. A. D. Lee argues that the increasing number of cases of the abduction and assassination of problematic rulers in Late Antiquity was due to the difficult geopolitical circumstances, when the Roman emperors »could no longer take for granted their military superiority« and thus »had to rely to a greater degree on diplomacy« and not rarely on its »clandestine face«.227 Conspiring appeared to be a solution in cases when the legitimate means were exhausted and the situation demanded decisive action. 224

PLRE-II, 1067f., s.v. Theodahad; Evans, Age of Justinian 138; Krautschick, Cassiodor 92f.; Meyer-Flügel, Bild 110–115; Vitiello, Momenti 123f. 225 See: Kaldellis, Procopius 107–113; Wolfram, Goten 484f. 226 PLRE-IIIB, 1411f., s.v. Zacharias. 227 Lee, Abduction 1–4.

58

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

Perhaps the most famous plan of a plot – against Attila – was made during the reign of Theodosius II,228 maybe on the initiative of his chamberlain. The conspiracy began when in 449 the Hun diplomats arrived in Constantinople with their routine claims, which also included the concession to the Huns of a considerable part of the Roman territory (Prisc. 11.5–18). Perhaps these territorial demands together with the threat of another raid made the East Roman court search for a new solution to the crucial problem. According to Priscus, the emperor’s chamberlain Chrysaphius229 tried to persuade one of the Hun diplomats, Edeco,230 »to disregard Scythian interests and work for those of the Romans« (Prisc. 11.1.28sq.) and to assist in organizing the plot to kill Attila (Prisc. 11.1.28–56).231 Edeco behaved as if he had agreed to the mission, telling the Romans that it would not be not too hard and expensive to kill Attila. His sincerity is doubtful, as at the first chance he announced the plan to Attila (Prisc. 11.2.126–131). In the case of an outright refusal to the Romans, however, his safety would have been in serious danger. Thus the Roman attempt to use Edeco as a ›double agent‹ ended in a fiasco, because he preferred not to betray Attila, leading a triple game. It was an interpreter, Vigilas, who was included in the plot on the Roman side. It seems very significant that the official head of the delegation, Maximinus, was not informed, at least as Priscus positioned it, about the real purpose of his embassy. As a chief envoy he was just to give the emperor’s letter to Attila and to tell him that it was impossible to dispatch with the embassy persons of the high dignity which were demanded by Attila. There could have been different reasons not to send to Attila high dignitaries (see more about the problem of envoys’ dignity: III.1.1), but, as was supposed by E. Thompson, among these reasons could have been Theodosius’s fear that in such a dangerous situation his envoys would not return home alive.232 Thus, one may conclude that the emperor and his master of offices were ready to risk the lives of Maximinus and Priscus, who accompanied the head of the delegation, if the plot did not have a successful outcome. The plot was not realized, because Edeco revealed everything to Attila. Priscus, who personally participated in the embassy, provided a detailed description of the envoys’ adventures and the circumstances of their journey (Prisc. 11.2–15.2). The problem of the veracity and objectivity of Priscus’s account is certainly very important and complex. In general, evidence from Priscus is considered to be trustworthy.233 That the story of a clandestine plot was published may appear strange, but it was most likely connected with the political conjuncture at the time of the publication of his work, when the account of an unsuccessful plot could have become an argument to corrupt the image of Theodosius II. The plan to eliminate Attila was not the only incident of that kind. Olympiodorus, whose history Priscus was perhaps continuing, also mentioned in his work an embassy to the Huns in which he took part. The historian wrote that the Hun leader234 »Donatus235 was 228 229 230 231 232 233 234

Wirth, Attila 80f. PLRE-II, 295–297, s.v. Chrysaphius. PLRE-II, 385f., s.v. Edeco. Whitby, Balkans 705. Thompson, History 102. Gindin/Ivanchik, Prisk Paniiskii 86–96. See about his possible status: Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns 73, 432, which points out that Photius did not say that Donatus was a Hunnic king and supposes, mainly from the name, that he could have been a renegade. The same opinion: Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 714; R. C.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

59

deceived by an oath and wickedly killed, how Charaton,236 the first of the kings, flared up with rage at the murder and how he was calmed down and pacified with imperial gifts«, which were brought by the embassy (Olymp. 19.4–8).237 It seems possible that the mention of the murder of Donatus and some deception around it can be regarded as evidence that the assassination occurred not without the initiative of the imperial diplomats.238 The rage of Charaton and the very fact that it was the diplomats who appeased this anger with presents gives rise to such an assumption. Unfortunately we only possess a short fragment of his text, which does not enable us to reconstruct the whole picture and circumstances of the event.239 It is even hard to say where the embassy arrived from – Ravenna or Constantinople240 – if the assumption of a plot is correct, one could speculate that such methods were used mostly by the Eastern Empire. A. D. Lee lists and analyses seven more cases (often successful) of »clandestine attempts to neutralize troublesome foreign rulers« in the 4th and early 5th centuries.241 There is also rather intricate evidence from the sources concerning the death of the Gothic ruler Athanaricus, which is not included by Lee in his catalogue.242 234 235 236 237 238

239 240 241

242

Blockley suggests that Donatus »was some kind of leader among the Huns«: FCHLRE, commentary to Olympiodorus, 216, note 49. PLRE-II, 376, s.v. Donatus 2. PLRE-II, 283, s.v. Charaton. On the date of the embassy, probably between 408 and 411, see the opinion of Olimpiodor Fivanskii [Skrzhinskaia/Shuvalov] 33, 36. Skrzhinskaia, Olimpiodor 253; Cameron, Wandering Poets 497; Matthews, Olympiodorus 79f. The view is not supported by R. Blockley: FCHLRE, commentary to Olympiodorus, 216, note 49. Of interest is the version by W. Treadgold: »Olympiodus was sent both to the Huns and to Donatus, perhaps with instructions to persuade Donatus to return to imperial service in exchange for a sworn promise of immunity that Donatus accepted. Nonetheless, someone else on the embassy seems to have violated the oath and had Donatus killed, acting on orders of which Olympiodorus disapproved and perhaps had no advance knowledge. He then had to use the gift sent with him by the emperor to calm Charaton’s indignation at the treacherous murder of a man who had been living under royal protection. Charaton held the Romans responsible for the murder, and the summary implies that he was right to do so« (Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 714). The problem is that the text is so fragmented that nothing can really be proved. See also: Lee, Abduction 10. See for this discussion: Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 713; Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns 27, 163, note 17). Against: the Alemannic chiefs with the help of one of them, Hortarius, in 359 (unsuccessful; Amm. 18.2.13); the Alemannic leader Vadomarius in 361 (arrested; Amm. 21.4); Vadomarius’s son, the Alemannic leader Vithicabius, towards the end of the 360s (killed at the instigation of the Romans; Amm. 27.10.3sq.; 29.7.7); the Alemannic leader Macrianus in 372 (abduction attempt; Amm. 29.4); the Quadi chief Gabinius in 374 (assassinated during a banquet with a Roman commander; Amm. 29.6; Zos. 4.16.4); Armenian King Pap (Papa) in 374 (assassinated during a banquet with a Roman commander; Amm. 30.2.18–23); Gothic leader Alavivus (together with Fritigern) in 377 (probably an assassination attempt; Amm. 31.5.5). Lee, Abduction 5–10, with references to the bibliography on the problem. The Gothic ruler had a meeting with Theodosius I and even visited Constantinople in 381 (Jord. Get. 141sq.), where he suddenly died, and was buried with great honours (Jord. Get. 144). Themistius, praising the emperor, positioned the episode as a demonstration of Theodosius’s love of mankind, which could subdue a hostile barbarian who remained implacable when attacked by Roman armies (Them. Or. 15; see: Heather, Goths and Romans 167). Jordanes cites the following words by Athanaricus: »Truly the Emperor is a god on earth, and who raises a hand against him is guilty

60

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

Most probably in the times of Justinian the tactics of solving various problems by means of plots continued to exist. In his Secret History Procopius recounted that the famous diplomat Peter the Patrician was sent to Italy as an envoy, but with a clandestine purpose to kill the Gothic queen Amalasuintha.243 Procopius ascribed the initiative of the plot to Empress Theodora. The historian informs that Peter, having arrived in Italy, persuaded Theodahad to kill Amalasuintha and was rewarded with the post of master of offices (Proc. Anecd. 16.2–6).244 It is important to note that in the Gothic wars Procopius drew a different picture of events. According to this version, Peter had to meet Theodahad secretly and to conclude with him an agreement about Etruria, which the Gothic leader, in exchange for some benefits, was to give to the Romans.245 After that Peter was charged with organizing a clandestine meeting with Amalasuintha and, using all his diplomatic skills, to agree with her about Italy in a way profitable for both. This plan, however, was never realized, because when Peter was on his way, he received news that Amalasuintha had been dethroned and her place taken by Theodahad. Then Peter received new instructions from the emperor – to openly demonstrate his care about the fate of Amalasuintha. When Peter reached Italy the ex-queen had already been killed (according to Procopius, by the relatives of the Goths whom she had executed) and Peter, having blamed Theodahad for the crime, giving casus 242

of his own blood« (Jord. Get. 143). Perhaps this phrase gives a hint of the presumption that it was not a natural decease. Several authors mentioned Athanaricus’s death in Constantinople. Ammianus Marcellinus reported that Athanaricus was exiled from his native lands and came to Constantinople, where he died fatally (fatali sorte decessit; Amm. 27.5.10). Paulus Orosius mentioned the treaty concluded between Theodosius and the Gothic ruler, after the signing of which the Goth arrived in the Roman capital and immediately died (Oros. 7.34.6sq.). Socrates Scholasticus also wrote that Athanaricus died soon after coming to Constantinople (Soc. 5.10). Some more details about the circumstances of his exile are provided by Zosimus, who also mentioned sudden death and a rich funeral (Zos. 4.34). Comes’s Marcellinus evidence about Athanaricus’s death is very brief (Marcell. com. s.a. 382.2; for his dependence from Orosius – see: Croke, Count Marcellinus 199). In the Chronicle by Prosper of Aquitaine it is remarked that Athanaricus was killed on the fifteenth day after he was received in Constantinople (Prosp. Tiro s.a. 382). It was not coincidental that Athanaricus escaped to Constantinople. Perhaps he was ejected by his adversaries, as mentioned by Zosimus (Zos. 4.34), because of his possible connection with the imperial court. One may suppose that a certain dissent happened among the Gothic ruling nobility and Athanaricus, if it was he who concluded treaties with Gratianus and Theodosius and received »gratia and gifts« (Jord. Get. 141), so he found himself in isolation among the Goths. Maybe, having lost his influence over the Goths, he was no longer important for Theodosius and could have even impeded him and thus, perhaps, was killed (on the contrary, in his commentary to Zosimus, F. Paschoud remarks that the warm reception and magnificent funerals must have derived from the calculation of the emperor who, being unable to defeat the Goths, wanted to gain their support, impressing the barbarians and making them believe that all the problems had been solved: Zosime [Paschoud], 408f., note 167). Rich and gala funerals could have been organized with the intention to make a positive impression on the Goths who followed Athanaricus and who, according to Jordanes, remained at the service of Emperor Theodosius, staggered by the abundance of luxury (Jord. Get. 145). Certainly the version of Athanaricus’s organized murder in Constantinople is very hypothetical, but perhaps not absolutely impossible, especially taking into consideration the evidence by Prosper Tiro and in the light of all the other plots of Late Antiquity. 243 PLRE-II, 65, s.v. Amalasuintha; Bleckmann, Reichskrise 412f. 244 For doubts about the existence of this plot see: Wolfram, Goten 485. 245 See about the episode and on the chronology of the events: Baynes, Justinian and Amalasuntha 71–73.

3. Diplomatic interchanges

61

belli, officially proclaimed war on behalf of the emperor (Proc. BG 1.4.30).246 Thus Procopius provides two versions of the events, and notes in his Secret History that in his previous accounts, »it was impossible … to inform my readers of the truth, for fear of the Empress« (Proc. Anecd. 16.3). It seems likely that in the Secret History, though one must be aware of a certain tendentiousness in this work, we find the version closer to reality. The scenario in which the initiative to eliminate Amalasuintha belonged to the Romans and was realized as the result of secret negotiations led by Peter seems very probable.247 More proof may be found in the letters from Gudeliva (and Theodahad) to Theodora, which seem to hint at the assassination of Amalasuintha (Cass. Var. 10.20.4). It is hard to say if the initiative for the plot really belonged to Theodora, but the realization of the plan was undoubtedly advantageous for Justinian – as noted by A. D. Lee, the emperor thus freed himself from an obligation to give refuge to the Arian Amalasuintha in Constantinople and obtained a perfect formal cause to start the war.248 A. D. Lee lists two more instances of abduction or assassination which happened in the 6th century.249 Unfortunately we posses only scanty information on the problem of the ›authors‹ of plots, who usually invented, planned and realized the conspiratorial projects. From the text by Priscus one can judge that the main role in the preparation and elaboration of the plot to murder Attila belonged to the imperial chamberlain Chrysaphius and that the interpreter Vigilas was to become the main coordinator of all the actions (Prisc. 11.1sq.). It is possible to suppose that clandestine diplomacy was mainly regulated not by official state structures, which controlled foreign policy, but perhaps by court circles, like chamberlains, who were better suited to such equivocal tasks. To summarize, it may be concluded that the method of a conspiracy plot was a rather convenient and common method of solving the problem of a disagreeable adversary.250 Evidently, in contrast to the data concerning official policy and diplomacy, information about the clandestine part must have been kept secret and was not open and the publication of such information must have been rather limited. Nevertheless, some of our sources allow us to trace and partly reconstruct the circumstances of several conspiratorial operations, some of which were successful. The considerable number of cases of plots revealed to us demonstrate that this tactic was used rather often in Late Antiquity.251 246 247 248 249

250 251

Wolfram, Goten 485. P. Antonopoulos argues, on the contrary, that Peter’s involvement in the assassination plan was impossible: Αντωνόπουλος, Πέτρος 53f. Lee, Abduction 11. Alamundarus, the chief of the Ghassanid Arabs in the early 580s (abducted, arrested, brought to Constantinople and exiled to Sicily; Joh. Eph. HE 3.40sq.), a plot to assassinate him in the early 570s, reported by John of Ephesus (Joh. Eph. HE 6.3sq.) is not recognized by Lee as a genuine story. G. Fisher notes that »John’s intense dislike of Justin raises the possibility that the details of the sotry may be exaggerated«, but the scholar does not deny the very fact of the assassination attempt (Fisher, Between Empires 72; Alamundarus’s son Nu’man (arrested in Constantinople; Joh. Eph. HE 3.32–43; Mich. Syr. 373). The case of the assassination of the Lazic king Gubazes (Agath. 3.2.4–6; 4.1–11) is excluded by Lee from his catalogue as a »private vendetta, not official imperial policy« (Lee, Abduction 11–13, with references to the bibliography). Notably there are no cases known to us of attempts of plots against Persian rulers. A. D. Lee argues that it was more often employed in Late Antiquity than in previous periods of Roman history: Lee, Abduction and Assassination 18–21.

62

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

4. Diplomatic inviolability and the problem of the safety of diplomatic delegations According to all international rules and norms, the figure of envoy should be sacred and totally inviolable by the ius gentium.252 This was set down in law (Just. Dig. 50.7.18) and usually emphasized by rulers, ambassadors and ancient authors. The regulation on how to receive and dispatch embassies says that envoys should be received »honorably and generously. For everyone holds envoys in esteem« (Peri Str. 43.1–5). It is, however, significant that often the necessity to respect the rights and immunity of envoys is mentioned in rather critical moments, when the sources describe situations of the real danger of such norms being broken. Of course we could first of all explain this by the fact that deviations from rules usually attract more attention than standard cases, but a considerable amount of evidence from sources demonstrates that the reality often differed from the general principle of a diplomat’s absolute inviolability. Threats that envoys would be killed if it were not for the rules of diplomacy, or even against these rules, were used rather often, especially by barbarian rulers in negotiations with Roman envoys.253 According to B. Paradisi, it was the barbarians who ›shattered‹ the traditional Roman rule of inviolability.254 Upon receiving the imperial embassy, Attila shouted at the interpreter Vigilas (the only member of the delegation who knew about the plot against the king of the Huns),255 calling him »a shameless beast«, threatening that he would eagerly impale him and feed him to the birds, if it were not for the rules of diplomacy (Prisc. 15.1.11); the same Vigilas was obliged to tell Attila the truth about the plot against him, because the Hun threatened to kill Vigilas’s son (Prisc. 15.1.16–25). Another envoy to Attila, Apollonius, was told that he would be killed if he did not give Attila the gifts (Prisc. 23.3). Gothic ruler Theodahad treated Roman envoys, one of whom was Peter the Patrician, with scorn in 536 and told them that though the status of envoy was considered sacred and highly honoured by everybody, envoys only have this status so long as they behave accordingly, but he admitted it was possible even to kill an envoy if the latter was guilty of a crime against a ruler or of adultery. Procopius explains that these words were said not because Peter could really be accused of adultery, but to prove that there existed accusations which could lead to the death penalty for an ambassador (Proc. BG 1.7.11–25). Finally the envoys were not executed, but were imprisoned for three years (Proc. BG 22.23sq.). As may be seen in the latter example, in some circumstances threats were not only words, but could be turned into action. We are aware of some more cases when the rights of envoys were violated and diplomats were treated badly. In 568 the envoy Comitas256 and the interpreter Vitalianus257 were kept captive, while Khagan Baianus tried to seize Sirmium (Men. Prot. 12.4). It is specially emphasized in the text that »he imprisoned them 252 253 254 255 256 257

See concerning this problem: Paradisi, Storia 183f.; Helm, Untersuchungen 408f.; Luttwak, Strategy Byzantine Empire 103. Luttwak, Strategy Byzantine Empire 103; Löhren, Beiträge 61, 78f. Paradisi, Storia 184. In general on violence in Late Antiquity and its relation to the barbarians see: Drake, Violence. See: I.3.2.2. PLRE-IIIA, 327, s.v. Comitas 5. PLRE-IIIB, 1379, s.v. Vitalianus 2.

4. Diplomatic inviolability

63

in contravention of the universally recognized rights of ambassadors« (Men. Prot. 12.4.5sq.).258 Appealing to the same ›law protecting envoys‹ were the Roman envoys who suffered from the anger of Turkish ruler Turxanthus, who accused the Romans of hypocrisy. To his threats the envoys replied begging him to appease and abate his rage, temper his angry spirit with kindness and »obey the law protecting envoys« (Men. Prot. 19.1.102– 105).259 In his speech, ambassador Valentinus calls diplomats »agents of peace and ministers of what is holy« (Men. Prot. 19.1.105sq.).260 These examples demonstrate that customs of respect and the inviolability of envoys were always kept in mind and much used in rhetoric by Romans as well as by their partners, but in reality these rules could be neglected, especially in situations of conflict or hostilities.261 Thus, in 422 an embassy of Helion and Maximinus from Theodosius II to the Persians262 had already started negotiations with Shah Bahram V, when the corps of Immortals persuaded their ruler to stop the negotiations because of their will to attack the Romans. »The king approving their advice, ordered the ambassador to be imprisoned and a guard set over him« (Soc. 7.20). However, the military action was not successful and the treaty was concluded with the same diplomats (Soc. 7.20). Georgius,263 the envoy from Emperor Maurice to Chosroes was treated in an unfriendly manner by the shah in 598/599, keeping him waiting for a long time until he was received (Theoph. Sim. 8.1.4). Menander describes the awful conditions in which the Roman envoys Zacharias and Theodorus »spent almost three months … having suffered many discomforts. For the guard assigned to the envoys did not allow them to breathe fresh air or even put their heads out of the building where they were lodged. Their lodging itself was dark and poorly ventilated and particularly unsuitable for the summer, so that it actually seemed like a prison« (Men. Prot. 23.9.102–109). On the return trip, as well as on the outbound journey to the Persians, the Roman envoys were subjected to numerous obstacles and hardships, including a lack of food, so that both of them fell seriously ill (Men. Prot. 23.9.24–60; 109–117). The Persians had intentionally led the Romans the wrong way, full of dangers, »so that they even said to the escort, ›If you wish to kill us, why do you not openly slay us at once, instead of bringing us here to die of fatigue among these mountains?‹« (Joh. Eph. HE 6.22). It is important to notice that, in spite of all the rhetoric about the sacred figure of the envoy and his absolute inviolability, our sources demonstrate that the diplomats’ immunity in reality was often abused. Not only by the barbarian rulers, whom we could suspect of ferocity and not full awareness of international legal practice and customs, but also by the shahs of the Persians, who were undoubtedly involved in the system of Late Antique international laws and rules. So one can conclude that diplomatic business could appear rather dangerous and there could be no guarantees that a Roman delegation dispatched with a mission would return back safely and in good health. 258 259 260 261

Ὁ δὲ παρὰ τὸν κοινὸν τῶν πρέσβεων θεσμὸν εἶχεν ἐν δεσμοῖς. Πρέσβεων πείθεσθαι νόμῳ. Εἰρήνης γάρ ἐσμεν ἐργάται καὶ πραγμάτων ὁσίων ταμίαι καθεστήκαμεν. In Peter the Patrician’s account of the reception of a Persian embassy there is mention that the envoys, received in Constantinople, were treated in a specially preferential manner, if »there was complete peace between the states« (de cer. 1.90 [409]). 262 See also: III.2.2. 263 PLRE-IIIA, 516, s.v. Georgius 14.

64

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

The Roman side, while receiving a foreign embassy, in its turn did not always behave according to the customs of diplomatic immunity. Theophylact Simocatta reports how under Maurice in 586 the experienced Avar diplomat Targitis, who was in Constantinople during the active hostilities with the Avars, was arrested upon the initiative of the emperor and confined to the island Chalcidis for six months. Theophylact remarks that the emperor was furious and threatened to issue a decree to kill the diplomat (Theoph. Sim. 1.8.7–9). International norms of diplomatic immunity, though accepted by the partners, did not prevent the unfriendly treatment of envoys (both Roman envoys by the Persians and the barbarians and those foreign diplomats whom the Romans received themselves), and they were often kept in terrible conditions, insulted and imprisoned. Envoys could even be murdered.264 The level of jealousy and the necessity to prove the absence of perfidy in Roman-Persian relations can be demonstrated by an episode related by Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite: when Cavades started peace negotiations with the Romans in 504, »He sent also the dead body of the dux Olympius,265 who had gone down to him on an embassy and died, sealed up in a coffin, to show that he had not died by any other than a natural death, whereof his servants and those who came down with him were witnesses« (Josh. Styl. 80).266 The suspicions of violent death could have had some grounds, as the dux of Osrhoene, who came to the Persian shah as an ambassador, was detained as a prisoner and died in captivity.267 The examples provided demonstrate that in defiance of all the laws and rules of inviolability of envoys and international norms of diplomatic immunity, there were situations, perhaps considerably frequent, when envoys could be treated badly by the side receiving an embassy, kept in prison, in terrible conditions, with a lack of food, water and fresh air, which could even lead to illness. There is evidence testifying that even the assassination of ambassadors could occur. It is important to recognize and emphasize that after crossing the border every imperial embassy immediately became absolutely dependent on the ruler of

264

Thus Menander informs us how the Turkish envoys were poisoned by the Persians in order to demonstrate their unwillingness to negotiate and conclude a treaty about the silk trade. Almost the whole delegation was killed by »deadly poison mixed in with their food« (Men. Prot. 10.1.33–35). The crime was not officially recognized and »a report was circulated among the Persians that the Turkish envoys had been killed by the stifling dryness, because their own land was often covered with snow and they could not survive away from cold weather« (Men. Prot. 10.1.37–41). Menander remarks that although those who survived the plot suspected another explanation, they brought to their country the same version as the Persians (Men. Prot. 10.1.41–43). The version of murder, which was probably the true one, must have been told to the Romans by the Turks, who after their unsuccessful attempts to establish relations with the Persians, dispatched their embassy to the Romans, so there may be a certain tendentiousness to this information. It may be significant that, according to Theophylact Simocatta, the Romans blamed the Persians for the assassination (at the hands of the corrupted Alans) of the envoys, whom the Turks dispatched to the Romans for the first time (Theoph. Sim. 3.9.7). The veracity of this evidence is certainly under question, but perhaps both pieces of evidence are not accidental and reflect some of the aggressive or even treacherous actions of the Persians against the Turkish envoys. 265 PLRE-II, 804, s.v. Olympius 14; Luther, Syrische Chronik 181. 266 For the English translation I cite the edition: The Chronicle of Joshua The Stylite [Wright], 64. 267 PLRE-II, 804, s.v. Olympius 14.

4. Diplomatic inviolability

65

this or that territory. No ›diplomatic passport‹268 could provide an absolute guarantee of safety. Such security should have been provided by the receiving side. Barbarian or Persian envoys barely risked suffering a sudden attack during their journey through the imperial territory, while Roman envoys travelling in foreign lands could not always feel absolutely safe. Escorts, who usually met embassies on the border and accompanied them, must have been in part allocated to provide certain protection for the delegations.269 Rather often embassies were very concerned and anxious about the question of their security on the way and demanded special guarantees (Malch. 20 passim),270 sometimes they were even accompanied by military men (e.g. Prisc. 9.2). Travelling through foreign territory without a special escort could appear very dangerous. We know of cases when individuals who had to travel somewhere on their own business, for example in the Hun Empire, preferred to join an embassy (Prisc. 11.2.145). But even diplomatic delegations were not always totally safeguarded from the dangers of the road, especially if they had to travel during a period of hostilities, which naturally was often the case.271 That embassies were usually concerned about security matters perhaps proves that there must have been reasons for such anxiety. For the later Byzantine epoch we are informed about the existence of special letters of ›safe conduct‹, procuratoria,272 issued by the Byzantine emperor to envoys sent on diplomatic missions.273 Though there seems to be no mention of such documents for the Late Antique/Early Byzantine period, it is perhaps possible to suppose that such documents, serving as letters of recommendation and credence, could have already existed and also served for better protection of the ambassadors. The unfriendly and even cruel treatment of envoys, which happened to imperial ambassadors on their journey abroad, as well as of foreign diplomats during their reception in the Roman Empire, was a kind of demonstrative act. It is important to remember that deviations from norm could attract more attention, both among the public in general, and among our sources, especially in the case when rules were broken by the Persians or barbarians while receiving a Roman delegation – they allowed to demonstrate and emphasize the adversary’s treachery. However, we can hypothesis that a specific norm, which was not declared officially, was drawn up to treat ambassadors in an exaggeratedly bad manner in order, through such a démarche, to emphasize the aspiration for conflict.

268

269 270 271 272 273

This is evidently a modern expression, but probably ambassadors really did have some kind of safeguard document, as is definitely true for their colleagues of the later Byzantine epoch (see above about procuratoria). See also about these escorts: III.4.3. Here and hereafter I follow the numeration of the fragments by Malchus according to FCHLRE. E.g. envoy Senator, in spite of his diplomatic status, as emphasized by Priscus, did not dare to go the Huns by land and preferred a sea route (Prisc. 9.2). Dölger/Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 105f. Lounghis, Diplomacy 15–82, 37.

66

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy

5. Conclusions It may be concluded that the ›mechanism‹ of diplomacy in Late Antiquity was rather complex and elaborate. The material touched on in this chapter is divided into three sections: 1. decision-making and the regulation of diplomacy and the state structures involved in it; 2. diplomatic protocol, ceremonial and rules; 3. official and clandestine methods of achieving the aims of diplomacy and foreign policy. In the sphere of decision-making and diplomacy regulation the main role in the Late Antique period belonged to the emperor, who not only formally embodied the state but was also the final addressee of all diplomatic actions and messages in the wide sense of the word. The conduction of a line of diplomacy, selection of the mediators in a diplomatic process, involvement in serious discussions and negotiations – all these activities were often performed by the supreme rulers of the Roman Empire. It seems important to emphasize that the ruler’s personality, his individual preferences, ambitions and plans were very important factors in directing and forming the line of imperial diplomacy. Of the state structures, offices and bureaucratic motions involved in making diplomacy, the main role undoubtedly belonged to the master of offices who controlled and regulated the diplomatic routine and process and its ceremonial aspect. In the cases when the master of offices was an authoritative figure and had held the position for long period of time, we could suppose that he could have been the key competent figure in the diplomatic affairs, conducting the diplomacy in the name of the emperor. The persons who were at the disposal of the master of offices were in charge of the organizational side of the process, while middle-level officials ensured the routine order was followed. A special role perhaps belonged to the scrinia where various materials concerning diplomacy could have accumulated and its specialists thus could have guaranteed a certain continuity and foundation to the diplomacy system. It is likely that the praepositus of the sacrum cubiculum can be named among the influential figures in diplomacy-making; his role must have been mainly ceremonial and possibly also important in the sphere of clandestine diplomacy. The consistory and senate, being mainly consultative bodies, with the consistory holding more importance, could have played a significant role, especially as the discussion base for elaborating a decision. Late Antique diplomacy was very much associated with ceremonial and protocol. Almost every normative diplomatic action was regulated by strict rules. These concerned the whole variety of diplomatic forms, but first of all the negotiations. The reception of every foreign embassy in Constantinople was prescribed by a protocol, which differed depending on the status of the received mission and the place of the nation which it represented in the Roman hierarchy of its neighbours. In the receptions the emperor appeared in a position of superiority which he had to maintain as an essential part of the diplomatic process. It is very significant that the same diplomatic standards were not only used by the Roman side in international communication, but were also accepted by its partners/adversaries. Not only did the Persians act within the same system of diplomatic coordinates as the Romans (which could be explained by both the Roman influence, and also by the complex process of mutual influences in drawing up the model), but also different barbarian nations tended to act within the imperial paradigm soon after their appearance in the Roman orbit. Roman ambassadors abroad were received according to local traditions, but also according to international norms.

5. Conclusions

67

Cases of the violation of diplomatic norms, both by the Roman Empire and by the barbarians, occurred rather often and this not only concerned aspects of breaking ritual and ceremonial rules, but it could even threaten the diplomats’ lives and well-being. These actions were undertaken when the receiving side tended to aspire to a conflict. It is significant that in such cases the acts of unfriendliness and violence, as it seems, were perceived by both sides as exceptional and provocative conduct. There existed various methods by which diplomacy could achieve its aims. The theme is very complex and global methods of foreign policy cannot always be distinguished from the narrower means of diplomacy. The phenomenon of war can also be regarded as ambiguous: depending on its aims, military action could also appear as a means of diplomacy274 when it was used as an instrument to influence the behaviour of an adversary, and as a radical and perhaps ultimate form of ›blackmail‹ if the final goal was not the elimination of another side, but the continuation of a dialogue. In the opposite situation, when war was perceived as the only way out of a situation and there was no tendency or will for compromise, dialogue or influence, because the final goal was the adversary’s absolute subjection and destruction, then war should be taken as a separate and independent phenomenon. The current work mainly investigates methods of diplomatic communication, realized by the means of embassies, negotiations and symbolic acts (first of all diplomatic gifts).

274

See: Chrysos, Byzantine Diplomacy 38.

Chapter II

Diplomatic negotiation Negotiation should be regarded as one of the most important instruments and means of ancient diplomacy. The main aim of most diplomatic talks was to discuss the arguable questions, reach an agreement and, ideally, sign a treaty. Who negotiated with whom? The tendency in the development of Late Antique diplomacy seems to have been towards ›indirect communication‹ between the rulers realized mostly through mediators, rather than communication between the rulers themselves. Personal meetings between leaders demanded not only more ceremonial and protocol, but also, though it may sound paradoxical, a less hierarchical pattern and attitude. Dialogue (in contrast to dictate) requires a certain equilibrium. When a head of state is perceived and positions himself at an unattainable height, straight communication both with those who are admittedly lower, as well as with those who claim to be at an equal level, becomes better expressed by negotiation agents, i.e. envoys. Furthermore, personal diplomacy between rulers could have sense more from a ritual than from a practical point of view, because even in the few cases when such a meeting occurred, there was no real dialogue. All the decisions had already been taken and settled by both sides, so an actual conference became more a show than a dispute. This point also seems to be a very significant feature of Late Antique diplomacy on the whole. The process of diplomatic communication was very structured and often extended. Negotiations were made in several steps, through many intermediate consultations to settle the details. An immediate solution, even in obvious cases, was impossible because of the necessary ceremonial and protocol; no negotiator had the right to make decisions without the approval of an emperor. Thus, in the majority of cases, Late Antique international negotiation was organized according to a ›shuttle‹ principle, in which the communication was split into several sessions or ›blocks‹. The process of increasing mediated communication and ceremonial caused the formation of ever-more professional expert diplomats.1 The aims of the negotiations, or more precisely, their subject matter and substance, determined the types of embassies operating, their level and status.

1. The negotiating parties and agents For most cases in international diplomacy, especially when ›high-level‹ negotiations were held, the communicating parties will have been the rulers of the states or peoples in person.2 For Roman diplomacy of the imperial period, and especially in Late Antiquity, inter1 2

See more: III.1.3. Cresci, Eredità 93.

70

II. Diplomatic negotiation

national affairs were associated first of all with the person of ruler (an emperor on the imperial side and a shah, king, khagan, chief etc.) and secondly with the state (or people) itself. There were different aspects as to how a ruler of another side was recognized: only negotiations with Persia could have been perceived as with an equal ruler,3 all other political partners stood lower on the hierarchical scale.4 This stratification was also reflected in the diplomatic language. A Persian shah was named a brother of the Roman emperor,5 while all other rulers could expect to be sons or friends at best.6 According to L. R. Cresci, it was the concept of familia principum that in a certain sense replaced the Ancient Greek concept of συγγένεια. Remaining in Byzantine diplomatic ideology as an ideal συγγένεια, which tied the rulers of the whole world to the emperor, this notion highlighted the duties deriving from the ties of kinship between the emperor and the addressee of a mission.7 T. Lounghis proposed perceiving the institution of the patriciate, shared, according to his theory, by the empire with the barbarian leaders, as a Late Antique parallel to the phenomenon of the ›political family‹ of the emperor in the Middle Ages.8 It is important to underline here that these were rulers who were understood to be the personification of the sides in the diplomacy process, including negotiation.9 In reality not necessarily all negotiations were carried out by the rulers themselves. They could either negotiate personally with each other, or give a mandate to their agents and mediators in diplomatic procedures, i.e. their envoys.10 Later I will examine the different possible combinations of negotiators. 3

4 5

6

7 8 9

10

But not in all the periods and circumstances. In his fundamental article on Late Antique diplomacy, R. Helm notes that during the first three centuries of its history the Roman Empire acknowledged no state as equal, but later the situation changed and different neighbours started to expect to be treated from a higher position (Helm, Untersuchungen 375–436). The author underlines that an image of the two empires as two eyes looking at the world was a construction of Persian diplomacy, and could by no means apply in all circumstances (Helm, Untersuchungen 381; see also Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien 6). For the problem of the Persians and Romans’ perception of each other and its symbolism, see: Canepa, Competition and Exchange, esp. 299f.; Lounghis, Ambassades 264. Lounghis, Diplomacy 19–22; Schreiner, Byzanz 65. Amm. 17.5.3; 17.5.10; Eus. V.Const. 4.11; Joh. Mal. 17.10.13; 18.44; 18.76.25–30; Men. Prot. 6.1.182sq.; 6.1.187sq.; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 628. For details see: Helm, Untersuchungen 385; Börm, Königtum 438; Pieler, Adoption 399–433; Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 163, n. 147. For details see: Helm, Untersuchungen 385; Börm, Königtum 438; Pieler, Adoption 399–433; Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 163, n. 147; Ostrogorsky, Staatenhierarchie 41–61; Ostrogorsky, Emperor 1–14; F. Dölger, Brüderlichkeit der Fürsten, in: RAC 2, 1954, 641–646; Dölger, Familie der Könige 34–69; Demandt, Osmosis 75–85; Krautschick, Familie der Könige 109–142; Kazhdan, Notion 37; Paradisi, Amicitia 178–225. Cresci, Eredità 93f. Lounghis, Ambassades 266–271. R. C. Blockley mentions the phenomenon of ruler-to-ruler communications (Blockley, Foreign Policy 152), but from my point of view his observation that the cases when Roman emperors and Persian kings represented themselves at the negotiations »either as victor or in extreme adversity« may be supplemented by the following analysis. When envoys acted as mediators, they were still only perceived as a mouthpiece of the emperor, e.g. Joh. Mal. 17.9.84sq.: »in reply Justin, the emperor of the Romans, made the following statement through an ambassador« (καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀντεδήλωσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ῥωμαίων Ἰουστῖνος διὰ πρεσβευτοῦ). Undoubtedly a rule of diplomatic practice was the obligation for envoys to only carry out

1. The negotiating parties and agents

71

1.1 Rulers We know very few cases in the studied period when sovereigns negotiated directly with each other. Most international communication was carried out by different agents who could converse either with the other side’s agents or with a ruler. It is important to distinguish, however, the Roman Empire’s relations with the Persian Empire from its relations with all the other peoples and states. Roman-Persian affairs should be understood within a special paradigm of high-status foreign policy. With different variations and fluctuations, but throughout the whole Late Antique period, the two states interacted from the position of accepting the greatness of their peer. It is very significant that in the conditions of permanent intercourse (diplomatic or military) there were no official meetings between the emperor and shah, nor straight communication in summits or conferences.11 »The two eyes of the world« (Petr.Patr. fr. 13)12 could not cross over. The powers did not only understand the elevation of their adversary, but at the same time instead concentrated on their own high status and identity. An indirect relationship gave each (in spite of all the ›brotherhood‹ rhetoric) more space to uphold the idea of their own superiority. Personal meetings would force the emperor and king of kings to behave towards each other in too deferential a manner, which they were not willing to demonstrate.13 Distance (including mediation in communication) in a sense allowed them to be two absolute values of two worlds.14 Another situation may be found in the interaction of emperors with other peoples and states of minor importance. But some stratification seems necessary here too. It is possible to differentiate situations when a Roman ruler negotiated with a barbarian ruler, maintaining an atmosphere of certain equability (certainly to a different extent than when dealing 10 11

12 13

14

negotiations personally with the addressee of an embassy (emphasized especially when an attempt to violate this rule was made, e.g. Prisc. 11.2.95sq.; Proc. BG 1.7). The only case when the Persian shah and Roman emperor met face to face was rather a humiliating episode in the history of the Roman Empire: the capture of Valerian by Sapor I (for evidence in the sources see: Dodgeon/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier; see also: Millar, Emperors 14; Frye, Iran 126f.). FHG IV. Noteworthy within this context is the situation with Chosroes II Parvez: in 590 he was driven from the throne by the rebel Bahram Chobin and fled to the Roman Empire seeking help which he received from Emperor Maurice (PLRE-IIIA, 307, s.v. Chosroes II Parvez, with references to the sources). Theophylact Simocatta even mentions Chosroes’s intention to go to Constantinople, but this was definitely rejected by Maurice (Theoph. Sim. 4.13.2). The story of Chosroes II’s refuge is certainly an outstanding deviation from the norm. His status in these circumstances was different from standard and he was definitely subordinate towards the Roman ruler, who adopted the shah and sent him gifts which looked like insignia (Theoph. Sim. 4.11.11; 5.3.11; 5.3.7); see about this: IV.3.1. It was Maurice’s care, as explained in the text by Simocatta (Theoph. Sim. 4.13.2) – allowing Chosroes to remain closer to the Persian territory thus enabling him to act more efficiently – that made Maurice reject the proposal. Perhaps there were some more reasons for Maurice’s decision to decline the visit, maybe he preferred to avoid a personal meeting, even in this situation of his full dominancy. It seems significant that also in this non-typical situation the emperor preferred to conduct all the actions while keeping his distance and acting through agents. Another example of avoiding a personal meeting may be found on the contrary in the early times when asked by Dacian envoys to negotiate personally with Decebalus, Trajan preferred to send him envoys (Dio Cass. 68.9). For various aspects of the Roman-Persian relationship, its symbolism and ritual kinship, see: Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship.

72

II. Diplomatic negotiation

with Persia), and receptions of barbarian rulers in situations of the Romans’ indisputable and decided superiority. A proposed classification of cases of ›personal‹ diplomacy is formulated below. 1.1.1 Relatively equal basis In this first group I place some meetings which took place in the 4th century during the military campaigns waged against the barbarians on the frontiers of the empire: – The meeting of Julian with the leader of the Chamavi in 358, on the river Meuse (Eun. fr. 18.615).16 It is important to note that Julian was not yet Augustus, but Caesar at that time. Having accepted the proposal to make peace, Julian invited the Chamavi king to come to him. The circumstances of the summit are very interesting – the meeting took place practically on the river: the barbarian king stood on the shore and Julian spoke through his interpreter from the boat which was out of bowshot from the adversary.17 – The emperor of the East Valens’s meeting with the Gothic leader Athanaricus in 369. Preliminary consultations and embassies anticipated the meeting and finally a place for the high-level summit was chosen: as Athanaricus said that he had taken the pledge and promised his father never to step onto Roman soil18 and, for the emperor in his turn, as Ammianus notes, it would have been shameful (indecorumque erat) to go to him, it was decided to meet on rowing boats (navibus remigio) in the middle of the river (Amm. 27.5.9sq.).19 Both leaders were accompanied by a retinue and concluded a treaty. Perhaps the equality of the ceremony was caused by the ambiguity of the problem of the winner.20 The case of Athanaricus is complicated from the point of view of his status. He is called a iudex (Amm. 27.5.6; 27.5.9; 31.3.4) and Ammianus underlines his important position (potentissimum: Amm. 27.5.6). Jordanes, however, calls him a rex (Jord. Get. 142).21 The title iudex was applied to the leaders of the Tervingi Goths (Amm. 27.5.6; 27.5.9; on the contrary the Greutungi were led by kings: Amm. 31.3.1–3).22 As P. Heather underlines, the »judge of the Tervingi looked to contemporary Roman eyes 15 16 17 18 19

The fragments are numbered according to Blockley’s edition: FCHLRE. On this see also: Masur, Verträge 192f. Ἐπιβὰς πλοίου, τὸ πλοῖον ἔξω ἔχων τοξεύματος, ἑρμηνέα ἔχων διελέγετο τοῖς βαρβάροις. Wolfram, Athanaric 259–278. The meeting took place at the mouth of the Danube: Shchukin, Gotskii put’ 221; Gillett, Envoys 19. 20 There is a problem with the perception of this treaty, which, as it was noted by B. and P. Scardigli, was neither a Roman victory, nor a real Gothic success (Scardigli/Scardigli Rapporti 261– 295). F. Paschoud, citing Schmidt, remarked that Athanaricus’s oath could have just been an apologetic embellishment for the fact that the treaty was concluded on an equal basis (Zosime [Paschoud] 352, n. 125); Wolfram, Gotische Studien 9 (»da aber Valens mit Athanarich im September 369 einen Frieden von glich zu gleich schloss«); Klein, Friedensschluß 189f.; Klein, Frithigern, Athanarich 34f. According to Themistius, the Romans gave no sum of money to the barbarians as a result of this peace (Them. Or. 10.135a–d). According to F. Paschoud this signified the suspension of the alliance treaty between the two sides; thus, he concludes, the relations were almost totally cut (Zosime [Paschoud] 353, n. 125). 21 Iordanis [Giunto/Grillone] 159, 166. 22 Wolfram, Goty 140–143 with other references; Thompson, Visigoths 45.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

73

very much like a monarch, and there is every reason for us to follow their lead.«23 It is significant that this ceremony accorded Athanaricus some kind of symbolic diplomatic equality.24 Upon describing further the initial circumstances of the Battle of Adrianople, Ammianus mentioned Athanaricus’s anxiety upon »remembering that he had some time before treated Valens with contempt« when he had »forced the emperor to conclude peace in the middle of the river« (Amm. 31.4.13). – The meeting between Emperor Valentinian I and Macrianus, king of the Alemanni in 374.25 The king was invited to come to the conference near Mogontiacum, where the Alamanni ruler arrived, standing full of arrogance on the shore of the Rhine, surrounded by his noisy compatriots.26 Valentinian, also with a big armed following, boarded boats and reached the opposite shore. After long conversations, an amicitia was established and strengthened by oaths (Amm. 30.3.4sq.). Valentinian conducted negotiations on a boat as an acknowledgement of Macrianus’s rights over the territory beyond the Rhine. What is important is that the meeting took place in an atmosphere of symbolic equality.27 All three ›summits‹ were carefully prepared in advance. Before the culmination meeting between the heads there was an exchange of sometimes several embassies. These preliminary consultations were carried out to prepare for the conference: in the case of the ValensAthanaricus assembly we know there were a series of embassies from the Goths (Amm. 27.5.7),28 then a decision was taken by the Roman side and delegates29 were sent to bring the new conditions and arrange them with the Goths. Afterwards it was notified that the Goths had accepted the proposals – a place was chosen for the summit (Amm. 27.5.9). Thus we see at least four stages of communication in preparing for the conference and signing the treaty: (1) a peaceful Gothic initiative (expressed in several embassies); (2) the Roman delegation brought the updated version of the conditions; (3) confirmation that the Goths had agreed the new scheme; (4) the location was chosen for the meeting and final preparations made. 23 24 25 26

27 28 29

Heather, Goths 57. Heather, Goths and Romans 120. PLRE-I, 527f., s.v. Macrianus 1; Jacob/Ulmann, Ammianus Marcellinus 466; Klein, Frithigern, Athanarich 4; Demandt, Zeitkritik 27; Stallknecht, Außenpolitik 8f., 61. Et venit inmane quo quantoque flatu distentus ut futurus arbiter superior pacis, dieque praedicto conloquii ad ipsam marginem Rheni caput altius erigens stetit, hinc inde sonitu scutorum intonante gentilium (Amm. 30.3.4). Heather, Goths and Romans 120. Adeo ut legatos supplices saepe mittentes venialem poscerent pacem. The figures of the delegates sent to notify the Goths, magister equitum Victor and magister peditum Arinthaeus (PLRE-I, 103, s.v. Arinthaeus Flavius; PLRE-I, 958, s.v. Victor 4), are very interesting. It is notable that both of the delegates were acting supreme generals, so in the case of some accident, trouble or delay the empire would remain without headquarters (I owe this observation to P. Shuvalov). For both of them this diplomatic errand was not the only one during their career: Arinthaeus had been sent before by Jovian to negotiate with the Persians (Amm. 25.7.7; Zos. 3.31.1) and they had already acted as mediators between the Roman emperor and Persian shah, but in all the other cases no personal meetings took place between the rulers and their communication took place through shuttle diplomacy.

74

II. Diplomatic negotiation

It attracts attention that in all these cases we are dealing with so-to-speak ›river‹ or ›water‹ diplomacy, when negotiations were held on boundary rivers. In general it was rather a widespread manner of diplomatic communication, also in the period of Late Antiquity.30 First of all, meeting on the border or on the river certainly had a ritual and juridical background31 (e.g. the case of Athanaricus and Valens: Amm. 27.5.9sq.), but sometimes security reasons could also be important. It is significant that all these cases of diplomatic sessions with the personal participation of an emperor (or Caesar) and an adversary ruler took place in the third quarter of the 4th century. The straight answer to the question »why did the emperors in these cases personally meet with the barbarian kings?« would be that the Roman sovereigns did so in all cases: they carried a military campaign against these peoples, so they met as a consequence of being in the vicinity of each other. But such an answer would only demonstrate one aspect of a complex phenomenon. The significant difference here lies in the problem of status and at least formal equality. From a formal point of view, the three conferences described above can be regarded as meetings of two rulers on an equal basis. Of course, the rulers had a different status and weight, but there were no demonstrations of Rome’s supremacy in the sense of a partner’s subjection. Obviously neither the Chamavi, the Alemanni nor the Goths were regarded by Roman diplomacy as in any sense peer partners,32 but the very fact that they concluded an agreement in these circumstances, in a solemn atmosphere, allows us to distinguish these cases from a political demonstration of dependence.33 The fact that e.g. Athanaricus dictated that the treaty should be signed on a ship in the middle of the Danube emphasizes the strength of his position. It is very interesting how imperial propaganda reacted on the matter. As noticed by P. Heather, in his oration of the matter (Them. Or. 10 passim) Themistius claims that Valens could have destroyed the Goths if he had so chosen, and that anyway he dictated the terms of the peace, defeating the Gothic leader in the debate on board the ship. This rhetoric, however, should not be taken seriously as Themistius made this claim before the Senate of Constantinople with the task of justifying the emperor’s actions. Themistius attempts to divert attention from the unpleasant situation, »but Ammianus did not miss the point«.34 As M. Whitby has underlined, »meeting in mid-stream with tribal leaders might undermine rather than enhance imperial supremacy«.35

30

31 32 33 34 35

The role of boundary rivers was always ambiguous: to unite and to separate. This contrast is very expressive in Tacitus’s account of the meeting on the banks of the Visurgis of the two brothers, Arminius and Flavus, one leading the Cherusci and the other serving the Romans (Tac. Ann. 2.9sq.). See for some other examples: Gillett, Envoys 19, n. 50. Millar, Emperors 19f. See about the problem of the equality and comparability of the Roman Empire with Persia and other adversary partners: Helm, Untersuchungen 385; Campbell, War and Diplomacy 218, 227. Heather, Goths and Romans 119; Wolfram, Goths 68. Heather, Goths and Romans 118–120. Whitby, From Frontier 298f.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

75

1.1.2 Paradigm of the empire’s dominancy Among the cases I would discern the following subunits: As a consequence of military actions: a) Meetings of the Roman emperor with barbarian rulers who came to him begging for peace or agreeing to conclude a treaty under Roman pressure, from a humiliated position (e.g. Julian [Caesar] and the Alemanni kings [Amm. 17.10.3; 17.10.8]; Constantius II and the kings of the Sarmatians and Quadi [Amm. 17.12.9–16]. Earlier: Marcus Aurelius with Zanticus, the king of the Iazyges [Dio Cass. 72.16]). In pacific circumstances: b) The emperor’s reception of rulers who came to him to express reverence and submission and by this begged an alliance (e.g. Amm. 23.3.8: Julian and the princes [reguli] of the Saracens, who brought him a gold crown in 363).36 This case is parallel to group ›с‹ of the current classification, with the difference that the emperor was in a campaign and the meeting was accompanied by less ceremonial. c) The coronation or some other kind of investiture of barbarian rulers by the Roman emperor, usually with a reception in the capital (sometimes accompanied by the baptism of a barbarian) or with the dispatch of insignia.37 A separate category may also be formed by testimonies of princes of client states who lived as hostages in one of the Roman capitals for certain periods of their adolescence. But strictly speaking this category does not fall into the current classification, because even if communication with the Roman emperor could occur, the status of a young prince was not the same as a king (e.g. the Gothic king Theodericus38 [Jord. Get. 271; 281; Theoph. AM 5977; Joh.Mal. 15.9]; Hunericus, the king of the Vandals39 [Proc. BV 1.4.13]; Koubratos, the king of the Bulgarians40 [Joh.Nik. 120.47]).41

36 37

38 39 40 41

See about Julian and the Arabs: Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs IV 107f.; Lenski, Failure 203. E.g. Constantius and Arsaces III (Amm. 20.11.1–4); Leo and the Arab phylarch Amorcesus (Malch. 1). As I. Shahid noticed the reception »gives a glimpse of what barbarian princes were treated to, when they visited the capital: private audience with the emperor, dinner at his table, attending the sessions of the Senate and the exchange of gifts« (Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs IV 78); Justin II and later Tiberius II and Alamundarus, the king of the Ghassanid Arabs (Joh. Bicl. s.a. 575. 3; Joh. Eph. HE 4.39–42); Ztathius and Tzathes II, kings of the Lazi, receiving their insignia from emperors (Agath. 3.14.3; 15.2.5; Theoph. AM 6015.168.26sq.; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 522; Joh. Mal. 17.9); rulers of the Moors, to whom insignia of authority were sent (Proc. BV 1.25.1–9), see also: IV.3.5, V.3. PLRE-II, 1078, s.v. Theodericus 7. PLRE-II, 573, s.v. Hunericus. PLRE-IIIB, 763, s.v. Koubratos. Maybe also the king of the Lazi, Gubazes. He was appointed silentiarius under Justinian and, as J. Martindale notes, it is possible that he was given this honorific title on becoming king of the Lazi. However, it is more likely that before becoming a king he lived, as a prince of a client state, in Constantinople, in the imperial palace and became silentiarius then: PLRE-IIIA, 559, s.v. Gubazes; see also: Esbroeck, Lazique, Mingrélie, Svanéthie 212.

76

II. Diplomatic negotiation

1.1.3 Direct communication The epoch of the early empire was the time when a new system of foreign relations was being formed, based on the autocratic rule of the emperors, who had complete control over foreign policy, but, as B. Campbell noticed, there was as yet no government structure to control foreign affairs, nor any »permanent diplomatic representatives and the remoteness of Parthia meant that personal contact between Roman emperor and Parthian king was rarely possible«.42 Certainly the reason was not just the distance. As the same author remarks, in 20 BC, Augustus travelled to the eastern provinces – but no summit with Phraates IV took place. Among the reasons, B. Campbell lists the following: »Diplomacy was not sufficiently advanced for that, and Augustus wished to avoid a public demonstration of equality. He must have realized that if Phraates had met him he would not have groveled as a suppliant in the way that Augustus was to suggest in his propaganda.«43 There is also another reason – Augustus was strong enough and had no particular need to meet the Parthian king, his relatives were sent as pseudo-hostages to Rome and this declared a certain degree of dependence. What is significant in this context is that later Gaius Caesar, the adopted son and already proclaimed successor of the emperor, had a personal meeting with Phraates V on an island in the middle of the Euphrates (Vell.Pat. 2.101.1–3). The Parthians preferred a treaty to the prospect of a Roman invasion and Armenia remained in the sphere of Roman influence (Joseph. AJ 18.2). And thus, though the meeting of Gaius and Phraates took place, and though on neutral territory, the Caesar came to the East with his army and his position was a dominant one. In a certain sense, this case seems similar to that of the meetings of Julian with the Chamavi and Valens with Athanaricus, but the balances of forces in these situations were different. Attention is attracted to very interesting example by M. Whitby in his article on the emperor’s role in diplomacy: Malalas records that when in 363 Jovian was in a weak position, leading a starving army isolated in Persian territory, he entrusted negotiations to the patricius Arintheus because as »emperor he was too proud to make a peace treaty with the Persian king« (Joh.Mal. 13.27). As M. Whitby justly remarks, »by using an intermediary the emperor could maintain some self-respect at a time of great humiliation«.44 This point seems to be extremely important. The status significance of any act was a cornerstone of Antique diplomacy. The more developed diplomacy became, the more complex and many-sided became the ritual, ceremonial and system of the correlation of ranks, status and positions of all the partners in the empire. In Late Antiquity, especially in the 5th and 6th centuries, diplomacy became overly elaborate, protocol increased greatly, ceremonies expanded and the self-awareness and self-positioning of the empire in terms of status was extremely high. Perhaps the instances we know of in the period of the 360–70s, when personal meetings took place between rulers on relatively equal ground (group 1=§1.1.1), fall into a kind of transitional stage, when the Roman state, on the one hand, no longer perceived itself within the framework of traditional Roman glory and superiority, which was very strong during the early empire, and on the other hand, had not yet reached the stage of imperial ideology of the later Antique period, with the East Romans’ air of supremacy. 42 43 44

Campbell, War and Diplomacy 216. Campbell, War and Diplomacy 222. Whitby, From Frontier 299.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

77

The proposed classification of the types of personal diplomatic communication held by heads of states and peoples allows us to trace some mechanisms of an apparatus of Roman diplomacy and some tendencies in its development. We must take into consideration the specifics of the sources we possess – if the first part of the text by Ammianus had survived, we would perhaps have more material to analyse (as is the case with Cassius Dio for the earlier period). In the first group, the negotiations were held by emperors who were in command of military campaigns. This fact does not only mean that the proximity (in the geographical sense) of an emperor facilitated direct contact; it is characteristic for the epoch as well and from the 2nd century until the end of the 4th »all major campaigns, defensive or offensive, required direct command by Emperor in person«.45 From the beginning of the 5th century, the opposite tendency became the case, a pendulum turned back: Late Antique emperors of 5th and 6th centuries, though with some exceptions, did not take active part in wars and did not head the troops personally. The affairs of war, as well as of peace, were conducted by mediators – commanders and ambassadors. The emperor played a principal role, but he was too majestic to act personally. So the period analysed above, in which the more characteristic examples of direct communication between the barbarian and Roman rulers fall, was a time when the status, position, identification and positioning of an emperor already and still allowed him these direct, considerably equal contacts. The will and readiness to deal directly with the barbarian chiefs also depended on the threat they posed. The rise in the barbarian menace, already in the 2nd century AD and later, caused the emperors’ increasing personal involvement in the negotiations, as one can see already in the example of Marcus Aurelius, and especially in the 4th century with Constantius II, Julian, Valens and Valentinian I.46 On the other hand, although the barbarian pressure of the 5th and also of the 6th centuries was also considerable, the personal and direct involvement of emperors in negotiations abates in this period.47 1.1.4 Summary Thus, it seems possible to distinguish several reasons why summits at the highest level between what can more or less be considered as peers (the first group in the current classification) were so rare in diplomatic practice of the Roman Empire: due to the complexity of the question of the status-positions of the participants in such meetings; the frequency of the 45 46

Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making 22. Scardigli, ΟΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΙΣΤΡΟΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΙ (Dio. Cass. 72.3.1). Rapporti tra popolazioni barbariche sul Danubio e gli imperatori Marco Aurelio, Costanzo II e Valentiniano I. I am very grateful to B. Scardigli for allowing me to consult her not yet published article. 47 There are some examples from a later epoch which oversteps the time limits of the current work, but they seem significant as examples of certain change. The two episodes concern Emperor Heraclius, who is said to have been invited for negotiations by the khagan of the Avars. The khagan was secretly planning an ambush to catch the emperor, who just managed to escape, by trickery (Nic. Brev. 10). Another meeting was with the ruler of the Turks with whom the emperor dined, according to Nicephorus (Nic. Brev. 12). About Heraclius’s relations with the Turks and the chronology see: Zuckerman, Xazary 312–333. If the evidence mentioned in any way reflects the reality, the significant change is obvious, as the emperor behaves in the manner of having discarded all the traditions of Roman imperial glory, grandeur and superiority.

78

II. Diplomatic negotiation

emperor’s participation in military campaigns; increased protocol and the practice of ›block embassies‹48 which left the decision-making to the ruler, but demanded a combination of moves which made straight dialogue unnecessary. A significant change in the 5th and 6th centuries was the »transfer of diplomatic exchanges from frontier to palace«, as M. Whitby 49 defined it, with an increasing role for ceremonial and protocol. The second, much more ample group is formed by a variety of cases, but all of them are united by one factor – the evident and accentuated dominance of the Roman Empire. This was the normal and standard paradigm of communication of the Later Roman Empire with the outside world. Late Roman diplomacy managed to weave a complex and very structured web of relations with different peoples, nations and states. This system was based on the principle of the major importance of the Roman Empire and on classifying various partners, allies, subjects and adversaries first of all upon status positions and different levels of subordination. Relations with Persia stay outside this scheme as a similar system was opposed to the Roman Empire, so in this case a better model is the concept of permanent competition.50 Obviously the preferable way of direct communication with other rulers was to receive them, best if in the capital, impressing them with the grandeur, and depressing them through the demonstration of domination. »Quand ils venaient à Constantinople, ils y trouvaient des réceptions pompeuses, qui leur donnaient une grande idée de la force et du prestige de l’empire.«51 Actually the same scheme was at work when foreign embassies were received. The very fact that it was necessary to make a special journey to come to negotiations put a guest into a subordinate position. Another aspect, or another step in the logical development of the system, was, perhaps, the tendency to prefer indirect communication in general. The very chance of coming to the Roman capital and meeting an emperor was perceived, to some extent, as an excessive luxury.52 48 49 50 51 52

See: II.1.2.1. Whitby, From Frontier 295–303. See: Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship. Diehl, Justinien 374. Extremely significant within this framework is the evidence by Malchus of Philadelphia concerning the visit to Constantinople of an Arab phylarch, Amorcesus. The author is displeased with the very fact that Emperor Leo had invited Amorcesus to come: »This intention of Leo, which he carried out, was very unwise. If he wished to appoint Amorcesus phylarch, he ought to have made this appointment while keeping him at a distance and while Amorcesus held Roman power in awe, so that he would always come submissively before the Roman officials whom he encountered and give heed to the Emperor’s communications. For in this case he would have thought the Emperor to be much greater than the rest of mankind« (Malch. 1). So, from Malchus’s point of view the emperor should have carried out his decision to grant the Arab the phylarchate (Malchus perhaps does not approve the decision itself, but this is not what attracts his indignation) through some mediators, keeping the chief at a distance. As one can see in the text, Malchus is concerned about the journey, as during his trip Amorcesus saw things which should be kept hidden from foreign eyes. This trouble may find some parallels in the general views of Late Antique diplomacy on receiving an embassy from abroad. Even more, Malchus is preoccupied by the reduction of the distance in metaphysical terms. The emperor demeaned himself and the image of the empire by letting a stranger have too close contact to him, which was an extraordinary and undesirable honour under these circumstances. This evidence is very eloquent, but it is not the only proof. It seems to be the general tendency, which we may find in the sources concerning the 5th and the 6th centuries, to condemn an emperor’s excessive accessibility and special attention towards foreign officials.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

79

1.2 Ruler and representative It seems possible to conclude that the best way of conducting foreign affairs and diplomatic relations in Late Antiquity was the method of indirect or partially direct international political communication. The significance of the mediators in this communication increased. This, in its turn, explains the basic importance of the institution of embassies in Late Antique diplomacy. Negotiations between a ruler from one side and a representative of a ruler from the other was standard in Late Antique diplomatic communication. a) ›Self-willed‹ initiatives of negotiations Indirect communication could have yet one more advantage – if something went wrong in communication, there was always the possibility of blaming a mediator (negotiator, ambassador, interpreter etc.), rather than the supreme ruler. Here it is possible to distinguish negotiators who acted, or at least feigned to act, self-willingly. This aspect is noteworthy, as a trick of this kind could help to avoid undesirable conflict or could favourably influence the line of negotiations. We can give the following examples to illustrate the point: in the year 358 there was an exchange of letters and embassies between Constantius II and Sapor II.53 The Persians offered peace, but the conditions proposed by the shah as well as the very scornful tone of the letter were unacceptable. Wishing to save face and to delay at least the shah’s preparations for war, Constantius wrote that it had been the praefectus praetorio who started negotiations upon his own initiative and he (the emperor) was willing to conclude peace only on adequate grounds (Amm. 17.5.12). The praefectus praetorio’s initiative had taken place, but it was of a clandestine and informal nature (Amm. 16.9.2–4). However, to make a third party responsible for the matter could help the emperor to get out of the situation with dignity. A very similar example may be found in the text by Socrates Scholasticus: Emperor Theodosius wanted to conclude peace with the Persians and dispatched a delegate with this intent; the latter sent his confidant to the adversary »to make preliminary arrangements concerning the terms of peace … on coming into the presence of the Persian king, said he had been sent to him on this matter, not by the Roman emperor, but by his generals; for he said this war was not even known to the emperor, and if known would be considered insignificant by him« (Soc. 7.20).54 The general tendency seems to have been the same – to let the emperor stay at a certain distance from diplomatic actions which could 53

According to G. B. Pighi (Pighi, Nuovi studi 181–199) and R. Blockley (Blockley, Foreign Policy 19) the letters cited by Ammianus are most probably based on a reliable source, while according to J. F. Matthews he invented them (Matthews, Ammianus 549–564). 54 Another example, though not exactly the same, relates to 6th-century diplomacy: Emperor Justin II negotiated with Persian envoys and the situation was getting crucial, as the emperor did not want to negotiate on the proposed terms and the ambassador did not want to give up his position. Finally Justin lost his temper and shouted at the envoy, who got very scared, lay down at the emperor’s feet and denied his words. After performing this show, Justin, satisfied that he had made the negotiator say what he wanted him to, promised to excuse the diplomat, because an interpreter must have referred some of the Persian delegate’s words in the wrong way. Thus, pretending not to have understood what he would not like to hear, Justin continued the negotiations in the way he preferred (Men. Prot. 9.3).

80

II. Diplomatic negotiation

somehow humiliate him (and in this situation he would have appeared to be begging for peace) or were at risk of possible failure.55 b) Representatives for negotiations, authorized by the emperor The absolute majority of negotiations of ›high-level diplomacy‹ described by Late Antique authors falls into this group. The significant characteristic of the procedure was its different steps – negotiating one matter could be (and normally was) split into several assemblies. I would call it a system of ›block‹ negotiating. Cases of ›single‹ embassies also existed, but seem to have been much rarer. 1.2.1 ›Blocks‹ of embassies: initiative and response To make the matter more clear, I will start here with a short introduction which summarizes the principles of the ›block system‹ of embassies and then I will go on to make a more detailed analysis of the evidence and proof of the existence of such a scheme. An essential feature of Late Antique, especially high-level, diplomacy was the organization of embassies into series, groups or ›blocks‹. Important negotiations were usually held in several sessions or phases, not all at once. Normally, a foreign embassy came to a ruler (as will be discussed later, the scheme generally worked in relations with different states and peoples) and started discussions on a certain issue (or handed over official letters, perhaps with a commentary), setting out a problem or demands or proposals. If initiatives were accepted and the diplomatic process continued, after the departure of the first ›introductory‹ delegation (or together with it) a reply-embassy was sent, which could continue or start negotiations on the territory of a partner/adversary. If all the questions were settled and negotiations ended with this, an agreement could be concluded. In the event these sessions were not enough and some problems remained, another delegation was sent in return. Certainly the described order is a simplified, ›ideal‹ scheme. In reality, as will be demonstrated, some deviations could occur. However, it is important to note that in general the process of diplomatic communication by means of embassies was organized according to this format. To sum up, the ›formula‹ is: Side A sends an embassy to side B demonstrating the will to negotiate. Side B sends an embassy to side A in response. Side A and side B’s envoys negotiate. Side A and side B (through representatives) conclude an agreement. This scheme is a kind of skeleton. Further details will be discussed later and this basic frame will be amplified. I believe that the text by Menander the Guardsman even gives us a term for this, labelling this phenomenon as response embassies: Menander wrote that a Persian envoy, Nadoes,56 came to the Romans, apparently bringing a message from the shah »in re55

Failure did follow at first in the situation described by Socrates. The Persians decided to undertake military action and the ambassador was imprisoned, but after the Romans’ military success peace was concluded, the shah’s rhetoric being that he only agreed to peace to gratify the envoy, whom he considered the most prudent of all the Romans (Soc. 7.20). 56 PLRE-IIIB, 910f., s.v. Nadoes.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

81

sponse to the embassy of Theodorus, son of Bacchus« (Men. Prot. 20.1).57 Perhaps, the adjective ἀμοιβαῖος – ›response‹ shows that such embassies were perceived as acting in return. The number of sessions in one block depended on various reasons, first of all, the complexity of the problem. It is important to emphasize that it was a matter of principle, which seems to have been a general feature of the system. It does not mean that the diplomatic process was always organized in this way: this rule can be applied first of all to high-level diplomacy, however, some exceptions are known,58 and it is important to remember that ancient authors did not always provide many details about the circumstances of negotiations and the sequence of events, so the classification is based on testimonies which allow us to trace and to go into the particulars of the diplomatic process. Generally, a practice of dividing negotiations into steps seems to be applied by Late Roman diplomacy to different partners, so it seems worthwhile to examine some significant cases, distributed according to the geographical directions of the diplomacy. Now I will go on to make a detailed examination of the cases which give grounds to speak about a ›block system‹. 1.2.1.1 Relations with Persia Most of the cases of Roman-Persian diplomatic communication seem to be organized according to the ›block‹ principle. Examples are numerous and may be found in all the sources describing in detail the interaction between the two empires. A clear example of the ›block‹ scheme are the negotiations and signing of a peace treaty in 363 (Amm. 25.7.5– 14).59 Ammianus says that the Persians unexpectedly showed an initiative (when the Roman army was almost in despair, having recently lost Emperor Julian) and sent high-ranking envoys for peace negotiations. The conditions were hard for the Romans. However, a next diplomatic step was made and the Romans, in their turn, sent their ambassadors to conduct negotiations about the details. Unfortunately, Ammianus does not provide much detail on the procedure of signing the agreement (he writes more about the disgrace of losing territories as a result). He only says that there was an exchange of hostages and that oaths were given by both sides. Perhaps, there was one more embassy exchange before the final ratification. The same system was at work in Sapor’s negotiations with Valens about Armenia (Amm. 30.2.1–6): in total Ammianus mentions at least five embassies in this ›block‹ of negotiating and bringing letters, each in response to the previous one. Finally, a Persian ambassador of very high status60 was sent, but concord was not achieved and the Romans started preparations for a military campaign. As we see in the text by Ammianus, at least for the time described in the surviving part of his work, it may be considered a diplomatic norm in relations with Persia that embassies which negotiated complex matters were organized in blocks, and solutions achieved (or not) in several stages. 57

… ὃς τῆς διὰ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Βάκχου πρεσβείας ἔδοξεν ἀμοιβαίαν ἀποκομίζειν ἐκ τοῦ Χοσρόου ἀγγελίαν … 58 See: II.1.2.2. 59 See about this: Blockley, Foreign Policy 28–30. Winter/Dignas, Rom und Perserreich 155f.; Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 149. 60 Qua regressa advenit Surena potestatis secundae post regem (Amm. 30.2.5).

82

II. Diplomatic negotiation

In the Persian Wars, Procopius describes the exchange of embassies between Chosroes and Belisarius during the course of the war: Chosroes sent the Roman general one of his secretaries, who was to reproach the Romans for the failure to observe the previous agreements and also, in a clandestine way, to find out about the situation of the Roman troops. Later, after some military activity from both sides, Chosroes sent a delegation to Belisarius, demonstrating his desire to stop the war and to carry out negotiations. Belisarius sent a response embassy, which was to promise that very soon the imperial ambassadors would come to make a peace treaty (Proc. BP 2.21.1–28). We see here an exchange of embassies which were to prepare for future negotiations.61 Part of another, extended scheme may be found in Procopius’s account of East RomanPersian negotiations about the adoption of Chosroes (Proc. BP 1.11.1–30). While not discussing the details of the episode itself here,62 it is important to analyse the actual course of negotiations. First an embassy, bringing letters and informing of the shah’s intentions, arrived in Constantinople. While Justin I and his milieu were thinking about which strategy to choose, how to act and to answer, a further delegation with a letter from the Persian king appeared. The message announced that Cavades was going to send high-ranking envoys to conclude a treaty and arrange the adoption of his son. Justin sent off Iranian delegations, promising to send a noble representative for negotiations, the same promise written in his letter to the shah. Afterwards, negotiations between the emperor and the king of Persia’s ambassadors took place on the border of the states, but the talks failed to achieve anything as the two sides did not reach a compromise. In this case we see a combination of two diplomatic approaches: contacts between the delegations and the ruler as a first, preliminary stage, and discussions between diplomats as the culmination. The two initial Persian delegations were responded by a Roman embassy, so the block principle is evident. We know also of a case when it was the Roman side that started the embassy exchange process. In 550–551 Justinian dispatched his famous diplomat Peter the Patrician63 to Chosroes to settle an agreement. The shah sent Peter off and promised to send his representative to arrange the matter. The Persian envoy, Isdigousnas64 arrived in Constantinople, but, according to Procopius, the ambassador conducted negotiations the wrong way65 (Proc. BG 4.15.19sq.). These two embassies perfectly illustrate a classical ›twin‹ scheme of delegation exchange: Roman invitation and Persian response. What is remarkable is the fact that Justinian sent a very high-ranking diplomat with the initial embassy, though his function in this case, at least as Procopius reports, was more as an announcer than negotiator. Extremely interesting evidence concerning this subject may be found in the fragments by Menander the Guardsman. A typical example of ›block‹ practice is the embassy exchange between Chosroes and Tiberius-Sophia. The Persian envoy arrived in the capital and was received by the rulers, the letter from the shah was read and, as usual, a promise 61

62 63 64 65

The same scheme was also followed in the negotiations in 358 (Amm. 16.9.2–4; 17.5.1–15; 17.14.1– 3; 18.6.17). For precise dates of this and the other delegations in this block, see: Jonge, Commentary-17, 132. About the collision see: Pieler, Adoption 399–433; Börm, Prokop 308–317. PLRE-IIIB, 994–998, s.v. Petrus 6. PLRE-IIIA, 722, s.v. Isdigousnas Zich. About Procopius’s tendentious attitude towards Isdigousnas see Nechaeva, Double Agents.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

83

was given to send an envoy with letters in reply. The response embassy came to Chosroes and a one-year truce was concluded (Men. Prot. 18.1). Thus one block of embassies was ended, but it was also announced that another ambassador of a higher status would be sent in future to finally end the war. After this, a chain of embassies did take place, one responding or following another, with the final goal of preparing a peace agreement.66 So, as may be seen in the examples of negotiations with Persia, the ›block‹ embassy system was a method of high-level diplomatic communication, used both by the Romans and the Persians.67 Most of the negotiations on serious international questions were organized according to this principle. 1.2.1.2 Relations with the Goths High-level diplomatic affairs with the different groups of barbarians seem to be built within the same paradigm. Sources that pay a lot of attention to diplomacy provide some evidence of the usage of ›block‹ embassy organization in relations with the Goths. A fragment of text by Malchus of Philadelphia testifies this practice took place in the 470s: Emperor Leo sent envoys to Theodericus Strabo,68 who, having received the Roman envoys well, dispatched his own diplomats to the capital to negotiate (Malch. 2). In the same way another Theodericus69 replied to the embassy of Emperor Zeno (Malch. 18.2). Then the diplomatic manoeuvres of both Theodericuses led them to send a joint embassy to Zeno, which was also replied to with the dispatch of imperial envoys (Malch. 18.3). During the following war with Theodericus, the emperor sent him ambassadors, proposing peace. Negotiations started, but this embassy was not empowered to solve problems, the envoys just had to incline Theodericus to negotiate. Afterwards, a usual ›block‹ of embassies followed: from Theodericus agreeing to conclude peace and from Zeno with the concrete conditions (Malch. 20).70 1.2.1.3 Relations with the Huns In the fragment of text by Priscus of Panium one can find much evidence that the ›block‹ scheme was widely used in Roman-Hun diplomacy. Hun King Rua sent his envoy to Constantinople and Priscus mentions that the Romans were going to send diplomats in reply (Prisc. 2). Several of Attila’s envoys came to Theodosius II, asking to assign a delegation to discuss the problem of payments of subsidies, and the emperor gave such a promise (Prisc. 9.1). The famous embassy of Maximinus to Attila was also dispatched as a response to pre66 67

68 69 70

See more about these embassies and the role of the ›block‹ system within the classification of types of embassies in II.1.2.3. This practice seems to survive in Persian traditions in the following epoch: one can find the same embassy-exchange principle of organization in the text by Nizam al-Mulk Siyasat-nameh 21.2 (Nizam al-Mulk [Darke] 98). PLRE-II, 1073–1076 s.v. Theodericus Strabo 5. PLRE-II, 1077–1084, s.v. Fl. Theodericus. During the Gothic war in 538, in response to the embassy of the king of the Ostrogoths, Vitigis, Justinian promised to send his envoys to Ravenna to conclude peace (Proc. BG 2.22.22–24). The Frankish king Theodebaldus acted similarly. He received Justinian’s envoy, sent him back and dispatched his own ambassadors to Constantinople (Proc. BG 4.24.29sq.).

84

II. Diplomatic negotiation

vious Hun missions (Prisc. 11–14) and had itself caused a series of visits of Hun diplomats to Constantinople (embassies of Eslas [Prisc. 11.2.260–263], Berich [Prisc. 14.54sq.], Orestes [Prisc. 15.2.29sq.] and again Eslas [Prisc. 15.2.29sq.]), which were finally followed by the deputation of Anatolius and Nomus, who concluded a treaty (Prisc. 15.3sq.). This example is very interesting because it shows an entire chain of embassies formed in such ›blocks‹. After the death of Theodosius, the Huns again sent diplomats, demanding subsidies and a Roman negotiator, Apollonius, was sent to »Scythia« (Prisc. 23.3). It may be worth noting that in all the cases of the negotiations with the Huns described by Priscus, it was the Huns who initiated the process and the Romans who acted in response. Perhaps here we are seeing some norms of diplomatic protocol. 1.2.1.4 Others Examination of the Roman Empire’s relations with the Avars and Turks shows that the ›block‹ embassy method was also used with these peoples. Zemarchus71 undertook his famous journey after the visit to Constantinople of Turkish delegates, who proposed to conclude an alliance (Men. Prot. 10.2–5). After a first round of negotiations finished, the Turks again sent envoys to the Romans, who continued talks in Constantinople and concluded the summit (Men. Prot. 19).72 Theophylact Simocatta mentions a Roman envoy to the Avars called Elpidius,73 who came to the khagan in 584 and then an Avar diplomat left together with him to negotiate a truce (Theoph. Sim. 1.6.4). The rulers of the kingdom of Axum are considered to view themselves as equals of the Byzantine emperors.74 Malalas provides a description of an embassy from Justin II received in the Axumite court. The evidence is most probably based on the account of the envoy (Julian: Theoph. AM 6064).75 Among other details, it provides information that, when the embassy was to be sent back, »the Indian emperor embraced the head of the Roman ambassador, gave him the kiss of peace and dismissed him with much ceremony, for he sent a letter and gifts to the Roman emperor through an Indian ambassador« (Joh. Mal. 18.56).76 It seems that here we are again dealing with an indication of the block system, according to which the Axum ruler had sent the imperial envoy away and then sent his own, carrying letters and gifts. It is also significant that the word sakrai is used for letters. This term is used in Menander’s account about Roman-Persian relations (Men. Prot. 6.1.165), which also demonstrates a rather high-status level of diplomacy.77

71 72 73 74

Haussig, Theophylakts Exkurs 304. Macartney, On the Greek Sources 266f.; Hannestad, Les relations 444f. PLRE-IIIA, 440f., s.v. Elpidius. D. W. Johnson, s.v. Axum, in: ODB 1, 1991, 239; see also: Shahid, Kebra Nagast 133–178; Burstein, Le relazioni 498. 75 Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 63, n. 12. See for more details about the accounts of envoys: III.4.1. 76 Ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰνδῶν κρατήσας τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ πρεσβευτοῦ Ῥωμαίων, δεδωκὼς εἰρήνης φίλημα ἀπέλυσεν ἐν πολλῇ θεραπείᾳ. κατέπεμψε γὰρ καὶ σάκρας διὰ Ἰνδοῦ πρεσβευτοῦ καὶ δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ῥωμαίων. 77 Though it is difficult to establish the hierarchy of terms used to define a diplomatic letter; see Dölger/Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 24, 89.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

85

1.2.1.5 ›Block‹ system of embassies. A summary We can see that this method of exchanging embassies may be called a general principle of Late Antique diplomacy. Usually a responding embassy set out on its journey after the initiating one’s departure, but in some cases diplomats returning home travelled together with delegates just dispatched in a responding embassy. The latter case is rarer.78 Perhaps one should not seek any special significance in this: preparing an embassy to send in response, elaborating the scheme of action, writing letters or giving instructions to ambassadors, this all could take some time and, maybe this was one of the reasons why the arrived delegation was sent away first and then the responding embassy departed after some time. Another reason for not travelling together could be a difference in the envoys’ status (especially important for relations with Persia), as the inviting embassy was usually of a lesser rank than the responding one. It is also notable that in the cases when two joint embassies travelled together, they made their journeys to, or from, either far-situated territories, or through lands which were not very well controlled by the Romans, and so I would suppose that some security reasons could also have played a part.79 Could it matter who was the first to start the ›block‹ negotiation process? It attracts attention that the majority of such ›block‹ embassies which we read about in Antique sources (in Greek or in Latin) were initiated by the non-Roman side. Perhaps this fact could be somehow connected with the problem of standing and reputation. An initiative in starting peace negotiations could somehow have been perceived as a certain sign of accepting some responsibilities on having started a war.80 The side starting negotiations may have acted as a suppliant and this would have made its status position lower. It is notable in this framework that in the cases of ›block‹ embassy relations with Persia – a direction of diplomacy where the Roman Empire was especially concerned about its status – the majority of testimonies ascribe the first initiative to Persia, a fact which may not only reflect the real state of affairs, but the possible tendency by the authors to show the situation this way.81

78

Maximinus’s embassy travelled to Attila together with returning Hun envoys (Prisc. 11.2); Turkish diplomat Tagma followed Zemarchus and they did their trip to Byzantium jointly (Men. Prot. 10.3); Avar ambassador Targitis accompanied Elpidius (Theoph. Sim. 1.6.4). 79 Travelling together with the adversary’s envoys could perhaps provide some additional guarantees (even though according to the rulers, a foreign embassy should be met after crossing a border; in the case of such distant voyages as the one of Zemarchus this consideration seems reasonable). The envoy Elpidius even asked the khagan to send an Avar envoy together with their returning delegation (Theoph. Sim. 1.6.4). 80 E.g. Men. Prot. 18.9–11. 81 A remarkable example: in 422 Theodosius II dispatched the master of offices Helion to conclude peace with the Persians, because he wanted to fortify a military success. Helion arrived in Mesopotamia, but at first did not negotiate personally, having sent the Persians his representative – assessor Maximinus. Maximinus went to the Persian shah and informed him that he was sent to negotiate peace. However, he underlines that he was sent not by the emperor, but by his strategoi, among whom, Helion, who was comes and magister officiorum (PLRE-II, 533, s.v. Helion 1), could also have been meant. But it is more possible that Maximinus was to pretend that he was sent as the result of an »unauthorized initiative by the Roman generals« (Blockley, Foreign Policy 57). It is important that the envoy emphasizes that the emperor did not even know about that war and if he

86

II. Diplomatic negotiation

The organization of embassies in ›blocks‹ was the direct and natural consequence of the structure of Late Antique diplomacy: on the one hand, it was based and absolutely depended on the emperor and his decisions, and on the other hand, it was ›indirect‹ in the sense that the highest authorities preferably negotiated through mediators and envoys.82 Such a system was rather opportune, because it allowed, if it was needed, consultations to be divided into several parts, to adjust a political course to the changing reality and gave time to instruct envoys on the necessary direction to take. Thus, every diplomatic act tended to fall into several phases, because the ambassadors’ rights in decision-making were very limited, and so any change of situation or new proposal was to be discussed with a ruler. Evidently the main clue for explaining this system relates to etiquette and the juridical aspect: formally all important negotiations, even if they were held between diplomats, were led on behalf of the ruler, and the ambassadors had to inform and consult him on almost every step. So, while receiving an embassy, a ruler could not fruitfully communicate with diplomats for a long time, especially if interests differed – an adversary ruler had to sanction changes. Consequently, in some cases, if diplomats were negotiating between themselves, they continuously corresponded with their rulers through messengers83 and if an ambassador arrived with an initial mission to an adversary ruler, it was more logical to send envoys in reply. Another interesting feature of this practice is, of course, the meaning of the protocol and ceremonial. It seems possible to note that it was a special code of behaviour and etiquette in high-level diplomacy which demanded that, even in cases when an agreement could have been achieved immediately and there were no disputable details to settle, an initiating embassy should have been received first (certainly according to ceremonial rules) and then a responding delegation was to be sent. An immediate answer could only have been given in negative cases, but even then a special embassy would usually be sent to reject proposals. Receiving an ambassador, and then sending one’s own, was a significant sign of mutual respect. The ›block‹ organization of embassies and their order corresponds with the stratification of diplomatic missions according to their status and power.

81

knew, he would consider it insignificant (Soc. 7.20). R. C. Blockley ascribes the initiative to negotiate this way to Helion (Blockley, Foreign Policy 57), but it seems more possible that the master of offices acted according to a plan which was not unknown to the emperor. Perhaps the reason was that the emperor wanted to formally distance himself from the process of starting the negotiations and proposing peace. As an analogy one can remember a case, described by Ammianus, when Constantius wrote a letter to Sapor, underlining that the initiative behind the negotiations, furthermore clandestine and informal, did not come from him, but from the praefectus praetorio (Amm. 17.5.12). See about both cases above: II.1.2.a. 82 Perhaps the period when this principle was formed was during the early empire. We know of a similar case in Trajan’s negotiations with the Dacian ruler Decebalus, whose envoys first tried to convince the emperor to meet Decebalus personally and »if not, that someone at least should be sent to agree upon terms with him«. Roman envoys were dispatched, and »Decebalus did not dare to meet them either, but sent envoys also on this occasion« (Dio Cass. 68.9.1sq.). 83 See also: III.2.4.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

87

1.2.2 Single embassies Some embassies were not parts of the ›block group‹, but were one-assembly acts. The text by Ammianus provides some examples of one-session peace-making with barbarians, when embassies came to the emperor/Caesar (envoys of the Alemanni and Constantius II: Amm. 14.10.9–16; envoys of the Chamavi and Julian: Amm. 17.8.5).84 In these cases, the barbarian envoys, seeking an agreement, were received by the Roman rulers who granted them peace. Negotiations could be limited to one session when one of the sides was not interested in the proposals. In 565 an Avar envoy, Targitis,85 arrived in Constantinople to demand the continuation of the annual payments (which Justin, in contrast to Justinian, refused to pay) and discuss other problems (Men. Prot. 12.6). As the emperor was not interested in the continuation of negotiations or sending payments he just sent off the envoy with a negative answer.86 As for the evidence about the Avars concerning the 6th century, it is not surprising that ›block‹ embassies did not take place, as in fact the negotiation was refused by the Roman side. The situations described by Ammianus are different. Formally, acts of high-level diplomacy took place (because emperors participated in it at least), but we see no protocol of embassy exchange. Everything was decided and concluded at once. Here we are dealing with cases of a more simple procedure: emperors were on the march and communicated with the barbarians who asked the emperor for peace in a belittled manner. It is important to remember that the sources which we have for the 5th and especially 6th centuries (mostly for the Justinianic era) are incomparably richer in their descriptions of the details of diplomatic issues and ceremonial and Ammianus could also have omitted some particulars of the process. But still, perhaps these episodes in the text by Ammianus could also allow us to trace some developments of this practice in time: over the centuries the ceremonial increased and protocol was becoming more and more detailed and elaborate and the situations described by Ammianus are hard to imagine in the 6th century. It is probably also significant that both cases – of simplified one-session talks and refused negotiations – occurred in relations with different barbarians. Perhaps diplomatic protocol with Persia was more exigent. In the frame of the evidence from Late Antique sources, indications of situations when high-level negotiations occurred, but embassies were not organized according to the ›block‹ principle (see further), are rather rare. It is important to underline once more that our sources do not always let us judge whether a negotiation process functioned within this paradigm or not, because in some cases, when we know that there were some negotiations or a treaty was concluded, no additional information is given and so details of protocol remain unknown. 84

This case is worth special attention. Ammianus says that Julian received and gave peace to the Chamavi’s envoys, but Eunapius informs that there was a meeting of the emperor with the Chamavi king (Eunap. 18.6). See above: II.1.1.1. 85 PLRE-IIIB, 1217, s.v. Targitis. 86 The same envoy was later sent to Byzantium several times and once, in 586, during hostilities with the Avars, he was even arrested and exiled to the island of Chalcidis by Emperor Maurice (Theoph. Sim. 1.8.7–9), which seems to be the another case of an embassy without a response.

88

II. Diplomatic negotiation

1.2.3 Classification of embassies Different types and levels of negotiations demanded embassies and ambassadors with different statuses. It is rather difficult to differentiate the groups with absolute exactness, mostly following the differentiation of Menander Protector, but some evidence – mostly from Menander Protector – allows us to outline some classifications and distinguish several levels and types of diplomatic mission. 1.2.3.1 Minor embassy The very term ›minor‹ in terms of embassies derives from the famous evidence from Menander the Guardsman. In the middle of the process of complex diplomatic communication between the Roman Empire and Persia in the 570s, when confrontation concerning Armenia occurred, a Persian envoy, Nadoes, arrived in Constantinople. He was sent, as Menander wrote, »by Chosroes on a so-called minor embassy« (Men. Prot. 20.1).87 It is important to note that this embassy took place as one link in a rather long chain of embassies and legations from Theodorus, to which Nadoes was responding (within a ›block‹). Nadoes’s embassy was a response to a previous embassy (informing the Persians that the Romans were ready to send their officials to discuss the peace matters of the future treaty) and the answer he brought was positive. Nadoes did not merely bring letters with information, but also put some questions concerning the problem of responsibility for breaking the treaty and he seems to have had no right to negotiate. What is very significant, in this indication, is that the embassy was a minor one. It shows not only that stratification of embassies according to types and functions existed, but that it was a well-established norm, possibly at least in the 6th century.88 Up to the 6th century, when we see evident recognition of its particular features, the scheme could have been developing and becoming established, but it seems very likely that the practice itself existed.89 According to Menander (and here one should remember that his reasoning on the theory 87

Ἐν τούτῳ παρεγένετο Ναδώης, ἐς τὴν λεγομένην σμικρὰν χειροτονηθεὶς πρεσβείαν, πρὸς Χοσρόου ἐκπεμφθείς. 88 It seems likely that even if our sources for events of the 4th and 6th centuries do not provide such details, and do not divide embassies into different types, this does not mean the division itself did not exist. Not all of our authors were so interested in the diplomatic process, and the texts of those who definitely were are usually fragmented and some information could have been lost. Those who should have been deeply interested in the routine of diplomacy were the Byzantine excerpters compiling the Excerpta de legationibus. It cannot be excluded that the phrases in the text of Menander discussed above may not have been his (or Peter the Patrician’s) own, but may have been added by a compiler to make a matter clear, or, if he had abridged text, he could have used his own words to formulate matters about which Menander may have written at greater length. In any case, the generalizations and commentaries of the 9th century concerning diplomatic practice in relations between Persia and Rome will probably have been based on earlier Late Antique sources, simply because the historical situation had changed greatly. 89 R. C. Blockley, writing about evidence from Menander on the division of embassies into ›minor‹ and ›major‹, notes: »Although Menander appears to indicate that the distinction, which marks a significant advance in the reutilization of relations, was of long standing, there is no unequivocal evidence that it existed in the fifth century« (Blockley, Foreign Policy 152 with n. 10). See the same opinion, Helm, Untersuchungen 408, n. 3; Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien 14.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

89

of diplomacy could be based on that of Peter the Patrician), the division of embassies into »major and minor« was a »long-standing custom for both states« (Men. Prot. 18.6).90 So, judging from Menander’s text, a minor embassy is one which comes in response to a previous one and expresses some initiatives. An important question is whether we could refer to the same group of minor embassies (in the sense that Menander perceived it) those responding to some previous missions (but without serious negotiations) and those that merely brought an initiative of one side to the other. In my opinion we could acknowledge that many deputations which were sent to initiate a process of negotiations or in response to some embassy, but again brought further initiatives, within the ›block system‹, can be considered ›minor‹ ones. They had no right to conduct real negotiations but their function in the diplomatic machine was to make the first (or one more) step towards the final goal of signing a treaty. Embassies bringing information and proposals definitely form a special group, which differs from other types of diplomatic missions. So, in this study, the delegations which were not authorized to negotiate, but usually demonstrated an urge to do it in future, and also had the significance of a ceremonial ›response‹, are described as ›minor‹. 1.2.3.2 Major embassies As in the case of minor embassies, Menander Protector is our main source for distinguishing ›major‹ embassies as a separate classification group. Twice Menander mentions the phenomenon of a ›major‹ ambassador. While negotiating and concluding a one-year truce, the imperial envoy to Chosroes, Zacharias, announced that during the period Empress Sophia »would send a major embassy with full authority to discuss everything and to end war …« (Men. Prot. 18.2).91 Another piece of evidence already discussed here, is the information about the envoy Theodorus, who had »to render thanks for the high honors lavished upon the major envoy, Traianus, when, shortly before, the king had received his embassy (it was a long-standing custom for both states that after major envoys other lesser ones should be sent to give thanks for the receipt and friendly treatment of the major envoys)« (Men. Prot. 18.6).92 In both cases one and the same ambassador seems to be meant – Traianus. It is notable that in the description of the very embassy of Traianus (Men. Prot. 18.3–5) it is not mentioned that any of the ambassadors was major. Another interesting aspect is that the embassy of Traianus had to conclude a truce, not a treaty. Then why wasn’t Zacharias called a major? Did it really matter that he concluded a truce for one year and Traianus for three years? It seems doubtful that the reason only lay in the duration of the truces. One could certainly presume that for some reason Menander or a compiler of excerpts omitted to describe the very grand embassy which took place after the conclusion of the three-year truce, also executed by Traianus. But this seems improbable: the very logic 90

R. C. Blockley proposes to see »the seeds which grew into the distinction between major and minor embassies« in the use by envoys of go-betweens in the course of negotiations (Blockley, Foreign Policy 152f., n. 11). It seems reasonable to extend the frame of this observation to the more general principle of ›blocks‹ engaged in by Late Antique diplomacy. 91 … σταλήσεσθαι πρὸς τῆς βασιλίδος μέγιστον πρεσβευτὴν τὸν τελεώτερά πως περὶ ἁπάντων διαλεχθησόμενον ἔτι μὴν καὶ τὸν πόλεμον διαλύσοντα … 92 … μετὰ τοὺς μεγάλους πρέσβεις στέλλεσθαι ἑτέρους ἥσσονας τῆς τῶν μεγίστων πρέσβεων ἀποδοχῆς τε ἕκατι καὶ φιλοφροσύνης.

90

II. Diplomatic negotiation

and sequence of the embassies described contradicts such an assumption, and furthermore all the other missions within this block seem to be described carefully, in detail, one after another, so a gap here was hardly possible. Perhaps some importance could lie in the fact that the personal status and rank of Traianus was higher than that of Zacharias, who also accompanied Zacharias. Traianus »had a rank of patrician and held the office of quaestor« (Men. Prot. 18.3) and Zacharias was »one of the court physicians« (Men. Prot. 18.2).93 Another important aspect was the figure of the ruler who sent these missions. It attracts attention that Zacharias was dispatched to conclude a one-year truce by Empress Sophia, the wife of Justin II, because the emperor was ill. The envoy, who was a court physician, as mentioned in the same fragment, promises that a major ambassador would come, »if it should also happen that the Roman Emperor in the meantime recovered his health« (Men. Prot. 18.6). Then, while negotiating, Traianus and Zacharias wrote to Tiberius and received instructions from him when he had taken on the state affairs again, because without his ratification an agreement was impossible (Men. Prot. 18.3sq.). Another mention of envoys with a grander status than usual is also made by Menander, who describes the situation in the year 579 when Tiberius had again started negotiations with Chosroes to conclude peace, and sent to Persia the two ambassadors, Zacharias and Theodorus, having given them the power of major ambassadors.94 They had to make peace on whatever terms they could (Men. Prot. 23.8sq.). A major embassy, or, more strictly speaking, ambassador (μεγάλος πρέσβυς; μέγιστος πρεσβευτής) as described by Menander, had the right to negotiate an agreement, but not to make a decision in the case when the situation was changing. Especially significant is the fact that a major ambassador could conclude a truce, but not a final peace agreement. It was the period of these three years of truce, when »the high officials of both states would meet to discuss how the hostilities might be completely ended« (Men. Prot. 18.4). This means that, in spite of its high title, the mission of a major embassy was not the last nor most important in the chain of diplomatic communication. In a sense, their function was (or could be) also preliminary – preparations for the following culmination. As in the case with minor embassies we only have evidence from Menander to attribute a special term to this group. But in this very evidence we read that »it was a long-standing custom for both states« (Men. Prot. 18.6). Perhaps a similar system of embassy classification also existed in Persia, but we have no sources to prove it.95 However, the Roman side seems to distinguish the major ones among the Persian delegations. In the Book of Ceremonies by Constantine Porphyrogennetos an account is conserved of the reception of the Persian major envoy (μεγάλος πρεσβευτὴς; de cer. 1.89 and 90). As already noticed above, it is considered that

93 94 95

See details about this case and generally about the ranks of envoys: III.1. Μεγίστων πρέσβεων ἔχειν ἰσχύν. Due to a wrong reading of the text of a Sasanid seal stored in the Cabinet des Médailles in Paris, a theory also existed that the data in the written sources could be confirmed by the inscription on the seal (Stock, Großgesandter 166f.; Curiel/Gignoux, Intaille sasanide 41–49). The new interpretation, however, has shown that the text on the seal has nothing to do with the titles of the diplomats (Gyselen, Catalogue des sceaux 20, A. 1; Gignoux/Gyselen, Sceaux de femmes 877–896).

1. The negotiating parties and agents

91

these chapters of the book were based on the work by Peter the Patrician and reflect the situation of the Late Antique period96 and more precisely describe the reception of a Persian embassy headed by Iesdekos (Isdigousnas).97 I believe that we should refer to major embassies a large amount of negotiations about peace, truces and some particular questions of international affairs. Perhaps missions of this group should be correlated with the majority of response embassies in the ›block‹ system. Should we consider major embassies to be used only in diplomatic dialogue with Persia? Perhaps not. Menander mentioned that such a practice existed between the two states, while in that passage he described communication between the two powers. Possibly the system of minor and major embassies was originally developed in relations with Persia, but there is a notable tendency in the 5th and the 6th centuries, when powerful leaders of different groups or barbarians expected to be perceived in diplomatic dialogue within the same paradigm as the Persians, i.e. as equals (for reflection on this tendency in choosing the ranks of ambassadors).98 In general, Roman diplomacy sought to resist such pretensions, but it did not always manage to. One of the key aspects which could distinguish a major ambassador from an envoy of lesser importance was his rank, status and social and administrative position. When the barbarians insisted on concluding treaties with ambassadors of a higher rank than they were proposed, they perhaps demanded a major embassy be sent to them (Prisc. 11.1.16sq.; 11.2.13–20).99 A wonderful parallel here is the system to which European diplomacy came in modern times – according to the Vienna Congress of 1815 a system of diplomatic ranks was established which were used to demonstrate and indicate precedence between the nations, and higher ranking ambassadors would be sent to major and powerful states or close allies and related monarchies and minor envoys reserved for less important powers. Formally such a system existed until the end of World War II.100 Definably such a stratification of partners in international affairs is rather natural for the development of the diplomatic process, but the fact that we see many elements of this modernday system in Late Antiquity demonstrates how elaborate and advanced the imperial diplomatic apparatus was and how bureaucratic it was becoming. As J. Bury has noticed, »In the diplomatic intercourse between the Imperial and Persian governments we may find the origin of the formalities of European diplomacy.«101

96 97 98 99

100 101

Bury, Ceremomial Book 212f.; Boak, Master 93f.; A. Kazhdan, De ceremoniis, in: ODB 1, 1991, 595–597. See: I.2.1; Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 194f.; PLRE-IIIA, 722f., s.v. Isdigousnas Zich. See: III.1. There is an interesting idea by T. Lounghis, who proposed to see in the practice of sending envoys of the high rank of patrician to the barbarian leaders as an attempt by the empire to establish a certain equality between the barbarian rulers of the West (who used to receive the respective titles from the emperor) and the high-ranking ambassadors: Lounghis, Ambassadors 147; see also about this: Lounghis, Adaptability 336; Lounghis, Diplomacy 20, 40–43; Lounghis, Ambassades 316f., 358, 443. See also: III.1.1. See e.g. Hamilton/Langhorne, Practice. Bury, LRE 92.

92

II. Diplomatic negotiation

1.2.3.3 Conventionally distinguished group of ›medium‹ embassies It is also necessary to outline a group of embassies, which seem to be somewhere inbetween in the hierarchy of major and minor embassies. The sources provide no particular name to classify them, but it is evident that there are cases which should be attributed to some intermediate cluster. Following the text by Menander, which demonstrates the division between minor and major embassies, it is notable to examine the embassy of Zacharias, who was said to have been sent by Empress Sophia and who had concluded a one-year truce with the Persians (Men. Prot. 18.2). He definitely could not have been a minor envoy, because he had negotiated and concluded a concrete agreement. Nor can we consider him a major ambassador, as he himself gave a promise to the Persians that one would come after him. As already mentioned, an important factor that could determine the status of an embassy was the personality and first of all the rank of the envoy (though in the case of Zacharias, the status of the ruler as well – see above). Perhaps we could also speak about a group of ›medium‹ envoys, adding this group to the classification by Menander. In some aspects they seem to be rather close to the major ones, but the fundamental difference lay, I believe, in the rank of the envoy who was to negotiate and conclude an agreement. Possibly in relations with Persia such ›medium‹ envoys were sent – not very often – to negotiate agreements of minor importance. The case of Zacharias looks atypical, as he was sent during a period of certain instability in Constantinople because of Justin’s illness, and there are some reasons to suppose that he was dispatched because of his private contacts with the Persian shah.102 It is not accidental that he underlines that a major envoy was to come. So that the situation would not appear offensive for the Persians, high-level diplomacy between Rome and Persia required high-level negotiators. At the same time, in communication with the barbarians, as pointed out above, the Roman Empire tended to act from superior positions. In my opinion we could refer to this artificially distinguished group numerous negotiations and agreements with different barbarians, to whom envoys of average status were sent.103 Their function was the same as the major one, but the significant distinction lay in their status. There is also a separate group of embassies which notified about the accession of a new ruler. We could consider it a universal rule of Late Antique diplomacy: Romans used to send such informing embassies to the Persians and to different barbarians, who in their turn acted the same way.104 Their role was not merely ceremonial, but they could have had some practical importance as well. Their real significance was not just to inform about the changes that had occurred, but to confirm or deny that previous agreements would remain in force. In some cases the same envoys who were sent with notifying embassies even led negotiations (Men. Prot. 9.1sq.). Judging from this it seems reasonable to include these notifying embassies as a special part of the ›medium‹ group. Strictly speaking, they can be also regarded as a separate phenomenon, as their function and status seem to lie somewhere inbetween the minor and medium embassies. 102 103 104

See: III.1. For details about the status of envoys see: III.1.1. For this type of embassy see in detail: II.2.1.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

93

1.2.3.4 Summary The scheme of the types of embassies looks to be the following: – minor embassies: mostly ceremonial meaning, had no right to communicate and expressed formal will to communicate – notifying about accession of ruler: mostly ceremonial meaning, sometimes also had a right to communicate, must have had different status, depending on that of addressee – ›medium‹ embassies: had a right to communicate and could conclude some agreements, their status was lower than the major ones – major embassies: could negotiate and conclude some agreements, but not the final ones, their status was very high. A question which remains is whether major embassies could conclude final agreements, and long-term peace contracts. Or is it possible to distinguish another class of embassies which had greater authorities? It seems likely that we should also distinguish a group of the most powerful and important embassies, which had greater importance and authority than the major ones. 1.3 Negotiations between representatives of rulers 1.3.1 Plenipotentiary and ›autocratic‹ embassies Based on the source materials, it seems possible to distinguish a group of embassies which may be described as plenipotentiary. In most cases they belong to high-level diplomacy between the Roman and the Persian Empires. Plenipotentiary ambassadors possessed a high status and represented their state. A particular and important feature of such negotiations which were supposed to lead to the signing of an agreement was that these were representatives of both sides that met on the border of their territories. It is significant that equilibrium was provided by the fact that the mediators from both sides negotiated together. Such a meeting was a culmination of a long process of embassy exchanges, which had travelled from one court to another. The final session was to be held on the border, because that could guarantee negotiation from an equal position, which would be impossible if an agreement were to be concluded at the court of one of the sovereigns. Using authorized ambassadors was a way to avoid personal meetings between the rulers, but it never led to giving the diplomats decision-making power. Certainly the most advanced negotiations should be those which ended with the conclusion of a peace treaty. As usual, the protocol seems to be the most elaborate in relations with Persia. And again most detailed accounts may be found among the fragments of the text by Menander the Guardsman. The block of embassies amply described above ended with final negotiations between the Romans and Persians in order to conclude peace. Before the culmination conference, we see several notifications made by preliminary stage envoys that their absolute goal was to prepare that meeting. The delegation of the major ambassador Traianus proclaimed that during the period of the three-year truce »the high officials of both states (ἄρχοντας ἑκατέρας πολιτείας) would meet to discuss how the hostilities might be completely ended« (Men. Prot. 18.4). The following step was when minor envoy Theodorus »was told to declare that Tiberius was ready, as they had already agreed, to send to the frontier of the East high Ro-

94

II. Diplomatic negotiation

man officials (τοὺς Ῥωμαίων ἄρχοντας) to discuss peace with leading men of the Persians (ἡγεμόσι Περσῶν) sent by Chosroes and to examine the points at dispute« (Men. Prot. 18.6). The next phase of preparations was the mission of Persian minor envoy Nadoes, who had »indicated that the Persian king himself was very ready to send high officials ἄρχοντας (τοὺς ἄρχοντας) to the borders of the East to meet together with representatives of the Romans to consider and investigate how to end hostilities« (Men. Prot. 20.1). The diplomatic process continued and Menander indicates who the representatives of both states were who would negotiate and conclude peace. The Roman Emperor »sent to the East men wellsuited for settling the disputes to meet with the Persian high officials (Περσῶν ἡγεμόσιν)« and when a place for negotiations was chosen both sides met and with them were »the local governors of both states (ἄρχοντες πολιτείας ἀμφοτέρας)« (Men. Prot. 20.1). Menander also provides a very detailed description of a peace treaty which was concluded between the Romans and the Persians in the year 561–562.105 In the same way, when it was decided to make universal peace, the rulers sent very high status envoys, who met at the frontier. »When the envoys met and were joined by the governors of the neighborhood, they opened the conference« (Men. Prot. 6.1). While the process of concluding of a peace treaty will be looked at in further detail later,106 here it is important to mention that such negotiations of major importance were held by the very high-status envoys who acted together with local governors, probably the duces limitanei.107 Mainly ambassadors seem to lead the negotiations and the ›archontes‹ from the Roman side and ›hegemons‹ from the Persian side validate the document together with the ambassadors. Of significance is the fact that even when such high-status representatives negotiated and concluded a treaty, it needed to be ratified by rulers of both states as well, which was done by letters (Men. Prot. 6.1). It seems possible and important to distinguish embassies of this level and type from the ›major‹ ones. Though formal logics would lead us to consider that delegations which were called grand or major should be the most powerful ones,108 sources, and first of all evidence from Menander, show the system was more complex, also presupposing missions with higher power. Another group which may also be referred to plenipotentiary embassies is the one associated with an ambassador’s autocratic authority. There is already testimony of the term ›autocrator‹, relating to ambassadors, in Ancient Greece.109 It is not so certain whether we could trace the use of ›autocrator‹ plenipotentiary envoys to Late Antiquity. An interesting episode may be found in the text by Malchus. Envoys of the Gothic ruler Theodericus arrived in Constantinople saying that (in the translation by R. C. Blockley) »the Emperor must quickly send an ambassador to him to deal with everything«110 (Malch. 20.43–

105 106 107 108 109

Cameron/Ward-Perkins/Whitby, CAH 84. See: II.3. See: I.1.6. Stock, Großgesandter 171, n. 30. Mosley, Diplomacy 30–38; generally for the semantics of the term autocrator see: Mason, Greek Terms 117–121. 110 … ἔλεγον ὅτι δέοι ταχέως περὶ πάντων αὐτοκράτορα αὐτῷ πρεσβευτὴν ἀποστεῖλαι …

1. The negotiating parties and agents

95

45).111 The phrase in Greek seems to be ambiguous to understand: it is not absolutely grammatically clear whether it was meant that the emperor (=autocrator) was to send an ambassador or it was an autocrator-ambassador who should have been sent. Favouring the first version may be the fact that in the following phrase, Malchus says that the emperor has sent Adamantius as an envoy, and Zeno is referred to simply as ὁ, as if he had been mentioned above (Malch. 20.43–45).112 Most of the translators, however, seem to have understood the phrase in the second sense of plenipotentiary ambassador. The very construction περὶ πάντων perhaps emphasizes the outstanding authority of an envoy. There are some additional arguments to suppose that Malchus used the definition ›autocrator‹ in relation to the diplomat. Very close usage may be found in the text by Lysias, ambassador-autocrator »concerning peace« (Lys. In Agoratum 13.9sq.). It seems very significant that not only the formula of plenipotentiary ambassador is used, but also that Lysias called him περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης πρεσβευτὴν αὐτοκράτορα which is very close to Malchus’s variant περὶ πάντων αὐτορκάτωρ, also with usage of genitivus but with a more general indication – not just to negotiate for peace, but for everything. For the »classicising historian«113 Malchus, even some allusions to the text by Lysias should perhaps not be excluded, but it is more likely that a common formula was used. Another example of distinguishing the autocratic functions of an embassy may be found in the fragment of text by Peter the Patrician: at the end of the 3rd century (297 AD) the magister memoriae, Sicorius Probus, was sent by Diocletian and Galerius as an ambassador to Narseus114 and discussed terms for an agreement. When the Persian diplomat suggested changing one of the proposals about the status of Nisibis, Sicorius insisted on taking the point as it had been proposed by the Romans, because his embassy was not plenipotentiary and the emperors had not given the envoy any special instructions (Petr. Patr. fr. 14).115 We seem to be dealing with some plays upon words in this case (by Peter himself or a later compiler), as οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοκράτωρ ἡ πρεσβεία is evidently opposed to the end of the phrase ἐκ τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων οὐδὲν ἐπετέτραπτο and there are no doubts that in the first case an embassy is meant. So, judging from this evidence by Peter, only specially authorized embassies could have the right to change something and not only act according to given instructions. We do not have enough information about autocrator-ambassadors for the Late Antique period to understand whether this was really a term used by official diplomacy and whether the status of such a diplomat allowed him to act independently. The little that we know,

111

112 113 114 115

Also compare the translation into Italian by L. R. Cresci: »I suoi ambasciatori, arrivati a Bizanzio, dissero che per discutere tutta la questione urgeva l’invio a Teodorico di un plenipotenziario, perché non erano in grado di trattenere oltre un’orda sterminata dal danneggiare tutto ciò che poteva« (Malco di Filadelfia [Cresci] 44, fr. 18); and into Russian by S. Destunis: »По прибытии в Византию, поверенные его объявили, что надлежало отправить немедленно полномочного посланника к Теодориху« (Vizantiiskie istoriki [Destunis] 260, fr. 20). Ὁ δὲ Ἀδαμάντιον τὸν Βιβιανοῦ παῖδα πατρίκιόν τε ὄντα καὶ πολιαρχήσαντα προσθεὶς αὐτῷ καὶ τιμὴν ὑπατικὴν ἔπεμψε παραγγείλας. FCHLRE 75. Millar, Emperors 6. FHG IV, 189.

96

II. Diplomatic negotiation

however, seems to contradict this assumption. Adamantius, who was sent to negotiate with Theodericus as autocrator-ambassador, emphasized in the course of negotiations that he was not authorized (οὐκ ἔφη κύριος εἶναι) to conclude any agreement with Theodericus so long as the latter was in Epirus and that he had to consult with the emperor about it (Malch. 20). The decision-making authority belonged to the supreme ruler and any deviation from the planned scenario meant that the envoy, even if his rank was rather high, had to ask the emperor for confirmation of a new initiative.116 It is noteworthy that even during the classical period, plenipotentiary envoys had to act strictly according to their instructions. As D. G. Mosley has noted, in Athenian-Sparta relations it could have been more a mark of respect of a major state to send envoys whose credentials bore the title of plenipotentiaries.117 Perhaps we are dealing with something of the same style in Late Antique diplomacy. Theodericus’s demand to negotiate with an autocrator-ambassador could also have had something to do with his pretension to be treated according to the norms of high-level diplomacy. The extent of freedom which Late Antique envoys possessed was rather limited, some cases are known when envoys were even punished for diverging from instructions.118 1.3.1.1 Authorized embassies. A summary Accounts by Menander demonstrate that in the event when the most high-status negotiations were held between the Roman and Persian representatives, it was necessary to consult the rulers of both states not only concerning arguable problems (Men. Prot. 20.2), but, also when a text of agreement was ready, both monarchs had to approve and ratify it and then ambassadors and interpreters would countersign the treaty.119 I would suppose that the autocracy or plenipotentiary power of an ambassador could have consisted of the very fact that he was authorized to negotiate and then sign an agreement.120 In that sense one could understand the extraordinary nature of his position, he had the imperium to act in a certain sense in place of an emperor. A similar scheme seems to work in Persian diplomacy. Menander mentioned that the diplomat Mebodes, who negotiated with Theodorus and Zacharias, was given full power by Chosroes to make peace121 (Men. Prot. 20.1). The Roman ambassadors who were to conclude the agreement with Mebodes must have been provided with analogous power. Though in the text by Menander we don’t see usage of the word ›autocrator‹ referring to ambassadors, the semantics of ›κῦρος‹ seems to be close. The problem of ambassadors’ autocracy leads us to examine another phenomenon – of generals with the functions of autocrator and their role in the diplomatic process.

116 117 118 119 120

Helm, Untersuchungen 404f. Mosley, Envoys 35f. For the cases of parapresbeia see: I.3.1.3 (e.g. Men. Prot. 9.2; Proc. BP 1.11.31; Amm. 30.4.5). See: II.3. Compare this with the function of medieval procurator in contrast with the nuncios’ role: Queller, Ambassador 26 (and the whole of chapter 2 ›The Procurator or Plenipotentiary‹, 26– 59). 121 … ᾧ δὴ τὸ κῦρος τῶν περὶ τὴν εἰρήνην ἐπέθηκε Χοσρόης.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

97

1.3.2 Local negotiations 1.3.2.1 Magistri militum Belonging to this group are the negotiations that were carried out directly during the course of military operations (or temporary armistices) close to the front line.122 The leading role in such conferences belonged to the military magister, who seems to have had vast diplomatic powers. It was he who received messengers and envoys for preliminary talks and then could readdress and direct them to the emperor. Thus, when conducting negotiations with the Goths in 536 and offering peace on certain conditions, Belisarius proclaimed that he was not authorized to solve such questions and so sent the ambassadors to the emperor and meanwhile exchanged embassies with the Goths in order to establish a truce (Proc. BG 2.6.36).123 In 543 magister utriusque militiae (in the following: MVM) per Armeniam Valerianus124 received envoys from the Persian general Nabedes, conducted negotiations (and even secret talks with one of the envoys) and dismissed the diplomats with a message to Chosroes which said that Roman envoys would soon arrive (Proc. BP 2.24.3–9). The same principle must have worked in relations with the barbarians. When in 579 MVM (at Singidunum) Sethus125 negotiated with the khagan of the Avars, Baianus,126 concerning the construction of a bridge over the Danube, the Roman general was ordered by the khagan »to receive envoys from him and send them on to the Emperor« (Men. Prot. 25.1.46sq.). Sethus, though unwillingly, »sent them off to the Emperor Tiberius in the capital« (Men. Prot. 25.1.87–89). Menander mentioned another peace negotiation with the Avars, held in 568 by MVM (per Illyricum?) Bonus.127 He, like Belisarius, sent the embassy to Constantinople for further negotiations. Later the general was blamed by Emperor Justin, who was unsatisfied with the suggestions that the diplomats brought with them, and »sent a letter to the general Bonus censuring him heavily for actually sending on to him at Byzantium men who carried such proposals« (Men. Prot. 12.6.81–83). This episode demonstrates that during periods of hostilities, the magister militum not only acted as a mediator between the enemy and the emperor, but also had functions to control the diplomatic process. Perhaps, if in the course of military actions there were intentions to end the hostilities, at least for a certain period, negotiations with the magister militum were the first necessary stage before the delegation could be sent directly to the emperor. In 581, during the Avar siege of Sirmium, MVM(?) per Illyricum Theognis128 discussed a truce with Khagan Baianus (Men. Prot. 27.2) and, having received an order from Emperor Tiberius to surrender the city to the Avars, Theognis negotiated the conditions with the khagan (Men. Prot. 27.3). Theophylact Simocatta reported an episode when, after prelimi122 123 124 125 126 127 128

For the close, but much wider, phenomenon of ›regional embassies‹ see: Lounghis, Ambassades 399f. PLRE-IIIA, 201, s.v. Belisarius. PLRE-IIIB, 1357, s.v. Valerianus 1. PLRE-IIIB, 1138, s.v. Sethus. PLRE-IIIA, 167f., s.v. Baianus; A. Savvides, s.v. Baian, in: EPLBHC 2, 2008, 9f. PLRE-IIIA, 241, s.v. Bonus 4. PLRE-IIIB, 1303, s.v. Theognis 1.

98

II. Diplomatic negotiation

nary negotiations by the MVM per Orientem Philippicus129 with the Persian envoys in 586, letters informing about all the discussions were forwarded to Emperor Maurice, who ordered to continue the war130 (Theoph. Sim. 1.15.1–13). Similarly the MVM per Orientem with supreme authority,131 Belisarius, sent Justinian his correspondence with the Goths concerning Lilybaeum (the exchange of letters took place during the winter of 533–534).132 It is notable that the Goths insisted that Belisarius await the emperor’s decision (Proc. BV 2.5.11–25). The emperor must have had a definitive right to take a final decision on the questions arising in the talks held during military action, but the importance of the military master and his powers to hold discussions in the preliminary talks seem to have been very high. The magister militum had the right to receive an embassy and to negotiate with an adversary ruler. In most cases his task was not to hold the preliminary talks, but prepare further negotiations at a higher level. He usually occupied himself with current discussions of details of an armistice and sent important delegations to the emperor. So the military commander’s diplomatic role during the periods of war was to assist in the preliminary stage of negotiations. Furthermore, sometimes, he was authorized to send embassies independently (and perhaps on his own behalf), as was done by MVM (? per Thracias) Priscus133 who dispatched an ambassador, Theodorus,134 in autumn 593 to the khagan of the Avars (Theoph. Sim. 6.11.7). So it may be summarized that the role of the military magister in diplomacy was rather important. He had a wide range of authority in the area of foreign affairs of rather a high level, but this was normally executed within local negotiations directly on the site of the military front. Most of the routine problems arising in the course of military actions, such as organizing an armistice and local-level preliminary talks with diplomats or even with adversaries’ supreme rulers, fell under the responsibility of the magister militum, who was a commander-in-chief for actual campaigns. Some of the talks could be held by the commander himself, who had the right to make decisions in some less important cases; when the situation demanded more complex negotiations and decisions of a higher political level, the magister militum was responsible for establishing a connection with higher officials and acted as a local-level mediator in the diplomatic process. It could also appear the responsibility of a commander to decide if an adversary’s diplomatic initiatives were worth developing at the imperial level or not. 1.3.2.2 Clergymen The role of clergyman in diplomatic negotiations at the local level was very significant. N. Garsoian remarks that at least from the end of the 4th century bishops appear to act as intercessors at the service of their cities’ interests, begging for imperial mercy in times of star129 130 131 132

PLRE-IIIB, 1022–1026, s.v. Philippicus 3. See about this episode: Pigulevskaia, Vizantiia i Iran 72. PLRE-IIIA, 187, s.v. Belisarius. A. A. Chekalova, Commentary to Proc. BV 2.5.24: Prokopii Kesariiskii [Chekalova] 510, n. 13. 133 PLRE-IIIB, 1054, s.v. Priscus 6. 134 PLRE-IIIB, 1258f., s.v. Theodorus 43.

1. The negotiating parties and agents

99

vation and riots and defending their cities from enemies. Most often the role of the representatives of the Church was as negotiators, protecting a besieged city, or as emissaries seeking a garrison’s capitulation.135 A great deal of important data on this problem can be found in the works by Procopius of Caesarea, first of all in the Persian Wars, as the method seems to have been used especially in relationships with Persia. During Justinian’s Persian campaign the practice existed of paying a ransom for cities – inhabitants preferred to send the Persian ruler a certain sum of money in order to save themselves from destruction by enemy troops. Bishops often acted as mediators in talks about such payments. In 503 the bishop of Constantina, Baradates, personally came with gifts136 to Shah Cavades, begging (not without success) him not to besiege the city, emphasizing its insignificance (Proc. BP 2.13.13–15). In a similar way, in 540 when the troops of Chosroes approached the city of Sura on the shore of the Euphrates, its citizens decided to send their bishop with presents137 to the shah to have mercy on the city, again emphasizing its lack of importance for the Romans and the Persians (perhaps one of the reasons for lowering the sum of the ransom). Chosroes, however, formally agreeing with the bishop and accepting gifts, in reality was planning to capture the city (Proc. BP 2.5.12). The inhabitants of Antioch also considered it »most advisable to offer money to Chosroes and thus escape the present danger« (Proc. BP 2.6.16). A bishop of Beroea Megas, who happened to be among them, was sent to Chosroes to beg for mercy and conducted negotiations with the shah (Proc. BP 2.6.16–2.7.1). The patriarch of Antioch, Ephraemius, must have contributed to the initiative of paying a ransom for the city (Evagr. HE 4.25). However, the plan was ruined by envoys sent by Justinian to negotiate with Chosroes, who, staying in Antioch, »explicitly forbade everybody to give money to the enemy, or to purchase the cities of the emperor«138 and besides denounced Ephraemius as being eager to deliver the city to him (Proc. BP 2.7.15sq.). Negotiations about a ransom for the city of Apamea were led by Thomas, the bishop of the city (Proc. BP 2.11.16–23). During Maurice’s Persian campaign a new bishop of Apamea negotiated with the Persian marzban, offering him a present. However, the talks had a negative outcome – the city was taken by deception and plundered (Joh. Eph. HE 6.6). Sometimes the Persians also used Christian priests as envoys to negotiate with the Romans. Thus in 543 the Persian general Nabedes »sent the priest of the Christians in Dubios by direction of the king to Valerianus, the general in Armenia, in order to reproach the envoys for their tardiness and to urge the Romans with all zeal toward peace« (Proc. BP 2.24.6–9).139 When the Roman troops were besieging Chlomaron in 580, a Persian general Binganes sent the bishop of the fort to Maurice, who commanded the Roman forces, »in the 135 136 137 138

Garsoian, Hiérarchie 120f., with examples and references. See: IV.3.1. See: III.3.1. According to A. Chekalova this directive by Justinian was caused by his will to stop the practice of ransoms, which damaged the treasury and the existing diplomatic norms (A. A. Chekalova, Commentary to Proc. BP 2.7.16: Prokopii Kesariiskii [Chekalova] 489, n. 52). 139 This Christian priest was trying to persuade Valerianus that he himself was favourably disposed towards the Romans and could influence Chosroes’s decision. This priest’s brother had a secret meeting with the magister militum and informed him about the difficulties of Chosroes’s situation, which induced the emperor to continue the war (Proc. BP 2.24.7–10). It seems that Chosroes, being in a critical situation – his son rebelled against him and his troops were affected by disease – was

100

II. Diplomatic negotiation

belief that the leader of Christ’s priests would gain the respect of the Romans since they are Christians«140 (Men. Prot. 23.7). It is a characteristic tendency of both sides to use a Christian bishop as a mediator in the diplomatic process.141 It can be summarized that Christian priests played a rather significant role in local-level diplomacy, usually assisting in negotiations concerning the fate of their cities and regulating questions of their redemption. Procopius also provides illustrations as to another important function of the Christian church – mediation in the ransoming of captives. After capturing Sura in 540 Chosroes made an offer to the bishop of Sergiopolis, Candide, to pay the ransom for the captives. The bishop, who did not avail of enough money, signed a receipt, promising to make the payment within a certain deadline. The people were freed, but the story ended sadly for the bishop: not possessing the money to return his debt, he was captured by the shah (Proc. BP 2.5.28–32; 2.20.2). Similarly, when Chosroes announced his will to sell the captive citizens of Antioch, »the citizens of Edessa learned of this, [and] they displayed an unheard-of zeal. For there was not a person who did not bring ransom for the captives and deposit it in the sanctuary according to the measure of his possessions« (Proc. BP 2.13.3). The collection of donations was organized in the temple. It was even established legally that the Church had special rights and responsibilities in the matters of ransoming captives. Thus in Justinian’s Novellae it is indicated that church plates could only be sold or pawned for ransoming captives (Just. Nov. 65 praef. 1; 120.9). The cases described above demonstrate the clergy’s special importance in the diplomatic relations of the Roman Empire with the Persians, mainly at the local level.142 139

extremely interested in signing the peace treaty, so decided to use a Christian priest as a ›trump card‹ to stimulate the Romans. 140 According to N. Pigulevskaia, Binganes was a Christian himself (Pigulevskaia, Vizantiia i Iran 68). Maurice tried to bribe the Persian commander through the bishop, who, until there was a hope of bending the Romans with money to stop the siege, led a double game, pretending to be on the Roman side. However, Maurice did not manage to find a compromise with the bishop and the general, a situation which, according to N. Pigulevskaia, demonstrated Maurice’s absolute lack of diplomatic talent (Pigulevskaia, Vizantiia i Iran 67f.). 141 In 591 the bishop of Melitene, Domitianus, secured the capitulation of Martyropolis by persuading the Persians (Theoph. Sim. 4.15.8–10), as the Persian katholikos Sabrišō also did in 604 (see about this, with references: Garsoian, Hiérarchie 121, n. 14). 142 There is also a case of more high-level negotiations held by Marutha, a bishop of the chief city of Sophanene, Mayperqat, which was rebuilt by the bishop and called Martyropolis (Fowden, Barbarian Plain 48–55; Greatrex/Lieu [eds.], Eastern Frontier 31f.). Twice he visited the court of Shah Yazdagard I and his missions seem to have ameliorated Roman relations with Persia: Soc. 7.8; Theoph. AM 5906; 5916; V.Maruth. 7–10 (for the Vitae [the Greek and Armenian versions] see the translation and the commentary by J. Noret: La vie Grecque ancienne de S. Marūtā de Mayferqat [Noret] 77–103). During the embassy of 399 Marutha, who had studied medicine, managed to cure the son of the shah, or, according to some sources, his daughter, or even the king himself was relieved from a chronic headache (see for different sources and the interpretation: Fowden, Barbarian Plain 53, n. 35; La vie Grecque ancienne de S. Marūtā de Mayferqat [Noret] 101f.). The embassy’s main concern was Yazdagard’s I accession in 399 and the will of the Romans to reconfirm peace and the tolerance of Christians under the new ruler. The embassy was rather successful and probably helped Iranian Christians, whose increased freedom to worship and build churches during the reign of Yazdagard may have been the result of Marutha’s efforts. In 408 Theodosius II sent Marutha on a second mission, this time, most likely, to proclaim Theodosius’s acces-

1. The negotiating parties and agents

101

Christian barbarians could also have used representatives of the clergy to lead negotiations with the empire (e.g. Amm. 31.12.8–13).143 A significant role belonged to the priests acting as diplomats in the West. Procopius mentioned a friend of Justinian, deacon Pelagius, who, when Totila was besieging Rome, was delegated to the Goth ruler to negotiate a several-day truce (Proc. BG 3.16.5–7). Later, when Rome was captured, the same Pelagius went with an embassy from Totila to Justinian (Proc. BG 3.21.18). The problem of the role of bishops in political communication of the Late Antique West, an ample theme which exceeds the frames of the current research, is described and analysed in the study of Andrew Gillett.144 It is important to remark that the role of clergymen in Late Antique diplomacy did not stop with their activity at the local level: Christian prelates also participated in high-ranking diplomacy, naturally especially in the sphere of missions and spreading the influence of Christianity.145 In general it may be noted that ›local‹ church diplomacy had rather a significant meaning, as it seems especially in relations with Persia, as is remarkably demonstrated in the works by Procopius of Caesarea. In most of the cases priests’ mediatory functions were connected with discussions with the enemy over money matters – ransoms for cities and captives. This practice must have first of all been caused by the church hierarchs’ special position in the real administration of their cities. It is evident that at the local level, the church’s authority as a guarantee for the keeping of financial obligations was very high. 1.4 Agents of negotiation. A summary On the whole it can be remarked that Late Antique diplomacy tended to avoid personal contacts between the rulers of the negotiating sides and preferred to use as mediators envoys, who carried out most of the diplomatic tasks. Thus the role of travelling diplomats was great. The process of negotiations can be divided into several phases, which I unite under the definition of ›block‹ as an exchange of embassies in a certain order. The evidence in some sources allows us to distinguish several types of embassies (from minor to major and 142

sion and to ensure once again peaceful relations between the empires, as well as again to protect the Iranian Christians. The Greek sources underline Marutha’s almost successful effort to convert the king. Marutha also managed to take from Persia and carry to the city of Mayperqat the reliquiae of the Christian martyrs from the Persian territory (Fowden, Barbarian Plain 53–56 with references). 143 The Goths sent a presbyter among the envoys to try to treat with the Romans at the very beginning of the Adrianople battle. Valens refused to negotiate, appealing to the low status of the envoys. See Z. Rubin, who interprets this evidence as Ammianus’s personal perception, because the presbyter could not be humilis (Rubin, Conversion 49f.). 144 The problem of the role of bishops in political communication in the Late Antique West is ample and exceeds the frames of the current research. This question is described and analysed in the study by Andrew Gillett (Gillett, Envoys), with chapter four (›The Saint as Envoy‹, 113–171) dedicated to »the most extensive dramatizations of embassies in late antique Latin literature« – the hagiographic lives of the bishops. First of all, the author turns to make a brief analysis of Pope Leo I’s famous embassy to Attila. Further on, he refers to a cluster of four texts from late 5th and very early 6th century Gaul and Italy in which the undertaking of embassies is central in the presentation of a bishop. They include Constantius’s account of Germanus of Auxerre, the anonymous Vitae of Orientius of Auch and Vivianus of Saintes, and the Vita of Epiphanius of Pavia by Ennodius. 145 Ivanov, Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo 104f.; for details on the clergy in embassies towards the West: Lounghis, Ambassades 289–296, 335–345.

102

II. Diplomatic negotiation

plenipotentiary) according to their status and the level of negotiations they carried out. In the intermediate stage of negotiations and preparing a treaty, meetings between envoys from one side and a ruler of the other could occur, but it is also significant to note that final talks and the final signing of an agreement were undertaken by ambassadors and highstatus representatives from the both sides, usually in the frontier territory. This was an evident consequence of the logic of how Late Antique diplomacy worked, as it could assure some formal equilibrium between the status of both sides. Special authorization given to ambassadors to conclude an agreement did not mean they had the right to make decisions, which was impossible without the approval of an emperor, but such a scheme permitted the process of high-rank diplomacy, especially in relations with Persia, at a formal peer level and at the same time the avoidance of personal contact between rulers. At the lower level of local diplomacy, a special role in negotiating affairs belonged to military commanders, who regulated communication with the adversary in the course of military campaigns, and to the bishops of cities, who usually patronized besieged cities, managed ransom affairs and regulated the ransoming of captives.

2. The purposes of embassies It is also possible to classify embassies according to their aims, i.e. the purposes of their dispatching and the matters they had to inform about or negotiate. Unfortunately no source provides any theorization on the subject, so we may only reconstruct the material, and try to create a model. A standard work by R. Helm gives an extremely detailed classification of embassies, built upon the principle of their purpose.146 There is no need to repeat the study, which was very thorough and in-depth. In some aspects the typology by R. Helm, consisting of 14 types with subsections, even seems to have too many subdivisions. I don’t intend here to examine all the varieties of treaties and agreements which were used by Roman diplomacy in its interactions with different kinds of partners – this is a matter for a separate study and has already attracted the attention of scholars.147 Based on the classification by R. Helm, it is possible to establish more generalized categories of embassies. In the present study only one type of agreement is discussed at some length, namely the case of peace negotiations and treaties, as this seems to have been the most important and universal category which could unite and include different categories and clauses. Embassies and negotiation can be divided into two main groups – of ›peaceful‹ and of ›bellicose‹ origin. However, the classification is not very strict, because both categories could interlace.

146 147

Helm, Untersuchungen 387–397. Schulz, Entwicklung 13–23; Chrysos, Aspects 6; Ausbüttel, Verträge; Winter, Friedensverträge; Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making; for the earlier Roman period see also Matthaei, Classification 182–204.

2. The purposes of embassies

103

2.1 Negotiations of a ›peaceful‹ origin Negotiations or meetings which did not arise as a consequence of a war can be referred to this ample grouping. Among the most important of them were notifications of the accession of 148a new ruler. It was an indispensable rule of diplomacy to dispatch envoys to inform about the beginning of a new emperor’s rule. This tradition undoubtedly existed in relations with the Persians. Menander informs us that Justin II sent John, son of Domnentiolus, to the land of the Persians to announce Justin’s acclamation as emperor »according to a custom of the Romans and the Persians«.149 Besides the envoy was to broach the question of Suania (Men. Prot. 9.1), which demonstrates that such embassies could not just have a merely ceremonial meaning, but were also used for solving current international problems.150 It is very significant that the existence of a diplomatic norm of sending such informative delegations between Rome and Persia is emphasized in the evidence. Theophylact Simocatta also remarked that Tiberius wrote a notification about his ascent to throne, keeping the custom of proclaiming an emperor (Theoph. Sim. 3.12.1). The Persian rulers must have acted in a similar way – as was done by Cavades in informing Heraclius (Chron. Pasch. s.a. 628). Theophylact Simocatta was indignant with Chosroes, who, »having put on the crown of the rulers in his vainglorious arrogance eliminated that was in custom, namely – refused to send announcement of his accession, not considering himself equal and worthy of emperor Tiberius« (Theoph. Sim. 3.17.1). It is significant that, according to Theophylact, such a tradition of exchanging embassies to inform about the changing of sovereigns in a certain sense declared their status. The Roman Empire used to send such embassies not only to Persia, whose ruler was perceived in terms of a brotherhood,151 but to the barbarians as well. A special embassy »announced to Attila that Marcianus had become Roman emperor of the East after the death of Theodosius« (Prisc. 20.1). We know that in his communication with the Roman Empire Attila sought to position himself as highly as possible, expecting to be treated in some aspects in the same way as the Persian shah. So it is possible that this notification demonstrated the success of Attila’s diplomacy, but it seems more likely that it reflected the existence of a common tradition to inform of coming to power, which was applied for relations not only with the Persians, but also with barbarians. Such a tradition seems to have existed in relations with the Vandals: »The emperor Leo sent Phylarchus to Geisericus to announce to him the sovereignty of Anthemius« (Prisc. 148 149 150

Number 1 in Helm’s classification: Helm, Untersuchungen 388. Κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς Ῥωμαίοις τε καὶ Πέρσαις. There is, however, evidence from Theophanes of Byzantium that ›Comentiolus‹ (for emendations of the names Domnentiolus/Comentiolus see: The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 261, n. 98) was sent by Justin to discuss Suania in the second year of his reign (Theoph. Byz.=Phot. Bibl. 64; see: The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 261, n. 99). Strictly speaking one has to assume the possibility that two different embassies were combined in the text of fragments by Menander, which could have happened as a result of an abridgement by a compiler of the excerpts. 151 See: II.1.

104

II. Diplomatic negotiation

52). It should be remarked that the situation described by Priscus is not very typical.152 The East Roman government tended to act as a mediator between the western part of the empire and the barbarians and perhaps here we are dealing with such a situation. Menander informs about an embassy, which was sent »to address the leaders of the Turkish people when Tiberius had been elevated to the rank of Caesar«. The embassy was to confirm existing friendship and a treaty, which had been concluded earlier (Men. Prot. 19.1.35–43). It may, however, seem strange that the delegation was dispatched in the second year of Tiberius’s reign (Men. Prot. 19.1.1). The same custom probably existed among the barbarians, who, as we can judge from the sources, also tended to inform the empire about the accession of a new ruler.153 Thus, it can be summarized that we know definitely that there were such embassies of mutual notification, which were regularly exchanged between the Roman and the Persian empires. Evidence about the existence of this practice in relations with other barbarians is little and usually limited to single pieces, so it is difficult to declare that the empire used to send regular reports about new emperors to all of its partners. Perhaps the tradition that initially existed mainly between the Romans and Persians was later extended to the barbarians as well. Certainly this did not mean that their status stood on an equal footing. Besides ceremonial, such embassies must have had practical importance in the paradigm of a ruler’s personal responsibility for all international affairs – they confirmed or disproved previous agreements, concluded those made during the reign of preceding ruler. Thus Valentinus, envoy to the Turks, was to verify the old treaty (Men. Prot. 19.1.35–43); on the contrary John, who came to the Persians informing about accession of Justin II, underlined that »even if we grant that Justinian gave them the money under treaty, the donation ran for the lifetime of the Emperor who gave it and expired at his death« (Men. Prot. 9.1.79–82). A new emperor could deny all the responsibilities of his predecessor. Sometimes barbarians dispatched delegations to Constantinople to the new emperor on their own initiative to demand the fulfilment of conditions which had been settled with the previous emperor. Thus Attila insisted that the tribute sent to him continued, as it had been settled by Theodosius but stopped by Marcianus (Prisc. 20.1). Similarly when the Avar envoys arrived in the Roman capital at the beginning of Justin II’s reign, they wanted to receive their usual gifts and demanded Justin not to change the custom, which had been settled by Justinian (Men. Prot. 8). Both of these embassies failed to achieve a positive outcome and in both cases these negotiations were not held with an embassy notifying of the accession of a new ruler. Instead, having received information about changes, the barbarians had sent their own diplomats to seek the prolongation of the previous agreements.154 152

Leo sent to the king of the Vandals a notification about the accession into power of a new ruler of the Western Roman Empire. After this embassy of 467 a crisis began in the Vandals’ relations with the Eastern Empire. Anthemius’s candidature did not satisfy Geisericus, who insisted that the throne would be given to Olybrius, whom he favoured, because of his relational ties (Proc. BV 4.5). An expedition was organized against Geisericus and the East Roman fleet came close to Carthage. 153 Helm, Untersuchungen 388, n. 8–10 and 12. 154 It has been a longstanding Roman tradition »to send embassies from all parts of the empire on occasion of accession of a new emperor. Embassies on accessions were rated as very important by the cities, which were anxious to have their benificia reaffirmed by the new ruler. This kind of embassy, if any, would have attracted volunteers. It seems to have been an exceptional honor for someone to

2. The purposes of embassies

105

It is also important to take into consideration the circumstance that our sources make very few mentions of such types of embassy. One of the explanations may be that normative standard cases (to which this type of delegation definitely belongs) attracted the attention of authors less than cases of some deviation. This concerns nearly all the sources on ancient diplomacy in general. As was noted by E. Chrysos,155 from analysing information about diplomatic missions sent to the Vandals in the period from 408–535, we can imagine only a small percentage of the embassies which, as he supposes, definitely took place, are known to us. Within this time ten emperors took over from each other in the East, eleven in the West and at least nine kings of the Vandals.156 Consequently, ideally, there must have been around thirty notifying embassies, of which we know only one – about the accession of Anthemius. This argumentation is logical and true, except for the fact that, as it seems, we can not be absolutely sure that in relations with the Vandals as well as with other barbarians, the diplomatic protocol in this case was really kept to, without deviation. The reasoning would be more correct if the count had been made for relations with the Persians. An important problem is how these notifying embassies correlate with the typology of embassies described above, based on their status and powers.157 R. Blockley seems to attribute these missions to minor ones.158 As was argued above, by minor embassies one should understand delegations which had mostly ceremonial significance, had no right to negotiate, but could express the will to do so. Indeed, at first sight notifying embassies look like merely ceremonial ones, but it was demonstrated that some notifying embassies could not only report the change that had taken place and prolong or cancel old agreements, but also lead some negotiations (John with the Persians: Men. Prot. 9.1.79–82; Valentinus with the Turks: Men. Prot. 19.1), which does not qualify them for the category of minor embassies. Thus, I believe, it would be more correct to distinguish these embassies as a specific ›medium‹ group since their combined ceremonial elements of minor missions along with the more advanced ones formed a separate phenomenon.159 Conclusion of an alliance,160 expression of homage,161 donation of an investiture,162 regulation of problems of commerce163 – all these types of negotiations may be referred to the ›peaceful‹ category, i.e. they occurred during periods of peace, but it was not rare that the necessity of such diplomatic acts was caused or determined by a previous conflict.

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163

be a member of his province’s or city’s first embassy to a new emperor. On some inscriptions this is mentioned with particular emphasis.« (Souris, Provincial Embassies 238). Chrysos, Byzantine Diplomacy 32. Courtois, Vandales 405–407. See: II.1.2.3. Blockley, Doctors 90. See: II.1.2.3.3. Numbers 5 and 6 in Helm’s classification: Helm, Untersuchungen 392f. Number 2 in Helm’s classification: Helm, Untersuchungen 390. Number 3 in Helm’s classification: Helm, Untersuchungen 390f. Number 14 in Helm’s classification: Helm, Untersuchungen 396.

106

II. Diplomatic negotiation

2.2 Negotiations held in consequence of a military conflict This group unites different types of diplomatic communication, taking place in the course, after and as the result of actions of war. 2.2.1 Conclusion of peace/truce agreements Perhaps the most popular matter for sending an embassy may be considered the necessity to conclude a peace agreement and/or to interrupt military actions. Peace, as formulated by D. A. Miller and N. Y. Rochester, was a prime desideratum of Byzantine foreign policy: »The uses of peace were multiform; peace was not only ›not war‹, but given the Byzantine theory of mission and acculturation, peace was a nutrient, both cause and effect of that stasis which allowed the most effective radiative penetration of the Imperial idea into the dark and barbarous hinterland«.164 It is significant that the ruler himself was called not only νικηφόρος, but εἰρηνοποιός as well. The description of agreements and types of embassies provided in this chapter mainly concerns relationships with the Persians, as this material contains more details and allows us to establish a better classification. Diplomatic relations with Persia developed according to a much more elaborate protocol than with other barbarians and can be regarded as a standard model. Peace/truce agreements can be divided into several groups, judging by their duration and status. 2.2.1.1 Truce Usually the two sides first came to consent to conclude an armistice in the course of the military actions and, during this truce, diplomats carried out negotiations concerning the signing of a peace treaty. Evidently a peace treaty was not supposed to be concluded as soon as the battles were over. Numerous discussions preceded the final signing. In many cases an armistice was established to provide a possibility of carrying out preparatory talks. There are a great many indications of this scheme of concluding a peace treaty. Procopius reported that when Justinian had sent envoys to Chosroes in order to conclude peace, the shah had noted that it would not have been easy to conclude peace without an armistice, during which embassies could be exchanged in order to eliminate discrepancies and to firmly establish the future peace agreement (Proc. BP 2.28.3). All the disputable questions were to be discussed during such talks, as a truce was established on the status quo ante conditions. Menander informs about one such armistice between the Romans and the Persians, in the course of which everything was to remain in the same position as it had been before the conflict. Menander notes that this truce gave hope that comprehensive peace was close, and the greatest of the states ceased the hostilities (Men. Prot. 2.6–12). A truce established this way could have been of a different duration. Emperor Tiberius in 578/579 »did not propose to grant the Persians a truce for very long, since, he said, a period of two or thee months was sufficient for one who wanted peace and did not intend to use a longer time deceitfully for beginning war preparations« (Men. Prot. 23.8.52–56). 164

Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making 56.

2. The purposes of embassies

107

The ambassador Zacharias, who was sent by Sophia to the Persians, concluded in 575 an armistice for one year assuring that during this period a major embassy with full authority to discuss everything and to end the war would arrive (Men. Prot. 18.2).165 In some cases an armistice was concluded for a longer term. John of Ephesus informs about the RomanPersian negotiations that followed the conflict in Persian Armenia (after the defection of Armenia to the Romans in 569/570). »Men of high rank in both kingdoms were sent as ambassadors to examine the matters in dispute between the two realms, and to confer about peace; and for more than a year they were occupied at the borders talking and discussing, and disputing with one another, but without effecting anything«166 (Joh. Eph. HE 2.24). Zacharias, who concluded a one-year truce, arrived in Persia together with Traianus and their mission was »to obtain if they could, a truce of three years throughout the East and Armenia. During this period representatives from both states would meet on the border to resolve the disputes and deliberate upon the means by which hostilities would be completely ended«. The Persians proposed to establish a truce for five years (Men. Prot. 18.3). John of Ephesus reported that »the conquest of Dara and Apamea by the Persians in 573 was followed by a truce of three years’ duration … It extended, however, to Syria only: for in Armenia the war was continued on both sides« (Joh. Eph. HE 4.8). What is notable in this case is the local character of the truce, which was only in force in some of the territories. Such a two-step manner of concluding a peace treaty seems to have been normative in diplomacy. In his letter Chosroes persuaded Tiberius to do what was »proper for friends« – to conclude a truce in order to provide the possibility of establishing peace (Men. Prot. 23.8.37sq.; compare also Proc. BP 2.21.20; Agath. 3.19). The Goths acted in the same way, offering peace in negotiations with Belisarius: ambassadors were dispatched to Justinian and in the meanwhile local embassies were exchanged with Belisarius in order to establish the conditions of a truce (Proc. BG 2.6.36). In most of the cases negotiations for concluding a truce correspond with the so-called local embassies167 and were often conducted by the generals commanding the military actions that were interrupted by the truce. Perhaps the full etiquette of establishing a truce and then the continuation of numerous discussions concerning the conditions of future peace, which finally ended with the signing of a treaty, was elaborated and mainly applied in Roman-Persian diplomacy. With barbarian peoples a procedure for concluding an agreement could have been simpler and not demanded so many intermediate negotiations. 2.2.1.2 Peace treaties The peace treaties themselves were concluded for a certain amount of years or ›forever‹, as was declared.168 Sometimes one side wanted to conclude a more long-lasting peace, and the other a shorter one. The Persians usually preferred long-term and even ›eternal‹ treaties. When Peter the Patrician negotiated with the Persian Zikh, the Persian side insisted on 165 166

See: II.1.2.3.2. Here and in other places I cite John of Ephesus in the translation by R. Payne Smith: The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History [Smith]. 167 See: II.1.3.2. 168 »Was declared« because in reality the real duration of the peace did not always correspond with the name (see about this e.g. Scott, Diplomacy 159).

108

II. Diplomatic negotiation

concluding a »treaty without a time limit« (Men. Prot. 6.1.134sq.).169 The Romans, on the contrary, did not want to sign a prolonged agreement, so a compromise was found: the treaty was made for fifty years (Men. Prot. 6.1.140–143). Justinian’s ambassador, Rufinus, several times led discussions concerning an »infinite (eternal)« peace (Proc. BP 1.22.3; 1.22.16–19; also 2.5.1).170 Such »endless« peace171 was concluded in 474 between the Vandals and Emperor Zeno, which really was the last treaty between the Eastern Empire and the Vandals (Proc. BV 1.7.26).172 From a formal point of view, it may seem strange that not every time when peace was concluded was it declared that it would be constant, but from the very beginning its breaking off (or necessity of prolongation) after a certain term was implied. Thus, as was mentioned above when Peter the Patrician concluded the famous treaty with the Persians in 562, the Iranian side sought infinite peace, while on the contrary the Romans did not want to conclude it for a long period (Men. Prot. 6.1.134–143). Perhaps these different positions were caused by a question of money. The Persians, offering infinite peace, wanted the Roman side to pay them a certain annual sum for non-aggression, and the sum for thirty or forty years was to be paid whole in advance. After establishing a fifty-year treaty, the amount of annual payments was fixed and it was agreed that for ten years the money was to be paid in advance: for seven years immediately, and the rest in three years. Such a system looks more flexible and was possibly more advantageous for the Roman side. Besides one could presume that in the case of temporary peace the amount of annual payments could be less than in the ›eternal‹ one. Analysis of the terms which were used to define the different types and gradations of peace treaty is a special theme, demanding investigation of the vocabulary, style and language of every author, which is not the aim of this current account.173 Only the basic and most widespread ones are listed below with indications of some characteristic places. For truce: ἐκεχειρία,174 ξυνθήκη.175 For peace: εἰρήνη,176 σύμβασις.177 For any kind of agreement: σπονδή.178 Besides the words listed above, F. M. Ausbüttel, having analysed the 169 170

171 172 173

174 175

176 177 178

Πέρσαι μὲν διηνεκεῖς ἠξίουν ἔσεσθαι τὰς σπονδάς. Οἷς δὴ χειροήθης ὁ Χοσρόης γενόμενος τὴν μὲν εἰρήνην πέρας οὐκ ἔχουσαν; οὕτω τοίνυν τήν τε ἀπέραντον καλουμένην εἰρήνην ἐσπείσαντο; τήν τε ἀπέραντον καλουμένην εἰρήνην λαμπρῶς ἔλυεν. Ἕως αὐτῷ βασιλεὺς Ζήνων ἐς ὁμολογίαν ἀφίκετο σπονδαί τε αὐτοῖς ἀπέραντοι ξυνετέθησαν. Ausbüttel, Verträge 16f. Some analysis of terms is provided in: Schulz, Entwicklung 127f., 153f.; Chrysos, Legal Concepts; Chrysos, Aspects; Ausbüttel, Verträge; Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making; for the earlier Roman period see also Matthaei, Classification 185f. Proc. BP 2.28.3; BG 2.6.36; 3.16; 4.15.16; Anecd. 16.2; Theoph. Sim. 3.12.3; Men. Prot. 2.1.10; 6.1.1; 18.2.5; 18.3.6; 18.4.5; 23.8.52. Men. Prot. 11; 18.2.5; 18.4.4. D. A. Miller and N. Y. Rochester point out that the plural form of this word was used in cases when implying a treaty document in terms of groups of clauses (Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making 57). Proc. BP 1.11.1; 2.27.24; 2.28.3; 2.21.20; BG 2.6.34; 2.29.1; 4.15.1; Theoph. Sim. 1.6.4; 3.15.5–11; 3.17.2; Men. Prot. 6.1.1; 6.1.3; 18.4.16; 23.8.23. Proc. BP 2.24.3; 2.28.3; Theoph. Sim. 3.12.3; 3.15.5–11. Proc. BP 2.13.29; 2.28.3; BG 3.21.23; 4.15.14; Theoph. Sim. 1.4.6; 1.6.4; 3.12.3; 3.15.5–11; 7.13.1; 1.3.6; Men. Prot. 6.1.7; 18.2.10; 18.4.7; 23.1.

2. The purposes of embassies

109

texts by Procopius, also distinguishes ἐκεχειρία and συγκείμενα.179 Theophylact Simocatta uses a combination of words: ῥητρα τε καὶ ὁμολογία (Theoph. Sim. 1.6.4) to mean an agreement. There is one more notion that could be referred to the theme of gradations of the peace treaties – a ›universal peace‹. It was such an agreement which Peter the Patrician was sent to conclude in Persia in 562,180 as, according to Menander »through the East and Armenia there seemed to be a very firm peace181 between the Romans and the Persians. In Lazica there was a truce. Therefore, since a partial peace was already in existence,182 the rulers of the Romans and Persians decided to make a universal peace«183 (Men. Prot. 6.1.1–5). It was not rare that an agreement was only valid for limited territories. Menander provides other examples of such ›partial treaties‹. In 575 Roman envoy Zacharias concluded a one-year truce in the Roman dominions of the East, but not in Armenia (Men. Prot. 18.2). The next year Traianus and Zacharias had a mission »to obtain, if they could, a truce of three years throughout the East and Armenia«, but they only managed to agree for the East (Men. Prot. 18.3). Theophylact Simocatta also writes about negotiations around Armenia and notes that while it was concluded that in the East there should be absolute tranquillity, no war, and countries were to lead a peaceful life, at the same time war in Armenia was to continue (Theoph. Sim. 3.12.3). Upon telling about Chosroes’s peace initiatives, with which he sent envoys to Justinian, Agathias remarked that the Persian shah decided to conclude peace everywhere, in order that it would not be partial and incomplete, only limited to a certain region, and thus unsteady, but that it would be equally firm everywhere (Agath. 4.31). Even the peace treaty concluded by Peter in 562 for fifty years, possibly, could not be counted as full and universal, as the problem of Suania remained unsolved. After the negotiations about the agreement, Peter the Patrician travelled to the Persian shah to discuss the Suania question, but a solution was not found (Men. Prot. 6.1). Thus, depending on the stage of negotiations and their ›breadth‹, in both time and space, the following types of peace agreements can be distinguished: – – – –

agreements about a truce (ἐκεχειρία, ξυνθήκη) agreements about peace for a certain term (εἰρήνη, σύμβασις, σπονδή) agreements about a long or »eternal peace« (διηνεκεῖς σπονδαί, ἀπέραντα εἰρήνη) agreements about a »universal peace« (καθόλου σπονδή)

Perhaps embassies and envoys of different ranks and status were sent for different kinds of negotiations and concluding of agreements. It is not always possible to provide a strict correlation, but in general the connection seems to be the following: truces and agreements about peace (of different kinds) were negotiated by major embassies and by the ›medium‹ ones in the classification explained above,184 while the final stage in the concluding and 179 180 181 182 183 184

Ausbüttel, Verträge 6. Περὶ τῶν καθόλου σπονδῶν. Τελεωτάτη τις εἶναι εἰρήνη ἐδόκει. Ἡμιτελῆ τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης ὑπῆρχεν. Πληρεστάτην ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν. See: II.1.2.3.

110

II. Diplomatic negotiation

signing of treaties was the prerogative of the plenipotentiary ambassadors. In many cases truces could also be negotiated within local embassies by military commanders. It is necessary to emphasize that the extremely subdivided classification of types of treaties and aims of embassies (like the one by R. Helm)185 tends to appear artificial in its application to the concrete reality of Late Antique diplomacy. Treaties and agreements usually consisted of many items which were discussed and after the talks became clauses of the treaty. As was justly emphasized by D. A. Miller and N. Y. Rochester, »the Empire did not negotiate ›commercial‹, ›political‹, or ›peace‹ treaties, or indeed any treaties at all in separate, exclusive categories (except for the treaty reinforcing or celebrating peace)«.186 Thus it seems necessary to provide the characteristics of the main questions which were usually negotiated by diplomats, and the conditions and clauses of the treaties. 2.3 Main questions of negotiations and clauses of treaties It is in extremely rare cases that we posses concrete and detailed evidence about the process of negotiation and full descriptions of the clauses of diplomatic treaties;187 more often our sources just conserve indications that a treaty was negotiated and sometimes mention the main subjects of the agreements.188 Nevertheless, it seems possible to distinguish the main points of treaties and to provide a list of the most often discussed matters and treaty clauses. One of the most important and often discussed problems is that of payments which the Romans used to give to different peoples. The principal agreement to pay money, sums, and payment terms and procedures were constantly discussed in negotiations with the Persians and barbarians. Literary sources demonstrate lamentations and indignation over these ›tributes‹ and at the same time diplomatic rhetoric tended to position them as salaries to the subordinates or free-will gifts.189 Different kinds of territorial problems were often discussed and fixed in treaties. Diplomats (especially Roman and Persian ones) often negotiated disputable territories (Proc. BG 1.3; 1.6; 2.6; Theoph. Sim. 3.17.2; Men. Prot. 2; 6.1; 9.1; 20.2; 23.8; 26.1; Joh. Mal. 18.76) and the localization of borders (Prisc. 11.1; 15.4; Theoph. Sim. 7.5.13). With the barbarians it was often necessary to state which lands would be given to them (Malch. 2; 18.2; 18.4; Proc. BG 4.19; Men. Prot. 5.4; 15.1). In negotiations with the Persians the definition of the status of boundary fortifications was also important (Proc. BP 1.2.11–15; 1.10.13–18; 1.16.1–10; 1.22.1–19; Theoph. Sim. 3.17.2; 5.3.7). Trade conditions were also usually fixed in agreements (Proc. BP 1.20.9; Men. Prot. 6.1); in some cases these commercial clauses were connected with border problems, like in relations with the Huns for example, when markets were established on the frontier (Prisc. 3.6). The question of deserters was one of the most discussed issues in Late Antique diplomacy. The problem of deserting has various aspects, showing different ways and forms of 185 186 187 188 189

Helm, Untersuchungen 387–397. Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making 88. See e.g.: II.3. See a classification of possible evidence in Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making 57f. Iluk, Export 81; Blockley, Subsidies 62f.; and for a classification of different types of payments and tribute: Blockley, Foreign Policy 149–151.

2. The purposes of embassies

111

Roman and barbarian integration and interaction. The fleeing of individuals from the Roman Empire to the territory of an enemy or vice versa happened very often, during war as well as during periods of peace. The importance and danger of such escapes was certainly first of all connected with the problem of the information and intelligence which was brought to an adversary and such cases are very well testified by the written sources. But on the other hand there existed a phenomenon of fleeing, in the sense of passing to the adversary side, by quite huge groups of people – such as a part of a tribe or even a whole one. Both for individual and for ›group‹ deserters, ancient authors writing in Greek often use the same or close terms, like φυγάδες and καταφυγόντες and that, as it seems, caused some confusion in both ancient and modern times. Our sources give us more information on the problem of deserters in the relationships of the Roman Empire with the Huns.190 This question can be called the most discussed in the negotiations of Attila with the Eastern Roman Empire. Examination of the text by Priscus of Panium leads one to the problem of the seeming (but maybe only apparent) misunderstanding between Attila and Roman diplomats: all the treaties contain an article about the returning of the deserters who had left Attila’s empire for the Roman one, and only a handful of them are later repatriated. A complex analysis of the evidence from Priscus, as well as the proof from Menander and Procopius seems to allow us to suppose that Priscus’s καταφυγόντες was a sort of a terminus technicus to define the groups of people and even peoples who seceded from the ›Hun unit‹ and joined the Roman Empire.191 The problem of fugitives seems to have had special importance in the empire’s relations with the Huns, but it was discussed with other peoples as well (Malch. 2; Proc. BG 1.3; 3.16; Men. Prot. 27.2sq.). It is notable that a fugitive problem was discussed less often with Persians than with other barbarians, though we do possess some information about individuals who ›switched empires‹. Perhaps in the two superpowers’ relations such fleeing did not have the same global character as in the case of the barbarians (the danger of the transfer of intelligence was the most serious both for Rome and for Persia). This problem appears to be among the most interesting and crucial for Late Antique diplomacy and deserves a special study. To the themes which were often discussed by diplomats and regulated by agreements should also be added the question of captives, their return, ransoms for them or exchange (Malch. 5; 6.2; Proc. BP 1.22.16–19; 2.5.28–32; 2.13.1; BG 2.6; 4.10; Anecd. 12.17; 19.13; Men. Prot. 23.8sq.; Theoph. Sim. 6.11.7).192 Hostages could appear one of the means of guaranteeing an agreement, and they were also used to secure truces for negotiations »right up to the ratification by rulers, as well as [for] the safety of the negotiators« (Amm. 31.12.14; Prisc. 27.1; Malch. 18.1.5–7; 20.125sq.; Proc. BP 1.21.23; 2.20.20; 2.21.10; 2.21.26sq.; 2.26.31–41; BV 1.4.12–15; Anecd. 12.17; Men. Prot. 15.1; Josh. Styl. 61; 80; 97).193 190 191 192 193

See about this: Maas, Fugitives. See more: Nechaeva, Problema perebezhchikov 172–174; Nechaeva, Avars. See about captives and diplomacy: Blockley, Foreign Policy 146f. Blockley, Foreign Policy 160.

112

II. Diplomatic negotiation

Not always, however, were the clauses of the agreements of such a ›practical‹ nature. An interesting example is the clause, included by will of Chosroes in the treaty of the Eternal Peace of 532, protecting the Greek philosophers, who after the closing of the Athenian Academy had fled to Persia and then returned to the empire.194 According to Agathias,195 »the philosophers should be allowed to return to their homes and to live out their lives in peace without being compelled to alter their traditional religious beliefs or to accept any view which did not coincide with them« (Agath. 2.31.4). The main reason for Chosroes’s intervention will not have lain in his interest in neo-Platonism and philosophy, but in »the desire to meddle in the international affairs of the empire by posturing as the protector of its persecuted minorities«.196

3. Procedure of discussing and signing a treaty A unique source that allows us to trace this procedure in detail is the fragment of the text by Menander the Guardsman, in which the historian follows the book by Peter the Patrician, who led the negotiations with the Persians himself and then described them in his book.197 The evidence by Menander informs us thoroughly about the procedure followed in concluding the treaty between the Romans and the Persians in 562.198 The text also provides unique information on the ceremonial and protocol involved in the treaty-concluding process.199 In spite of the possible tendentiousness of some aspects of the narration, it seems that the data concerning the protocol and ceremonies of concluding an agreement has been transmitted objectively and this makes the text an exceptional source, providing a minute description of diplomatic negotiation and making a peace treaty, including an account about all the sessions of talks, stages of creation and attesting the text and the text of the agreement itself.200 Thus it seems that this outstanding evidence can be regarded as a report of standard negotiations and treaty-signing between the two superpowers at the highest level. Diplomats arrived for negotiations to the frontier of both states, where they were »joined by the governors of the neighbourhood« and opened the conference (Men. Prot. 6.1.15– 17). The conference consisted of several sessions of discussing the treaty. I provide here a short account of all the stages of negotiations with particular attention to the protocol and procedural side of the conferences.

194 195 196 197 198 199 200

For the story of these philosophers see also: Cameron, Last Days 14–30; Cameron, Agathias on the Sasanians 175; Börm, Prokop 277–283; Athanassiadi, Pensée unique 120f. As noted by A. Kaldellis, probably basing his account on a description made by one of these philosophers, Damascius or Simplicius: Kaldellis, Procopius 101; Kaldellis, Agathias 241. Kaldellis, Procopius 251, n. 24. Cresci, Teoria e prassi 65f.; Udal’tsova, Diplomatiia 383, 387f.; Grecu, Menander. See a detailed analysis of this treaty and the discussing and negotiating procedure in Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien 57f.; Paradisi, Storia 192–194; Schmidt, Friede 102f. Winter/Dignas, Rom und Perserreich 164. Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien 58.

3. Procedure of discussing and signing a treaty

113

First debate session 1. Speech of Peter (Men. Prot. 6.1.17–99). Speech of Isdigousnas (Men. Prot. 6.1.100–129). 2. Translation and interpretation of the speeches (Men. Prot. 6.1.130–132). 3. Many other speeches made by both sides (Men. Prot. 6.1.132–162). It is interesting that Menander remarks that among the large number of speeches made by both sides some were »necessary, others for show to demonstrate an equal commitment for peace« (Men. Prot. 6.1.132–134). Menander seems to have thus distinguished pure rhetoric from real discussions of essential matters. The wishes of the sides mainly did not conform concerning the term for which the peace agreement should have been concluded. The main subjects of discussion were the mechanisms and sums of payments for peace from the Romans to the Persians and terms of the agreement. Finally a compromise was found (Men. Prot. 6.1.134–162). 4. It was decided that the letter from both rulers (called sacred) ratifying everything which the envoys agreed upon should be conveyed to the present place. Sacrae is the name for the ratifications by the supreme rulers of the agreements reached by the envoys (Men. Prot. 1.6.163–166; 1.6.394–397).201 Menander tells that the letter of ratification from the Roman emperor, bearing the usual superscription, was well known, so he did not provide its text (Men. Prot. 6.1.175–177), but says that it was similar to the one from the Persian (Men. Prot. 6.1.199–201). The letter from the Persian king is provided by Menander in word-to-word translation, a fact which he emphasizes (Men. Prot. 6.1.184– 187).202 The text of the shah’s sacra consisted of the following parts (Men. Prot. 6.1.177– 198): – Superscription with the shah’s full title and list of epithets and form of address to the emperor. – Thanks to the emperor for readiness to conclude peace. – List of diplomats who were entrusted with rights to negotiate and sign the treaty. – Ratification of the terms which were established by the diplomats.203 Both sacrae also had appendices concerning the most arguable problem of payments (Men. Prot. 6.1.166–174). It would seem that the decision to send for the sacrae ended the first, main session. 201

Sacrae seem to have had seals with imperial portraits on them (Theoph. AM 6064); John Lydus mentioned sacrae in the juridical context, describing that the verdicts concerning lawsuits in the magisterial courts were to be referred to the emperor after an appeal (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.15.15– 22). The word, however, could have been used in various contexts for imperial letters or edicts: Dölger/Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre 24, 89. 202 As it was noted by R. C. Blockley, the Greek text of a part of this sacra is ungrammatical, which may be explained by the fact that Menander transcribed the archival translation which he knew would be word-for-word: The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 254, n. 39. 203 There is an interesting reference by Zacharias of Mytilene about a truce concerning Amida with the Persians negotiated in 503–504 by the master of offices Celer. A truce was agreed to be ratified by both leaders: »and when documents were drawn up they brought the drafts to the king for his signature. And the king fell asleep, and it was told him in a vision that he should not make peace; and when he awoke he tore up the paper« (Zach. HE 7.5). See also: Greatrex/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier 72f.; Greatrex, Rome and Persia 122; Syrische Chronik [Luther] 206f.

114

II. Diplomatic negotiation

Second debate session The second session most likely took place while the ambassadors were waiting for the ratification letters to arrive from both the rulers. Special problems were discussed in this session, which, most probably, could not enter in the main text of the agreement, as the rulers’ ratification will have been for the final text, so the items discussed in the meanwhile were left unresolved in the treaty and would be later discussed by Peter the Patrician with Chosroes, or/and could have formed a separate appendix.204 The second session consisted of: 1. The speech of Isdigousnas (Men. Prot. 6.1.203–213); speech of Peter (Men. Prot. 6.1.213–238). 2. Negotiations concerning the territories of Suania and its status. It was decided that Peter would discuss this matter with the shah and the Persian diplomat promised to support his colleague (Men. Prot. 6.1.239–287). 3. Isdigousnas tried to raise the question about the subsidies to the Saracens, but Peter rejected this demand (Men. Prot. 6.1.288–303). Finally after much debate the fifty-year treaty was concluded. It was written out in Persian and Greek, and the Greek copy was translated into Persian and the Persian into Greek. »When the agreements had been written on both sides, they were placed side-by-side to ensure that the language corresponded« (Men. Prot. 6.1.309–313).205 These measures must have excluded the variant reading and guaranteed full observance of all the conditions concluded. On the Roman side the documents were validated by Peter, the master of offices, Eusebius, his companion in the embassy, »and the others«, on the Persian side – by the Zikh Isdigousnas, Surena »and others« (Men. Prot. 6.1.304–309). So, the validation was made by the chief envoys, the heads of the delegations Peter and Isdigousnas, their companions in the mission Eusebius206 and Surena207 and the »governors of the neighbourhood«, who were mentioned in the beginning of the passage (Men. Prot. 6.1.16). Menander provides a detailed description of the provisions of the treaty, naming 13 articles (Men. Prot. 6.1.314–393).208 After an account of the clauses of the agreement Menander again describes the conclusion and ratification procedure. »When the terms had been settled, the so-called sacred letters were exchanged« (Men. Prot. 6.1.394–397). The text by Menander also contains unique evidence about the collation of the texts of the treaty. The testimony’s exceptional value deserves lengthy quotations: »When the matters had progressed to the stage of orderly development, those whose task it was took the texts of the two documents and polished their contents, using language of equivalent force« (Men. Prot. 6.1.408–412). R. C. Blockley interprets this passage as evidence of the »stage of transformation of the text of the treaty from its verbatim form as recorded by the amanu204 205

Αντωνόπουλος, Πέτρος 233f. B. Paradisi noted that most probably at the moment of exchange of the documents, each of them was signed by both rulers (Paradisi, Storia 193). 206 PLRE-IIIA, 467, s.v. Eusebius 3. 207 Surena was one of the Persian representatives in these negotiations, he came from one of the seven privileged families in Persia (Christensen, L’Iran 103f., 105, n. 3), later he was a Persian governor of Armenia: PLRE-IIIB, 1208, s.v. Surena. 208 Schmidt, Friede 107–130; Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making 57–71.

3. Procedure of discussing and signing a treaty

115

enses into its final polished form«.209 In fact it is possible that the first mention of the comparison of the Greek and the Persian versions (Men. Prot. 6.1.309–313) represented the primary »informal confirmation by the envoys of their words«.210 On the other hand it is also possible that Menander just repeated the information about comparisons of the versions of the treaty, providing for the second time a more extended elucidation. After the facsimiles of both versions were made »the originals were rolled up and secured by seals both of wax and of the other substance used by the Persians,211 and were impressed by the signets of the envoys and of twelve interpreters, six Roman and six Persian« (Men. Prot. 6.1.412–416). This very important evidence about the authentication of the document with the personal seals of ambassadors and interpreters finds some material reflection in the conserved seals of diplomats and translators.212 Menander continues: »Then the two sides exchanged the treaty documents, the Zikh handing the one in Persian to Peter and Peter the one in Greek to the Zikh. Then the Zikh was given an unsealed Persian translation of the Greek original to be kept as a reference for him, and Peter likewise was given a Greek translation of the Persian« (Men. Prot. 6.1.416–423). All the carefully described details demonstrate the elaborateness of the procedure of signing the peace treaty between Rome and Persia: »[the] process of drafting and verification of the text was attended to with care«.213 The text of the agreement was verified several times. It seems important that the originals of the treaties were certified according to the Roman and the Persian traditions, making it valid for the standards of both states. What is very interesting is the mention that copies of the original version were made and taken by the diplomats »as a reference«. The official sealed variant of the text must have been directed to an archive,214 and the envoys could perhaps have kept these ›personal‹ records for themselves or, more likely, they accompanied the original version in the archive, as, according to Menander, the sealed originals were exchanged so that each representative received the text in the foreign language. In comparison with Menander’s account all the other evidence describing the process of treaty making, signing and ratifying seems rather scanty. However, it testifies the same rules which are reflected in the text by Peter/Menander, like the necessity of ratification of an agreement by the sovereign for example (Men. Prot. 18.3.21sq.; Josh. Styl. 81) and the written fixation of a treaty with giving the oaths (Proc. BG 1.6). Thus first of all thanks to the text by Menander we can trace and reconstruct in detail the act of concluding and authorizing a treaty and it may be stated that at least for relations be209 210 211

The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 259, n. 68. The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 255, n. 47. As R. C. Blockley supposes (The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 259, n. 69), the other substance was possibly a fine clay, often used for sealing (cf. Hdt. 2.38.3). Unfortunately I was unable to lay my hands on another of his articles on the subject: R. N. Frye, The Use of Clay Sealings in Sasanian Iran, in: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Iranologists in Tehran, September 1966 (Acta Iranica. Varia 5, 1976), 117–124. 212 Shandrovskaia, Pechati perevodchikov 109–115. 213 Blockley, Foreign Policy 160. 214 There is a mention of an archive where the treaties were stored: the Visigothic king Reccaredus I fails to receive a copy of a treaty from that archive, because it was destroyed in fire (Greg. Ep. 9.229), see: I.1.6.

116

II. Diplomatic negotiation

tween the Romans and the Persians diplomatic protocol and procedure were elaborated perfectly.

4. Conclusions When analysing the system and structure of diplomatic negotiations in Late Antiquity it is important to distinguish direct and mediated schemes of negotiating. By direct, communication between rulers is implied and by mediated, between representatives from both or from one side at least. Meetings of Roman emperors with barbarian chiefs for negotiations on the basis of an almost equal status occurred rarely and mostly characterize the 4th century, when Roman rulers used to act actively and personally in military affairs, leading their armies and conducting negotiations. The general tendency in the development of international relations practices was towards increasing the protocol and ceremonial around the majesty and grandeur of the emperor, who was the highest addressee of all diplomatic actions. The paradigm of the Empire and its emperor’s dominancy was the main feature of Late Roman political communication. If meetings between emperor and barbarian happened, in most cases they were organized as a favour by the emperor, and the guest was put in a subordinate position, which sometimes was fixed by an investiture and donation of insignia. In most cases, international negotiation in Late Antiquity was organized in ›indirect‹ form, through the exchange of embassies, with an important role for mediators-ambassadors who acted as representatives of their sovereigns. Negotiations were held either between a ruler, receiving a representative of an adversary side, or between representatives from both sides. At the same time the supreme right to make decisions, approve any agreement and sign a treaty belonged to the ruler and thus in every further stage of the communication contact with him was necessary. This led to the organization of the negotiation procedure in several meetings, when in order to settle one matter several embassies were to be exchanged. The logical consequence of the priority of ›shuttle diplomacy‹, when for discussing and accepting a decision several sessions of talks were needed, was the elaboration of a structured system regulating the process of communication. In this investigation I propose distinguishing a so-called block system of the exchange of embassies. Evidence from the sources demonstrates that normally important negotiations were split into ›blocks‹, consisting of several missions and meetings: initiative and responding ones. This organization corresponds with the stratification of embassies by their status, power and destination. Local, minor, ›medium‹, major and plenipotentiary embassies were dispatched for different aims, depending on the level and stage of negotiations. The type and level of embassy was also connected to the subjects of the discussions and agreement intended to be reached. The process of signing of a treaty can be regarded as an etalon of ceremonial and normative behaviour in diplomacy. Special rules of behaviour existed for all the parts of diplomatic communication and negotiations. Among the main norms the following can be distinguished: the multi-session structure of negotiations, dependence of the embassy personnel’s ranks on the aims of the mission and the status of the receiving side, escort accompaniment and accommodation of diplomatic missions, strict order of sessions within one negotiation block, delivering of orations by envoys, gift exchange, and the complex procedure of discussing a treaty and its ratification.

Chapter III

Embassy structure and personnel This chapter aims to investigate embassies from the point of view of their organization: how they were formed, their personnel and how they worked. The issues investigated in this chapter – the figure of envoy and the structure, personnel, activities and functions of an embassy – mainly concern the Roman side. The main focus is on Roman ambassadors and embassies, which is explained both by the general subject of the current thesis that embassies were a system of Roman diplomacy, and also because of the character of the sources, which provide incomparably more material concerning the phenomenon of imperial embassies, while we are rather poorly informed about barbarian ones (in the cases when material and sources allow it, a description of Persian and barbarian envoys and embassies is also provided). It is generally considered that in the Roman Empire there existed no ›diplomatic corps‹, in the sense of a collective body of foreign diplomats accredited to a particular country or body. No ancient state created a diplomatic system of permanent representatives.1 There was no group of people whose professional occupation was concentrated only, or even mainly, on diplomatic and first of all ambassadorial activity.2 We possess no information about diplomats of Late Antiquity for whom being an ambassador would have been the main and principal realization of their professional duties and business. Nevertheless, certain bases and patterns in the selection of persons to execute diplomatic missions can be distinguished. The circle of people who were involved in the ›envoy business‹ was considerably wide: civil and military imperial officials of different levels and ranks, rhetoricians and even physicians. A high rank and status were necessary to participate in an embassy of a high level. The theme of the prosopography of ambassadors is extremely wide and deserves a special study. In this account the intent is just to provide some universal characteristics of the rules and mechanisms which can be found in the problem of selecting personnel for Late Antique diplomatic missions.

1 2

Blockley, Foreign Policy 17. Lee, Information 45.

118

III. Embassy structure and personnel

1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors 1.1 Titles and dignities of envoys The rank and dignity of an envoy, especially of the head of the delegation, was of great significance in Late Antique diplomacy.3 Ambassadors had a special rank of importance for diplomatic communication with Persia – the sphere of Roman foreign policy which was traditionally a model and a standard from the point of view of status significance. R. C. Blockley states that »all embassies sent to the Persians whose personnel can be identified were led by one from the first grade, illustris«.4 This was so at least from 358, when the Persian shah, Sapor, was not satisfied with the low rank of the embassy from Constantius II, which was led by a person from the second grade, spectabilis5 (Amm. 17.5.15; Eun. V.Soph. 6.5.2–10; more information will be given about this embassy further on). The fourth article of the Roman-Persian peace treaty of 561–562, relayed by Menander,6 ordered that the envoys of both states »shall be honored according to their status and rank and shall receive an appropriate attention« (Men. Prot. 6.1.326–330). As R. Mathisen has remarked, »given the great importance of personal status in Late Antiquity, it should be no surprise if it was felt that the higher an ambassador’s rank, the better his chances of success might be«.7 It is significant that bearers of the highest imperial ranks – ex-ordinary consuls and patricians – often carried out diplomatic missions.8 There is an interesting idea from T. Lounghis that Emperor Zeno, who appointed the senator Severus as ambassador to the Vandals in 476/477, promoting him to the rank of patrician »to render the embassy’s shape more suitable« (Malch. 5.1–6) and who also accorded to Odoacer the requested insignia of patrician (Malch. 14.26sq.), »established a sort of equality between the barbarian rulers of the West subordinated to the East Roman emperor as

3

4

5 6 7 8

See e.g. Helm, Untersuchungen 375–436; Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien; T. Lounghis analyses the ranks of the ambassadors sent by the Byzantine Empire to the West (Lounghis, Ambassades 297–334); Löhren, Beiträge 27. I also refer to a fundamental article by R. Mathisen, who, while investigating the problem of patricians as diplomats in Late Antiquity, provides a wide study of the prosopography of Late Antique ambassadors, incorporating material not only concerning patricians (Mathisen, Patricians). Blockley names bishops as exceptions, calling it an »acceptable anomaly« and underlining that in most cases the missions they undertook were of secondary level and importance (Blockley, Foreign Policy 153). Blockley, Foreign Policy 153. See: II.3. Mathisen, Patricians 40. E.g. the case where in the sources the envoy’s title and dignity is mentioned within the context of the diplomatic mission he carried: consuls (Prisc. 2.10; 9.2; 15.3; 41.1.25sq.; Malch. 20.46sq.; Men. Prot. 20.1.23sq.; Proc. BP 1.9.24; 1.11.24; 1.12.6), patricians (Prisc. 15.3.6; 41.1.24–27; Malch. 5.3–5; 20.46sq.; Men. Prot. 18.3.1sq.; Proc. BP 1.12.6; Theoph. Sim. 3.15.5–11). See also for the ranks of ambassadors Lounghis, Ambassades 297f., and for the significance of the title of patricius, 266– 271. R. Mathisen gives a table of 46 patricians, known to have been ambassadors. Ex-ordinary consuls, who were also patricians, are included in this table (Mathisen, Patricians 38f.) and, as he notices, it is hard to state a priori which of the two honours, if either, would have most influenced the choice. A list of the ex-ordinary consuls chosen for embassies, who were not patricians as well, is also provided (Mathisen, Patricians 40f.).

1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors

119

Odoacer, and the ambassadors dispatched to other barbarian rulers, such as the king of Vandals«.9 In almost all serious negotiations of a high level persons of high rank acted as negotiators. This situation is reflected for example in the text by Procopius of Caesarea, who described the exchange of letters between Justin and Cavades in 525–526 concerning Chosroes’s adoption by the Roman emperor. Justin promised to send the »noblest of the Romans« to negotiate (Proc. BP 1.11.22sq.) and two patricians10 were sent from the Roman side and two noble men from the Persian side (Proc. BP 1.11.24).11 Authors often tend to emphasize the high rank and position of envoys (Theoph. Sim. 1.4.6–9; 3.15.5–11; Agath. 4.31; Proc. BG 1.4.11). Perhaps the practice of sending persons of high rank to each other was basically a feature of Roman-Persian political dialogue. Deviation from this norm could lead to the failure of a diplomatic mission or to a conflict.12 Barbarians, according to their lower status, were to be satisfied with less influential figures.13 It seems likely that over time, under growing pressure from the barbarians (not only military, but also diplomatic pressure), the Roman Empire lost its position in this sphere. Relations with the Huns are very symptomatic from this point of view. Attila several times insists on his will to lead the negotiations with the ambassadors of the highest rank. The Hun envoys who arrived in Constantinople said that Attila »ordered that ambassadors come to him and not just ordinary men but the highest ranking of the consulars« (Prisc. 11.1.14–17). The same was told to the Romans at the court of Attila (Prisc. 13.1.5) and the Hun rulers demanded that Nomus, Anatolius and Senator, and they only, be sent to him (Prisc. 13.1.12–15). All the three men were illustres: patricians and ex-consuls.14 Perhaps one more aspect was significant in the circumstances: at least two of the three men had already served on embassies to the Huns in the past.15 It cannot be excluded that Attila did not want to negotiate with ›new‹ people and for that reason ›demanded‹ these particular diplomats. It seems important that the Roman side tried to object to these orders. The envoy Maximinus, whose grade was spectabilis, seems to have been sent to demonstrate the Romans’ resistance to Attila’s demands. »Maximinus was ordered to speak personally to Attila in order that he need not demand that envoys of the highest rank come to him; for this had not been the case with his ancestors or other rulers of Scythia, but ordinary soldiers and messengers had acted as ambassadors« (Prisc. 11.2.13–18). Envoys Senator (Prisc. 9.2) and Anatolius (Prisc. 9.3), both ex-ordinary consuls, had already travelled to the Huns not long before Maximinus’s embassy took place. At first sight their participation in negotiations 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Lounghis, Ambassadors 143–153, esp. 145; see also about this: Lounghis, Adaptability 336; Lounghis, Diplomacy 266–271, 316f., 358, 443. Hypatius, magister utriusque militiae, ex consul and Rufinus, ex magister utriusque militiae. See numbers 26 and 27 in the table by R. Mathisen (Mathisen, Patricians 39). »Seoses by name, whose title was adrastadaran salanes, and Mebodes, who held the office of magister«. E.g. the story of the embassy of Prosper, Spectatus and Eustathius to Sapor in 358 (Eun. V.Soph. 6.5.2–10; Amm.17.5.15; Lib. Ep. 331; 333). For the details on this embassy see III.1.2. Löhren, Beiträge 28. Blockley, Foreign Policy 153; Mathisen, Patricians 40. See the list of their missions with dates and reference to the PLRE: Mathisen, Patricians 40, n. 19.

120

III. Embassy structure and personnel

with Attila contradicts the statement which Maximinus was to refer to Attila. But the very fact that the Huns several times underline that they would only lead negotiations with persons of consular rank, and threaten to start a war if their will was not satisfied, demonstrates the efforts that Hun diplomacy had to undertake to achieve these concessions from Constantinople. The reaction of the Roman side shows that before Attila it was not customary to send persons of these ranks to the barbarians of ›Scythia‹.16 Before the appearance of the Huns this front was not a priority for Roman diplomacy and never demanded so much ceremonial and protocol as the Persian one. Perhaps in the middle of the 5th century some significant changes occurred in Roman foreign policy and diplomacy, and an important part of these changes were due to the Huns and Attila. This new and dangerous factor forced Roman diplomacy to shift some rules, expanding the sphere and circle of the addressees of highly prestigious diplomacy, and to elaborate some new norms to be used in relations with the barbarians. Attila demanded bearers of a consular rank for negotiations, because this would raise his status. The Romans tried so hard to resist his claims for the same reason. The system was moving slowly but inevitably. Attila succeeded and the envoys which he desired were sent to him (Prisc. 15.4). It may be symptomatic that in a considerable amount of the cases when envoys of high rank (especially ex-ordinary consuls) were sent to the barbarians, they were dispatched to the Huns.17 It was noted by R. C. Blockley that »in general the Romans were sparing in their use of illustres but for Persians« and he supposes that in relations with other peoples it was »the importance of [the] business« that determined the principal’s status.18 Certainly there was a strong correlation between the significance of an embassy and the status of the negotiator, but the very tendency towards the growing inclusion of high-ranking ambassadors in relations with the barbarians (first of all the Huns, the Vandals and later the Avars)19 seems very eloquent. It may be formulated that in Late Antique diplomacy and international interaction there were two figures marking the highest standard of status – the Roman emperor20 and the Persian shah. The rulers of the peoples who entered into communication with the two superpowers tended to emulate and copy some elements of the supreme sovereigns’ image, thus trying to raise their position. Possibly Attila’s demands to negotiate with persons of supreme consular rank were caused by his aspiration to be in some sense treated on a level with the Persian shah. That these pretensions were satisfied shows that the Roman diplomatic system acted in a considerably pliable way, responding to the pressure and adapting to the new circumstances.21 Perhaps this theme of the importance of an ambassador’s rank and status was connected to the practice of raising the status of a diplomat directly before an embassy was executed. 16 17 18 19 20

About the usage of the term ›Scythia‹ in Priscus: Nechaeva, Sciti. Mathisen, Patricians 40f.; see about this also in Gillett, Envoys 234, n. 51. Blockley, Foreign Policy 153. See Mathisen, Patricians table pp. 38f. and 40f. Evidently he was also only willing to negotiate with diplomats of a high rank – e.g. the refusal by Valens (at the very beginning of the battle of Adrianople) to treat with the Gothic envoys »because of their low origin, demanding for the execution of a lasting treaty that suitable chieftains be sent« (Amm. 31.12.13). Probably in this case in reality the presbyter sent was not of low status: Rubin, Conversion 49f. 21 Maybe the reverse side of this process was a certain devaluation of the prestige of high-ranking ambassadors.

1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors

121

Malchus informs us that in 474 Emperor Zeno selected a senator Severus, »who had a reputation for outstanding moderation and desire for justice« to be sent as an envoy to the Vandals. »In order that he might cut a majestic figure in keeping with the dignity of the embassy, Zeno made him patrician22 before sending [him] off« (Malch. 5.1–5). When describing an embassy to Theodericus, the same historian mentioned that »Zeno sent Vivianus’ son, Adamantius, a patrician and ex-prefect of the city, upon whom he also conferred consular rank« (Malch. 20.46–48).23 In both cases envoys whose ranks were raised directly before the embassy were dispatched to the barbarians – the Vandals and the Goths. The same practice seems to have been used in preparation for missions to Persia (e.g. Men. Prot. 23.8.5–12). Menander described the preparations for the mission to Chosroes in 578–579 when two actions of raising status occurred. Emperor Tiberius dispatched Zacharias and »bestowed upon him the rank of ex-prefect and sent with him a certain Theodorus, one of the imperial bodyguards, whom he raised to the rank of general«.24 It may be significant that both envoys were also given by Tiberius »the power of major envoys to make peace on whatever terms they could« (Men. Prot. 23.8.21–24). Perhaps it was necessary to provide the two diplomats with a higher status so that they would satisfy the requirements.25 Malchus’s remark about Severus, who was made a patrician in order to raise the dignity of his embassy, explains the sense and aims of this practice of bestowing with titles and dignities for diplomatic reasons. When owing to some considerations it was necessary to send a certain person whose status was not high enough with a high-level diplomatic mission, the problem could have been solved directly before dispatching. As already noted, in Late Antiquity there was no special group of diplomat representatives so every time the choice was made depending on the circumstances, so that the person in question would better fit them and would be better qualified.26 If a candidate’s dignity was not satisfactory, there was the possibility of improving it. R. Mathisen provides an interesting hypothesis to explain the particular number of patricians who served as diplomats in Late Antiquity. According to him it was due to the fact that it was easy for an emperor to bestow a patriciate on a person whom he needed to send on a diplomatic mission if a high rank was absent but required. As R. Mathisen underlines »an emperor could not make ordinary consuls on spur of the moment; … But an emperor could, if he chose, make patricians in the immediacy of the departure of a diplomatic mission«.27 For most of the cases the sources do not specify when a diplomat was made a patrician, so it is not easy to judge what percentage of them received a patriciate for the pur22 23 24

25 26 27

Καὶ πατρίκιον αὐτὸν ποιήσας ἀποπέμπει, ὅπως ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας τῆς πρεσβείας τὸ σχῆμα κατασκευάσῃ σεμνότερον. Προσθεὶς αὐτῷ καὶ τιμὴν ὑπατικὴν ἔπεμψε παραγγείλας. Ἀξίωμα καὶ αὐτῷ στρατηγοῦ περιθείς. Zacharias, who was an imperial physician and had already served on the Persian front of Roman diplomacy, must have been given the dignity of honorary prefect specially to meet the aims and status of the mission better. The second envoy Theodorus must have either been a spatharius or one of the scribones. E. Stein suggested that στρατηγός indicated that he was made magister militum vacans. The honorific dignity of magister militum was also granted to add weight to the embassy. See Stein, Studien 82f.; PLRE-IIIB, 1257, s.v. Theodorus 36; The History of Menander the Guardsman (Blockley) 282, n. 282. See about major embassies: II.1.2.3.2. See about this, Mathisen, Patricians 41. Mathisen, Patricians 41.

122

III. Embassy structure and personnel

pose of an embassy. Thus R. Mathisen proposes a study of patricians as ambassadors, analysing cases in which he considers the persons could have been granted their patriciate in direct connection to their missions. This version seems very interesting and possible, but hard to prove. Furthermore, as the example of Adamantius demonstrates, there remained the possibility of making a future diplomat a consularis, i.e. honorary consul (he was one of the first known ones; Malch. 20.46–48).28 Another consideration is that the few cases when sources definitely testify to the raising of diplomats’ status before an embassy’s departure demonstrate various kinds of dignities and titles which they could receive, other than a patriciate. Thus it seems reasonable to suppose that the Late Roman diplomatic system was rather flexible in this regard and perhaps in each matter the new higher status bestowed upon an ambassador corresponded to his actual position and the concrete purposes of the negotiations to be performed. In the Digest of Justinian, in the section dedicated to embassies, we find a quotation from the Institutiones by Aelius Marcianus: »Everyone serves on an embassy in order [rank]; and a man is not compellable to serve on an embassy unless those chosen above him in the curia have served. But if the embassy requires [other] more elevated persons and those summoned be of a lower status, the order of rank had not to be observed; so ruled the deified Hadrian in a rescript to the Clazomenii«29 (Just. Dig. 50.7.5 De legationibus).30 Late Antique diplomacy was perhaps even based on this norm, meaning order of rank did not need to be observed, and possibly the practice of raising the status of an ambassador for the needs of the mission was another step towards a more adaptable system. Rather often diplomatic missions were carried out by imperial officials (e.g. there are several cases in which the status of ambassador as magister officiorum is mentioned within the context of an embassy: Prisc. 15.3.5sq.; Proc. BP 1.3.8; 1.9.24; 1.21.1; BG 3.15.5–11; 4.11.1),31 which is a natural consequence of the particular role they played in the diplomatic process.32 Certain officials were involved in matters closely associated with communication with other parties, and so were logically chosen to undertake embassies as a consequence of their involvement; this included the magister officiorum and members of his office, and the quaestor, whose duties included overseeing visiting envoys and drafting diplomatic correspondence as well as counsel to the ruler.33 Another figure who could also perform diplomatic functions was the military officer.34 In many cases their role as negotiators was important in local conferences during military

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

PLRE-II, 7, s.v. Adamantius 2. Here and further on I quote the English translation of the Digest by A. Watson: The Digest (Mommsen/Krueger/Watson). Sed si legatio de primoribus viris desideret personas et qui ordine vocantur inferiores sint, non esse observandum ordinem divus Hadrianus ad Clazomenios rescripsit. We are also informed about an embassy of Anthemius, sent from the Roman court to the Persians probably in 383, who later became master of offices (PLRE-II, 93–95, s.v. Anthemius 1). See about magistri officiorum and diplomacy: I.1.5. Gillett, Envoys 235, n. 52. For the role of military commanders in the diplomacy of the Late Antique West, see Gillett, Envoys 235.

1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors

123

actions. In some situations magistri militum could be dispatched on a normal embassy, when they were not involved in military conflict or local negotiations.35 In the reality of Late Antique bureaucracy it was often and natural that one person could have different ranks and dignities, so it could be a combination or one title or office which better fitted the necessities of a mission. Possessing a high rank or office was not the only or perhaps not the main criteria for selecting a person to carry out a diplomatic mission, especially considering the fact that an ambassador’s status position could be adjusted for the moment. If the office and the rank of envoy were not the most nor the only important argument for selecting a person as an envoy, the question emerges – what were the qualities and characteristics needed by a Late Antique diplomat? 1.2 Qualities of a diplomat There is a source that provides a lot of information on the problem, showing us theoretical ideas and maybe even practical directions about the selection of envoys – the anonymous treatise Peri Presbeon.36 It seems worth citing at some length: The envoys we send out should be men who have the reputation of being religious, who have never been denounced for any crime or publicly condemned. They should be naturally intelligent and public spirited enough to be willing to risk their own lives … and they should undertake their mission eagerly and not under compulsion … In the presence of those to whom they are accredited the envoys should appear gracious, truly noble, and generous to the extent of their powers. They should speak with respect of both their own country and that of the enemy and never speak despairingly of it. Envoys must be able to arrange things properly, to take advantage of opportunities, but to employ pressure to carry out their assignment, unless it is something they have been ordered to get at any cost. (Peri Str. 43)

The list of demands of an ambassador is rather eloquent and natural, modern theoretical manuals on diplomacy name almost the same qualities of a diplomat.37 As synthesized by T. Lounghis – the ambassador was to remind the foreigners that they had the delegate of the eternal empire before them.38 Eunapius provides another illustration of the possible principles for the selection of an envoy. He noted that it was the custom for emperors to dispatch as diplomats »men who had won distinction in the army, or magistri militum, or men who were next in rank to these and had been selected for [civilian] office« (Eun. V.Soph. 6.5.2–10). In 358 Constantius II sent to Sapor II an embassy which consisted of the comes rei militaris, Prosper, the tribunus et notarius, Spectatus, and the philosopher, Eustathius (Amm. 17.5.15; Lib. Ep. 331; 333). Prosper was a vicarius of Ursicinus in the military magister of the Oriens from the end of 354 until the end of 357 and in the absence of the master he was the highest mili35

E.g. in some cases ambassadors – magistri militum – participated in embassies of state level: Prisc. 15.3.5sq.; Proc. BP 1.3.8; 1.9.24; 1.21.1; BG 3.15.5–11; 4.11.1. For the role of magister militum in local negotiations see: II.1.3.2.1. 36 See about this: I.2.1. 37 See e.g. Wood/Serre, Diplomatic Ceremonial §14–28; Cresci, Eredità 88f.; Lounghis, Ambassades 285–288. 38 Lounghis, Ambassades 288.

124

III. Embassy structure and personnel

tary authority of the Eastern prefecture.39 Among the delegates there were two noted men of letters, Spectatus and Eustathius. Spectatus was a high functionary, a palatine secretary.40 He also had a certain experience in relations with Persian diplomats, as, being in Antioch he was in contact with Persian delegates during the preparation of embassies.41 He was thus united with Prosper as a civilian functionary.42 Eustathius was a philosopher, a pupil of Iamblichus,43 famous for his outstanding eloquence, thanks to which, according to Eunapius (whose account perhaps originated directly from that of Eustathius),44 he was included in the embassy (Eun. V.Soph. 6.5.2–10). Sapor was so greatly taken by Eustathius’s eloquence that he accorded him with the honour of his table, and would have renounced his diadem and put on philosopher’s garb, save for the intervention of the Magi who asserted that Eustathius was a fraud. Spectatus was the secretary of the mission and he told his friend Libanius (Lib. Ep. 331.4sq.) that they were asked some hard questions by Sapor.45 The special reason for Libanius’s pride was the brilliant rhetorical skill demonstrated by Spectatus during negotiations (Lib. Ep. 331.2–6).46 The classical practice of selecting envoys for their skill in oratory was widespread in the Roman Empire.47 Proficiency in rhetoric and talent in persuasion seem to have been essential qualities for a diplomat. The art of oratory was certainly extremely important in the process of diplomatic negotiations and the presence of a person skilled in public speaking was undoubtedly necessary. Our sources show that in some cases these qualities were concentrated in one person, who was the head of the diplomatic mission, the principle ambassador: Procopius underlined that the famous diplomat Peter the Patrician was gifted in persuasion (Proc. BG 1.3.30); Procopius also mentioned Constantianus and Sergius who were dispatched several times on missions from Justinian to Chosroes (Proc. BP 2.24.3; 2.28.3), both of them were rhetors (Proc. BP 2.24.3). Theophylact Simocatta remarks that the envoy-physician Theodorus was clever and could speak freely (Theoph. Sim. 6.11.7). It was also usual that not the chief ambassador himself, but a person accompanying him was entrusted with the main task of speech-making. The examples of such a distribution of roles in embassies are numerous. In the prominent embassy to Attila the rhetor was not Maximinus, the head of the delegation, but Priscus, who was persuaded to accompany him in the embassy (Prisc. 11.2). In this mission, described by Priscus himself, he carried out many 39

40 41

42 43 44 45 46

47

As noted by G. B. Pighi, it was natural to choose him to represent the Empire in an embassy which concerned the Eastern prefecture in a particular way. It was also better than sending a general in office – it was better to save such an important figure as a master of cavalry from responsibility in the case of failure: Pighi, Nuovi studi 148. PLRE-I, 850f., s.v. Spectatus 1. Seeck, Die Briefe 281. Spectatus originated from Antioch and was a relative of Libanius, so the latter was well informed about him and could have also informed Ammianus (Pighi, Nuovi studi 148f.; Seeck, Die Briefe, notes to ep. 58 and 416; Bradbury, Selected Letters 32). Pighi, Nuovi studi 148f. PLRE-I, 310, s.v. Eustathius. Pighi, Nuovi studi 153. See about this: Lieu, Captives 493. In the end the mission returned without success, as the Shah of Shahs was indignant about the low status of the delegation (Eun. V.Soph. 6.5.2–10). Not always did the participation of a famous man of letters lead to a happy end for a mission. Gillett, Envoys 22.

1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors

125

›non-primary‹ informal talks which were rather important for relative success of the embassy. It is significant that Maximinus himself was interested and invited Priscus to join him on his trip (Prisc. 11.2.21sq.). Perhaps it was also Priscus who composed the official speeches for Maximinus. Orators were also honoured among the barbarians (e.g. Proc. BG 3.21.18). Besides eloquence, an envoy had to possess a number of features, like a »great reputation for wisdom« (Prisc. 2.18–20),48 »a reputation for outstanding moderation and desire for justice« (Malch. 5.3sq.),49 extreme intelligence (Proc. BP 2.24.3),50 courtesy and sagacity (Theoph. Sim. 6.11.7).51 Perhaps the figure of the famous diplomat of the Justinianic era, Peter the Patrician, may be called the personification of the ›ideal ambassador‹. Procopius described him thus: he was one of the rhetors, a person of outstanding cleverness, of mild character, who had the gift of eloquence (Proc. BG 1.3.30).52 Among the spheres of professional occupations of Late Antique envoys the most unusual one seems to be the profession of physician. A special article by R. C. Blockley analyses the phenomenon of ›doctors as diplomats‹, so I shall refer to it and therefore only provide a brief outline of the matter.53 Several cases are known of diplomatic missions carried out by physicians: Stephanus, who acted as a spokesman for an embassy to Chosroes in 544 (Proc. BP 2.26.31–41); Uranius, who was taken in the embassy to Chosroes some time after 532 where he played the philosopher and greatly impressed the shah (Agath. 2.29); imperial physician Zacharias who three times participated in embassies to the Persians (Men. Prot. 18.2; 18.3; 23.8) »since he had rendered very useful and loyal service on the embassies« (Men. Prot. 23.8.5–8); Theodorus, a doctor by profession, clever and good at speeches, was dispatched with the local embassy to the Avars (Theoph. Sim. 6.11.7). As in the case of rhetoricians, doctor-diplomats could head the delegations and could accompany an embassy as assistants of the chief envoys. In most of the situations when physicians acted as envoys, they were dispatched to negotiate with Persia: one example is Theodorus and his local mission to the Avars. As was noticed by R. C. Blockley, doctors were »not usually the most prestigious of people«, their status was not important, with the exception of the corps of imperial physicians, who were ranked highly, like senators.54 Among the doctor-diplomats known to us we are only sure that Zacharias was a court physician, and only Zacharias led negotiations of the highest level. R. Blockley names three reasons why doctors could act in the role of ambassadors: 48 49 50 51 52 53

54

Epigenes, a fellow ambassador of Plintha, dispatched to the Huns: ὡς μεγίστην ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ δόξαν ἐπιφερόμενον. Ambassador to the Vandals, Severus: ἄνδρα καὶ σωφροσύνῃ διαφέρειν δοκοῦντα καὶ τῷ ἐθέλειν τὰ δίκαια. Constantianus and Sergius who were several times dispatched on missions from Justinian to Chosroes: ξυνετὼ ἐς τὰ μάλιστα. The physician Theodorus: τὴν φύσιν ἄνδρα δεξιόν τε καὶ εὐεπίβολον, τὴν τέχνην ἰατρόν. Ἕνα μὲν ὄντα τῶν ἐν Βυζαντίῳ ῥητόρων, ἄλλως δὲ ξυνετόν τε καὶ πρᾷον καὶ ἐς τὸ πείθειν ἱκανῶς πεφυκότα. Blockley, Doctors 89–100; see also: Löhren, Beiträge 28; Hohlweg, Formazione culturale 165–188; Nutton, From Galen to Alexander 1–14, esp. 13; Nechaeva, Uchastie vrachei 194– 200. Blockley, Doctors 89–93.

126

III. Embassy structure and personnel

1. They were appreciated as educated persons, like sophists (this is the name that John of Ephesus gives to Zacharias – Joh. Eph. HE 6.12), since »Greek medical science, like science in general, originated in philosophy, and the relationship between medicine and philosophy was frequently maintained«.55 Such qualifications could contribute to a diplomatic career. 2. The rank of court doctors was very high and this was valuable for embassies of a primary level. 3. It was their medical art that was important.56 The latter reason seems especially significant: it was not by chance that the main addressee of ›medical diplomacy‹ was Persia, where Greek medical art had always been appreciated. Doctor-envoys most likely had personal connections with the Persian royal court, because of a certain valetudinarianism among the Persian rulers. We possess some information about Roman physicians who cured Iranian shahs. Stephanus, who, according to Procopius, treated Cavades and was so close to him that he brought up the shah’s son Chosroes, advising to make him successor of the royal power, a fact which Stephanus did not fail to mention in the negotiations with Chosroes (Proc. BP 2.26.31–41). Another famous doctor, Tribunus,57 who spent a lot of time at the Persian court, healed Chosroes and then left Persia, but was asked back for one year by the Persian ruler Chosroes as one of the conditions of a truce in 545. He was sent to Persia again by Justinian and made a large contribution to the freeing of Roman captives (Proc. BP 2.28.3; BG 4.10.16). The story of Tribunus demonstrates the Persian rulers’ attitude to Greek physicians and the influence which they could have on these sovereigns.58 As justly formulated by R. C. Blockley, »late Romans … were aware of the popularity of Greek medicine at the Persian court. They knew of Chosroes’ disposition towards illness and his admiration for Greek doctors. Therefore, they often included doctors on embassies, especially major ones«.59 R. Blockley names among the great strengths of the Romans that they »systematically studied the peoples around them and based their strategy in dealing with these peoples, both political and military, upon the knowledge gained from such study«.60 Indeed the use of physicians as diplomats, playing on weaknesses of the adversary side’s rulers, demonstrates the certain flexibility which they managed to employ in the circumstances. Envoys had to be prepared and trained before the execution of their mission. According to Peri Presbeon an ambassador was also tested61 to prove that he was qualified for the task: »A list of topics is presented to him, and he is asked how he would deal with each of them under various assumed circumstances« (Peri Str. 43). We are informed about such a practice in Sasanian diplomatic business: as it is reported by the later treatise The Book of the 55 56 57 58

Blockley, Doctors 93. Blockley, Doctors 93f. PLRE-IIIB, 1342, s.v. Tribunus 2. One can also remember the story of Marutha of Mayperqat, the future bishop of Martyropolis, who in around 400 was received at the Sasanian court and greatly impressed the Persian king with his medical ability. As a result he made a great contribution to the establishment of friendly relations between the two empires (Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 174–176, with n.7–18). 59 Blockley, Doctors 96. 60 Blockley, Doctors 96. 61 Δοκιμάζεται.

1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors

127

Crown, before an embassy future envoys were thoroughly examined and even during the mission itself they were observed and spied on, in order to find out if they were acting in the interests of the Sasanian Empire.62 It can be supposed that the Roman diplomatic system functioned in a similar way. 1.3 ›Professional diplomats‹ The wide range of occupations of the people involved in diplomatic activity, the lack of permanent representatives of the sides in political communication, the variety of participants in embassies, all these facts could be perceived as evidence of the absence of a professional ›cadre‹ of diplomats, which is only partly true for Late Antique diplomacy. It is very important to note that often embassies were carried out by the same persons, thus it can be stated that there was a certain specialization and professionalization of this sphere of foreign policy. Examples of repeated participation in diplomatic missions are rather numerous. Listed below are some of the cases when sources provide information about several embassies undertaken by the same diplomats. Certainly in reality there could have been many more missions, which we do not possess any information about. Each of the cases described below deserves its own prosopographical study, and could be the subject of special, ample research. However, this is not the purpose of the present account, and instead possible references to prosopographical material about envoys are provided. The following list is just a short outline which aims to demonstrate the existence in Late Antiquity of some features of professional diplomacy.63 – In the period from 502 to 533 Rufinus took part in and led at least eight diplomatic conferences with Persia.64 – Zacharias was sent to Persia with diplomatic missions at least five times in 573/574, 574/ 575, 576–577, 579 and 581.65 – Peter the Patrician twice went with embassies to the Goths in 543 and 536 and at least twice to the Persians in 550 and 561/562.66 – Anatolius twice67 went to negotiate with Attila in 443 (or 441)68 and 450 and concluded peace with Persia in 441.69 62 63

64

65 66 67 68 69

Al-Jahiz, Le livre de la couronne, C. Pellat (trad.), Paris 1954. The list does not claim to be complete and just aims to demonstrate some tendencies. See also the enumeration of diplomats who travelled with missions to the West once or several times: Lounghis, Ambassades 31–33. Josh. Styl. 50; Proc. BP 1.11.24; 1.13.11; Joh. Mal. 18.50; Theoph. AM 6022; Proc. BP 1.16.1–10; Joh. Mal. 18.54; Joh. Mal. 18.61; Proc. BP 1.22.1–6; Joh. Mal. 18.72; Proc. BP 1.22.16sq.; Evagr. HE 4.13; Joh. Mal. 18.72; Macell. com. s.a. 533; Zach. HE 9.7.17 etc. See about them with references to the sources: PLRE-II, 954–957, s.v. Rufinus 13. Men. Prot. 18.1; 18.2; 18.3; 18.4; 20.2; 23.1; Evagr. HE 5.12; Men. Prot. 20.1; 20.2; Joh. Eph. HE 3.6.12; Men. Prot. 23.8; Joh. Eph. HE 3.6.26; Men. Prot. 26.1. Proc. BG 1.3.30; 1.6; Anecd. 4.31; Proc. BG 2.22.24; Men. Prot. 6.1. Or according to the opinion of some scholars even three times (Thompson, History 97; PLRE-II, 85, s.v. Anatolius 9. About the arguable date of the first embassy of Anatolius see: Bayless, Treaty 176–179; Scharf, Spätrömische Studien 56 with n. 147. Prisc. 9.3; 15.3; Proc. BP 1.2.11–15; Elisha Verdapet 1. According to A. Chekalova (A. A. Chekalova, Commentary to Proc. BP 1.2.12: Prokopii Kesariiskii [Chekalova] 459, n. 19) Anatolius

128

III. Embassy structure and personnel

– Celer three times led negotiations with the Persians in 504, 505 and 506.70 – Alexander took part in two embassies to the Persians in 530 and 531 and one to the Goths in Italy in 534.71 – Valentinus who was envoy to the Avars in 558 (Men. Prot. 5.2) may be the same person as the Valentinus who was twice sent to the Turks, in 569–571(?) or sometime from 571 to 576, and in 576.72 – Maximinus, besides the famous embassy to Attila in 449 (Prisc. 11.1 and 2), also discussed peace with the Blemmyes and the Nobadae in 453 (Prisc. 27.1).73 – Constantianus and Sergius were twice sent to Persia as envoys in 543 and 544 (Proc. BP 2.24.3; 2.28.3).74 – Marutha, bishop of Mayoerqat/Martyropolis (a chief city of Sophanene), twice (in 399 and in 408) was sent to the Persian shah Yazdagard I.75 – Julian was sent by Justinian on the embassy to the Ethiopians and the Himyarites in late 530/early 531 and to the Persians, having concluded an agreement with Chosroes in 540.76 – Polychronius77 and Martyrius78 are mentioned by John of Antioch (Joh. Ant. fr. 311)79 as being entrusted with embassies of the Huns,80 whereas in the opinion of E. Stein they were functionaries of the magisterium officiorum.81 John, on the other hand, seems to say only that Uranius, whom they accompanied,82 was a cancellarius of the magister. John’s phrase leaves room for several interpretations. It is not absolutely clear if these two persons were to deal with the incoming embassies of the Huns (O. MaenchenHelfen understands their functions as interpretes),83 or, if they were more in general charged with the diplomatic relations with the Huns,84 they could also travel to them as envoys. In any case, it seems obvious that they were certainly specialized in some way. Thus it may be noted that a great deal of the evidence is conserved of one person’s multiple participation in diplomatic business and that this evidence demonstrates that it was very 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

– envoy to the Huns and Anatolius who negotiated with the Persians was one and the same person. J. Martindale is of the same opinion (PLRE-II, 85, s.v. Anatolius 9). Josh. Styl. 80sq.; 95sq.; Proc. BP 1.9.24; Joh. Lyd. de mag. 3.53. PLRE-II, 275–277, s.v. Celer 2. Joh. Mal. 18.50; Proc. BP 1.16.1–10; 1.22.1–6; BG 1.3.13–16; 6.26; 2.23sq. PLRE-IIIA, 41f. s.v. Alexander 1. Men. Prot. 19.1. PLRE-IIIB, 1353, s.v. Valentinus. Prisc. 27.1. PLRE-II, 743, s.v. Maximinus 11; W. Ensslin s.v. Maximinus (17), in: RE Suppl. 5, 1931, 665. Proc. BP 2.24.3; 2.28.3. PLRE-IIIA, 333f., s.v. Constantinus 1, PLRE-IIIB, 1124, s.v. Sergius 3. V.Maruth. 7–10; see about him: II.1.3.2.2 note 142. Proc. BP 1.20.9; 2.1.10; Joh. Mal. 18.56; Theoph. AM 6064; Proc. BP 2.7.15sq.; 2.13.1. PLRE-IIIA, 731f., s.v. Iulianus 8. PLRE-IIIB, 896, s.v. Polychronius 3. PLRE-II, 732, s.v. Martyrius 7. In U. Roberto’s edition (Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta [Roberto]), 214e in Mommsen’s. Ἅμα Πολυχρονίῳ τε καὶ Μαρτυρίῳ τοῖς τὰς τῶν Οὔννων πρεσβείας ἐπιτετραμμένοις. Stein, Bas-Empire 181. All three were sent by Anastasius as negotiators to Vitalian in 513/514 (Joh. Ant. fr. 311). Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns 378f. In the translation by U. Roberto it states they were »charged with diplomatic relations with the Huns« (Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta [Roberto] 539).

1. Ranks, ›professions‹ and qualities of ambassadors

129

usual for embassies to be carried out by the same people. It is more than possible that in reality they executed many more diplomatic tasks than we know of from the sources. Possibly a tendency can be distinguished of using one and the same persons for diplomatic missions. Therefore, we have some arguments to speak, very prudently, about a certain degree of professionalism in the sphere and a kind of analogue to a diplomatic corps. Perhaps an actual corps had not yet been formed and officially established, but one was starting to exist in reality. There is evidence about dispatching one ambassador in missions to different peoples, but it seems significant that a trend to distribute them according to some geographical and political areas looks traceable. Working systematically on the same ›diplomatic front‹, envoys could accumulate precious experience, knowledge of local specifications and some personal connections with a partner/adversary. This thesis is illustrated by Zacharias Rhetor, speaking about the envoy Rufinus: Rufinus was a friend of Chosroes, whom he had come to know on his various embassies to Cavades and he was popular at the Persian court since he gave many gifts to the nobles there and he was in favour with the queen, Chosroes’s mother, since he had influenced Cavades to make her son Chosroes his successor and was responsible for her visit to the monk Moses who cured her of a stubborn illness (Zach. HE 9.7).85 It is necessary to note that the Persians and also the barbarians also seem to have had a tradition to entrust the same persons with diplomatic missions. – Isdigousnas, a famous Persian diplomat, was sent by Chosroes on five separate embassies in 547/548, 550, 557, 561/562 and 567 (when he died en route).86 – Mebodes was also an experienced envoy, who took an active and even leading part in Persian negotiations with the Romans at least five times in 567, 574/575, 576–577, 579 and 586.87 – Zaberganes at least twice participated in talks of the Persians with the Romans, in 541 or a short time before, and in 544.88 – The Avar diplomat Targitis negotiated with the Romans at least four times in 565, 569(?), 579 and 584.89 – We also know of a Hun ›professional‹ diplomat Eslas.90 According to Priscus he was sent as an envoy to the Romans by Rua in 435/440 and he is described as »a man who usually handled negotiations over differences between himself and the Romans« (Prisc. 2.4sq.). Attila also used Eslas as a negotiator, twice dispatching him to the Romans in 449 (Prisc. 11.2.192; 11.2.261; 15.2). 85 86

87 88 89

90

PLRE-II, 956f., s.v. Rufinus 13. Proc. BP 2.28.31–44; BG 4.11.4–10; 15.1–13; 15.19–29; 17.8; Agath. 4.30.8sq.; Men. Prot. 6.1; 9.3. PLRE-IIIA, 722f., s.v. Isdigousnas Zich; see also about him and his possible involvement in spy activity Nechaeva, Double Agents 142f. Men. Prot. 9.3.29sq.; 18.4; 20.1.16sq.; 23.1; 23.9; Theoph. Sim. 1.15.1–12. PLRE-IIIB, 868–870, s.v. Mebodes. Proc. Anecd. 2.32–35; BP 2.26.16–19. PLRE-IIIB, 1410, s.v. Zaberganes 1. Coripp. Iust. 3.231–401; Men. Prot. 12.6sq.; 25.1; Theoph. Sim. 1.8.7–9. PLRE-IIIB, 1217, s.v. Targitis. There is an idea by E. Stein that the name may not refer to the man, but that ›Targitis‹ may be the title of the office (Stein, Studien 33, n. 13). PLRE-II, 402, s.v. Eslas.

130

III. Embassy structure and personnel

Sometimes diplomacy could become a customary occupation for a family. The famous diplomat Rufinus (see about him above) and his son John (Proc. BP 2.7.15)91 may be called a »dynasty of ambassadors«92 – both father and son led negotiations with the Persians. Perhaps another father-son dynasty who both negotiated at the Persian front were the two Constantinuses (if we accept Z. Rubin’s assumption that they really were related).93 The elder of the two headed a delegation to Yazdagard I and the younger94 was sent to Perozes.95 Alexander,96 who negotiated with the Persians and with the Goths in Italy (see above) had a brother Athanasius97 who was also sent to Italy with a diplomatic mission in 536 (Proc. BG 1.6.25sq.; 7.24).98 Another diplomatic dynasty worked in the Oriental direction:99 Euphrasius,100 who negotiated peace for the Romans in 502 with Arethas the Kindite (Phot. Bibl. 3.24–30; Zach. HE 8.3), was the father of Abramius,101 who in his turn was sent by Justin to Alamundarus in late 523/early 524 and then dispatched by Justinian on two occasions to the ruler of Kinda, Caisus, probably in 528 and 531 (Phot. Bibl. 3.12; 3.29sq.; Zach. HE 8.3). The third figure in this chain of hereditary diplomats was Nonnosus,102 a son of Abramius. Like his father he was employed by Justinian as an envoy to the Arabs, and he was sent to the ruler of Ma’add, Caisus, in late 530/early 531. It was Nonnosus who left a description of his journey and mission, which is lost and conserved only in fragments by Photius (Phot. Bibl. 3.20–3.38; Zach. HE 8.3).103 Perhaps, as R. C. Blockley supposes, in an analogous way, Vigilas, the interpreter and one of the key figures in the embassy to Attila in 449, privy to the plan to assassinate Attila, »was seeking to build up the same kind of experience and connections that the family of Euphrasius had with the Arabs«,104 since Priscus informs us that Vigilas returned to Attila’s court from Constantinople bringing with him his son (Prisc. 15.1). It seems significant that related diplomats usually worked in the same geographical directions, which was certainly profitable, as it allowed them to accumulate and use experience and awareness of the situation and to establish personal connections with partners in diplomatic dialogue. Family ties between diplomats, especially in the cases of ambassadorial dynasties like Euphrasius-Abramius-Nonnosus meant that from their ancestors they could share and obtain unique experience and knowledge of circumstances from the inside as 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

PLRE-IIIA, 625f., s.v. Ioannes 7. The expression used by A. A. Chekalova, Commentary to Proc. BP 2.7.15: Prokopii Kesariiskii [Chekalova] 489, n. 50. Rubin, Diplomacy and War 685, 689, n. 2. PLRE-II, 317f., s.v. Constantinus. Rubin, Diplomacy and War 685. PLRE-IIIA, 41f., s.v. Alexander 1. PLRE-IIIA, 142–144, s.v. Athanasius 1. See about this case: Λουγγής, Μια άγνωστη οικογένεια 556–561. Diehl, Justinien 391f. PLRE-II, 425, s.v. Euphrasius 3. PLRE-II, 3, s.v. Abramius 2. PLRE-IIIB, 948, s.v. Nonnosus 1. See about all these embassies and for analysis of Roman relations with Kinda: Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 57–78; Diehl, Justinien 391–398. Blockley, Foreign Policy 156.

2. Embassy personnel

131

well as valuable skills and personal ties. It seems a wise solution for the diplomatic system to have used the advantages of such ›nepotism‹ in diplomatic communication. So, one can speak about the evident tendency towards professionalizing diplomacy among the Romans, and likewise among the Persians and the barbarians. For negotiations and executing embassies, the diplomatic system seems to have preferred using persons who not only were qualified for them from the point of view of their status and involvement in certain political or military activity, but also personnel, who, having served in several diplomatic missions, had become in a certain sense ›professionals‹ in this business. Knowledge of the circumstances, experience in political communication, personal connections with the adversary – all these qualities, inherent to ›professional‹ diplomats (permanently participating in embassies) and ›hereditary‹ diplomats (having diplomatic business as a family tradition), taken separately or preferably all together, were extremely profitable and could bring additional success to the negotiating process.105 The systematic usage of professional experts for requirements of political communication with imperial partners/adversaries seems to have been rather well developed in Late Antiquity.

2. Embassy personnel 2.1 Chief envoys There were usually one or two chief envoys in a mission.106 It seems there was no strict principle as to their quantity:107 it all depended on the particular situation and circumstances. In the case when secret negotiations were planned, it was more convenient to send one ambassador, as happened, for example, with Alexander and with Peter the Patrician in Italy (Proc. BG 1.3; 1.4).108 It is not necessary here to provide an ample description and examples of the heads of diplomatic missions, like chief envoys. Responsible for leading delegations, they are described as agents of negotiation, representatives of their rulers, in the chapter ›Diplomatic negotiation‹.109 2.2 Companions of chief envoys Rather often heads of delegations were accompanied in embassies by persons who were usually skilled in rhetoric. These people seem to have acted as advisors and secretaries to a main envoy, and in some cases carried out an important part of the routine diplomatic work, arranging different matters and participating in place of the head of the delegation in some of the non-primary negotiations. Perhaps the most well-known figure of ›assistant‹ in diplomatic missions is Priscus of Panium, who was persuaded by Maximinus, the head of 105 106 107

The same could be also dangerous, providing ideal conditions for spy activity and corruption. For the princeps legationis in Ancient Rome see: Potiomkin, Diplomazia 72. Though we are aware of some legislation in the sphere of provincial embassies in the Principate period: Vespasian’s edict ordered not to send more than three ambassadors on any single embassy (Just. Dig. 50.7.5.6). See about this and the size of embassies under the Principate in general: Souris, Provincial Embassies 235–244. 108 See about secret negotiations: I.3.2.1. 109 See: II.

132

III. Embassy structure and personnel

the delegation, to accompany him in the embassy in 449 (Prisc. 11.1.21sq.).110 Priscus described their journey and the circumstances of the mission and in the text of the fragments of his work that have survived one can see that it was Priscus who settled most of the conflict situations (as the circumstances were rather risky because of the plot against Attila) and helped Maximinus to establish relations with Attila’s retinue. The text gives the impression that in some aspects his own role in the relative success of this embassy was even bigger than that of the chief envoy (Prisc. 11.2–14). Of course it could be due to a certain tendentiousness on the part of the author in overvaluing his own role, but his deep involvement in the affairs of the embassy is evident from his testimonies. Priscus also mentioned another ambassadorial couple, sent to the Huns in 434/435 or 440:111 the envoy Plintha112 »wanted Epigenes113 as his fellow ambassador, since he had a reputation for wisdom and held the office of quaestor« (Prisc. 2.18–20).114 The term συμπρεσβεύειν is very interesting. As we can judge from the context, the status of the two envoys was not equal in this mission, it was Plintha who was recommended by the senate and then his candidature was ratified by the emperor. The co-envoy was proposed by Plintha himself and then approved (Prisc. 2.20).115 So Epigenes must have acted, at least formally, in the second role, perhaps in the same position as Priscus. Another example of such distribution of roles may perhaps be found in the aforementioned mission to Ctesiphon in 357 (Eun. V.Soph. 6.5.2–10).116 In this delegation Eustathius was the head and Spectatus,117 tribunus et notarius, a cousin of the sophist Libanius of Antioch (Lib. Ep. 331.4sq.), is likely to have acted as a secretary of the mission,118 but, according to Libanius, he also demonstrated his rhetorical skills (Lib. Ep. 331.2–6). The historian Olympiodorus, who, like Priscus, described his journey with an embassy also »seem to have been [t]here as educated subordinates of the principle envoy«.119 In some cases an eloquent partner could be sent to lead the preliminary discussions with an adversary – such a situation is described by Socrates Scholasticus. He reports an episode when in 422 Theodosius II dispatched his envoy Helion120 to negotiate peace with the Persians. Having arrived in Mesopotamia, the chief envoy decided to send to the shah »his deputy Maximinus121 an eloquent man who was the associate of Ardaburius the commander-in-chief of the army, to make preliminary arrangements concerning the terms of peace« (Soc. 7.20), though not without troubles (the envoy was imprisoned for the period of Persian military operations, which turned out unsuccessful). When the peace was concluded, the Iranian ruler underlined that he agreed to it to gratify the prudence of the Ro110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

See about this embassy: I.3.2.2. The date of this embassy is not certain and has caused discussions among scholars. See about this: Thompson, History 216. PLRE-II, 892f., s.v. Fl. Plintha. PLRE-II, 396, s.v. Epigenes. Ὡς μεγίστην ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ δόξαν ἐπιφερόμενον. Χειροτονίας δὲ καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ γενομένης. See about this embassy above: III.1.2. PLRE-I, 850, s.v. Spectatus 1. Lieu, Captives 493. Blockley, Foreign Policy 156. In the opinion of W. Treadgold he was, on the contrary, the chief envoy of the mission (Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 713). PLRE-II, 533, s.v. Helion 1. PLRE-II, 741, s.v. Maximinus 3.

2. Embassy personnel

133

man envoy. Another pair of envoys who acted separately within one mission are perhaps Julian122 and Nonnosus,123 envoys to Arabia and Ethiopia.124 In the opinion of I. Shahid, Julian acted as a main envoy and Nonnosus as minor and they divided the spheres and addressees of the communication within their diplomatic mission.125 The system does not seem to have been very strict or obligatory. In some situations, though not necessarily in all, a co-envoy, in the role of assistant and advisor of the head of the delegation, could have accompanied the embassy. According to R. C. Blockley the presence in an embassy of such a figure as an »educated subordinate of the principal envoy« was more a feature of the 4th and 5th centuries, than of the 6th century, when the tendency was more towards professional diplomacy.126 2.3 Interpreters Most likely, every embassy that arrived in foreign territory had to be followed by interpreters. They are given very little mention by the sources, in comparison with the mentions of the ambassadors. This lack of information must be due to their lower status and role to that of envoys, and not to their rare participation in diplomatic missions. We are informed about the existence of a corps of professional interpreters subject to the magister officiorum. The Notitia Dignitatum mentions interpretes diversarum gentium in both the eastern and the western parts of the Empire (Not. Dig. Occ. 9.46; Or. 11.52). Their function was to supply interpretation for foreign envoys at the imperial court,127 translation of documents and interpreting in diplomatic missions.128 Priscus remarks that the emperor used to confide details of international affairs to the master of offices, »since the master of offices, being in charge of the messengers, interpreters and imperial bodyguard, is informed of all the Emperor’s plans« (Prisc. 11.1.61–64). So in the mid 5th century the corps had become an integral part of the central administration, and part of the officium admissionum.129 The number of translators accompanying an embassy could vary. Perhaps for routine negotiations of a non-supreme level few or even just one interpreter could have been sufficient. In the embassy of Maximinus to Attila, Vigilas130 apparently served as an interpreter (Prisc. 11.2.4sq.), and was also secretly charged with regulating the affairs of the plot. Vigilas may have had a higher ranking and status than just an interpreter. It seems significant 122 123 124 125 126 127

PLRE-IIIA, 731f., s.v. Iulianus 8. PLRE-IIIB, 948, s.v. Nonnosus 1. See: III.3.1. Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 61f. Blockley, Foreign Policy 156. An interesting episode is reported by Menander who described the negotiation of Justin II with the Persian envoys. When the situation was getting out of control as an adversary did not want to change its position, Justin feigned a scandal, blaming an interpreter for mistranslation (Men. Prot. 9.3.89sq.). 128 Blockley, Foreign Policy 156 and n. 23, p. 251; Jones, Later Roman Empire 584; about interpreters in Antiquity in general see: A. Herman, Dolmetscher, in: RAC 4, 1959, 24–49; Snellman, De interpretibus; Peretz, Roman Interpreter. 129 Blockley, Foreign Policy 251, n. 23; Clauss, Magister 19. 130 PLRE-II, 1165f., s.v. Vigilas.

134

III. Embassy structure and personnel

that after the plot against Attila was planned, the first intention was to dispatch Vigilas alone to the Huns – officially »to receive Attila’s reply on the subject of the fugitives« and in reality to organize his murder (Prisc. 11.1.49–56). Only after consultations with the master of offices did Emperor Theodosius decide to send not only Vigilas, but also Maximinus (Prisc. 11.1.64–66; 11.2.1–7). It looks doubtful that it was possible to dispatch an interpreter alone on such an ambiguous and complicated mission. Perhaps the very fact that the first proposal to endow the embassy on Vigilas alone was made demonstrates that his position, at least at first, looked high enough to carry out such a task. That famous embassy was not the first one which Vigilas had participated in. According to his own words, cited by Priscus, he had become friendly with Attila in the embassy with Anatolius (Prisc. 11.2.117– 120). One may suppose that either the position of Vigilas was in some aspects outstanding and he was endowed with some extra credentials, or that interpreters in general could play a wider role than mere translation of the negotiations and documents and that in some circumstances they were involved in the complex peripeteia of the diplomatic process. Vigilas’s German name allows to suppose that his knowledge of languages could have been due to his origin. It is important to note that Vigilas, mainly because of affairs of the plot and Attila’s awareness about it, was also used during this embassy as a ›shuttle messenger‹: he was to leave the main Constantinople delegation when it was still on the way to Attila’s headquarters (Prisc. 11.2.260–263) and then meet the embassy when it was on its way back and he was going to Attila (Prisc. 14.82–85). Thus during the main part of the mission, the delegation of Maximinus was to communicate without Vigilas, who formally was dispatched as a translator with the embassy, so, one may suppose, other persons were also involved in interpreting activity.131 Another interpreter who is known to have been the only one in an embassy is Vitalianus,132 who in 568 accompanied the ambassador Comitas133 in his mission to the khagan of the Avars Baianus, when both diplomats were kept captive for some period of time (Men. Prot. 12.4). Later in the year this Vitalianus acted on his own initiative to stop the Avars mounting plundering raids during the truce (Men. Prot. 12.6.1–6).134 As an interpreter he also accompanied the Avar envoy Targitis to Constantinople (Men. Prot. 12.6.6–8). Agathias refers to a brilliant interpreter of his time – Sergius135 – who at the request of Agathias translated texts from the Persian Royal Annals into Greek. Sergius was highly 131

132 133 134 135

Priscus mentioned that once he had used for negotiations with a person close to Attila a certain Rusticius (who knew barbarian languages) who was travelling with the embassy on his private business (Prisc. 11.2.145). The Hun side may have provided people to translate the negotiations. Furthermore, the different connections between Attila himself and his court with both parts of the empire allow us to suppose that the problem of the language of the negotiations was not very crucial. Some scholars attribute Polychronius and Martyrius (Joh. Ant. fr. 311), already mentioned above, as »Hunnic specialists in the corps of interpreters«, »whose duty was to deal with envoys of the Huns« (Blockley, Foreign Policy 251, n. 25.; Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns 378). However, it is possible to see them just as the specialists in diplomatic relations with the Huns, as their interpreting activity is not mentioned (see above: III.1.3). PLRE-IIIB, 1379, s.v. Vitalianus 2. PLRE-IIIA, 327, s.v. Comitas 5. See about this episode PLRE-IIIB, 1379, s.v. Vitalianus 2 and the commentary by R. C. Blockley: The History of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley] 268, n. 161. PLRE-IIIB, 1129, s.v. Sergius 9; see also about him: Cameron, Agathias on the Sasanians 67–183.

2. Embassy personnel

135

appreciated by both the Romans and the Persians and was admired by Chosroes (Agath. 4.30.3sq.). We are not informed about Sergius’s diplomatic activities, but it seems quite evident that we can assume he was involved in diplomacy in relations with Persia. The presence of professional interpreters in negotiations must have been necessary not only to make any dialogue possible (it is very likely that some of the diplomats permanently working in the same direction could have been able to communicate with their partners; at least basic knowledge of the language seems very possible in such situations), but, like nowadays, the presence of interpreters will have provided negotiations with official status. It is notable that, in spite of the general lack of a specialized diplomatic corps,136 a corps of interpretes had practically been created.137 As mentioned, Vigilas was sent with the delegation of Maximinus, and was the only interpreter in its staff. Ammianus mentioned that for negotiations with the Sarmatian Limigantes, Constantius sent two tribunes, each with an interpreter (Amm. 19.11.5). One or two translators were perhaps sufficient for discussions on particular matters, when the main treaty had already been concluded. As one can understand from Menander’s detailed description of the procedure of signing a treaty between the Romans and the Persians, in such a situation a body of interpreters was needed. According to minute account by Menander,138 when the text of a treaty was agreed, twelve interpreters, six Romans and six Persians, worked on its translation and then, in addition to the envoys, they verified the documents, providing them with their signets (Men. Prot. 6.1.408–423).139 Maintenance of full protocol and care over the exactness of the translation explain the necessity of so numerous a college of interpreters: the text was translated and then the Persian and the Greek versions were compared with each other thoroughly to secure their absolute equality (Men. Prot. 6.1.417–423). So the Persians, as well as the Romans, had a staff of official interpreters who were authorized to translate and verify the official documents and very likely served as interpreters during the negotiations themselves. The barbarians must have also had their own staff of interpreters. When the Roman envoy Theognis held a discussion with the khagan of the Avars, Baianus, »they discussed the terms with the Hunnic interpreters translating what they said« (Men. Prot. 27.2.10sq.). It seems most probable that the reference is to the Avar translators. The position of interpreter was institutionalized at the Roman imperial administration, and, since they were a part of the master of offices’ staff, interpreters were essentially necessary for normative diplomatic negotiation, accompanying the embassies and working in teams to translate and verify the texts of an agreement. 2.4 Messengers Messengers provided a connection between an embassy and the emperor and were absolutely indispensable for the course of the diplomatic process. During their journey or while negotiations were in progress, ambassadors had to consult with the ruling centre perhaps 136 137

See above: III.1.3. As one can define the phenomenon, according to M. Mazza (Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 166, see also n. 157 for a rich bibliography on the interpreters. 138 See in general about the procedure of signing a treaty: II.3. 139 Shandrovskaia, Pechati perevodchikov 109–115.

136

III. Embassy structure and personnel

concerning the changing circumstances, contingencies etc., as well as for approval of the results of the diplomatic talks and, in some cases, also for ratification of the agreements. The nature of Late Antique diplomacy and the lack of its independence in decision-making necessitated the constant use of go-between messengers.140 In his description of the embassy of Zemarchus, Menander mentions a certain Georgius,141 who, after the delegation was dismissed, was sent off by Zemarchus to go with twelve Turks by a »route that was waterless and wholly desert, but shorter«, while the main body of the embassy travelled a longer way back (Men. Prot. 10.4.15–18). As Menander explained, Georgius’s task was »to convey a brief letter informing the Emperor that they were returning from the Turks« (Men. Prot. 10.4.11–14). So the role of Georgius was that of a courier – to provide the centre (the emperor in the capital) with news about the course of events with the delegation. It was frequent practice that before or upon arriving at the frontier the embassy was obliged to announce its arrival and then envoys could continue the mission or return home, depending on the will of the other side to receive their embassy (e.g. Prisc. 41.2; Men. Prot. 9.1.1–29). Most likely a messenger would have been sent ahead to inform about the approaching mission.142 The indirect character of diplomacy and the execution of most of the diplomatic actions through negotiating agents, as well as the fact that envoys were limited in their powers and had to maintain contact with the centre, to inform the emperor about the course of the negotiations and receive further instructions,143 must have caused the constant ›shuttle‹ movement of couriers. Though sources do not provide much information on the subject, it seems logical to suppose that diplomatic missions must have often had some messengers in their staff to secure the exchange of information.144 Perhaps in some cases such couriers could be used by rulers on a separate occasion to embassies. Socrates Scholasticus provides some extremely interesting data about the imperial footman (ταχυδρόμος)145 Palladius. According to Socrates, Emperor Theodosius II »had the good fortune to possess among his subjects a man endowed with extraordinary energy both of body and mind, named Palladius; who rode so vigorously that he would reach the frontiers of the Roman and Persian dominions in three days146 and again return to Constantinople in as many more. The same individual traversed other parts of the world on missions from the emperor with equal celerity: so that an eloquent man once said not inaptly, ›This man by his speed proves the vast expanse of the Roman Empire to be little‹. The king of the Persians himself was astonished at the expeditious feats which were related to him of this courier« (Soc. 7.19). Though the courier’s rapidity was perhaps exaggerated, the whole description demonstrates the natural importance of such a service, especially in the 140

141 142 143 144

145 146

See for messengers: Paoli-Lafaye, Messagers et messages 125–141; Crogiez-Pétrequin, Les correpondances 147; Gorce, Les voyages 193f.; Chevallier, Roman Roads 182f.; Kolb, Transport 269f. PLRE-IIIA, 515, s.v. Georgius 8. Blockley, Foreign Policy 156, 252, n. 32; see also: Lounghis, Ambassades 371f. See more about this: II.1.2. In the embassy of Maximinus such shuttle functions were carried out by Vigilas, who formally was to act as an interpreter, but this case cannot be regarded as standard, as most of the actions, of Vigilas as well as of Attila, were caused by the existence of the plot. See for such ›runners‹: Chevallier, Roman Roads 182; Kolb, Transport 279. Scholars doubt that such velocity was possible (Socrates, Sozomenus [Schaff/Wace] n. 956).

2. Embassy personnel

137

sphere of foreign relations.147 To transmit information within the borders of the Roman Empire the cursus publicus148 could be used, but when an embassy was somewhere deep in the foreign land, a messenger or courier had to bring a letter at least to the border. 2.5 Οἱ περὶ. The ambassador’s satellites and suite It may be assumed that it was not often that an envoy went on a mission without an escort. In some cases authors writing about diplomatic missions mention the retinue that surrounded an ambassador. The envoys to the Goths, Athanasius149 and Peter,150 were arrested by Theodahadus and were finally freed after three years together with their retinues151 (Proc. BG 2.22.24). Menander several times mentioned that »Zemarchus and his companions« were travelling to the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.3.1sq.; 10.3.10sq.; 10.3.26).152 This suite must have numbered a great many men: the Turkish ruler Sizabul »decided that Zemarchus with twenty followers and attendants should accompany him as he was marching against the Persians and that the other Romans should return to the land of the Kholiatai« (Men. Prot. 10.3.65–67).153 These twenty followers and attendants must have been the minimum number needed by the envoys in the way of companions and servants. Another envoy to the Turks, Valentinus, was also followed in his journey by his attendants (Men. Prot. 19.1.5sq.).154 Every embassy must have been followed by some dependant persons – servants of the envoy himself and of other members of the delegation and, perhaps, a group of people serving the needs of the embassy in general (e.g. in the case of the mission of Zemarchus we are informed about a number of porters carrying silk – Men. Prot. 10.5.12–16). It seems logical to suppose that some escorting guards must have accompanied diplomatic delegations. We are not specially informed about this, as sources only mention that embassies were usually met on the border by the receiving side and then they were accompanied to the place of destination.155 These escorts must have also acted as guides in the unknown territory (e.g. the barbarian attendants who met the embassy of Maximinus on the 147

148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155

In his book on embassies T. Lounghis analyses the difference between the ambassadors and the ›porters‹ of letters, and in chapter VII he in fact unites messengers and ›porters of letters‹, since for Lounghis their function was »de simple porteur« in contrast to the ambassadors, who were to conduct »une affaire militaire« in the interests of the empire (Lounghis, Ambassades 371–387). It seems that the classification of different types of embassies, according to their rank, status and function, proposed in the present study (see: II.), allows more accuracy. I think that, at least for the early Byzantine epoch, most of the ambassadors were also the porters of imperial letters, with various other tasks, depending on the situation and the type of their mission, while the messengers who were to carry additional correspondence in a ›more technical‹ sense, as demonstrated above, deserve to be regarded as a special group. See: III.3.2. PLRE-IIIA, 142–144, s.v. Athanasius 1. PLRE-IIIB, 994–998, s.v. Petrus 6. Οὕτους δὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις οὐ πρότερον μεθῆκε Βελισάριος τοῖς πολεμίοις ἕως καὶ αὐτοὶ τοὺς ἀμφὶ Ἀθανάσιόν τε καὶ Πέτρον ἀφῆκαν. Οἱ περὶ Ζήμαρχον …; ἀγχοῦ ἦλθον τῶν περὶ Ζήμαρχον. Τῶν δὲ περὶ Ζήμαρχον. Ἄρας ᾤχετο σὺν τοῖς κατ’ αὐτὸν ὀπαδοῖς. See: I.2.1; I.4. Foreign envoys on the Roman territory had a cursus publicus at their disposal: his tanummodo utendi cursus publici facultate concessa, qui legati de diversis gentibus ad nostram clementiam properare festinant (CTh 8.5.57 in 397).

138

III. Embassy structure and personnel

border – Prisc. 11.2.82–85; the twelve Turks who accompanied the messenger Georgius on his route back – Men. Prot. 10.4.15–17), though in some cases they could on the contrary have intentions to confuse the envoys. It also looks possible that on the way to the border and back, envoys (imperial as well as Persian and barbarian) could have had some security escorts among their own people. 2.6 ›Outsiders‹ travelling with embassies Rather often, besides the actual members (and their companions with attendants) of the delegation, an embassy included other persons following it, who were either not connected with the business of the mission at all or were only connected to it indirectly. The adversary side’s responding diplomatic delegation could join a mission on its way back home. Multiphase negotiation organized in blocks of embassies, as already described, was a basic feature of Late Antique diplomacy.156 Usually a responding embassy set out on its journey after the initiating embassy’s departure, but in some cases diplomats returning home travelled together with the delegates just dispatched in the responding embassy. E.g.: the embassy of Maximinus travelled to Attila together with returning Hun envoys (Prisc. 11.2); the Turkish diplomat Tagma followed Zemarchus and they did their trip to Byzantium together (Men. Prot. 10.3); and the Avar ambassador Targitis accompanied Elpidius (Theoph. Sim. 1.6.4). Embassies could have been used as a convenient opportunity to extradite fugitives or to bring back captives. On its way to the Huns, the embassy of Maximinus visited Agintheus, the general of the forces in Illyricum, to receive from him five fugitives who were to be handed over to Attila (Prisc. 11.2.53–61). The envoy to the Vandals, Severus, managed to persuade Geisericus to free many prisoners of war, whom he must have brought back home with his embassy (Malch. 5). Perhaps the most numerous group to join the diplomatic mission was the one that followed Valentinus, Roman envoy to the Turks. He set out on his journey with an additional one hundred and six Turks (Men. Prot. 19.1.5sq.).157 As Menander comments, »at that time Turks, who had been sent by their various tribes on various occasions, had been in Byzantium for a long while« (Men. Prot. 19.1.7sq.). These great many Turks had arrived in Constantinople with different Turkish embassies or while accompanying Roman envoys returning from their land (Men. Prot. 19.1.9–17). It is difficult to judge why such a big number of them accumulated in the capital and then all left with Valentinus at the same time. R. C. Blockley supposes that the whole paragraph by Menander is a summary (by the excerptor or by Menander himself) of more extensive material on relations between the Romans and the Turks.158 Perhaps these people arrived in Constantinople as the attendants, retinue, guides and security of previous diplomatic missions, but it is not at all clear why they remained in the city and did not return home before. Could they have been individuals who just travelled with embassies, but had their own business to deal with in the empire? Their position must not have been clandestine or illegal, as Menander names the actual envoys and missions which had brought them, so the information was well known. It 156 157 158

See: II.1.2.1. Ἄρας ᾤχετο σὺν τοῖς κατ’ αὐτὸν ὀπαδοῖς, ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ Τούρκοις ρʹ πρὸς τοῖς ἕξ. The History of Menander the Guardsman 275, n. 218.

2. Embassy personnel

139

is possible that an embassy of Valentinus was chosen to bring all these people home because of its more convenient route, in comparison with previous embassies, or due to some other favourable conditions. Another version not to be excluded is that we are dealing with a certain kind of ›deportation‹, as the mission of Valentinus happened at a time of deteriorating Roman-Turkish relationships. It is significant to note that it was a diplomatic delegation which was chosen as a good occasion to accompany these one hundred plus people to their territory, so the mission must have looked like a considerably sizeable expedition. There is evidence about individuals who joined embassies while going about their own private affairs. Priscus mentioned a man called Rusticius, who, as Priscus explained »had come with us to Scythia not on the embassy but on business with Constantius, who was an Italian and secretary of Attila« (Prisc. 11.2.145–147). The embassy from the West Romans which visited Attila also included ›extra persons‹: »with them were Constantius, whom Aetius had sent to Attila as secretary, and Tatulus, the father of Orestes who was with Edeco. They were not members of the embassy but were traveling with envoys out of personal friendship, Constantius because of his earlier acquaintance with them in Italy, Tatulus out of kinship, since his son Orestes had married a daughter of Romulus« (Prisc. 11.2.320– 326). It seems very significant that both times Priscus himself underlined that these persons were not part of embassies, having joined them just because it was a convenient occasion to travel. Evidently it must have been rather dangerous to travel through barbarian territory on one’s own (and even in the territory of the Empire),159 without the protection of an embassy, its escort and its diplomatic status of immunity. It is worth noting, however, that diplomatic missions were ›open‹ enough to help some individuals (certainly high-ranking and most likely approved by the authorities sending a delegation) and provide them with protection and the advantages of travelling with a diplomatic cortege. 2.7 Lists of embassy personnel and the number of people in a diplomatic delegation Details reported by Priscus about the embassy of Maximinus to Attila in 449, in which the historian participated himself, allow us to distinguish the following list of personnel in the embassy and the additional people following it: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Maximinus – head of the delegation; both ways (Prisc. 11.2.1–20; 11.2 passim). Priscus – his companion; both ways (Prisc. 11.2.21sq.; 11.2 passim). Vigilas – interpreter; only on the way to the Huns (Prisc. 11.2.1–7; 11.2 passim). Edeco – Hun diplomat; only on the way to the Huns (Prisc. 11.1.1–9; 11.2.4–7; 11.2.24–26; 11.2 passim). 5. Orestes – companion of Edeco; only on the way to the Huns (Prisc. 11.1.1–5; 11.2.33–50; 11.2 passim). 6. Rusticius – individual who had private business with Attila’s secretary; it is not clear if he travelled back from the Huns with the embassy (Prisc. 11.2.145–147). 7. Berich160 – Hun diplomat; only on the way from the Huns and only part of the way (Prisc. 14.57–77). 159 160

See a detailed account about the possible dangers for travellers: Gorce, Les voyages 85f. PLRE-II, 225, s.v. Berich.

140

III. Embassy structure and personnel

8. Five fugitives for extradition to the Huns; only on the way to the Huns (Prisc. 11.2.53–61). 9. »Barbarians who were with Edeco«; only on the way to the Huns (Prisc. 11.2.24sq.). 10. Guides who led the delegation; only in Hun territory (Prisc. 11.2.267; 11.2.314). These more than a dozen people were travelling altogether within the body of the embassy. We are not aware of the number of servants or slaves, carriers, barbarians accompanying Edeco, perhaps guides and guards, but the whole caravan must have been rather numerous. Another considerably eloquent account about an actual diplomatic mission – Menander’s description of the embassy of Zemarchus (in 569 and on the way back presumably in 571) unfortunately provides less details and we only know some figures in the list of participants and followers: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Zemarchus – head of the delegation; both ways (Men. Prot. 10.2; 10.3–10.5 passim). Georgius – messenger; both ways (Men. Prot. 10.4.15–18). Maniach161 – a Turkish diplomat; only on the way to the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.2.10). Tagma162 – a Turkish diplomat; only on the way from the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.3.90– 101). Maniach’s son – companion of Tagma; only on the way from the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.3.94–101). Companions of Zemarchus; both ways (Men. Prot. 10.3.1sq.). Companions of Maniach; only on the way to the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.2.10). Silk carriers; at least ten of them, who on the way back were sent by a different road to the main embassy (Men. Prot. 10.5.12–16). 12 Turks, who accompanied Georgius; perhaps only on the way from the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.4.15sq.).

So, we are informed that more than twenty-six people travelled with the embassy returning to Constantinople from the land of the Turks. In reality, if we add an unknown number of companions of Zemarchus and those of Maniach and, perhaps, also those of Tagma, perhaps interpreters, unmentioned servants, slaves, guides and guardians, the number of people who travelled with this ›expedition‹ may have been rather large. In general the number of persons incorporated in an embassy is not easy to count, and the quantity of attendants, servants, guides and guards is rather hard to imagine. It is difficult to say if there existed any standards on the matter. The fact that Menander specially mentioned one hundred and six Turks following the embassy of Valentinus (Men. Prot. 19.1.5sq.) perhaps demonstrates that such a large expedition could have been exceptional. In some cases the quantity of members of an embassy could be limited by the receiving side.163 161 162 163

PLRE-III, 810, s.v. Maniach. PLRE-IIIB, 1214, s.v. Tagma. In 547/548 Chosroes sent an envoy named Isdigousnas (on the date of the mission see: PLRE-IIIA, 722, s.v. Isdigousnas Zich), accompanied by five hundred Persians, to capture the city of Dara under the pretence of a diplomatic mission. Their aim was to set buildings on fire at night (Proc. BP 2.28.31). But this attempt was unsuccessful, the ambassador was met on the border of the states and was told »that this thing he was doing was not after the fashion of an embassy, and that never had

3. Diplomatic expeditions

141

It may be concluded that we are not aware of the precise standard of the personnel and the number of people in an embassy (most likely there were no strictly fixed rules). In a normal situation a diplomatic delegation included: one or several main envoys, perhaps one of them heading the mission; the chief envoy’s companion; one or several interpreters; one or several messengers; attendants of the chief envoy (and perhaps of other members of delegation); guides; guards; and sometimes a delegation of the adversary. The quantity of people in the diplomatic cortege appears impossible to count precisely and it must have greatly depended on the situation. Perhaps a normal number would have been a few dozen.

3. Diplomatic expeditions 3.1 Ambassadors’ voyages Since the circle of partners with whom the Roman Empire communicated through diplomacy was rather wide, also from a geographical point of view, embassies often had to travel to faraway lands. These voyages played important roles for all the sides of the diplomatic process. For peoples »distant in space and in the level of culture« embassies from the Empire were a kind of »juridical manifestation«, according to B. Paradisi, because the frequency of embassy exchanges in the epoch under investigation had profoundly changed the world order, not only for political reasons, but also because of the universal necessity to act according to the rules of right and law.164 The same embassies were the source for different peoples, more or less remote from the Empire, to approach civilization.165 For the Roman Empire diplomatic missions were also important, not only as means of political communication, but also as a source of geographical knowledge.166 A. Kazhdan defines the ambassadors’ narrative accounts as »descriptive geographic literature«.167 In most cases sources do not provide lengthy descriptions of diplomats’ voyages but just mention that envoys were dispatched or carried negotiations to this or that territory. Some of the texts demonstrate that there were sources which contained accounts168 by envoys about their missions, but the full versions of these original sources have not been conserved. Fortunately we have several texts with fragmentized, but considerably detailed stories about the journeys of missions. The special value of these sources was that they were based on person163

164 165 166 167 168

so numerous a body of Persians stopped for the night in a city of the Romans« and Isdigousnas was received with twenty men only. Soon after this episode, according to Procopius, Isdigousnas »came to Byzantium as if on an embassy, bringing with him his wife and two daughters (for this was his pretext for the crowd which had been gathered about him)« (Proc. BP 2.28.37–45). The evidence is very interesting, as it provides information that there existed some rules or at least practices to which the Romans could appeal to refuse to accept the delegation of five hundred persons. Perhaps twenty people, who were received, was an average size of embassy. Another interesting detail is mentioning of the »crowd«, which accompanied the two Persian ladies, this demonstrates that the attendants and retinue of one person could have been rather numerous. See about this embassy of Isdigousnas and the circumstances: Nechaeva, Double Agents. Paradisi, Storia 185. Paradisi, Storia 185. N. Lozovsky attracts attention to the geo-ethnographical knowledge which was used as a propaganda instrument in the Late Roman Empire: Lozovsky, Maps and Panegyrics 169–188. OCD 2, 833, s.v. Geography. About the envoys’ accounts see: III.4.1.

142

III. Embassy structure and personnel

al, first-hand observations and geographical information, descriptions of routes, roads and regions were provided by professionals, representatives of a highly educated administrative elite, who had to put down such information not only because of their own curiosity, but also as an obligatory part of their service.169 Olympiodorus,170 whose History we know only from the short fragments by Photius, perhaps had some personal experience in diplomacy and in 412 may have participated in the embassy to the Huns.171 The piece of evidence is extremely short, but it shows that the original text described »the embassy on which he went to them and to Donatus and he waxes tragically on his wanderings over the sea and the danger he faced« (Olymp. 19). One can only regret that the description, which must have contained many details concerning the embassy’s journey and adventures if it was based on the personal experience of a member of the delegation, did not survive. Another member of a diplomatic delegation who also described his experience, but whose text we posses only in fragments by Photius, is Nonnosus (Phot. Bibl. 3.20–3.38).172 He, like his father, was sent by Justinian to negotiate with the Arabs in late 530/early 531 and subsequently wrote an account of his and his father’s embassies.173 He travelled to Central Arabia, Ethiopia and Southern Arabia and described that on the way to Axum he had to deal with intrigues by different peoples and suffered from different dangers and hardships. The account conserved provides some ethnological and even naturalist material: Arabian religious festivals, the climate and elephants (five thousands of them) of Ethiopia, and pigmies in the southern part (Phot. Bibl. 3.20–3.38).174 His report must have contained some geographical data and perhaps even a description of the route. In the fragments by Photius there are some, though not very many, mentions of roads, places and cities and distances. The embassy of Nonnosus was perhaps part of a wider mission of ambassador Julian175 in late 530/early 531176 to the Ethiopians and Himyarites (Proc. BP 1.20.9; 2.1.10; Joh. Mal. 18.56; Theoph. AM 6064). The envoy must have written an account of his mission,177 references to which may be found in the text by Malalas (Joh. Mal. 18.56.95).178 Judging from the description of the ceremony of reception of the delegation, the account used by Malalas as a source was very detailed (Joh. Mal. 18.56). Julian travelled via Alexandria,179 the Nile and the Red Sea to Ethiopia and the Yemen (Joh. Mal. 18.56.84–93). Here we are also deal169

170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

All these factors could be an advantage for the data collected by diplomatic delegations in comparison with many other itineraries made by dilettantes whose reports and stories were often not very precise (see: Borodin/Surkova, Istoriia 56). PLRE-II, 799, s.v. Olympiodorus 1. Bibikov, Istoricheskaia literatura 42; Olimpiodor Fivanskii [Skrzhinskaia/Shuvalov] 152, n. 89f.; Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 713. For the date see – Introduction (Sources). See about him as a member of an ambassadorial dynasty: III.1.3. PLRE-IIIB, 948, s.v. Nonnosus 1. See about it: Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 61f. PLRE-IIIA, 731f., s.v. Iulianus 8. PLRE-IIIB, 948, s.v. Nonnosus 1; Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 61f. Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 63; see also reports of the envoys. Malalas, like many chroniclers, calls the Axumites the Indians (Schneider, L’Éthiopie et l’Inde 33). To describe this area Procopius must have also consulted a diplomatic report (Proc. BP 1.19.15–27; 1.20.9; 2.1.10): Diehl, Justinien 390. There is an article in the Theodosian Code which allows ambassadors to stay in Alexandria for no longer than a year on the way to the Axumites or Himyarites (CTh 12.12.2).

3. Diplomatic expeditions

143

ing with a case when a full description of the envoy’s voyage must have existed, but has not been conserved. Strictly speaking, it is questionable if Julian’s account was public and if he ever published it. It is possible that the only official report existed in some imperial offices and that these records were used by the sources citing it. Especially full and well-described embassies are those to the Huns and to the Turks told by Priscus and Menander.180 Priscus of Panium personally participated in the embassy to Attila in 449. The route of the delegation from Constantinople to the frontier is described in a rather detailed way. The embassy leaves the capital and arrives in Sardica in 13 days (Prisc. 11.2.20–25). Most probably the road they followed was through Adrianople-Philippopolis (402 miles: Itin. Ant. fr. 134–138).181 The average distance covered per day, therefore, was about 31 miles,182 which seems to be quite a normal speed for an embassy, travelling with baggage, servants etc.183 Having left Naissus (where the frontier passed through after 447), they moved towards the river Danube (Prisc. 11.2.61–64), following, as some scholars suppose, the Naissus-Pompeii-Horreum Magnum-Municipium-Viminacium road (119 miles: Itin. Ant. fr. 133sq.).184 The route through the barbarian territory is much more difficult to reconstruct. As the envoy advanced towards the residence of Attila, the style of Priscus becomes less and less informative from the geographical point of view. The description of the way back through the Hun territory is even sketchier (Prisc. 14.57–91). Besides the evident reason that outside the Empire’s borders, especially deep inland, there were less markers and it must have been more challenging to create an itinerary, it seems probable

180 181

For a detailed analysis of their voyages see: Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy 151–158. See about the Antonine Itinerary: Dilke, Itineraries 234–257, esp. 235f.; Dilke, Maps 125–128; Betten, Roman Itineraries 296f. 182 About 46km. 183 A. M. Ramsey, based on the evidence of Procopius (Proc. Anecd. 30.1–11) and other sources, concludes that the average speed of the imperial couriers, using the cursus publicus, was about 41–67 miles per day (Ramsey, Speed 68f.). The same speed of 50 miles a day is also confirmed by calculations in the article by Eliot, New Evidence 76–80. R. Chevallier also agrees with 50 miles (or 75km) a day for the cursus, and underlines that »the ordinary traveler could hardly have exceeded 45km a day« (Chevallier, Roman Roads 194), i.e. 30 miles a day – which is exactly the speed of Priscus’ embassy. For the speed of travel by land and by sea later in medieval Europe: McCormick, European Economy 474–476, 481–483. 184 Gindin/Ivanchik, Prisk Paniiskii 90, n. 10. It seems likely that the embassy will have used certain itineraries, maps and descriptions of the territory, especially of the region on the right bank of the Danube. Vegetius wrote about the importance of itineraries for military purposes: »In the first place, a commander should have itineraries of all the war zones very fully written out, so that he may thoroughly acquaint himself with the intervening terrain, as regards not only distance but standard of roads, and may study reliable descriptions of shortcuts, deviations, mountains, and rivers. In fact, we are assured that the more careful commanders had, for provinces in which there was emergency, itineraries that were not merely annotated but even drawn in color [picta], so that the commander who was setting out could choose his route not only with a mental map but with a constructed map to examine« (Veget. Mil. 3.6.), cited in the translation by Dilke, Itineraries 126– 237. It seems that travelling ambassadors could also contribute greatly to creating such itineraries for the territories outside the Empire’s borders. On Roman mapping and the problem of cartography and itineraries in Antiquity see the recent account (with references to the bibliography on the subject): Talbert, Mapping 10–27. Also: Prontera, Darstellung 83–101, with an extensive bibliography.

144

III. Embassy structure and personnel

that the main reason for the lack of geographical detail in Priscus’s text was caused by the lack of publicity of precise topographical data, which could refer to secret information.185 The most distant and dangerous journeys in the history of Roman diplomacy were undertaken by the East Roman envoys to the Turks, Zemarchus and Valentinus. The texts of Menander the Guardsman and John of Ephesus describing their voyages are considered to be based on the envoys’ reports.186 Zemarchus, a Cilician by origin and magister militum per Orientem, was the first Roman envoy to the Turks in the years of 569–571.187 Menander’s description of Zemarchus’s voyage seems to be rather detailed from the geographical point of view, but numerous investigations show that the information is rather obscure as well – it caused different points of view about the delegation’s route and location of the quarters of the Turkish ruler Sizabul188 »on a mountain called Ektag or ›Golden Mountain‹ in Greek« (Men. Prot. 10.3.21–23). The most traditional point of view is that Sizabul had his seat in the Altai mountains, whose name means ›Golden‹;189 others believe that Ektag (Aktagh) really means ›White Mountain‹190 and prefer to identify it with mount A-kie-tien (›White Mountain‹ in Chinese), which is far to the south, by the river Tekes in the Celestial mountains in Dzungaria.191 A certain blur in the geographical picture, which, as already noted, could have been caused due to secrecy of the precise practical topographical data, allows several versions of the embassy’s route to be reconstructed.192 Valentinus, the imperial bodyguard, started his journey towards the Turks in the winter of the year 576 (Men. Prot. 19.1.6).193 Menander described his route (as usual, the first part is most detailed; Men. Prot. 19.1.18–135) and negotiations with one of the Turkish rulers, Turxanthus (Men. Prot. 19.1.75–82).194 It is also important to take into consideration the fact that the receiving side was also often interested in misinforming the foreign diplomats about geography and topography. An extremely interesting accusation which the Turkish ruler cast on the Romans was that they tried to confuse the Turkish envoys by showing them wrong routes: »As for you, Romans, why do you take my envoys through the Caucasus to Byzantium, alleging that there is no other route for them to travel? You do this so that I might be deterred from attacking the Roman Empire by the difficult terrain. But I know very well where the river Danapris flows, and the Danube and the Hebrus, and from where our slaves, the Uarkhonitai, crossed into the Roman territory« (Men. Prot. 19. 1.75–82). All these rivers trace the way to Constantinople itself.195 In this very case the Turkish intelligence worked better than the Roman counterespionage: if he is not bluffing, Turxanthus is not only informed about the strategic geography, but also knows the details about the Avars’ rebellion and their treaty with Constantinople, and his phrase about knowing the Romans’ strength could mean he 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195

See more: Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy 152f., for the possible reasons of secrecy: 157f. Bury, The Treatise 540. PLRE, IIIB, 1416f., s.v. Zemarchus 3. Ištämi: Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 275f. Bury, Turks 417–426; Pohl, Barbarian Places of Power 447. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 122 with references to the bibliography. The History of Menander the Guardsman 264, n. 129 and there the references to the bibliography. See: Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy 153–156. PLRE, IIIB, 1353, s.v. Valentinus 3. See: Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy 156f. The History of Menander the Guardsman 276, n. 224.

3. Diplomatic expeditions

145

wished to show the perfection of his intelligence. However, it is significant that the khagan blames the Romans for trying to misinform his envoys as it was obvious for both parts that these were diplomats who would seek such information. This episode confirms that such geographical or more precisely topographical data was really perceived as secret. The method used by Turxanthus to blame the Romans was used for example by the Persians against the Romans (e.g. Strab. 1.1.17).196 3.2 Transport and logistics We are not very well informed about the characteristics of the means of transport used by travelling envoys. It seems evident that imperial delegations on native territory could have had public vehicles at their disposal, as was the case for delegations bringing petitions from the provinces to the emperor (CTh 12.12.9; 382) and in general for officials sent with missions, especially as the cursus publicus was under the master of offices’ authority (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.10).197 Article 4 of the Roman-Persian peace contract of 561–562, reported by Menander,198 speaks about »ambassadors and all others using the public post to deliver messages, both those traveling to Roman and those to Persian territory«199 (Men. Prot. 6.1.326–328). Upon returning from the Turks, Zemarchus took public post to Byzantium from Trapezus. It is possible to suppose, that, being sent by the emperor, diplomats could have enjoyed different privileges which were at the disposal of the holders of special evectio,200 like different means of transport according to their needs, transportation of luggage, an escort »for the protection of life and for undergoing the labor of the journey« (CTh 9.5.4), food supplies and different kind of assistance at the stopping places.201 The latter, however, could appear dusty, noisy and »full of foreigners and travellers«.202 On the other hand, one can suppose that in some cases, from the very start of their journey the delegations could have travelled with their own means of transport, independently from the public system. This may have been true especially for missions going towards rather distant and ›savage‹ lands, where they will have to have been well-equipped and may have carried various goods, thus having porters and means of transportation. John of Ephesus reports about the Christianization mission to the Nobadae, when different envoys were dispatched by Justinian and Theodora. Acting according to the will of the empress, the duke of the Thebais detained the emperor’s ambassador, saying that he was to wait a little while the beasts of burden were procured, and men who knew the deserts were found for him (Joh. Eph. HE 4.6). Apart from the circumstances of the mission, the passage 196

197

198 199 200 201 202

»… and they made the ignorant Romans believe, that to be far away what was really near at hand and kept them in ignorance of the roads and the facilities for procuring provisions and other necessities«. Crogiez-Pétrequin, Les correpondances 154f.; Löhren, Beiträge 48; A. Kolb, Cursus publicus, in: NP 3, 2003, 1022f.; Chevallier, Roman Roads 181f.; Kolb, Transport 69, 87; see also: Matthews, The Journey of Theophanes, esp. 62f. See: II.3. Ὡς ἂν οἱ πρέσβεις καὶ οἱ τῇ ταχυτῆτι χρώμενοι τῶν δημοσίων ἵππων. See about this: Chevallier, Roman Roads 184; Kolb, Transport 71. Gorce, Les voyages 50–63. Gorce, Les voyages 59.

146

III. Embassy structure and personnel

demonstrates that imperial envoys going abroad received transport and guides before entering foreign territory. Perhaps embassies travelling through Persia were also given the possibility of using the local system of transport. Since ancient times the Persian Empire had been famous for its highly developed postal service, and its couriers were famous for their swiftness.203 Herodotus was impressed by its efficiency and the speed of the messengers: riders were stationed at intervals of a day’s journey along the roads. No natural hindrance prevented these couriers from fulfilling their duties. The first rider passed the dispatch to the second, the second to the third, and so on (Hdt. 8.38). Some reflections on the Sasanian tradition of receiving envoys may be found in the text of Siyasat-nama by Nizam al-Mulk which describes how foreign ambassadors should be met on the border and immediately report the nature of the delegation, their numbers etc. A special trusted person was appointed to convey the delegation to a certain city, and from there they would be taken to another city or district until they finally reached the court. At every stopping place the mission was to be treated in a friendly manner, entertained and supplied with everything they needed. On its return journey, the embassy was to be treated in the same manner (Nizam al-Mulk 7.87). It seems evident that foreign embassies travelling on the territory of the Persian Empire were under state care (which certainly aimed not only to facilitate their move, but also to keep them under check).204 On the way through different barbarian territories Roman embassies were also usually accompanied by an escort who met them on the border (e.g. Prisc. 11.2.267; 11.2.314). Perhaps these guides, who led embassies in unknown territories and kept control of them, could also have provided some assistance in the problem of transportation and some other logistics. In some cases, however, it was forbidden for envoys to buy horses, among other items for example, as Priscus refers, until the disputes between the Romans and the Huns had been settled (Prisc.11.2.232–235). The aim of this action was connected with Attila’s will to catch the Romans plotting against him. But in the event the Romans did not bring any ›extra‹ transport with them, since they were counting on the possibility of buying horses from the Huns, and if the Huns did not provide the Romans with transport needed for the journey, this prohibition could become a serious problem for the expedition. Since this problem is not mentioned in the further text (the main part of which does not seem to be fragmented), this perhaps demonstrates that the problem was not really crucial. Imperial ambassadors would quite often travel by sea on ships e.g. Olympiodorus on his embassy to the Huns (Olymp. 19.3sq.);205 Senator sailed across the Black Sea on his way to the Huns (Prisc. 9.2); two Frankish envoys from King Sigebert travelled to Justin II by sea (Greg. Tur. HF 4.40); on his way back from the Turks, Zemarchus sailed the Black Sea on a ship from Rogatorium to the river Phasis, and he took another ship to Trapezus (Men. Prot. 10.5.2–22); on his way to the Turks, Valentinus took fast merchant ships and travelled via 203

M. Mohiuddin, Correspondence, in: EI; Ramsey, Speed 60f.; P. Briant, Royal Road, in: OCD, 1996, 1336; Chevallier, Roman Roads 181. 204 See: III.4.3. 205 Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 713, argues that the voyage started from Constantinople, across the Black Sea and then they sailed the Danube to the Huns’ camp, rejecting the MaenchenHelfen theory about the departure from Ravenna (Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns 27, 163, n. 17).

3. Diplomatic expeditions

147

Sinope and Cherson – Men. Prot. 19.1.18sq.; in their embassies to Axum and Ethiopia, Nonnosus and Julian sailed the Red Sea (Phot. Bibl. 3.20–3.38; Joh. Mal. 18.56.84–93). Sometimes they had to cross rivers and marshy places e.g. Maximinus and Priscus’s delegation was conveyed across the Danube in boats made from single trunks (Prisc. 11.2.71–73) and crossed several other rivers using similar boats and rafts (Prisc. 11.2); Zemarchus and his companions moved through difficult terrain upon returning from the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.4.19sq.); on the way to the Turks, Valentinus crossed plains covered with marsh water, tracts of reeds, shrubs and swamp (Men. Prot. 19.1.21–26). While crossing the deserts, delegations must have been provided with appropriate beasts of burden, like in the case described by John of Ephesus (Joh. Eph. HE 4.6). Naturally envoys often travelled on horseback, which was even mentioned by the ancient authors (Zemarchus and companions [Men. Prot. 10.1.2] and Valentinus and his companions [Men. Prot. 19.1.24]). Supplying embassies with food certainly first of all depended on the local conditions. It is possible that delegations travelled with some reserves of food and beverages, but considering the long duration of many embassies, provisions taken from home may not have been enough. When describing the journey of their mission Priscus mentioned how this problem was solved: »At the villages we were abundantly supplied with foodstuff, millet instead of wheat and instead of wine what is called ›μέδος‹. The attendants in our train also carried millet and the drink made from barley which the barbarians called ›κάμον‹ (Prisc. 11.2.277–280).206 In the villages where envoys stopped during the journey they could receive rich entertainment (Prisc. 11.2.297sq.). Members of the embassy of Maximinus were prohibited from buying slaves and horses, but were allowed to buy food (Prisc. 11.2.234). For Zemarchus and his companions the leader of the Ugurs »filled skins with water … so that they might have something to drink while they crossed the desert« (Men. Prot. 10.4.24–27). Naturally in the problem of providing for the embassies’ needs diplomats fully depended on the will of the receiving side – abuses of the ambassadors’ rights happened in this sphere as well. Menander described Zacharias and Theodorus’s dramatic embassy to the Persians, when they suffered from Persian inhospitality. Among the other hardships Menander mentioned that the Persians »supplied them with provisions insufficient for their needs« (Men. Prot. 23.9.111sq.). Thus for transport and first of all certainly for logistics imperial embassies travelling abroad had to reckon on supplies from the host side. There very likely existed some international regulations which obliged diplomats to be provided with all they needed and the promotion of their journey. In practice, however, envoys’ rights were not always respected. Foreign envoys moving through the territory of the Roman Empire must have been provided with the necessary transport and were permitted to use the cursus publicus (CTh 8.5.57 in 397;207 CJ 12.50.16). Following the text of Peter the Patrician, Constantine Porphyrogennetos, describes the Persian delegation’s voyage on the imperial territory.208 The diplomats were provided with appropriate transport, and for the last stretch of their jour206

These exotic beverages attracted the scholars’ attention. For references to the literature see: FCHLRE 384, n. 44. Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns, Chapter IX. ›Language‹. 207 »The privilege of using the public post is granted only to those persons who as delegates from various nations (legati de diversis gentibus) make haste to speed to Our Clemency.« 208 For details see: I.2.1.

148

III. Embassy structure and personnel

ney they could choose to go by land or by sea and were given a ship or beasts for the purpose. They could use post transport and upon their arrival were equipped with the so-called imperial horses (de cer. 1.89 [402.8–11]). Ambassadors on their way were lodged in a special house (de cer. 1.89 [401.12]) and received »beds, mattresses, stoves, fireplaces for cooking, tables and big containers, perhaps buckets to carry water and to be available for the other ›dirty services‹ (de cer. 1.89 [401.14sq.])« and they also had a bathhouse at their disposal (de cer. 1.89 [402.4–8]).209 Local authorities had to assist delegations passing through their territories. The Theodosian Code indicated that »dukes, as well as counts and those officers to whom the custody of the Rhine has been assigned« were to be advised »that the military shall not supply their pack animals either to royal envoys or to delegates.210 For such envoys and delegates must come with their own animals to the place from which the service of the public post proceeds. Your Authority [Master of the Horse], however, shall order that sufficient care be employed that they do not lack food supplies for their animals when they establish a halting place.« (CTh 7.1.9; 367).211 Probably the Persians, who also had a system of transport212 that could have been at the disposal of the ambassadors in their country, did not have to travel towards the Roman territory on their own transport. Then, according to the norms of imperial diplomacy, they were met on the frontier and escorted till the place of destination,213 with the cursus publicus at their disposal. Barbarian delegations, as we see, could have come directly with their own means of transport and proceeded with them. 3.3 Conditions on diplomatic journeys. Envoys’ adventures It has been already mentioned several times that travelling with a diplomatic mission seemed like participating in a rather risky expedition, full of dangers and hardships.214 As noted by Corey T. Brennan for earlier times of Roman history the »discussion of embassies in legal texts such as Digest and the Theodosian Code (Just. Dig. 50.7; CTh 12.12) is very much focused on state diplomacy as munus, a burdensome obligation for elites. Unsurprisingly, it is not hard to find references in Roman-era decrees to the reluctance of individuals to put themselves forward for even high profile missions, and the ›grievous burden‹ (βάρος), ›dangers‹ (κίνδυνοι), ›suffering‹ (κακαπαθία), and hardship of long absences that attended those who put aside their own affairs to serve«.215 It was »heroic diplomacy«, as E. Luttwak has defined it.216 209 210

211 212 213 214 215 216

Tinnefeld, Ceremonies 199. Neque regalibus, neque legatis. C. Pharr understands the regales here as »either petty kings or princes, who might act as envoys to the Roman Emperor« and legati as »either the royal envoys … or delegates chosen by the provinces to convey their petitions to the Emperor« (The Theodosian Code [Pharr] 156, n. 39f.). Cited in the translation by C. Pharr: The Theodosian Code [Pharr] 156. M. Mohiuddin, Correspondence, in: EI; Silverstein, Postal Systems 12–28. See: I.2.1. See for experiences of travel and its hardships in the later period of medieval Europe: McCormick, European Economy 393f. Brennan, Embassies Gone Wrong 174. Luttwak, Strategy Byzantine Empire 102.

3. Diplomatic expeditions

149

3.3.1 Hardships of the journey Diplomats on long journeys could suffer from natural disasters, dangers of the road, climate and weather conditions, troubles of ›camp‹ life, the necessity to cross the sea with its storms, rivers, marshes, deserts, mountains etc., lack of food or water, calamities, attacks by wild animals, enemy ambushes, collisions with local population and so on.217 A fragment of the text by Olympiodorus about his mission to the Huns mentioned his »wanderings over the sea and the danger he faced« (Olymp. 19.3sq.). Most likely the risks of sea travel that he meant were possibly storms.218 Priscus describes a storm from which the Roman embassy of Maximinus suffered during one of their breaks in the journey: »Suddenly a wind and a storm arose with thunder and a great deal of lightning and rain, and it not only collapsed our tent but blew all our baggage into the pool« (Prisc. 11.2.283–286). Terrified, members of the delegation fled the place and scattered in the darkness. Finally they reached the huts of the nearby village and were hosted there (Prisc. 11.2 289–312). John of Ephesus described the terrible heat which the ambassador suffered on his embassy to the Nobadae: »As for the blessed Julian, he remained with them for two years, though suffering greatly from the extreme heat. For he used to say that from nine o’clock until four in the afternoon he was obliged to take refuge in caverns, full of water, where he sat undressed and girt with a linen garment, such as the people of the country wear. And if he left the water his skin, he said, was blistered by the heat« (Joh. Eph. HE 4.7). Besides the natural disasters, the envoys’ actual journeys must have often been difficult and uncomfortable: diplomats had to go along hard roads, cross windy places and deserts, marshes and rivers, steppes and mountains, sail the seas (Olymp. 19; Prisc. 11.2.1–361; Men. Prot. 10.3.74–106; 10.4.1–34; 10.5.1–24; Men. Prot. 19.1.18–25; Joh. Eph. HE 6.22; Phot. Bibl. 3). Perhaps in some cases envoys could have been stationed in the houses of the local population in the villages they passed through, but undoubtedly they often had to live in tents and thus experienced all the conditions of ›camp‹ life (see e.g. Priscus 11.2.1–361). Nonnosus, as we read in the Library of Photius, »in spite of the treacherous attacks of tribesmen, perils from wild beasts, and many difficulties and dangers on the journey, successfully accomplished his mission, and returned in safety to his native land« (Phot. Bibl. 3.4–7).219 On his way back to Byzantium Zemarchus had to avoid ambushes by the Persians (Men. Prot. 10.5.9–16). Difficulties of the road could even lead an envoy to illness and even death (especially when the reception was hostile) (Men. Prot. 23.9.109–117). When he was sent on his last mission to the Romans, the famous Persian envoy Isdigousnas fell ill en route and died in a depression when learned that his journey would not have a positive outcome and that his embassy would not succeed (Men. Prot. 9.3.22–27). 217

See about the different risks and dangers for individual travellers in Late Antiquity: Gorce, Les voyages 64f. 218 Photius twice more mentioned Olympiodorus’s sea voyages and the dangers of the sailing (Olymp. 28.1sq.; 35.1–4). It is most likely that he crossed the Black Sea, not the Adriatic – see about the discussion: Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 713; Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns 27, 163, n. 17). See also: I.3.2.2; III.3.2. Gregory of Tours also mentioned a shipwreck experienced by the envoys of Chilpericus when returning from Constantinople (Greg. Tur. HF 6.2). 219 Cited in the translation of J. H. Freese in: The Library of Photius [Freese] 18.

150

III. Embassy structure and personnel

3.3.2 Duration of the diplomatic journeys As has already been mentioned, an imperial embassy’s journey and its stay on foreign territory could be rather long. One of Zemarchus and his companions’ journeys was very long, taking around two years to return back home (Joh. Eph. HE 6.23). According to the Theodosian Code, envoys to the Axumites or the Himyarites were not to stay at Alexandria for more than a year, and if they stayed longer, they received no subsistence allowances (alimoniae annonariae; CTh 12.12.2; 356; 357). It took three years (probably from 336 to 339)220 for the protector Abinnaeus221 to accompany the Blemmyes’ ambassadors from Constantinople to their territory (P. Abinn. 1.6–10).222 According to Gregory of Tours, envoys sent from Sigebert to Justin II returned to Gaul from Constantinople the following year (Greg. Tur. HF 4.40). Another delegation, dispatched to the emperor Tiberius, returned from Constantinople after three years (Greg. Tur. HF 6.2).223 Peter the Patrician/Constantine’s account of the reception of the Persian envoy indicated 103 days as sufficient for the whole delegation to travel to Constantinople from Dara. However, in case the mission was slow on the road, the emperor provided extra payments to cover the costs of the journey (de cer. 1.89 [400]). In some cases envoys were on the contrary hurried along. Procopius mentioned that during his Persian mission to coordinate some issues of the negotiations with Justinian, the envoy Rufinus was given seventy days for the trip both ways – to reach the capital and to return to the shores of the Tigris (Proc. BP 1.22.7sq.). As is rightly noted by M. McCormick: »The overall duration of ambassadors’ absences of cannot translate directly into travel time, since negotiations, unexpected absences of principals, the seasons, and the complexity of early medieval decisionmaking could all stretch the time involved.«224 After a hard journey envoys could spend even more time waiting until the barbarian or Persian ruler would finally receive them (Amm. 17.5.15; 17.14.1–3; Proc. BG 2.22.23–25). 3.3.3 Peculiarities and surprises of reception During the trip, as well as at the courts of foreign rulers, imperial envoys had to follow local customs and respect the rules and hierarchical order of the barbarians. Priscus described how, having arrived at Attila’s camp on the way towards his main headquarters, his embassy wanted to situate their tents on a hill, but were prohibited to do so by barbarians, because Attila’s tent was on low ground (Prisc. 11.2.87–91). Later the caravan was ordered to stop in a village and wait »since Attila was to take the same road and we had to follow behind him« (Prisc. 11.2.313–316).225 220 221 222 223

Barnes, Abinnaeus 369f. PLRE-I, 1f., s.v. Flavius Abinnaeus. Edition: The Abinnaeus Archive [Bell/Martin/Turner/Berchem]. See more on the duration of embassies circulating within the Western Empire: Gillett, Envoys 242; in general about the duration of embassies in the later period of medieval Europe: McCormick, European Economy 470f. 224 McCormick, European Economy 470. 225 The question of Attila’s majesty seems to have been rather painful for his subordinates. Besides these two examples, Priscus mentioned the conflict which arose between the imperial and the Hun diplomats at the beginning of their joint embassy: the barbarians were insulted by the fact that the

3. Diplomatic expeditions

151

Rather often envoys had to suffer from the impetuous and wild temper and anger of the barbarian rulers.226 Ambassadors had to be ready to deal with various barbarian customs and sometimes to take part in strange rituals: e.g. the delegation of Zemarchus in Sogdiana had to to go through a special kind of ›security purification‹ procedure – exorcism (Men. Prot. 10.3.1–20). Another envoy to the Turks, Valentinus, arrived in the presence of the chief Turxanthus soon after the death of his father Sizabul.227 The Romans had to »slash their faces with daggers«, as a sign of mourning (Men. Prot. 19.1.122–124). Sometimes, however, traditions and surprises were more pleasant. When hosted in a certain Hun village, the embassy of Maximinus received »food and attractive women for intercourse, which is a mark of honour amongst the Scythians«. As Priscus remarked they »plied the women generously from the food placed before us, but refused intercourse with them« (Prisc. 11.2.297–301), which, by the way, may have appeared rather risky and not too kind – refusal to take a gift may be very offensive for the host. Sometimes the obligation to attend banquets given by the barbarians could be very tiring228 – feasts could last several days and, with various exotic strong drinks, were not an easy challenge for East Roman diplomats (Prisc. 13.1sq.; 14.25–53; Men. Prot. 10.3.42–73). 3.3.4 Departure of a delegation When abroad with a diplomatic mission, envoys fully depended on the will of the host side. Ambassadors were usually kept under strict control and could not leave on their own initiative, until they were officially allowed to do so, and on their way back they were also accompanied by an escort.229 In some cases the wait for permission to set out could last for years (Proc. BG 2.22). Often envoys were obliged to accompany a certain barbarian ruler or Persian ruler in their military campaigns. Sometimes this was due to the will to show the Roman envoys to the third side as proof of a powerful alliance. In most cases the purpose was to impress the Romans themselves with demonstrations of military power and strength (Men. Prot. 10.3; 18.6; Proc. BP 1.3.8; 2.4.16; 2.4.26; 2.5.27). So, participation in diplomatic missions not only meant leading negotiations, having political and oratorical skills, necessary experience, ranks and position. Rather often expeditions could become dangerous, absolute security and inviolability were not guaranteed in reality, and the voyage itself could be very difficult and risky, demanding special endurance from diplomats and the readiness to follow different exotic local traditions and customs. Diplomats who travelled on distant ambassadorial journeys were often representatives of the high administrative and bureaucratic imperial elite and, as demonstrated above, in embassies they usually faced rather dangerous situations and had to overcome many hardships. It is important to underline that when key figures of the Roman establishment went on em225 226 227 228 229

Romans underlined the divine nature of their emperor Theodosius and the human nature of Attila. The imperial envoys had to calm their partners with gifts (Prisc. 11.2.28–35). See: I.4. Ištämi: Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 275f. M. Schmauder provides an analysis of the Huns’ banquets from the point of view of the Hun rulers and Turkish khagans’ court ceremonies: Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber, 1, 208–213. See also: I.2.1; III.4.3.

152

III. Embassy structure and personnel

bassies it was sometimes rather risky and the consequences could be harsh, like long imprisonment. Rules of diplomatic immunity could not provide an absolute guarantee of their security and well-being during diplomatic missions on foreign territory.

4. Extra embassy functions. Information gathering The main and most important function and purpose of every embassy was to transmit information, to establish communication between partners, to negotiate and to conclude agreements.230 However, several other additional functions of diplomatic missions can also be established.231 4.1 Envoys’ reports In addition to the simple political and diplomatic missions, imperial ambassadors also had some extra tasks to perform. Most of them regarded the information that envoys could collect during their voyages. An ambassador could gather different kinds of intelligence concerning an enemy/partner’s military, strategic and political situation, as well as information about the geographical position, customs, preferences of the ruler etc. when an embassy went to unexplored regions and negotiated with some not yet well-known barbarians (e.g. Prisc. 11.2; Men. Prot. 10.3sq.; Lib. Ep. 331.1). In his treatise De administrando imperio, created as a kind of instruction for the emperor’s son Romanos, Constantine Porphyrogennetos gives a list of things to be aware of in relations with foreign peoples.232 The material providing the basis for the book must have been a collection of documents originating from the imperial archives.233 Among the other things which a ruler should aim to know was information about their traditions, way of life, geographical situation as well as the climate, appearance and length of the land (DAI prooimion). Diplomatic (or military) relations were built according to the data collected.234 Very probably envoys had special instructions re230 231

See: II.2. It seems that in some cases embassies could have been endowed with commissions and tasks which had nothing to do with their direct purpose. Thus Justin II sent the envoy John, the son of Domnentiolus, to Persia in order to announce Justin’s acclamation as emperor. When the envoy arrived in Dara, »he restored the water supply of the city, giving particular attention to the conduits, and dealt with other needs of the inhabitants« (Men. Prot. 9.1.16–21). This is very interesting evidence, demonstrating that embassies could also have been used as an occasion to regulate some concrete local problems, with no connection to diplomacy, for which help from the centre (perhaps financial and organizational first of all) was needed. 232 Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 362f. with references to the bibliography p. 366; for the principles of composition and parts of the DAI see especially R. J. H. Jenkins, ›General Introduction‹ to Constantine Porphyrogenitus: Constantine Porphyrogenitus [Moravcsik/Jenkins] 7–14; for criticism of Jenkins’s theory: Lemerle, Byzantine Humanism 320f. and n. 36 (the original French edition: Lemerle, Premier humanisme 277f.). 233 Lemerle, Byzantine Humanism 320 (the original French edition: Lemerle, Premier humanisme 277); Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus 599f. 234 E.g. W. Treadgold supposes that Olympiodorus, who travelled in 416 to the Blemmyes of Nubia (who disturbed the Empire with their frequent raids), apparently on an embassy, could have had the aim of gathering information about them, which as a native of the region he was especially qualified to do: Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 719.

4. Extra embassy functions

153

garding what was to be observed.235 Already in Late Antiquity it must have been »one of the principles of the government to collect all the information it could obtain concerning the social and political condition and relations of the surrounding barbarian states, for the practical purpose of guiding its own diplomacy. The opportunities for collecting such information were supplied by the embassies which went and came«.236 It seems evident that the imperial bureaucratic system must have required envoys to provide accounts of their journeys.237 It is very likely that the detailed descriptions of embassies made by Priscus or Menander were based on ambassadorial reports: in the case of Priscus, probably on his own, and in the case of Menander on those of Zemarchus (see further about the voyages) and Peter the Patrician.238 The same could be said about the embassies of Olympiodorus,239 Nonnosus240 and Julian241 (Phot. Bibl. 3.20–3.38; Proc. BP 1.20.9; 2.1.10; Joh. Mal. 18.56; Theoph. AM 6064).242 While arguing the existence of official accounts of the embassies of Julian, I. Kawar attracts attention to the evidence of Malalas and Theophanes.243 Malalas makes a reference to what the ambassador said himself (Joh. Mal. 18.56)244 and later there is a use of the first person form in Malalas’s text (Joh. Mal. 18.56),245 which must indicate that he was copying directly from the ambassador’s account.246 While retelling the story of Julian’s voyage and reception, Theophanes mentions that on his return the ambassador described the details of the audience (Theoph. AM 6064).247 So, reports by Late Antique envoys most probably existed, but, as rightly noted by Bury, already by the time of Constantine VII the archive of such official accounts must have been unavailable – the famous excerpts on embassies are not based on official records, but on 235

236

237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247

A. D. Lee (Lee, Information 166f.) attracts attention to a very interesting source dealing with the spheres of interest of the envoy-spy – the Siasset-namah or Book of Government – one of the key documents on medieval Persian government theory, composed in the eleventh century by an Arab official, but drawing on sources from the Sasanian period. This text lists all the points which should be observed by an envoy with the intent to spy. The country’s geographical and strategic situation is named among the first things that an envoy should pay attention to and find out about (Nizam al-Mulk 22.2). See more on this problem: Nizam al-Mulk [Darke] 98f.; Lambton, The Dilemma of Government 55–59; and in general about information collected by envoys: Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy. Bury, The Treatise 539. A very interesting analysis of the ›filters‹ that somehow limited the veracity of the ambassador’s accounts and observations is provided by W. Pohl in: Pohl, Barbarian Places of Power 460–466. According to J. Bury »reports of embassies were almost an institution«: Bury, The Treatise 539f. See also: Löhren, Beiträge 45–47. Bury, The Treatise 539f. See about the reports he presumably wrote about his fact-finding missions: Treadgold, Diplomatic Career 731. PLRE-IIIB, 948, s.v. Nonnosus 1. PLRE-IIIA, 731f., s.v. Iulianus 8. See also: III.3.1. Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 63, n. 12. Ὡς δὲ ἐξηγήσατο ὁ αὐτὸς πρεσβευτής. Καὶ ἐκέλευσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰνδῶν ἀναστῆναί με καὶ ἀναχθῆναι πρὸς αὐτόν. Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda 63, n. 12. Ἐξηγεῖτο δὲ ἐπανελθὼν ὁ αὐτὸς Ἰουλιανός.

154

III. Embassy structure and personnel

historical writings. In Bury’s opinion many records of the 6th century may have been destroyed through carelessness or by fire.248 4.2 Ethnographical observations Participation in an embassy, as mentioned above, provided envoys with exceptional opportunities to observe foreign lands, customs and traditions. Diplomatic expeditions, with ambassadors who not only negotiated, but also collected attentively different data about their adversaries, served as so-to-speak ethnographical expeditions too. Thus Olympiodorus witnessed »the natural talent« of the Hun rulers (Olymp. 19).249 Priscus mentioned the Hun custom of carrying out negotiations on horseback (Prisc. 2.24– 29).250 The latter testimony does not refer to the embassy in which Priscus participated himself, but he could perhaps have found details in an envoy’s account or from personal talks with them. Priscus himself witnessed the Huns and then described the following features: the special kinds of boats they used, made of single tree trunks (Prisc. 11.2.274); the specific kinds of beverage – μέδος and κάμον (Prisc. 11.2.278–280); the tradition of entertaining guests and offering them food and attractive women for intercourse (Prisc. 11.2.297–300); the outstanding wooden architecture of the village where Attila’s residence was situated (Prisc. 11.2.356–364); a unique bath made of Pannonian stones; the clothes of the village’s inhabitants and the rituals of deference to Attila (Prisc. 11.2.373–387; 13.1.61– 65); the house of Attila’s wife Hereka251 (Prisc. 11.2.549–563); the traditions and rituals of the Hun feast (Prisc. 13.1.21–13.3.22); Hunnic songs and modes of entertainment (Prisc. 13.2.80–83; 13.2.1–25; 13.3.1–22).252 While telling about the journeys of Roman envoys to the Turks, Menander also reports many interesting ethnographical details: traditions of exorcism and perhaps shamanism among the Turks (Men. Prot. 10.3.9–20); the Turkish ruler’s dwelling, his gold and lavishly adorned thrones (Men. Prot. 10.3.27–30; 10.3.52sq.); the manner of decorating tents with silken hangings, pillars and statues (Men. Prot. 10.3.43–45; 10.3.50–52; 10.3.57–59);253 the specific type of beverage used in feasts (Men. Prot. 10.3.45–47); the different luxury objects belonging to the Turks’ ruler (Men. Prot. 10.3.59–64); and rituals of mourning the khagan’s death, slashing the face with daggers (Men. Prot. 19.1.122–124). Nonnosus wrote about the Saracens’ religious festivals and described the pygmies. He also reported some details concerning the fauna and climate of the lands which he visited (Phot. Bibl. 3.20–30). Based on the ambassador’s account, John Malalas »described the form of the Indian imperial ceremonial«, the Ethiopian ruler’s decorations and the exotic manner of the Roman embassy’s reception (Joh. Mal. 18.56). 248 249 250

Bury, The Treatise 540. Jordanes also mentioned archery as a particular skill of the Huns (Jord. Get. 128). These details correspond with data from other sources, which describe the Huns as people spending all their lives on the back of their horses, which is typical for nomads (e.g. Amm. 31.3; Jord. Get. 128; Zos. 4.20). 251 Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 173. 252 For analysis of this see Priscus’s description: Pohl, Barbarian Places of Power 452f. 253 See: Pohl, Die Awaren 179f.

4. Extra embassy functions

155

So, to summarize, diplomatic business in Late Antiquity really was full of dangers, risks and adventures. But on the other hand, envoys got an absolutely unique opportunity to see distant lands, and their miracles and sights.254 I would like to cite here a letter of Libanius, writing about his relative, Spectatus, who took part in an embassy to Ctesiphon: »Spectatus has returned from the embassy; some people regard him as fortunate in that he has seen vast lands, mountains and rivers, others that he has seen the manner of life of the Persians, their civilization, and the laws under which they live. Others again think the spectacle of the monarch and the jewels that adorned him to be of great moment, while yet others consider it noteworthy that, after presenting gifts, he should come away in receipt of gifts.« (Lib. Ep. 331.1).255 4.3 Clandestine tasks. Late Antique envoys’ spy activity An embassy was endowed with different tasks, some of which refer to the clandestine sphere of diplomacy.256 A diplomatic mission could become a means and a pretence for realizing some perfidious imperial projects, like in the case of famous embassy of Maximinus, whose aim (though he did not know this) was to fulfil the plot to kill Attila257 or to carry out secret negotiations.258 Here I will look into the spy functions of diplomats. Among all the sources of secret information received from abroad, the ›diplomatic channel‹ can be considered the most convenient one.259 Delegations of envoys, as already mentioned, were usually rather numerous: the ambassador himself, his secretaries, an escort, interpreters, a guard, servants, etc. Besides, in contrast to merchants, who also were often used as spies, envoys moved in the upper influential circles and thus were closer to the secret data. In certain aspects an embassy provided the ideal opportunity to collect information. But on the other hand, it was also easier to control the information that a foreign visitor could receive, than to try to screen data that could infiltrate into a merchant’s hands. We know of several cases when an embassy was just a formal screen for what was in effect a spy operation. Thus Ammianus Marcellinus reports that before organizing the campaign against the Alemanni, Julian sent a certain Hariobaudes as an envoy to their king Hortarius. »Without anyone’s knowledge he had sent Hariobaudes, an unattached tribune of tried fidelity and courage, ostensibly as an envoy to Hortarius, a king already subdued, with the idea that he could easily go on from there to the frontiers of those against whom the war was presently to be made, and find out what they were plotting; for he was thoroughly acquainted with the language of the savages« (Amm. 18.2.2). So under the guise of an embassy, Hariobaudes was to act almost as an undercover spy. It is important to notice that in this situation the diplomat first of all had to fulfil a spying task which was the real 254

255 256 257 258 259

See also on this theme the article by W. Pohl, where he not only analyses Late Antique evidence on the »barbarian places of power« described in Greek and Latin tradition, but also attracts attention to Chinese sources, describing embassies to the Turks and to the Hephthalites: Pohl, Barbarian Places of Power 419–466, esp. 448. Cited in the English translation: Libanius, Autobiography [Norman] in his numeration. See for the details: Nechaeva, Les activités secrètes. See: I.3.2.2. See: I.3.2.1. Special attention to this topic is paid by A. D. Lee in his book (Lee, Information), and in an article (Lee, Embassies as Evidence). See also Blockley, Foreign Policy 132f.

156

III. Embassy structure and personnel

aim of the mission and to spy additionally to his main duties of ambassador. »The familiarity and acceptability to the other side that are the features of these diplomatic contacts are stressed as important prerequisites«: evidently Hariobaudes was chosen because of his language knowledge and German origin. As it is noted by N. Austin and B. Rankov, the Late Roman army gave ample opportunity for the employment of such persons in this kind of role, but a piece of advice given in the manual On Strategy is strongly against it: it is emphasized that undercover κατάσκοποι should not have the same tribal origins as their opponents because of the risks associated with personal ties on the enemy side (Peri Str. 42.8).260 Maybe the clearest example of such an imitation embassy operation is recorded by Procopius, who describes how the West Roman Emperor Maiorianus went to Geisericus as if he were an envoy: »he set out as if an envoy from the emperor to Geisericus, assuming some fictitious name. And fearing lest, by becoming known, he should himself receive some harm and at the same time prevent the success of the enterprise, he devised the following scheme. His hair, which was famous among all men as being so fair as to resemble pure gold, he anointed with some kind of dye, which was especially invented for this purpose, and so succeeded completely in changing it for the time to a dark hue. And when he came before Geisericus, the barbarian attempted in many ways to terrify him, and in particular, while treating him with engaging attention, as if a friend, he brought him into the house where all his weapons were stored, a numerous and exceedingly noteworthy array.« (Proc. BV 1.7.5–10). What is interesting about this evidence is not even the question of whether this event really ever happened or not, it is important that at least from Procopius’s point of view it could happen, and even more – the author describes this expedition with noticeable approval.261 The evidence of how Maiorianus masks himself, by changing the colour of his hair, is notable. Such a method could also have been used by spies who had a task to penetrate into the territory of an enemy. It is characteristic what spying aims Maiorianus intends to fulfill: 1. to find out about the force (evidently the military force) of an enemy 2. to find out about the temper of the ruler 3. to find out the attitude of the local tribes toward the Vandals. It seems to be very opportune that this list of tasks (military situation and plans, the person of the ruler, the foreign [and/or internal] political situation) is to be fulfilled by a diplomatic mission. If the intention of diplomats while performing their embassy was to collect as much information as possible, the receiving part certainly did its best to make this information secret, to prevent its discovery or to disfigure, misinform and manipulate the envoys’ opinions. Thus upon receiving the camouflaged Maiorianus, Geisericus demonstratively ›rattles the sabre‹, trying to show his powerful military potential. One can find many illustrations of such attempts to influence the data collected by an envoy. Rather often ambassadors were 260 261

Austin/Rankov, Exploratio 18. A. Chekalova notes that Procopius could have taken this story from Priscus – Prokopii Kesariiskii [Chekalova] commentary to Proc. BV 1.7.4, n. 62.

4. Extra embassy functions

157

not allowed to depart immediately after fulfilling a straight diplomatic duty, but instead were made to stay by the ruler and sometimes even to follow him in the military campaign.262 In this way envoys became a means of ›propaganda‹, a way to influence the adversary’s opinion in a profitable way. Where the information which could be collected by an ambassador was on the contrary of a secret character, the host side tried its best to limit the possibilities of ambassadors gathering the intelligence and to control the αὐτοψία of an envoy. One of the clauses of the Roman-Persian treaty of 562 read: »4. Ambassadors and all others using the public post to deliver messages, both travelling to Roman and those to Persian territory … shall be sent back without delay …« (Men. Prot. 6.1).263 That is to say that unless specially detained by the ruler (which happened rather often), after they finished their diplomatic mission an embassy was to go back immediately. Without any doubt this was a measure to limit the possibilities of envoys spying. After crossing the frontier of its country every embassy fell into the hands and power of the ruler of the foreign territory. Usually ambassadors were met on the frontier and then went to the destination point with a sort of guard of honour,264 which on the one hand was done to guarantee the security and to show respect to the delegates, but on the other was to prevent them from collecting intelligence. Such an escort of a Persian delegation is described in detail in the De ceremoniis (de cer. 1.89sq.).265 One can find other evidence of the existence of this custom as a part of official protocol in the treatise Peri Presbeon, where it is stressed that while foreign embassies in Constantinople should be well treated, they should also be kept under close watch, especially if they came from powerful states (Peri Str. 43.1– 13).266 In spite of all the efforts of counterespionage, sometimes envoys managed to send home messages with secret information. Ammianus Marcellinus, situated in 359 on the Mesopotamian frontier as an imperial guardsman (protector domesticus), undertook a dangerous espionage mission that contributed eye-witness information to an evolving strategic intelli262

263

264 265 266

See above: III.3.3.4. E.g.: the East Roman envoy Theodorus, the son of Bacchus, who was sent with an embassy to Chosroes, accompanied the shah on his way through Bassiane. »Then by Theodosiopolis, as Theodorus watched, Chosroes drew up his cavalry, arranging it in order by squadrons and phalanxes, and, pretending that he had no particular motive, he himself appeared on horseback as if his body were still in full health and strength … After some intervening incidents the Persian king sent Theodorus away to return to Byzantium …« (Men. Prot. 18.6). The Code of Justinian says that though in general merchants »subject to our sway or to that of the king of Persia« had very limited rights to trade in the borderland territory, »so that they may not improperly spy into the secrets of another kingdom«, in situations of accompanying Persian ambassadors an exception was made for »those envoys of the Persians who have brought merchandise to be exchanged, to whom, for the sake of humanity and on account of their character as ambassadors, we do not refuse the privilege of trading beyond the prescribed limits; unless, under the pretext of belonging to an embassy, and having remained for a long time in same province, they do not return to their country« (408 or 409; CJ 4.63.4; cited in the translation by Scott, The Civil Law, revised by G. Greatrex, N. C. Lieu [Greatrex/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier 34]). See: IΙ.2.1. See: IΙ.2.1. As commented by Corey T. Brennan, »when ambassadors are effectively cut off by their hosts from vital information, they should be reckoned to have at least partly failed in their mission«. Brennan, Embassies Gone Wrong 181.

158

III. Embassy structure and personnel

gence analysis.267 Ammianus reports how during the Persian campaign the imperial diplomat Procopius had found a way to inform the Romans about the plans of the enemy: … when our scouts had returned there (to Amida), we found in the scabbard of a sword a parchment written in cipher, which had been brought to us by order of Procopius, who, as I said before, had previously been sent as an envoy to the Persians with Count Lucillianus. In this, with intentional obscurity, for fear that, if the bearers were taken and the meaning of the message known, most disastrous consequences would follow, he gave the following message: ›Now that the envoys to the Greeks have been sent far away and perhaps are to be killed, that aged king, not content with Hellespontus, will bridge the Granicus and the Rhyndacus and come to invade Asia with many nations. He is naturally passionate and very cruel, and he has as an instigator and abetter the successor of the former Roman emperor Hadrian; unless Greece takes heed, it is all over with her and her dirge chanted‹. This warning meant that the king of the Persians would invade Syria, having had crossed the rivers Anzaba and Tigris, and, urged on by Antoninus, aspired to the rule of the entire Orient. When it had been read, with the greatest difficulty because of its excessive ambiguity, a sagacious plan was formed.« (Amm. Marc. 18.6.17–19)268

Ammianus was possibly himself one of the officers who decoded the message.269 The cited passage leads to several conclusions and questions. First of all, we see that field scouts or rather strategic intelligence worked in cooperation with diplomats. We do not know though how envoys could meet with the spies. It is unlikely that the control over the ambassadors was not strict enough. The phrase in the cryptogram about the possible death of the envoys is probably evidence of some danger to the real diplomats. But what is the meaning of the phrase »envoys to the Greeks have been sent far away«? It is possible that it was a hint of the fact that the Persian ruler would not allow Procopius and Lucillianus to leave by as usually happened after the termination of diplomatic missions, but that they were sent away from the centre of action – to prevent them from seeing too much. We can also suppose that they were under strict control and could not return home,270 which gave the Persians more assurance that unwanted information would not reach the enemy prematurely. However, the message was sent and received. Evidently all this secret operation was fraught with serious consequences for the participants.271 The message was enciphered, written in a vague, metaphoric language and then hidden, which provided a threefold degree of protection for the information:272 1. Sending the valuable information in code was safer than telling it orally to the scouts. In case they were taken prisoner, it would be easier to make people talk than to decode the inscription (of course the code should be secret for the scouts as well). We are informed about the existence of systems of cryptography in Antiquity.273 267 268 269 270 271

Austin/Rankov, Exploratio 19. A commentary to this passage can be found: Jonge, Commentary-18 196–205. Austin/Rankov, Exploratio 19; Matthews, Ammianus 558. As happened rather often, see above: III.3.3.4. However, there exists a sceptical point of view, regarding the episode as fabricated: Blockley, The Coded Message 65. 272 Blockley, The Coded Message 65. 273 The so-called Caesar cipher was called so, because Caesar, according to Suetonius, used it for confidential messages by changing the order of the letters of the alphabet: »If anyone wishes to decipher these, and get at their meaning, he must substitute the fourth letter of the alphabet, namely

4. Extra embassy functions

159

2. The hidden document caused less danger for the scouts in the case of a possible search. In his treatise Strategemata, Frontinus mentioned the different ways of (secretly) sending and receiving messages, including the method described by Ammianus: »some have written on the linings of the scabbards« (Frontin. Str. 3.13.5).274 As noted by J. F. Matthews, there is a possibility that we are dealing with an interpolation in the text of Ammianus,275 but it seems more likely, as the Strategemata was a collection of rules of military science, that one of the classical ways of hiding a message276 was used in the situation described by Marcellinus. 3. If the message was found and read – surely the Persians had at their disposal Greek specialists, capable of understanding the metaphors277 – the message decoded and the vague places interpreted, perhaps this would not prevent ›disastrous consequences‹ but it could at least help to postpone them, after all, even the addressee of the letter read it with great difficulty.278 It is possible that in the case the operation was exposed, not only would the scouts run risks, but the envoy himself would as well. One can suppose that in such a situation the rules of diplomatic immunity were not applied to him, all the more so due to the anxiety that Procopius expresses in his message about his safety.279 It is rather possible that an envoy who was exposed as a spy could be punished.280 However, espionage was the accusation that could be always brought against a diplomat. We 273

274 275 276

277 278

279 280

D, for A, and so with the others« (Suet. Iul. 56.6). Aulus Gellius reports that there existed a treatise by the grammarian Probus concerning the secret meaning of the letters in the composition of Caesar’s letters (Aul. Gell. 17.9.1–5). »Whenever he wrote in cipher, he [Augustus] wrote B for A, C for B, and the rest of the letters on the same principle, using AA for X« (Suet. Aug. 88). Aulus Gellius also reports about other methods of sending secret information (Aul. Gell. 17.9.6–27). See about cryptography: Gardthausen, Kryptographie 616–619; Wessely, Ein neues System 185–189. Here and further on I cite the translation in English by C. E. Bennett (Frontinus [McElwain/ Bennett]). Matthews, Ammianus 558. Among the others Frontinus lists the following: hiding message in a belt (Frontin. Str. 3.13.2); »some have written messages on skins and then sewed these to the carcasses of game or sheep« (Frontin. Str. 3.13.3); »some have stuffed the message under the tail of a mule while passing the picket-posts« (Frontin. Str. 3.13.4); sewing letters up inside two inflated skins, fastening them together at the bottom with two strips some distance apart, and then making a skilful swimmer put on the skins and swim (Front. Str. 3.13.6); fastening them to the hems of soldiers (Frontin. Str. 3.13.7); and having them carried by pigeons (Frontin. Str. 3.13.8). There is, however, also an assumption that in the same text by Frontinus (the one about the scabbards), the numbers 3, 4 and 5 are interpolations (Frontinus [McElwain/Bennett] 246, n. 3). For example, the same Antoninus talked about in the message, who was a defector and traitor, escaped to the Persians (Amm. Marc. 17.5.1). As noted by J. Matthews, »the message attests favorably the historical culture of its senders, as well as some optimistic assumptions on their part as to the culture of those to whom it was sent« (Matthews, Empire 43). For cases when the principle of envoys’ immunity was not respected see: I.4; III.3.3. Thus we know that after the first mission of 547/8 AD, Braducius, a translator who accompanied Isdigousnas to the Eastern Empire, was executed by Chosroes upon suspicion of treason since Justinian had treated him too well (Proc. BG 4.11.9sq.). Procopius also mentions the fact that Isdigousnas himself was suspected by the Romans of causing the downfall of Braducius (Proc. BG 4.11.9).

160

III. Embassy structure and personnel

know of a case when diplomatic relations were broken off because of such a reproach. Libanius tells of a conflict with the Alemanni which occurred in the mid 350s: the Germans, indignant over the fact that the Romans used their crop, dispatched an envoy to Julian with a letter full of protests and threats. »Julian however alleged that he came to spy for them, for their chief would never have been so arrogant … and he had him arrested …« (Lib. Or. 18.52sq.).281 What we are looking at here is a classic example of a diplomatic game. It is impossible not to notice that the Roman side was evidently pushing to escalate the conflict, provoking the Alemanni and getting ready for military conflict. But whether he received the embassy or not or did not give up the disputed territories, Julian would have found himself not only in the role of an ›aggressor‹ but also as the one who did not respect the agreement. In such a situation the declaration about the envoy’s intents of espionage was a wonderful grounds for breaking off diplomatic relations and claiming military action. At the same time the Romans ›saved their face‹ and gained the status of the ones who had been insulted, giving them the right to take revenge. It is logical to conclude that envoys could be the source of secret information not only for those who had sent them, but also for the recipients of the embassy. There is some evidence that in the period of Late Antiquity there was a tendency to use agents from the adversary side in one’s own interests. It even seems possible to suppose that Justinian carried out a kind of a reform, placing the main stress on using ›double agents‹ by bribing foreign diplomats. This method was mainly used towards Persia and marks a high level in the development of both the superpowers’ intelligence services.282

5. Conclusions The Late Antique diplomatic system did not possess a corpus of professional diplomats in the modern sense: there was no group of functionaries whose activity would have been concentrated on diplomacy and ambassadorial representation alone.283 Usually officials and functionaries who were involved in different political (both civil and military) activities, bureaucracy and imperial administration could have been dispatched with diplomatic missions. Certain patterns can be distinguished in the appointment of persons to carry out diplomatic tasks. The ambassador’s rank and status position were extremely important in the diplomatic process. The higher the level of the envoy, the higher the status of the receiving side was and the respect demonstrated by those who dispatched a delegation. The traditional Roman system reserved envoys of the highest ranks – ex-ordinary consuls – for relations with Persia. But, as it seems, in the 5th century some important changes occurred under the pressure of the new barbarian forces, first of all Attila’s Huns, as far as we are informed. It was the leader of the Huns who insisted on sending him ambassadors of the supreme echelon and thus being treated at the same level as the Persian shah. Often the Roman side was obliged to satisfy such demands and the whole system seems to have been updated to the 281 282 283

Cited in the English translation: Libanius, Selected works [Norman]. For details about this see: Nechaeva, Double Agents 137–147. According to M. Mazza »never was a specific organism given to the foreign relations, nor did the magister officiorum manage to accomplish a determined role in this direction«. These were the military figures that had the main meaning for foreign policy (Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia 164).

5. Conclusions

161

new reality. A sign of such a shift and perhaps of a certain degree of flexibility in diplomacy organization may be seen in the practice of raising the status of diplomats directly before departing with embassies. Endowing an ambassador with a high rank in order to make him a more appropriate figure for the mission was a very opportune solution. As a result figures who would better fit the situation could be dispatched with embassies, whether or not their dignity before was high enough. Certain principles in choosing persons for the execution of diplomatic missions can be distinguished. Among the qualities which were necessary for envoys and negotiators, first of all authors usually name rhetorical skills, wisdom and cleverness, and justice. In spite of the absence of a diplomatic corpus and permanent diplomatic representatives, we may speak about some professionalization in Late Antique ambassadorial business. In many cases magistri officiorum, whose professional duties were very much connected with the sphere of foreign policy and diplomacy, were dispatched with embassies. It was not rare for military professionals, generals and magistri militum to participate in negotiations (of different levels). It was rather often the case that the same people executed several diplomatic tasks, participating or leading several embassies. The specialization of envoys in a particular geographical direction284 could make the negotiation process more successful, because of the important experience and connections which ambassadors accumulated over several diplomatic visits. Another significant tradition and feature of the system was to involve members of the same families in diplomatic activity, and sometimes the role of envoy to the same people became a traditional family occupation. This practice was also very favourable for establishing personal connections, thereby facilitating the international communication. Sources allow us to reconstruct the basic structure of an embassy and its personnel. Usually a diplomatic mission consisted of the head of a delegation (or two heads), his companion who acted as his right hand and assistant, interpreter(s), messenger(s), the chief ambassador’s suite and his companions, servants, attendants and perhaps guards. In some cases diplomats from the adversary side could travel together with the imperial delegation. It was possible for those whose journey was not connected with the diplomatic task of a mission, but who had to travel to the same territory, to join an embassy, so some ›outsiders‹ could also follow a delegation. Ambassadors and the whole delegation must have been protected by international laws of diplomatic immunity, which were accepted by all sides. But the real practice demonstrates that such norms were not seldom neglected and envoys could be treated extremely badly. In general a diplomatic expedition, as it seems possible to call an embassy, could be very risky and dangerous. In some cases envoys had to travel in very distant territories, full of adventures and hardships of the road. The conditions of camp life could also be rather hard and demanded special strengths and endurance from the participants. The transport and logistics of a delegation greatly depended on the receiving side. Most of the delegations, wherever they travelled, were met on the border by a special escort who was to lead them and provide them with all they needed, but also limit their independency and activity. It is important to underline that the participants of embassies, exposed to all the mentioned 284

Though contrary to the modern principle of diplomatic rotation.

162

III. Embassy structure and personnel

dangers and hardships, were representatives of the highest imperial, first of all political, but also intellectual, elite. Diplomatic journeys must have contributed to the development of geographical science and brought some additional knowledge and data to this sphere, which were accumulated first of all in the accounts made by the ambassadors, though not all parts of such accounts will have been open to the wide public. Diplomatic missions provided envoys with unique possibilities to observe foreign territories, various peoples and their customs, so diplomacy may be regarded as a source of different ethnographical data as well. Undoubtedly ambassadors acted as spies, using their unique and very profitable conditions to observe and collect data on military affairs, an adversary ruler’s personality, political and social situation, laws etc. In some cases diplomatic missions and negotiations were only a screen for what was actually a spy mission, but more often diplomats had to collect intelligence in addition to their main diplomatic and political tasks. The host side in its turn certainly tended to limit the envoys’ possibility of spying, using special escorts to accompany them everywhere, and also to influence the character of the information ambassadors could collect, trying to put it across in a profitable light. The development and elaboration of an intelligence collection system, also by means of envoys, led to the practice of using double agents, who were sometimes recruited from the diplomats of an adversary side, especially in relations between the Romans and the Persians.

Chapter IV

Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity Gifts played a particularly role in Late Antique diplomacy. As it seems, no negotiation took place without the presentation of gifts, it being a traditional and constitutional part of diplomatic practice1 and essential characteristic of guest-friendship.2 Gifts can be put into the category of the »visual aspects of diplomacy«,3 having origins in archaic ritualized relationships of alliance, friendship and hospitality.4 The phenomenon of gift giving has attracted much attention from anthropologists, starting from the famous Essai sur le don (The Gift) by Marcel Mauss, subsequently analysed by Claude Lévi-Strauss 5 and Maurice Godelier.6 However, without entering too deeply into the anthropological discourse, it seems important to touch on some problems, which are also topical for the perception of Late Antique realities. One of the principal questions in this context is the interconnection of the three duties around a gift: the necessity to give, to receive and to give back what had been given. Anthropologists are mostly attracted by the mystery of the obligation to give back. In diplomatic practice, including that of Late Antiquity, we note, as will be shown later, the essential element was that of the contre-don. Furthermore, this criterion, among others, can also be used to distinguish diplomatic gifts in the pure sense of the word, from payments/subsidies. Sometimes it is not easy, also because of ›diplomatic games‹, to differentiate one from the other. The payments were usually of a regular character and one can say that the principle of the contre-don does not work here. The payment could require non-aggression, for example, but in this case of a kind of a service which is paid, the mechanism of reciprocal donation is not included in the scheme. Another very important aspect, much discussed in anthropology, is the tradition of potlatch, which is regarded by M. Mauss as a culmination of the logic of gifts and the return gift. M. Godelier has underlined the non-universal character of potlatch.7 As for diplomacy in Late Antiquity, it seems that, though the principal of reciprocal giving and the necessity of a contre-don existed, the most important aspect was the equality of the presents’ value. Here we are faced with one of the most important problems of gift-giving semantics and the perception of the fact of donation. As noted by Mauss and later by Godelier, the fact of donation establishes a twofold relationship between the partners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cutler, Gift and Gift-Exchange 247. Herman, Ritualized Friendship 7. Cormack, Art 219. Mauss, Don 120f.; Mauss, The Gift. Mauss, Don 120f.; Lévi-Strauss, Introduction. Godelier, L’énigme. Godelier, L’énigme 13f.

164

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

united by the gift: a relation of solidarity, because the one who donated gives a part of what he has, and a relation of superiority, because the one who receives a gift becomes debtor to the one who gives. Thus the giving creates a hierarchy and this process also explains the reasons for contre-don and sometimes potlatch.8 It is, however, possible, and as will be demonstrated, it was often the case in Late Antique diplomatic practice, that the hierarchy was the opposite: the act of donation itself could have been perceived as humiliating. The controversy between these two concepts was characteristic of Late Antique diplomacy. And probably this was precisely owing to the necessity of a certain balance, which determined the dominance of the concept of the equality of gifts, especially between partners – like Rome and Persia – for whom maintaining a status of parity was extremely significant. It is important to emphasize that in the Late Antique reality diplomatic gifts not only had ceremonial significance: in the relations of the Roman Empire with its partners, allies and neighbours diplomatic offerings may also be regarded as a kind of indicator which reflected the attitude of the Empire towards one people or another and their position within the imperial hierarchy. Unfortunately our sources do not provide very much material on diplomatic gifts. While explaining the little interest on the part of modern historians in the problem of diplomatic donations, as A. Cutler has formulated, »gifts were a traditional and constitutive part of diplomatic practice and therefore touched upon lightly or not at all«.9 The same may be said about the situation with Late Antique sources, which seem to provide even less material than the later Byzantine ones. In general, gifts were mentioned either incidentally or when the situation attracted special attention from an author: in the event of some deviation from the norm, if a problem with gifts caused some special events, if too many gifts were given etc.10 However, the same can be said for a considerable part of our knowledge about the ancient reality. As Peter Schreiner has noted, in very many cases, sources only mention the presence of gifts in different diplomatic circumstances, and do not provide any concrete details about them.11 This chapter examines the instances when sources specially mention gifts in diplomatic practice and provide some descriptions of them. I mainly do not intend here to deal with the problem of subsidies and stipends.12 The matter of the exportation of money, gold, silver and precious items from the Empire to the barbarians is extremely complex. It is not always easy or even possible to distinguish information about subsidies in pure form, i.e. when stipends were paid to the barbarians, from the cases when we are perhaps dealing with the same kind of act which was instead described in the terms of gifts. As J. Iluk defines, following Menander, »a present was remitted without any previous agreements or ob8 9 10

Godelier, L’énigme 19. Cutler, Gift and Gift-Exchange 247. Unfortunately for Late Antiquity or Byzantine history we do not possess any sources analogous to the Arabic The Book of Gifts (Qaddūmī [ed., transl.], Book of Gifts). See about this: Cutler, Significant Gifts. 11 There is a calculation of statistics on mentions of concrete gifts for the later period in: Schreiner, Diplomatische Geschenke 256. 12 Which has mainly been examined separately from the problem of gifts: Blockley, Subsidies; Iluk, Export. For the definition of diplomatic gifts see: Engemann, Diplomatische Geschenke 40.

1. Etiquette and the system of gift exchange in diplomatic negotiations

165

ligations regarding terms of payment«.13 I consider an aim of the present investigation, first of all, to distinguish a ›language‹ of diplomacy, which rather often could have been used to cover the reality and to demonstrate things in a more advantageous and favourable way. Thus, frequently diplomatic rhetoric used to speak about donations from the Romans to the barbarians as acts of generosity.14 It is intended here only to touch on those cases when we have evidence of gifts provided by our sources and when some objects, not just sums of gold or silver, are mentioned.

1. Etiquette and the system of gift exchange in diplomatic negotiations 1.1 ›State‹ gifts. From ruler to ruler Any embassy carried some gifts to be delivered during its reception. Such gifts were handed over by foreign delegations arriving in Constantinople and imperial diplomats who travelled with the missions abroad. In Constantinople the ritual of accepting the gifts from visiting delegations seems to have been rather elaborate. A very interesting description may be found in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius. The author describes the reception of numerous barbarian delegations, as they carry their gifts to the emperor and although this passage is a kind of rather tendentious pamphlet, praising the emperor, it contains some interesting details, as the author refers to his own testimony, having perhaps seen the scene in the Hippodrome of Constantinople.15 Eusebius gives a long list of various items which different peoples presented to Constantine and »the Emperor received these from those who brought them and recorded them, and responded with equal gifts, so as to make the bearers very rich all at once« (Eus. V.Const. 4.7).16 The text of the Book of Ceremonies testifies the existence of a special procedure of this kind.17 The Persian diplomat had to inform the Master of Offices about what gifts had been brought before the reception ceremony, and 13 14

Iluk, Export 81. Official imperial rhetoric, as reflected in diplomacy and some of our sources, paradoxically combined two contrasting ideas: those who dispatched rich gifts through this act demonstrated their mightiness and power, but at the same time there is an evident tendency to perceive the act of donation as reflecting weakness and dependency (Iluk, Export 82; Blockley, Subsidies 62). Depending on the situation, a donor could have been deemed to be in a position of supremacy or subordination. R. C. Blockley distinguishes two broad categories of subsidies paid by the Romans: »they were either a genuine subsidy, such as reward for good behavior or payment for assistance (usually military), or they were rental for good behavior. In the former case the subsidy … was paid from strength … in the latter case … from weakness« (Blockley, Subsidies 62). Such ambiguity is a typical feature of Late Antique diplomacy and particularly of the phenomenon of gift exchange and insignia giving. On the one hand, some diplomatic presents, even those exchanged in ›everyday‹ negotiations, must have had insignial significance, which provided the donation process with some hints of ›patronizing‹ and the process of receiving with being a ›client‹. On the other hand, the contrary conception of understanding the donating side as subordinate may derive from the phenomenon of paying subsidies. The latter, however, also tends to have been interpreted ambiguously. 15 For αὐτοψία: Eus. V.Const. 4.7.1 and commentary: Eusebius (Cameron) 312. 16 Here we are probably dealing with the contamination of two different types of donation: state level (i.e. the equal gifts which were to be sent in response to a ruler), and ›personal‹ level (for the diplomats themselves). About this, see further. 17 See: 1.2.1.

166

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

then the magister »must see everything before they go in and receive a record of them« and report to the emperor. Probably this preliminary recording was done to avoid embarrassment if the gift appeared inappropriate, since with this preliminary check no unpleasant surprise was possible in the course of the ceremony. Later, during the reception itself, the gifts were accepted by silentiarii who were bring them to vestasakra where the gifts were evaluated. The vestasakra officials took the evaluation to the magister, so that he knew the value of the gifts and could tell the emperor what he should give to the ambassadors in return (de cer. 1.89 [407]).18 Especially worth noting is the gift evaluation procedure, which is said to be important when the emperor had to prepare proper gifts, which, most probably, would be taken by the response embassy (also an example of the ›block system‹). Before handing over the gifts, ambassadors had to perform a proskynesis (de cer. 1.89 [406.6–12; 406.17–19]). The custom of proskynesis, or adoratio,19 most likely having its origin in Persian and then Hellenistic traditions,20 was probably introduced to the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD (Amm. 15.5.18)21 or even earlier (Tac. Ann. 15.71).22 From the second half of the 3rd century it became indispensable in official communication with the emperor: »The individual admitted to the presence of the emperor fell before him in the usual attitude of obeisance, took the hem or corner of the emperor’s purple robe in hand, and, raising it to his lips, kissed it.«23 In the times of Justinian an innovation occurred: »All the senators, patricians and others alike, who were admitted into a royal audience, fell prone on the floor with their hands and feet extended and kissed one foot respectively of the emperor and empress.« However, this remained an adoration of purple in a certain sense, as the »adoratores kissed the purple shoes worn by the royal pair«. The modification made under Justinian must have remained the official rite for some time and was probably described in the passage by Peter the Patrician cited in De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae (even though by the 10th century the adoratio was performed in various ways according to the particular occasion).24 But even though the described adoration was part of a standard procedure, its application towards ambassadors shows us, perhaps, the implicit meaning of the whole procedure of receiving gifts by the emperor: the usual tendency to present the reception of gifts from various peoples as a sign of their submission to the Roman Empire.25 18

19 20

21 22 23 24 25

Probably the same officials are meant by Menander in his description of the reception of the Turkish diplomat Maniach at the court of Justin II: »… he entered the palace and came before the emperor, he did everything according to the law of friendship. He handed over the letter and the gifts to those who were sent to receive them …« (Men. Prot. 10.1.62–65). O. Seek, Adoratio, in: RE 1.1, 1894, 400f.; Du Cange, Glossarium s.v. Purpura (purpurum adorare). Alföldi, Ausgestaltung 62f.; argued by W. Avery, who marks the difference by the fact that the Persian custom was considerably less complex and did not involve kissing the robe (Avery, Adoratio Purpurae 74). Alföldi, Ausgestaltung 58; Avery, Adoratio Purpurae 69f.; Babut, L’Adoration des empereurs 230. Kolb, Herrscherideologie 40f.; Avery, Adoratio Purpurae 69f.; Babut, L’Adoration des empereurs 231; Alföldi, Ausgestaltung 58. Avery, Adoratio Purpurae 67 with n. 12–15 with references to the sources and literature; Babut, L’Adoration des empereurs 225; see also Kelly, Ruling 19 and n. 4. Avery, Adoratio Purpurae 79 with n. 139, 80 with n. 141. See: IV.2.

1. Etiquette and the system of gift exchange in diplomatic negotiations

167

Obviously in the Persian court a rather elaborate ritual must also have existed for exchanging gifts.26 In their interactions with the Roman Empire, the barbarians probably mainly followed the Roman scheme in the rituals of gift exchange. Thus, we see this specification among the Turks, upon receiving the imperial ambassador Zemarchus: »They greeted the barbarian and offered him their gifts, as was the custom, and were received by those, whose task it was« (Men. Prot. 10.3.30sq.). One could raise an objection that this phrase could reflect the author’s view of the diplomatic process, merely an extrapolation of a Roman standard on barbarian reality, but Menander’s report about the journey of Zemarchus is rather full of details and seems to have been based on the report by the diplomat.27 1.2 ›Personal‹ gifts from diplomats The account by Peter the Patrician/Constantine also mentioned a procedure for donating ›personal‹ gifts from the ambassador, if there were any.28 First the magister was informed and, if it was allowed by the emperor, the record was made and shown to the emperor. Afterwards the gifts could be carried by the ambassador to be donated »following the same plan as for the royal gifts« (de cer. 1.90 [408sq.]). An imperial embassy must have given rather a wide variety of presents. Certainly, the gifts of primary significance and value were destined for the ruler whose court they were travelling to or whose diplomats they were meeting. In addition, some gifts were destined for diplomats and nobility or officials from the adversary side. The envoy Rufinus29 is said to have been popular at the Persian court since he gave many gifts to the nobles (Zach. HE 9.7). Priscus reports that he also gave gifts to Onegisius, Attila’s right-hand man (Prisc. 11.2.401sq.; 11.2.517–519) and to Attila’s wife (Prisc. 11.2.547–549). The same description of the journey of the embassy of Maximinus demonstrates that imperial envoys also had to distribute some ›souvenirs‹ to those whom they happened to meet all along their journey (Prisc. 11.2.308–311). The gifts which were presented to a ruler by imperial ambassadors may be divided into two groups: (1) those which were handed over on behalf of the emperor (and sometimes also an empress)30 and (2) those provided personally by envoys. Priscus describes an episode when the Romans were consulting between themselves about how to greet Attila and how »to present to him the gifts, from the Emperor and those, which Maximinus had brought for him« (Prisc. 11.2.170). Similarly Onegisius, about whom Priscus wrote that »his power amongst the Scythians was second only to that of Attila« (Prisc. 11.2.354–365), was given gifts both from the head of the delegation and from the emperor (Prisc. 26 27

As one can also judge from the later Arabic and Persian sources, like Nizam al Mulk 7.21.87. The History of Menander the Guardsman (Blockley) 13; Ciancaglini, Lettere Persiane 642; Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy. See about ambassadors’ reports: III.4.1. 28 Εἰ δὲ ἔχει δῶρα ἴδια ὁ πρέσβης. 29 PLRE-II, 956f., s.v. Rufinus 13. 30 There is evidence that some gifts may also have been sent on behalf of the empress, the wife of the ruling emperor. Such a case is described by John Malalas, who mentions »gifts which were sent from the emperor of the Romans to the emperor of the Persians« and then notes: »likewise the Augusta sent gifts to the Persian empress, who was her sister« (Joh. Mal. 18.61.1–5). These gifts from Justinian and Theodora seem to represent a protocol in the relations between the Roman and Persian empires.

168

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

11.2.401sq.; 11.2.517–519). It seems that the amount of such ›private‹ gifts was flexible and could depend on the diplomat’s personal means. Priscus notes that among the reasons why the master of offices was sent to negotiate with Attila after the crucial negotiations of Maximinus was also his generosity: »Nomus was sent with Anatolius not only because of his high rank, but also because he was friendly towards Chrysaphius and would prevail over the barbarian with his generosity, for when he was keen to settle a matter he was unsparing with his money« (Prisc. 11.3.7–11). And in fact, Attila, who started the negotiations by being quite arrogant, »was overwhelmed by the number of their gifts and mollified by their words of appeasement« (Prisc 11.4.5sq.). This evidence even allows us to suppose that assignment as an ambassador could also cause a person some considerable expense. 1.3 ›Personal‹ gifts for diplomats It was also a general principle of diplomacy that, after negotiations were concluded, envoys received gifts. This was part of a protocol for the reception of foreign embassies in Constantinople (e.g. Proc. BP 1.26.1–4; de cer. 1.89 [407.6]; Coripp. Iust. 3.255–259). It seems that, at least for relations with Persia, these were ›personal‹ gifts for the envoys, since the ›state‹ ones were normally brought by a response mission. While telling about the reception of the Persian ambassador Isdigousnas, Procopius notes that the latter received an exceptional number of gifts from Justinian which made him one of the richest men among the Persians (Proc. BG 4.15; BP 2.28.3).31 Indeed, in some cases it is evident that gifts could have not only ritual, political and ceremonial significance, but also some economic importance,32 even though we should always keep in mind the tendency of some of our sources, inclined to Kaiserkritik, to exaggerate the amount of gifts and sums sent to the barbarians.33 According to Priscus, Attila even exploited the imperial custom to award incoming envoys richly. Attila is said to have sent to Constantinople those of his retinue whom he wished to benefit, inventing new reasons and discovering new pretexts (Prisc. 10.7–9). There is a detailed description by Constantine/Peter the Patrician of the procedure of endowing ambassadors with presents – when the emperor was ready to dismiss an embassy from the western emperor, »gifts were prepared for the ambassadors and for their attendants, a decurion would introduce and announce the latter in groups according to their rank, and the emperor would give each his gift. After the ambassadors had also received appropriate gifts …« (de cer. 1.88 [397sq.]).34 This passage demonstrates the existence of a practice to also give ›personal‹ presents to the members of the diplomatic delegation and to distribute them according to the rank of the recipients, probably in correspondence with the ›personal‹ gifts that had been received from the ambassador earlier.35 The text of the Book of Ceremonies also mentions gifts (»portions [of food] and gifts both on our feast days and 31 32 33

34 35

About the reasons for such generosity on the part of the emperor see: Nechaeva, Double Agents 143f. Cutler, Gift and Gift-Exchange 265f. While writing about the export of gold, J. von Iluk notes that »the bitterness of Procopius and his opinion that Justinian was an emperor who passively accepted barbarian demands seem to be exaggerated« (Iluk, Export 97). Quoted from Whitby, Omission 478. Cf. also Eusebius: »gifts, so as to make the bearers very rich all at once« (Eus. V.Const. 4.7).

1. Etiquette and the system of gift exchange in diplomatic negotiations

169

on his notable ones«), which were sent from the emperor to the Persian envoy during his stay in Constantinople if there was peace between the states (de cer. 1.90 [410]). In some cases the gifts were not only given by the emperor, but also by some other imperial officials. Immediately after his arrival in Constantinople, the Persian ambassador received some gifts from the master of offices and the envoys probably responded with the same (de cer. 1.89 [402]).36 Imperial diplomats abroad also received personal presents (e.g. Prisc. 11.2.52–54; 11.4.13–15). Among the pleasures of the embassy of his cousin Spectatus to Persia,37 Libanius mentions that »after presenting gifts he should come away in receipt of gifts« (Lib. Ep. 331.1).38 1.4 Summary An important feature of gift giving in Late Antique diplomacy was the exchange of gifts, i.e. mutual donation. Gifts were specially prepared in Constantinople to be sent in response, depending on the value of the present received. Perhaps on this evidence we could base a presumption that the gift exchange process was also organized according to the ›block system‹ principle. The order of the acts of donating gifts to the emperor seems to have been the following: 1. ›State‹ gifts were seen and recorded by the magister, and the record was taken to the emperor. During the reception the official ›state‹ gifts were donated while performing the adoration, were accepted by silentiarii and evaluated. 2. ›Personal‹ gifts from the ambassador were received according to the same scheme. 3. A delegation was dismissed, endowed with presents. These presents seem to refer to the lower level of diplomacy and to have been addressed personally to the diplomats; perhaps some ›state‹ gift to a ruler could also have been sent with his returning delegation, but the principle of ἀντιδωρεά seems to have come into being later. 4. A response delegation was sent as an embassy answering to the initiative of the one received. This deputy usually brought the official reply and it must have been these ambassadors who also brought return state gifts. This scheme seems to be the logical consequence of the structure and mechanism of highstatus diplomacy39 and it explains why in the cases (albeit few) when we possess a description of the items which were presented to an embassy after negotiations, the presents they receive are either not mentioned specially or obviously have a lower status significance. This format, though, should only be limited to the cases of the exchange of gifts in the pure sense – of presents, which were exchanged during diplomatic negotiations (number 1 in the scheme above). 36

The Arab phylarch Amorcesus, who visited Constantinople, is said not only to have received donations from the emperor, but from senators as well (Malch. 1.36–40). This case, however, steps out of the outlines of the current scheme because of the special status of the phylarch. 37 See about this embassy: III.1.2; III.2.2; III.4.2. 38 Τὸ δόντα δῶρα λαβόντα. 39 About the ›block‹ system see: II.1.2.1.

170

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

Thus, in the matters of the etiquette of gift exchange within a diplomatic negotiation, one can see a universal system, which was followed by both imperial and Persian as well as by barbarian diplomacy. Gifts which were exchanged within the framework of high-level diplomacy should be distinguished as follows: 1. ›State‹ gifts, of primary level of importance, rank and status: addressed from one ruler to another (given directly if a meeting of rulers occurred, brought by delegations or exchanged if negotiations were held between diplomatic agents). 2. ›State‹/›personal‹ gifts, of primary level: presented to the rulers by diplomats on their own behalf. 3. ›State‹/›personal‹ gifts of primary level: addressed from a ruler to the diplomats. 4. ›State‹/›personal‹ gifts of secondary level addressed to envoys from imperial officials. 5. ›Personal‹ gifts of lower importance: exchanged between the diplomats and addressed personally to envoys. Gift giving also occurred in local embassies, but such presents should be considered as referring to low-level diplomacy.

2. Perception of the gift donations In this section I intend to speak, not about modern conclusions about the significance of ancient gifts, but about the attitude towards gift giving and its importance for the ancients themselves, as may be traced from the texts of our sources. Roman diplomacy seems to have elaborated a certain system of principles concerning the sets and types of gifts which were distributed among the various peoples in different circumstances. It is likely that some rules existed about the issue. Notes by Constantine Porphyrogennetos about sending the barbarians gifts which they consider honourable proves that it was a matter under the attention of imperial diplomacy (DAI 43.18).40 Unfortunately, based on our sources, we are not informed about these rules in full, but we can reconstruct some aspects. Analysis of the sets of gifts sent to different barbarians, revealing the principles for delivering them, could help to disclose the imperial perception of its partners’ importance. Certain gifts destined to the rulers of the barbarians defined and declared their status.41 Receiving imperial gifts was extremely important for barbarian chiefs. In cases of deviation from the norm of gift giving, when the empire distributed among the barbarians the wrong gifts for any reason, i.e. not those which were given traditionally, the situation could even have been fraught with military conflict. Such radical reactions from the barbarians show the significance (first of all symbolic) of Roman gifts for their system of values. Priscus of Panium, a particularly important source, tells how Attila incorporated the peoples of Akatziri into his empire. Emperor Theodosius tried to win influence over them 40

Gifts destined for foreigners are also listed by Constantine in the treatise on »what should be observed when the emperor intends to go on an expedition«, where among the very detailed lists of necessary items mules and various types of clothes are mentioned to be »dispatched to foreigners as gifts« (Constantine Porphyogenitus [Haldon] 101, 109). 41 Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber 1, 218.

2. Perception of the gift donations

171

and sent gifts to the rulers of their tribes and clans. What happened was that »the envoy who conveyed the gifts did not deliver them to each of the kings by rank« (Prisc. 11.2.246– 248), with the result that Kouridachus,42 who had the senior power, received the gifts of the king of lesser authority.43 In this situation, Kouridachus, »being overlooked and deprived of his proper honors, called in Attila against his fellow kings« (Prisc. 11.2.250sq.). All the Akatziri chiefs except Kouridachus himself submitted to Attila and the empire lost the possibility to spread its control in this sphere. Mistakes in the distribution of gifts (perhaps deriving from not knowing the social structure of the barbarians)44 led to the reduction of the senior ruler’s status and in a sense obliged him to act actively to save and restore his status and the significance of his image. According to Ammianus, the reason for the aggression by the Alemani in 365 was that they had received fewer gifts which were of a worse quality than usual (Amm. Marc. 26.5.7). The lower quality of the gifts must have signified a change in Roman policy towards reducing the distribution of gifts among the barbarians.45 In a similar way the Koutigours attacked the territory of the Roman Empire because they were insulted by the fact that their relatives, the Utigurs, enjoyed the Romans’ favour, by receiving gifts from them (Agath. 5.12.6sq.). Most probably in the situations described above a barbarian ruler was forced to take decisive action. Certainly a part of the problem lay in the economic value of the presents, which was lowered, thus causing a conflict. There also seems to have been another, more ritual motivation for the escalation of conflicts. In some cases a démarche response by a barbarian ruler chief seems to have had an ostentatious and often forced nature. There could have been a common feature among these different barbarians in their attitude towards a chief. When offensive or humiliating distribution of gifts occurred, it was essential for a leader to save face and raise his own shattered status – above all among his own people and allies. It seems it could have been even more important for a ruler to keep his authority high among his compatriots and followers than to maintain international prestige. This presumption can be proved by the evidence of Menander, in his description of the East Roman generals’ negotiations with the ruler of the Avars. The talks were held at the lower level, during an armistice. The Avar khagan was given the chance to wait for the arrival of the imperial envoys and he replied: »I am shamed and dishonored before the tribes who follow me in alliance if I should withdraw from this place having achieved nothing at all and having brought myself no profit. In order that I shall not appear to have made the assault to no purpose and benefit, send me some small gifts« (Men. Prot. 12.5.57–60). Perhaps here we are just dealing with blackmail on the part of the khagan: he was eager to agree for the truce, but had no possibility to end negotiations without receiving gifts, even if modest.46 The absence of presents would harm and humiliate his status in the eyes of his allies. This episode seems to be very characteristic and provides a key to understanding the significance of dip42 43

Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica 168. In the translation by R. C. Blockley the phrase instead reads as follows: »Kouridachus, the senior in office, received his gifts second« (FCHLRE 258), understanding δεύτερον as meaning that Kouridachus appeared to be second in turn in the endowment. But it seems more likely that here the word δεύτερος implies that the he was bestowed with presents that were secondary in rank. 44 Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber 1, 219. 45 For a commentary, see Ammianus Marcellinus, Römische Geschichte (Seyfarth) 307, n. 48. 46 For details about this very set of gifts see further in this chapter: IV.3.2.

172

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

lomatic offerings: in most cases it is not only, and even not so much the case of the gifts’ material value, but what seems to be more important is the status and prestige which they brought and it was necessary to maintain.47 The value of a gift could demonstrate not only the attitude towards the recipient, but also characterized the rank and power of the donor himself. Magnificent presents marked a »great tsar« (Joh. Eph. HE 6.23).48 But there was also a reverse side of the coin: when the Roman side acted not as donor, but on the contrary as the recipient of gifts, in the source one can notice a distinct tendency to position these offerings either as a kind of a tribute (and here an important question, at least formally and rhetorically, was the regularity of the gift giving),49 or even in a triumphal context, as a sign of imperial victory50 and demonstration of political might.51 Thus Pacatus defines the King of Persia as a tributary after enumerating the gifts that he sent to Theodosius I (Pacat. Paneg. Theod. 22.5). As already mentioned, the procedure of proskynesis, performed by the ambassadors before giving the gifts, also emphasized this paradigm. Imperial Roman art is another type of source illustrating the significance and perception of the acts of donation. The symbolic motif, depicting barbarian (or oriental) people conquered and subdued by the Romans carrying their offerings, was rather popular in official triumphal art. The north-western side of the base of the obelisk of Theodosius I from the Hippodrome of Constantinople – a place of special importance for the ritual of triumph, where the triumphal parades used to arrive52 – depicted a scene of the barbarians offering tribute53 or donations. Oriental barbarians on the left side, and probably Germanic barbarians on the right, are shown genuflected and holding out their hands with offerings to the sovereigns and dignitaries shown above them.54 The motif of barbarians paying homage to the emperor symbolizes his clementia and underscores the theme of victory.55 One can remember the evidence of Eusebius, describing the scenes of triumph over barbarians carrying offerings, which he attended at the Hippodrome of Constantinople (Eus. V.Const. 4.7.2sq.). A very interesting observation is made by M. Canepa, who underlines that the obelisk represented a kind of encrypted image of triumph: »the west face of the obelisk 47

48

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

»Nicht die Schwäche seines Charakters, sondern der gentile ›Gesellschaftsvertrag‹ ist Triebkaft bei dem Wunsch nach zumindest symbolischen (Ab-)Gaben« (Pohl, Die Awaren 206). See also about the role of a ruler’s prestige and status symbol objects: Pohl, Die Awaren 185. This evidence by John of Ephesus is also notable as it demonstrates that in some cases the one receiving gifts could choose between various items (the Turkish khagan was presented with rich gifts of gold, silver, pearls and magnificent garments. The khagan was surprised and chose the most splendid of them). Similarly, »regular payments to another ruler threaten to make a state seem subject to him«. Pohl, The Empire and the Lombards 83. In a triumphal context the figures of Victory are often represented holding crowns over the emperors. Cumont, L’adoration 81–105, esp. 82–88; Nike – Victoria 68f. Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber 1, 217. Sodini, Images sculptées 67; for the cosmic symbolism of the hippodrome, see Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism 48f.; Kiilerich, The Obelisk Base 153f. Sodini, Images sculptées 71, fig. 20. For an attempt to attribute the barbarians, as well as the other characters, more precisely see: Balty, Hiérarchie, esp. 69–71; Kähler, Der Sockel des Theodosiusobelisken 45–55, pl. III, X. Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism 36; Kiilerich, The Obelisk Base 132–135. See also about the obelisk in general: Safran, Points of View.

2. Perception of the gift donations

173

would never have been visible to a visiting Sasanian envoy, who would have joined the emperor in the kathisma«.56 On the south-western side of the Arch of Galerius in Thessaloniki, erected to commemorate his victory in Persia, a relief shows a cortège of Persians, most likely ambassadors, with gifts.57 Scenes depicting submitted peoples bringing gifts58 are not rare in imperial art.59 It is significant that the composition,60 gestures, positions of the figures and the whole iconography of the abovementioned scenes, with the barbarians offering gifts and making their submissions to the emperors, correspond strikingly with that of the adoration of the Magi (usually depicted in Persian costumes)61 so often represented in Late Antique Christian art.62 It is out of the frame of the current book to enter deeply into this problem, but one can note that different representations of Christ with the insignia of an emperor and in general following the imperial iconography,63 convince that an analogy was intentional and

56 57

58

59

60

61 62

63

Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship 114. Reinach, Répertoire 389, pl. 1; Cumont, L’adoration 88; Schoenebeck, Die zyklische Ordnung; »The elephants driven by mahouts, the wildcats (lionesses), and the vases and richly embroidered stuffs that the Persians carry in procession are part of the wealth which Galerius’s triumph brought to the empire«: Rothman, The Thematic Organization, esp. 442. Animals, as well as all the numbered offerings, are present among the different diplomatic gifts (also from the Persians) described by the written sources (see further IV.3 and IV.4). The theme is connected with the scenes of aurum coronarium (also, insists F. Cumont, going back to »l’impôt coronaire« of the Seleucid empire: Cumont, L’adoration 92), also represented often in propaganda art. However, besides the crowns, the barbarians are often shown offering items or animals which, also according to the written sources, they used to donate to the empire. E.g.: the base of the Column of Constantine from his forum in Constantinople; the foundation of the Column of Arcadius (Sodini, Images sculptées 44–47, fig. 3; 60, fig. 14; 62f., fig. 15); famous Barberini ivory (Sodini, Images sculptées 84–86; Cutler, Barberiniana, esp. 338f. with references to the literature; Cutler, s.v. Diptych, ODB, 638; Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen pl. 48, 188; Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten no. 48, p. 36, pl. 12.; Cumont, L’adoration 89; Durand, L’art byzantin 64f.); ivory of the Castello Sforzesco in Milan (Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen pl. 49, 196; Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten no. 49, p. 27, pl. 12; Cumont, L’adoration 89). Which originates, according to F. Cumont, from ancient oriental art, and scenes representing ambassadors offering donations were also present in Hellenic art: Cumont, L’adoration 89–98, pl. 63, 101f. The comparison of the lower scene in the Barberini diptych with the ivory from the cover of the Echmiadzin Gospel (pl. 9-1) leaves no doubts as to this statement, Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism 128–130 and n. 420 with references to the literature on the problem; on the transmutation of Victory into an Angel see also: Nike – Victoria 62–69. A. W. Carr, A. Kazhdan, Adoration of the Magi, in: ODB 1, 1991, 23. Cumont, L’adoration 99f.; A. W. Carr, A. Kazhdan, Adoration of the Magi, in: ODB 1, 1991, 22f.; MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 66 and n. 263 and 264 with references; see for the concept of the emperor ›imitating‹ Christ and the representations of the scenes of adoration/proskynesis in Late Antique art: Petrusi, Insegne del potere 527f. E.-C. Babut characterizes the procedure of adoration as such: »L’adoration … n’était destinée qu’à inculquer aux sujets de l’Empire d’idée que les empereurs étaient des dieux, des dieux présents et visibles« in Babut, L’adoration des empereurs 232f.; see also Cerfaux/Tondriau, Un concurrent 409. Even though such an attitude and the practice of adoration of imperial images met with some objections on the part of Christian thinkers at the beginning, from the times of Constantine onward, the church seems to have accepted the practice. See e.g. Babut, L’adoration des empereurs 228, n. 2, esp. 234f.; Gregor von Nazianz (Kurmann) 271; in general on the problem: Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East chapter 14 »The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions«, 298– 312. »The image of the god and the image of the emperor were both functional, serving as symbols

174

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

important.64 The analogy between the adoration of Christ and the adoration of the emperor (proskynesis), which was to be performed by the foreign envoys before offering diplomatic gifts (e.g. de cer. 1.89 [406]),65 seems to be evident.66 So, in the iconographic representation the ideology was clearly eloquent: the barbarians, offering gifts, were associated with images of subdued tributaries.67

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners There was a detailed code stating which materials and fabrication quality could be used for gifts destined to foreigners in the Byzantine Empire at the times of Constantine VII.68 Perhaps the same may be said about Late Antiquity, though the sources do not provide us with full details on the subject. The theme of gifts in Late Antique diplomacy is closely connected with the problem of the distribution of insignia, special signs of power, which Roman emperors traditionally used to give to barbarian rulers and kings to sanction their authority.69 As has already been noted by B. Paradisi, the classical origin of the gifts which the Empire used to send to different peoples was in the insignia of the Roman magistrates, so they remained a symbol of the recognition of Roman supreme power and superiority.70 Insignia, however, should not be simply identified with gifts, as our sources allow us to judge. Giving insignia was much more formalized as a political act and the items included in the sets distributed among various peoples were collected according to strict rules and protocol, with all of their elements carrying a special status and significance.71 There was evident ambiguity in the specifics of the insignia distributed among the rulers of the barbarians. On the one hand they were symbols of power, which reflected or even, with some variations, copied the different kinds of insignia of the emperor himself72 and 63 64 65 66 67

68 69 70 71 72

of the majesty of Heaven and of the Empire«: Bonfante, Emperor, God and Man 408f.; see also Karayannopulos, Der frühbyzantinische Kaiser, in: BZ 49, 1956, 369–384, esp. 372, n. 10. See the examples demontrating that »si intende attribuire all’imperatore un rango in terra simile a quello di Cristo in cielo«: Petrusi, Insegne del potere 525. See: I.2.1. See also: Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship 177f. It is interesting to note that the procedure of ›foreigners‹ receiving gifts from the emperor is incomparably rarer in Roman art. Scenes of the largess have, it seems, a different significance, and are perceived as actions of generosity towards his own people. Thus, in spite of the presence in our written sources of some rhetoric about the grandeur of emperors giving great gifts, propaganda art evidently preferred the image of the majestic ruler honoured by donations. See: A. Kazhdan, A. Cutler, I. Kalavrezou, Largess, in: ODB 2, 1991, 1178f. Daim, Byzantine Belts and Avar Birds 156; Constantine Porphyogenitus (Haldon) 101, 109sq. See for the origins and the evolution of the investiture and its iconography: Marotta, Liturgia del potere 172f. Paradisi, Storia 318. Diehl, Justinien 372. Originally, as noted by J. W. Salomonson, »the Romans in contemplating the authority of the foreign kings of the Mediterranean mentally referred to their own idea of royalty, sending them the complete parallel of their own former reges … Originally a token of alliance and friendship these gifts in the course of time tended to become signs of official recognition« (Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 106, n. 55). P. C. Sands concretized that »the full king (rex) received the insig-

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

175

thus in a certain sense made the recipient of such items a comparable figure to the supreme sovereign.73 But, on the other hand, such acts of inauguration74 declared the local rulers’ dependence,75 putting them in the position of client (or vassal)76 of the Empire and giving them the status of subordinate, or even δοῦλος77 of the emperor.78 The same ambiguity, it seems, is applicable more generally to the problem of diplomatic gifts. It is not intended here to provide a study of Late Antique insignia for barbarians, but in some cases references to insignia objects will be provided for a better understanding of the semantics of diplomatic gifts. The aim of the following section is to analyse the evidence about the sets of gifts distributed by the Roman Empire among its different allies, partners and subordinates.79 The material is structured according to an ethno-geographical principle. The list does not claim to be universal or to include all the evidence, but only the most detailed and important pieces. 3.1 Gifts to the Persians Unfortunately, and even paradoxically, our sources provide very little information about the character of the gifts which were traditionally offered to the Persians during the numerous and different kinds of diplomatic contacts. This lack of details could be explained by the aforementioned phenomenon on the part of this tradition of generally low interest in the issue of gifts in the diplomatic process on the one hand, and, on the other, the subject would have attracted almost no interest on the part of historiography until it had become of a routine, traditional and evident nature. Being an essential part of Roman foreign affairs, relations with Persia seem to have been constructed according to a strict and grounded protocol, so authors’ attention would have been more attracted by unusual cases, when a certain deviation from the standard norms could have occurred.

72

73

74

75 76 77 78

79

nia of triumphing Roman magistrates, the embroidered toga and tunic …, the sella curulis and ivory staff, a gold crown, a gold dish, and sometimes military gifts, horses in trappings, arms and military cloak … The reguli received only toga praetexta« (Sands, The Client Princes 75f., n. 5). See for the theme of the double imitation of God by the emperor and of the emperor by his subordinates and the reflection of this theme in the iconography of the scenes of investment and adoration: Petrusi, Insegne del potere 495f. (with references to Peter the Patrician) and 526f. It is not possible to treat the problems of the different types of imperial investiture in detail here, see e.g. Petrusi, Insegne del potere 483f.; Nelson, Symbols in Context; Nelson, Politics and Ritual. Grabar, Imperator 27. Diehl, Justinien 368f. Treitinger, Kaiser- und Reichsidee 205. A. Kaldellis describes the paradigm of the master-slave relationship as typical in relations with subjects, especially during the time of Justinian, and notes that oriental despotism and Christianity contributed to its formation: Kaldellis, Procopius 137. See about the play on words between the terms ›friends‹, ›allies‹, ›subjects‹ and ›slaves‹ used by the Byzantine empire in relations with Armenia: Iuzbashian, L’Arménie et les Arméniens 199f. See also about douleia in the political sense: Rotman, Les esclaves 48, 124, 130, 134 and esp. 136; Pazdernik, Dangerous Liberty. The theme of the gifts exchanged between the barbarians themselves is mainly left aside, as it oversteps the limits of the present work.

176

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

We only know one case of ›standard‹ high-level gifts sent from the emperor to the shah: according to Pseudo-Joshua Stylite, tableware made of gold was brought by the envoy Leo80 as a gift from Anastasius to Cavades I in 504–505 (Josh. Styl. 81).81 Another episode with details of gifts from the emperor to the shah can be found in the account by Theophylact Simocatta, but the situation in which this action occurred was extraordinary. A revolt against the power of Chosroes II flared up in Persia in 590, the shah was driven from the throne by Bahram Chobin and fled to the Romans, seeking help, which he received from Emperor Maurice, and thus he managed to regain his power.82 Theophylact reports that when Chosroes was in Dara he received the following gifts from Maurice: a belt decorated with precious stones; a king’s tiara; couches of gold; tables of gold; emperor’s bodyguards (Theoph. Sim. 5.3.7). This set of gifts, in this situation, does not seem to be standard: the shah was a refugee, and according to some sources had even been adopted by the emperor (Theoph. Sim. 5.3.11; Theoph. AM 6081).83 As it seems, such an assortment of donations, or at least some of the items in it, had something to do with a symbolism of royal power and could have had the characteristic of insignia. The first item of the set is a »belt, decorated with precious stones«. Both in the East Roman and Persian traditions, a belt was the symbol of a link between the ›master‹ (ruler) and his subject, a ›belt of servitude‹, according to Persian sources, was an evident sign of submission.84 »A king, giving investiture to his vassal, used to send him a belt.«85 In the Roman Empire belts served not only as military and administrative,86 but also as political insignia, and were given to dependent foreign rulers.87 So, a belt, decorated with precious stones (a privilege reserved for the emperor: CJ 11.11.1; Them. Or. 11.1; Coripp. Iust. 2.89; 2.114sq.), was not a neutral object for a diplomatic donation, especially given the circumstances. Probably a gift of this kind was a symbolical expression of Chosroes II Parvez’s dependency on the Roman emperor at that moment. The insignial importance of the »royal tiara«,88 which was also sent to Chosroes II by Maurice, is evident. Traditionally client rulers received crowns from Roman and Byzantine diplomacy.89 For the Persian tradition, giving a tiara was also an important part of the investiture of a ruler. On the reliefs representing official Sasanian art one can see the Persian 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

87 88 89

PLRE-II, 665, s.v. Leo 9. Tableware (though usually silver) was used considerably often as a diplomatic gift in relations with other peoples. PLRE-IIIA, 307, s.v. Chosroes II Parwez. About this adoption and this aspect of Roman-Persian relations in general, see: Pieler, Adoption, esp. 431–433. Widengren, Le symbolisme 140f. with numerous illustrations. Widengren, Le symbolisme 145. Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.13.5–23: a detailed description of the belt which was a part of the insignia of the prefecture of the Praetoria. See Caimi, Burocrazia e diritto 290f.; Alföldi, Repräsentation 182f. In the later Byzantine tradition the emperor used to award the highest-ranking official (magistros) with a white chiton and belt, richly ornamented and decorated with jewels (Daim, Byzantine Belts and Avar Birds 153). In general for belts and their insignial function see: G. Vikan, Belt, in: ODB 1, 1991, 280; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 2, 1991, 371. For details see: V.1.6. Τιάραν βασιλικὴν. Theophylact gives a description of the Persian king’s »gem-studded tiara gleaming brightly with its inset of rubies around which ran an abundance of pearls« (Theop. Sim. 4.3.7). M. McCormick, Crown, in: ODB 1, 1991, 554; Paradisi, Storia 318. For details see also: V.1.1.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

177

king of kings receiving his power and its insignia from the supreme divinity of Zaroastrianism, Ahura Mazda.90 In the same way that in Roman tradition the emperor, having his power from the god,91 could then emanate a part of his power over the subdued rulers, the Persian king of kings could transfer a right to power to his subjected rulers. The later Persian tradition, which follows the Sasanian one, describes the king Kai Kāūs giving a satrapy to the famous Rustam, with a throne of gilded silver and a gold tiara.92 It is hard to tell precisely what type of tiara it was and in what sense it was called a king’s tiara.93 Very possibly, especially in combination with the special kind of belt, this tiara was to underline the patronizing character of the Roman help to Chosroes. Maurice helped the shah to re-conquer power, and sending a set of insignia of supreme authority perhaps was to symbolize the Roman emperor’s protective role.94 »Couches and tables of gold«.95 It is hard to judge the significance of this gold furniture. We know about the tradition of sending gold couches as diplomatic gifts to the Avars.96 Corippus mentioned golden couches among the banquet decorations of the imperial palace (Coripp. Iust. 3.215). Unfortunately the data from the sources does not allow us to judge if such items were just used in gift-giving diplomacy as objects of great luxury or if they could have had some extra semantics. As for the bodyguards97 that the emperor sent to the shah, it is difficult to say if they were only to serve him during the period of revolt in his country to provide more security, or forever as a true gift. There are scarcely any analogies for such a kind of ›present‹. We also have another case of high-level gifts that is not standard: the set of gifts which Emperor Tiberius sent to the pretender to the Persian throne who proclaimed to be a son of Chosroes I. Before the fraud was discovered, the impostor is said to have received: much gold and silver, many wonderful garments, horses and many mules (Joh. Eph. HE 6.29). Unfortunately details are not provided. Perhaps the emperor did not just send gold and silver, but items made of these materials. Gifts of garments, horses and mules are also men90

91 92 93 94

95 96 97

Loukonin, Monnaie d’Ardachir 1, 114; Azarpay, Crowns; Rubin, Eastern Neighbours 137f. It is worth noting that in the scene of the investiture of Shapur II, the Persian ruler is represented standing over the body of the fallen enemy, which was understood as a triumph over Rome (Azarpay, The Role of Mithra; Trümpelmann, Triumph). Karayannopulos, Der frühbyzantinische Kaiser 372f.; Ensslin, Das Gottesgnadentum; Charanis, Coronation 51. Widengren, Le symbolisme 141. See in general for the history: Ritter, Diadem 6f. The insignial character of the ›gifts‹ from Maurice to Chosroes II is also proven by the evidence of the Armenian historian Sebeos, who relays the speech Chosroes allegedly pronounced before his troops: »In truth has there ever been any one of the world’s kings who, being able to seize another king – his own enemy, the destroyer of his kingdom – did not have him killed, and did not exterminate all the males [with him] from his land? [What king, instead of doing these things] would adopt [such a royal fugitive], crown him, and exalt him by adorning him with purple, defeat his enemies, establish him on the throne of his kingdom, give him courtly treasure out of his own treasures, and benevolently free him to go his way? My father, emperor Maurice, bestowed such benefits on me which no man could bestow upon his own beloved son« (Sebeos 3.32; cited in the translation of R. Bedrosian: Sebeos’ History [Bedrosian]). The text emphasizes the act of investiture itself. Κλίνας τε καὶ τραπέζας χρυσᾶς. See further IV.3.2. Ἐκ τῶν παρ’ αὐτῷ δορυφόρων μεγαλοπρεπῶς μετεδίδου.

178

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

tioned in the later Arabian sources among the presents from the Empire to the Persians;98 mules and various types of clothes are also listed by Constantine Porphyrogennetos among the items which were to be prepared when the emperor went on campaign, to be dispatched to the foreigners as gifts.99 Embassies of less importance, local negotiations during times of armistice, usually also included gift-giving ceremonies. In the Persian Wars by Procopius one may find two mentions of such gifts at low-ranking conferences. Gifts were carried by messengers from the cities of the East which wanted to avoid a Persian siege. In the year 503, during negotiations for ransoming the city of Constantina, its priest Baradates went to negotiate with Cavades I, carrying wine, figs, honey and white bread (Proc. BP 2.13.8–14).100 In a similar situation in 540, during another war with Persia, a priest of Sura, a city on the Euphrates, came to Chosroes I, begging mercy for the city. The gifts which he brought with him consisted of: poultry, wine and white bread (Proc. BP 2.5.13).101 In both cases we see a similar set of gifts, consisting of foodstuff and beverages, which were to demonstrate the inhabitants’ loyalty and their eagerness to provide a ransom for their cities. It seems obvious that in such situations all these items were carried in some gala tableware, such as dishes and vessels. Some extra material about gift exchange between the Romans and the Persians can be provided by later Arabian sources,102 which, as has been already noticed, expressed more interest in the problem of gifts and presents, including diplomatic ones. In the so-called autobiography of Chosroes Anushirvan one can find a mention of exquisite, but unspecified items presented to him by the Roman emperor, presumably Justin II.103 The veracity and authenticity of these sources deserves a special study, but the detailed accounts about the gift exchange between Emperor Maurice and Shah Chosroes II Parvez seem worth some attention. In a passage from the Book of Beauties and Antitheses104 (Kitab al Mahasin wal Azdad) by Pseudo-Jahiz, Maurice is said to have sent the Persian ruler: one thousand garments, twenty robes of brocade embroidered with figures of birds, one thousand thoroughbred horses with gilded saddles and bridles of solid gold, caparisons of brocade embroidered with gold and pearls, mules loaded with fine cloths and silk brocade.105 A substantial part of this gift consisted of vestments and fine silk fabric with embroidery and precious decorations. The value of this present was undoubtedly extremely high, if we are to take into account the actual cost of silk itself. In the opinion of some scholars, in the studied epoch silk was the most customary form of diplomatic gift in the sovereigns’ relations with each other and with their subordinates.106 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

See further. Constantine Porphyogenitus (Haldon) 101, 109. Οὗτος ὁ Βαράδοτος τηνικαῦτα παρὰ τὸν Καβάδην ἐλθὼν οἶνόν τε ἤνεγκε καὶ ἰσχάδας καὶ μέλι καὶ καθαροὺς ἄρτους. Ὄρνις τε φέροντας καὶ οἶνον καὶ καθαροὺς ἄρτους, παρὰ Χοσρόην ἀφίκετο. For the influence of the Sasanian tradition on Arabic literature see: Inostranzev/Nariman, Iranian Influence. In translation: Rubin, The reforms 281. Cited from Cutler, Silver 13 and n. 21. Or as translated by M. Inostranzev, On Good Qualities and their Opposites: Inostranzev/ Nariman, Iranian Influence 83. Pseudo-Jahiz p. 369; Abu Othman Amr ibn Bahr al-Djahiz de Basra, Le livre des beautées 369. Cited from A. Shapur Shahbazi, Byzantine-Iranian Relations, in: EI. Ierusalimskaia, Kavkaz 3.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

179

Garments, especially silken ones, were often used as rich and high-status presents and were also usual in cases of investiture as different kinds of insignia.107 It is worth noting that in classical Greek-Roman tradition we find many mentions of the use of silk clothes as gifts in relations with different barbarian peoples and vassal states, but no other record of such presents from the Roman Empire to the Persians. A kind of exception is the evidence of the Syrian historian, John of Ephesus, who described gifts sent to the pretender to the Persian throne and named some wonderful, perhaps silken, garments among them (Joh. Eph. HE 6.29).108 Our knowledge here may not be due to the real state of things, but to the character of our sources and a common lack of interest in this question. As for horses and mules, which according to Pseudo-Jahiz were also sent by the emperor to Iran, this evidence may be compared with the same by John of Ephesus. In the classical tradition we find more evidence of such gifts, which were given to the Romans by different barbarians, except for the case when Masinissa received horses, decorated with gold trappings (Liv. 30.17). On the contrary, different harness items are named more often among gifts sent from the Romans to their allies. The same text by Pseudo-Jahiz contains a very beautiful description of the present which Maurice is said to have sent to Chosroes II at Nowruz. It seems worth citing at length: »a gold horseman riding on a silver charger whose eyes were of white onyx containing black pupils … The rider held in his hand a golden polo bat and alongside of him was installed a silver polo field in the middle of which was placed a ball of red cornelian. The field was borne by a pair of silver bulls. The horse discharged water and when the water was flowing, the polo bat hit the ball, driving it back to the edge of the field. At the same time, the bulls were set in motion, and the field moved and the horseman appeared to be swiftly galloping.«109 It must have been a marvellous piece of art and a mechanical wonder.110 A very late Persian source, Mîr Khvând, describes a »golden table encrusted with ornaments … having in its centre a bowl of onyx, filled with sapphires and rubies«, which was 107 108 109 110

About insignia see later. See also Cutler, The Emperor’s Old Clothes 200. See above. Cited from A. Shapur Shahbazi, Byzantine-Iranian Relations, in: EI. In another Arabian source, The Book of Gifts, one may find an interesting description of the treasures of Khosraw, which were captured by the Arabs who conquered Ctesiphon. Among them were figures of animals and riders, made of precious metals and adorned with precious stones (Qaddūmī [ed., transl.], Book of Gifts 189). It is also curious to note that among the other treasures of the Turkish khagan, Menander describes silver statues of animals, which were »in no way inferior to those which we make« (Men. Prot. 10.3.62sq.). Classical and Byzantine civilization was fond of mechanical marvels, Hero of Alexandria described different kinds of them, including an account about mechanical birds, which were made to whistle and sing (Heron Pneum. 14; 43sq.; 68). Cassiodorus mentioned statues that could moo, trumpet and hiss, and birds that could twitter (Cass. Var. 1.45.6sq.). Here one can also remember an account of Liutprand of Cremona about his embassy to Byzantium, where he saw a tree with gilded branches and mechanical singing birds before the emperor’s throne in the Magnaura palace (Liutpr. Ant. 6.5). Another interesting analogy is the famous passage from the Variae by Cassiodorus, where the king of the Burgundians, Gundobad, is mentioned as having asked Boethius to design him a water clock and sundial (Cass. Var. 1.45sq.). As D. Shanzer has noted, both of these items were »products of ars mechanica« and Theodericus was trying to use them in the same way as the Byzantines did with their famous mechanical wonders, »to impress and to humble the outsider«: Shanzer, Two Clocks 239f. (in the same article one may find a more detailed reasoning about items of ars mechanica and automata and their role in diplomacy).

180

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

offered by the Qaisar (Maurice?) to Chosroes II, when the latter is said to have been in Constantinople.111 Certainly one can doubt the reality of the existence of the gifts described by later Arabian and Persian historians, but perhaps his text has brought down to us a unique image of precious rarity, which could have been a gift of a superior royal level. 3.2 Gifts to the Avars It is most likely by chance that we possess a comparatively great deal of data about the diplomatic gifts which were given by the Empire to the Avars. This people seems to have attracted some particular interest by their contemporaries, which is reflected in the sources.112 Fortunately in the preserved fragments of the text by Menander the Guardsman and in the History by Theophylact Simocatta, one may find several rather detailed accounts listing diplomatic presents. Based on ten descriptions of concrete gifts given to the Avars (rather a lot of examples, if compared with our knowledge about other peoples), we can distinguish several categories of items which seem to have been present in the traditional sets of gift to this people. According to Menander the Guardsman, Emperor Justinian used to send the Avars the following items: cords worked with gold; couches; silken garments; many other objects which would mollify the arrogant spirits (Men. Prot. 5.2.3–5). John of Ephesus also describes presents which Justinian gave to the Avars: rich presents of gold and silver; garments; girdles and saddles, ornamented with gold (Joh. Eph. HE 6.24). In the latter case it is more difficult to judge whether this was a standard set, as John says that the gift was destined both to the envoys and to the rulers (so ›state‹ and ›personal‹ levels), but comparison with other descriptions gives the impression that rather high-level presents are depicted here. Another piece of evidence, again by Menander, reports on Justin II’s refusal to continue giving the Avars their usual presents and a set of these usual items is listed again: cords worked with gold which were made to confine what was escaping; likewise couches; other luxury goods (Men. Prot. 8.1–6). Other indications of primary-level gifts to the Avars name: gold, silver and silken clothes (Men. Prot. 25.2.65sq.);113 much gold and different vestments (Joh. Eph. HE 6.31sq.);114 a gold couch (Theoph. Sim. 1.3.11sq.) and the »most beautiful of the emperor’s elephants« (Theoph. Sim. 7.13.5sq.).115 All the cases described above referred to so-called high-level diplomacy, and the gifts should be classified as ›state‹ or ›primary‹, i.e. exchanged between the supreme rulers or their representatives. 111 112 113 114

115

Rauzat-us-Safa, translated by E. Rehatsek, London, 1892, I.2, 344. I quote from: Cutler, Silver 13 and n. 22 with other references and analogies. Szádeczky-Kardoss, The Avars. See for the gifts and tributes for the Avars and comparison with the data from archaeological evidence: Pohl, Die Awaren 179f., 205f. Items defined by Menander as those sent annually from the emperor to the khagan. Mentioned by John of Ephesus among the rich gifts which Emperor Tiberius sent with the spatharius Narses (PLRE-IIIB, 930f., s.v. Narses 4), though in the hope that distribution of the gifts would be postponed, or even cancelled (however, the ship which was carrying them sank in the sea). Sent by Emperor Maurice to the khagan of the Avars.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

181

We also possess some evidence in which gifts of lower importance are described. Menander the Guardsman named a silver dish, small amount of gold and Scythian116 cloak among the ›modest gifts‹, which were demanded from the Roman general by the Avar khagan (Men. Prot. 12.5.66–68). The Avar khagan asked for spices as gifts during truce negotiations (Theoph. Sim. 7.13.5sq.). Among the sets of gifts listed above one can distinguish certain objects which seem to have formed the traditional set of donations to this people. 1. Cords. Several times certain ›cords‹ are mentioned by sources in connection with the Empire’s gift-giving relations with the Avars. In my opinion these special types of presents, probably neck decorations of some insignial significance, should be regarded through the prism of ambiguity of the status of allies who sometimes were perceived and positioned by the Empire as subjects or even slaves.117 2. Couches. It attracts attention that couches (κλῖναι)118 are named by the authors among the most frequent gifts to the Avars. The statistics are rather significant: if we take data from sources concerning gifts from the Roman Empire to various peoples, we see that couches (mostly golden ones) are mentioned three times as presents to the Avars and only once more among the gifts to the Persian shah. In most cases the couches were made of gold or at least decorated with it. Such couches seem to have had a special significance in the barbarian, especially nomadic, world. While receiving envoys from Constantinople, the ruler of the Turks, Sizabul, sat on a »couch made completely of gold« (Men. Prot. 10.3.53) and on another day, in another dwelling they saw »a couch of beaten gold which was supported by four golden peacocks« (Men. Prot. 10.3.58sq.). Theophylact Simocatta refers to the source of the Turks’ wealth – receiving a large tribute from the Persians, they indulged in wealth and started to produce gilded couches together with other luxury items, which were later captured by the Persians (Theoph. Sim. 3.11sq.).119 In these cases gold couches appear first of all as objects of extreme luxury and prosperity.120 As an analogy, one can remember the aforementioned gold couch and table sent by Maurice to Chosroes, who sought Roman help during the rebellion against him (Theoph. Sim. 5.3.7). As that set of gifts had insignial significance, thus a gold couch also received some additional importance. Corippus mentioned golden couches among the banquet decorations of the imperial palace (Coripp. Iust. 3.215). It is hard to say whether the special significance which luxurious gold couches had in barbarian nomadic culture derives from some Persian or Roman121 models or was an echo of some local tradition, but it is evident 116 117 118

Or perhaps silken: see below. For details of this presumed significance see: Nechaeva, Avars. This term was of wide use in classical tradition and meant both beds and feast couches: G. Rodenwaldt, Kline, in: RE 21, 1921, 847. 119 About Menander as a source for Theophylact see: Olajos, Les sources 51f. 120 A golden couch supported by four golden phoenixes is also mentioned by the Chinese author Sung-yün, who described the residence of the Hephthalites in 519: Pohl, Barbarian Places of Power 448 with reference in n. 46. 121 In the Graeco-Roman world, it was a longstanding tradition to adorn couches richly with gold and silver (Hdt. 1.50; 9.82).

182

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

3.

4.

5.

6.

122 123

124 125 126 127 128 129

that these items were highly appreciated by barbarians of nomadic culture and imperial diplomacy knew this and acted accordingly. Garments. This type of gift seems to have been used rather often in relations with the Avars. Of the six cases when garments are mentioned among the presents of primary level, twice these are silken vestments, once so-called coloured or embroidered122 garments with which the Romans paid tribute to the Avars (Theoph. Sim. 1.3.7), while in the other cases the material of the vestments is not specified, but silk could also have been implied.123 There is also one piece of evidence when a kind of vestment, namely a cloak, was requested by the khagan of the Avars, who tried to persuade the Roman generals to give him some small gifts which he needed to save his prestige (Men. Prot. 12.5.66–68). In the manuscript this tunic is called »Scythian« (Men. Prot. 12.5.68),124 but I. Bekker has proposed a conjecture of σηρικοῦ instead,125 which, as R. C. Blockley has noted, »is attractive because it appears from what Bonus says below that Baianus is requesting valuable objects, even if a few of them«.126 Most of the material we have about silk and silken clothes in gift-giving diplomacy concerns the distribution of insignia – signs of power, which the Empire used to give to different dependent peoples. As was noticed by A. Muthesius, »Byzantium ranked silk alongside gold and silver in her hierarchy of diplomatic gifts.«127 In general, garments, especially silken ones, seem to have been among the most popular items of diplomatic donation. We find them mentioned in the sets of gifts to the Persians (Joh. Eph. HE 6.29), to the Turks (Joh. Eph. HE 6.23), to the Arabs (Joh. Eph. HE 4.39–42), to the Huns (among the low-level gifts to Hun envoys; Prisc. 11.2.34sq.) and to the Goths (among the items which Alaricus demanded as the ransom to cease a siege). Unfortunately our sources give no detailed description of the garments sent to the Avars, which leaves us too uncertain as to the value and rank of these presents. Gold and silver. There are two mentions in our sources of the gold and silver sent regularly to the Avars – by John of Ephesus (Joh. Eph. HE 6.24) and Menander the Guardsman (Men. Prot. 25.2.65sq.) – but unfortunately there are no indications on the concrete form in which these precious metals were given. Saddles, ornamented with gold. As has been already noted, Roman diplomacy used to give harness items, made of precious materials, as presents, according to the written sources, especially in relations with the East.128 Silver dish. It is mentioned by Menander the Guardsman as a part of the ›small gifts‹,129 which Avar Khagan Baianus demanded from the Romans as a formal prestige-keeping gift, named in the set together with a small amount of gold and a

Ποικίλης ἐσθῆτος. As an analogy, though distant in time, one can remember the gifts for foreign ambassadors mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogennetos: these were skaramangia of different colours (Constantine Porphyogenitus [Haldon] 225sq.). See about this: Odorico, Habiller le Prince 1021. Ἀμπεχονίου Σκυθίου. Dexippi, Eunapii, Petri Patricii, Prisci, Malchi, Menandri (Bekker/Niebuhr) 309 n. 2. The History of Menander the Guardsman (Blockley) 267 n. 158. Muthesius, Silken Diplomacy 237. About the archaeological evidence, see: Zasetskaia/Kazanskii/Akhmetov/Minasjan, Morskoi Chulek 96. Βραχέα δῶρα.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

183

Scythian/silken cloak. As an analogy, one can remember three silver bowls that were presented by the Roman embassy to the widow of Attila’s brother Bleda (Prisc. 11.2.308–311). Perhaps silver tableware could be referred to as a medium-level gift, but there is too little evidence to make any conclusions. 7. Elephant. It was sent by Emperor Maurice to the khagan of the Avars, who had demanded it, and was defined by Theophylact Simocatta as »the most beautiful of the emperor’s elephants«.130 However, it was not accepted by the khagan and was sent back (Theoph. Sim. 1.3.8–10). It is worth noting that this is the only known case when the Roman Empire acts as a donor of this exotic animal: in all the other cases when elephants are mentioned as diplomatic gifts, the Empire receives them as presents. From other sources we know that after the military successes of the Romans over the Persians in the second half of the 6th century, in Constantinople there were plenty of elephants, which were captured on Persian territory. John of Ephesus reports that the capital was full of elephants (Joh. Eph. HE 10) and Gregory of Tours mentioned that twenty elephants were brought to Emperor Tiberius (Greg. Tur. HF 5.30), while John of Biclar referred to twenty-four elephants »which produced a great spectacle for the Romans in the royal city« (Joh. Bicl. s.a. 575.1).131 One could suppose that the elephant, which had to travel to the Avars and then back, was of one of these trophies. 9. Spices. Theophylact Simocatta listed four kinds of spices, which were demanded by the Avar khagan from the Roman general Priscus: pepper, Indian leaves, cinnamon and costos (Theoph. Sim. 7.13.5sq.). Another piece of evidence of spices being used as diplomatic gifts may be found in the relations with the Huns, when the Roman envoys gave some Indian pepper with other presents to the widow of Bleda (Prisc. 11.2.308–311). In both cases the gifts were of non-primary level: for the khagan these were the presents received during low-level negotiations, concerning a truce, and in the case of Bleda’s wife the present should be perceived more as a ›souvenir‹, than a gift of state importance. Another piece of evidence of spices being sent to the barbarians is the famous ransom given to Alaricus, who received rather a huge amount of them (Zos. 5.41).132 So, our sources, which are considerably eloquent in the question of diplomatic gifts from the Empire to the Avars, allow us to presume that some categories of gifts were mostly used in relations with this particular people. To this group belong gold couches and especially cords, which, as it seems, had some special semantics in the diplomatic context. Most of the objects, however, appear to be of more a general and widespread character and find analogies in gift-giving relations of the Roman Empire with other peoples.133 130 131 132 133

Πέμψας ὡς αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν παρ’ αὐτῷ τρεφομένων θηρίων τὸ ἐξοχώτατον. Cited in translation: John of Biclar (Ferry). In general for spices in the Roman world see: Miller, The Spice Trade. We possess rather poor data about imperial gifts to the Turks. The only concrete evidence which specifies the set of gifts is by John of Ephesus. The list of presents which the Roman delegation gave to the Turks consists of gold, silver, pearls and magnificent state dresses (Joh. Eph. HE 6.23). This indication is general, however, so it may only be noted that the gifts were undoubtedly of very high value and level and showed not only respect to the Turkish khagan, but also characterized Justin II, who dispatched the gifts, as »a great king«.

184

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

3.3 Gifts to the Huns It is surprising that, in spite of the fact that we have a wonderful source for reconstructing the Roman Empire’s diplomatic relations with the Huns – the fragments of the text by Priscus of Panium – we know only few facts about the presents which the Roman envoys brought with them in their famous diplomatic mission. However, in the conserved fragments of the text by Priscus we find no details about gifts which were sent by Theodosius and then handed to Attila. Only presents of medium and low-level are described at some length. We can deem ›medium‹ level the presents which the Constantinople diplomats gave to a woman who ruled a village where the embassy stopped on its way to the camp of Attila. The woman, called a queen by Priscus, was one of Bleda’s wives and she received the following presents for her hospitality: »three silver bowls, red skins, Indian pepper and dates and other dried fruits which barbarians value because they are not native in their own country« (Prisc. 11.2.308–311). This set of presents, as well as their combination, are of particular interest – the position of this village ruler was certainly not as high as that of a tribe ruler, so the gifts offered to her were not state ones. However, at the same time she was called a queen by Priscus134 and her position in the hierarchy of Hun society certainly was prestigious, which gives us reasons to characterize the gifts presented to her as those of ›medium‹ rank. A silver dish as a ›small gift‹ is mentioned by Menander in the context of Roman-Avar relations (Men. Prot. 12.5.66–68), so perhaps we could refer silver tableware to the category of medium-ranking presents. Red skins are also named among the ransom donations sent to Alaricus from Rome in the year 410 (Zos. 5.41), when the Gothic ruler received three thousand such skins. In the case described by Priscus the number of these skins is not indicated, but, perhaps, it seems it was not excessively big, otherwise Priscus would have mentioned it, as he even noted that the silver bows were three. Pepper was a kind of spice used considerably often in diplomacy. Theophylact Simocatta mentioned it along with some other spices in the list of gifts for the Avar khagan (Theoph. Sim. 7.13.5sq.). Another analogy is again in the set of items which were sent to Alaricus, and again the amount of this spice given to the Goth must have been extremely big – three thousand pounds according to Zosimus (Zos. 5.41). Dates and other dried fruits may also resemble a case of local, nonprimary level negotiations: between the citizens of the cities on the Eastern frontier of the Empire and the Persians, concerning the ransom for saving these cities. Negotiations were held by priests, who carried different food products and beverages, including dried figs, to the Persian shah (Proc. BP 2.13.7; 2.5.12). In these situations the gifts were on the one hand considerably modest, as the conferences were of a local, not state nature, but on the other of a rather high level, as the recipients were the supreme rulers of the Persians. This analogy also seems to lead us to the same conclusion that all the items of the set which was presented by the East Roman diplomats to the ›queen‹ who ruled one of the Hun villages were at once rather honourable and quite modest, so we refer them to the secondary rank in terms of prestige. Another episode of gift giving described by Priscus concerns presents from the imperial to barbarian diplomats. During the journey of an embassy from Constantinople to the 134

Βασιλίδα.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

185

Huns, a quarrel occurred between the Roman and Hun envoys, because the latter refused to acknowledge the divine nature of Attila in comparison with Theodosius. The conflict was settled and the ambassador Maximinus »won over Edeco and Orestes with gifts« of silk garments and Indian stones (Prisc. 11.2.34sq.). It is evident from the story told by Priscus that these presents did not belong to top-ranking state donations, though the items themselves were valuable enough. Silk garments seem to have been rather a universal type of diplomatic gift, used in very different situations. Indian stones are translated into English as »pearls«135 by R. C. Blockley, who followed the view of E. A. Thompson on this question.136 E. A. Thompson quotes T. Hodgkin, who suggested that either diamonds or pearls were meant,137 and E. Gibbon renders it as »Indian pearls«,138 underlining that diamonds could not be intended here, as they were »far too valuable to give away as presents to Attila’s henchmen« and citing Sidonius Appolinaris (albus quem picei lapillus Indi; Sid. Ap. carm. 14.3) as proof.139 It is considered that rather a large variety of precious and semiprecious stones were exported to the Roman Empire from India140 and thus it seems possible that some other valuable minerals could have been meant here. Another reason to suspect some other kind of stones here may lie in the assumption that pearls were not very popular in Hun culture: among the archaeological findings which are attributed to the Hun horizon of the Great Migration epoch, we do not know of any items decorated with pearls. If it was really so, it seems more reasonable to suppose that for gift distribution the Roman envoys would take with them items based on their knowledge of barbarian tastes.141 If we are to speak about analogous gifts, we know that the khagan of the Turks received pearls among other diplomatic gifts (Joh. Eph. HE 6.23), but the level of that donation is surely incomparable with the one described by Priscus. In other known cases, the Roman side was, on the contrary, the recipient of precious stones, once from the Persians (Pacat. Paneg. Theod. 22.5) and from Himyarite envoys (Eus. V.Const. 4.50). Gifts of gold were given to Attila’s right hand man Onegisius, as a present from the emperor, besides some other gifts that were given to him personally by the head of the delegation. Unfortunately our sources do not allow us to judge about gifts of primary-state importance in the Roman-Hun relationship. The sets which qualify for the category of secondary rank, however, seem to coincide with other data on gift giving in Late Antiquity. Several items listed by Priscus find analogies among non-paramount assortments of presents given to other peoples.

135 136 137 138 139 140

FCHLRE 249. FCHLRE 382, n. 25; and reference to the article: Thompson, Notes on Priscus 61–65. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders 62, n. 1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chapter 34, 1068. Thompson, Notes on Priscus 62. See the detailed description of the different kinds of stones which the Romans received from India in Warmington, The Commerce 235–256. The term ›Indian stones‹ is very often used in different sources, e.g. Dio Cass. 59.17.3; 75.5.1. 141 Cf. with the note by Constantine Porphyrogennetos about sending the barbarians gifts which they consider honourable (DAI 43.18).

186

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

3.4 Gifts to the Sabirian Huns There is some interesting evidence from John Malalas about the gifts received by Boa, the queen of the Sabirian Huns, from Emperor Justinian. Malalas reports that the widow of the ruler Blach made an alliance with the Empire, »having been won over by the emperor Justinian with many gifts of imperial raiment and a variety of silver vessels and not a little money« (Joh. Mal. 18.13.38–40).142 Imperial raiments were most probably official vestments and thus the gift had some insignial character, which corresponds perfectly with the fact that the queen had concluded an alliance with the Empire (perhaps having arrived in Constantinople) and thus could be invested by the emperor. About the present set of gifts, it is interesting to note that they were donated to a woman and possibly the garments were feminine. Unfortunately the lack of details does not allow us to judge about the type of the vestments and thus about the status of the Sabirian Huns. Silver vessels were generally a diplomatic gift of medium importance.143 3.5 Gifts to the Arabs The pieces of evidence about diplomatic gifts given by the Roman Empire to the Arabs are comparatively numerous and extremely interesting. Malchus of Philadelphia tells about the relationship of Emperor Leo with the Arab Amorcesus who came to Constantinople from Petra and was appointed a phylarch. Before his departure, Amorcesus is said to have received some gifts from the emperor and senators (Malch. 1.36–40). The text concerning the gift exchange appears to be ambiguous and has caused different opinions among scholars. R. C. Blockley suggested the translation: »Finally, Leo dismissed him, having received from him as a personal gift a very valuable icon of gold set with precious stones, while giving him in return money from the public treasury and ordering all the senators to give him gifts« (Malch. 1.36–40).144 The first problem is to define who was the donor of this image and the nature of the image itself. The subject was analysed by I. Shahid, whom I follow here.145 In the editions of the text by Malchus starting from the one by C. de Boor, the editors146 leave the word λαβών in the text and thus the phrase means that the Arab had presented some image to the emperor. Another version is an emendation proposed by B. G. Niebuhr, which reads λαβόντα instead147 and so the donor becomes Emperor Leo. The second textual question is the choice between ἰδίαν and ἰδία. The latter is found in one of the manuscripts and was accepted by 142 143 144

145 146 147

Ξενίοις πολλοῖς μαργαρίτων καὶ βασιλικῆς φορεσίας καὶ σκευῶν διαφόρων ἐν ἀργύρῳ καὶ χρημάτων οὐκ ὀλίγων. See above: IV.3.2. Καὶ τέλος ἀπέπεμψεν αὐτόν, ἰδίαν μὲν παρ’ αὐτοῦ εἰκόνα τινὰ χρυσῆν καὶ κατάλιθον λαβὼν σφόδρα τε οὖσαν πολυτελῆ, χρήματα δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκείνῳ ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου ἀντιδοὺς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κελεύσας ἕκαστον εἰσενεγκεῖν, ὅσοι ἐτέλουν εἰς τὴν βουλήν. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 5, 79f. De legationibus (de Boor) 1,568sq.; Malco di Filadelfia (Cresci); FCHLRE vol. 2, 406, lines 36– 40. Dexippi, Eunapii, Petri Patricii, Prisci, Malchi, Menandri (Bekker/Niebuhr) 233 n. 17. Historici Graeci minores (Dindorf ), vol. 1, 386, lines 14f.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

187

Bekker, Müller and Dindorf,148 while C. de Boor and his followers have preferred the reading ἰδίαν. There are different variants of translation: »as a personal gift a very valuable ikon of gold set with precious stones«;149 »image of the property of Amorcesus«, presented to Leo;150 »some gold image, set with precious stones«;151 »on his departure Leo gave him a valuable picture«.152 I. Shahid insists on translating it as: »a personal portrait of the phylarch«, underlining that the Arab was the donor.153 The interpretation of the fragment of text by Malchus concerning Amorcesus’s visit to Constantinople raises numerous problems and various elucidations. The most reasonable seems to be the following version:154 an act of donation took place from the emperor to the Arabian leader and the gift item must have been an image of Emperor Leo, with insignial implication – even if it was not accompanying the Arab’s appointment as a patrician, then just as a kind of investiture to the new phylarch, whose position should have been understood within a paradigm of subordination and service to the emperor.155 Taking into consideration the attitude towards portraits of the ruler and the significance of the act of their donation, a situation in which a barbarian leader, namely an Arab phylarch, would adorn the emperor with his (Amorcesus’s own portrait) own image looks impossible, as it would have been, it seems, an act of extreme insolence and hubris. While describing the event of the year 531, John Malalas mentions the »imperial gifts«156 that were sent to the King of the Lakmids, Alamundarus (al-Mundhir III),157 who, though fighting with the Persians against the Romans, offered them a separate peace (Joh. Mal. 18.61). Another mention of gifts given from the Empire to the Arab rulers is conserved by John of Biclar in his Chronicle. He testifies that in the ninth year of the reign of Justin II, the Ghassanid king, Alamundarus, visited Constantinople, presented some gifts and received splendid gifts before his departure (Joh. Bicl. s.a. 575.3).158 Unfortunately there are no more details in this account that would allow us to judge the character of these gifts. There is another source which also describes Alamundarus’s visit to Constantinople and adoration by the emperor. John of Ephesus provides rather a detailed list of the objects donated to the Ghassanid, but a problem lies in the date and number of visits of the king to the Roman capital (Joh. Eph. HE 4.39–42). E. Chrysos 159 unites information from two sources 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

Dexippi, Eunapii, Petri Patricii, Prisci, Malchi, Menandri (Bekker/Niebuhr) 233, line16; FHG (Müller), vol. 4, Paris, 1868, 113; Historici Graeci minores (Dindorf ), vol 1, 386, line 13. FCHLRE vol. 2, 406, lines 38f. Malco di Filadelfia (Cresci) 71, line 44, translation: »alla fine lo licenziò, dopo aver ricevuto una immagine di proprietà di Amorceso«, p. 126. This most neutral version is proposed by S. Destunis in his Russian translation: Vizantiiskie istoriki (Destunis) 229. Bury, LRE 8. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 5, 80. For the details and the argumentation of this version see: Nechaeva, The Sovereign’s Image. For the term phylarch and a discussion about it, see Mayerson, Phylarchos 291–295; see Fisher, Between Empires 79, n. 28 with bibliographic references. Μετὰ δώρων βασιλικῶν. PLRE-II, 40–43, s.v. Alamundarus 2. For the date, the commentary to the event and the history of the discussion see: Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 384–389f.; Chrysos, Basileus 50. Chrysos, Basileus 50f.

188

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

as the description of one visit, but I. Shahid insists on the necessity to separate them, arguing that John of Biclar wrote about events of the year 575 and John of Ephesus about 580.160 It is not my intention to enter the discussion on the status of Alamundarus and his reasons for coming to the emperor in the context of appelatio regis.161 Instead it is more apt here to concentrate on the list of gifts which the king received according to John of Ephesus. Tiberius dismissed Alamundarus with great honours and presents of gold and silver, magnificent garments, saddles, bridles of gold and armour (Joh. Eph. HE 4.39–42). The nature and form of the presents which consisted of gold and silver remains uncertain in the absence of any additional commentary by the author, but the mention of »magnificent garments« is very interesting. Garments, as already mentioned, were among the most popular types of gifts, but the situation in which these concrete presents were made, when the ruler of the Arabs was in fact crowned by the emperor, leads I. Shahid to the very convincing hypothesis that these garments could have been insignia of kinship, with which he was endowed by Tiberius.162 Rather a strong additional argument here is that John of Ephesus used the same phrase in Syriac – »splendid vestments« – to describe the royal robes of the Persian king Chosroes, thus, in I. Shahid’s opinion: »If these were official costumes and robes befitting the new Basilea or the crown he was endowed with, they may have approached those worn by imperator himself.«163 C. Clermont-Ganneau has noted that it was an investiture à la mode perse.164 In this connection one can remember that M. Canepa brings attention to the similarity between the Roman and the Persian empires of the model of investments of dependent peoples and kingdoms.165 Thus, perhaps descriptions of garments within the insignial sets endowed by the Romans could give an idea of the kinds of vestments received by Alamundarus, but the same descriptions demonstrate the particular importance of details – the colours, materials and decorations of the insignia garment – since they all constituted rank and status and built hierarchy. Unfortunately the evidence by John of Ephesus does not provide enough material to insert the case of Alamundarus into this system. Another group of gifts, which I. Shahid has defined as military ones, consisted of saddles, bridles of gold and armour. As for harness items there are some analogies to this case: according to John of Ephesus, saddles ornamented with gold were donated to the Avars (Joh. Eph. HE 6.24) and, following later Arabian sources, to the Persians, together with bridles of solid gold. As I. Shahid rightly wrote, they were »appropriate gifts for a soldier such as Alamundarus was, and especially for a horseman«, while noting that »such a gift could imply Tiberius’ recognition of the performance of the Arab cavalry in the Lakhmid-Ghassanid wars«.166 No detail about the character of the armour is given, and other sources provide no analogies of such kinds of presents, so we may only presume that such items of armour must have been of extraordinary quality and value, and, perhaps, of ceremonial meaning. 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 384–389. See about this Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 384–389 and 400sq.; Chrysos, Basileus 48–51; Rubin, Zeitalter Iustinians 493, n. 825. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 401. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 401, n. 24. Clermont-Ganneau, Le tâdj-dâr Imrou’l-Qais 167–170. Canepa, Competition and Exchange 385sq.; Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship 189. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 401f. and n. 25.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

189

Another extremely important item, mentioned by John of Ephesus in connection with the adoration of Alamundarus, is a royal crown. Strictly speaking, a crown is mentioned twice by John: first he just states that the Arab was left to wear a royal crown and second that he was given by Tiberius »the crown of kingship, or kingdom right of wearing which had never hitherto been conceded to any of the chiefs of the Arabs, but only leave to put on their head a simple circlet« (Joh. Eph. HE 4.39). T. Noeldke and, following him, E. Chrysos interpret this circlet as the corona aurea and the royal crown as διάδημα.167 According to I. Shahid »the klîlâ was most probably a band that encircled the head and was studded with jewels, such as the kings of the Armenians and the chiefs of the Moors were allowed to wear by Byzantium«.168 It would really be very interesting to make a comparison of the items received by Alamundarus with the insignial sets of gifts bestowed upon the rulers of another people, though it seems that Procopius does not mention any type of headdress while speaking about signs of power sent to the Armenians.169 As for the second term, I. Shahid assumes that it is more difficult to describe, but suggests, »that it may have approached the royal diadem used by the Byzantine emperors themselves«.170 E. Chrysos, on the contrary, following C. ClermontGanneau, reasons more about investiture in the Persian way. It is evident that this action of investiture by Tiberius declared a rise in Alamundarus’s status. E. Chrysos brings attention to some Arabian sources that testify that again in 580, when Alamundarus was crowned in Constantinople, Persian Shahanshah Hormizd IV presented a diadem (tâg) to his vassal, Lakmid King Nu’mân, emphasizing his position. In this connection, the scholar supposes that Tiberius could have reacted in similar way and »offered to his vassal phylarch what his Arabs, who knew the Persian ceremonies, would recognize as a royal crown«.171 G. Fisher also underlines that »the significance of the events of 580 lies not in the type or nature of the crown, but in the very public recognition given to a Jafnid leader«.172 Thus, partly due to the specifics of our sources and partly because of the nature of the Roman Empire’s relationship with the Arabs, the information that we possess concerning gift diplomacy deals mostly with items which either were undoubtedly kinds of investments bestowed by Roman rulers, or objects that could be interpreted as having insignial significance. 3.6 Gifts to the rulers of Caucasian kingdoms We do not possess much information about the gift giving aspect of diplomacy in relations of the Roman Empire with Caucasus. However, for this region we do possess a lot of information about another aspect of donations and their role in international relations – about insignia.173 Ammianus Marcellinus mentioned gifts which Constantius II sent in the year 167 168 169 170 171 172 173

Nöldeke, Ghassânische Fürsten 25f.; Chrysos, Basileus 50. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 402. See about insignia: chapter V. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 402, with further argumentation on p. 403. Chrysos, Basileus 51. Fisher, Between Empires 122. See: V.2.

190

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

361 to the kings of Armenia and Iberia, Arsaces III and Meribanes, in order to secure their loyalty to Rome. One present consisted of »different gifts and magnificent garments« (Amm. 21.6.7sq.). As has been noticed, garments were rather a popular type of diplomatic gift and the lack of other details does not allow us to judge the character of this particular present. Analogies provided by information about sets of insignial donations from the Romans to dependent or client kingdoms and peoples allow us to suppose that these garments could have had some connection with an investment type of gift. But it is also possible that in political pressure over these kings, whose support Rome needed, some material stimulation was used as an instrument to guarantee that they would not betray Roman interests and pass to the Persian side. The same Ammianus tells about another episode when in 360 Constantius II received the Armenian King Arsaces. While persuading him to remain on the Roman side, he generously adorned him with gifts, and the Armenian king was obligatus gratiarum multiplici nexu Constantio. Among these gratiae he was also granted immunity from taxation (CTh 11.1.1; a. 350 Jan. 18). 3.7 Gifts to the Goths In spite of the considerably wide range of information we have about the history of the Goths and Roman relations with them, there is very little information about the diplomatic gifts sent to them. Zosimus provides a list of items which were sent to Alaricus as ransom to stop the siege of Rome in 408.174 The Visigothic ruler received: 5,000 pounds of gold; 30,000 of silver; 3,000 silk robes; 3,000 scarlet fleeces (skins) and 3,000 pounds of pepper (Zos. 5.41). Strictly speaking here we are not exactly dealing with diplomatic gifts, as it is a ransom, but it is worth noting that this payment consisted of items, which, perhaps in much smaller amounts, were parts of diplomatic donations to different peoples in various situations. Here I will leave aside data about gold and silver, as it is a special subject which needs studying together with the problem of the amount of payments and subsidies. Silk garments were a universal type of gift and perhaps along with gold and silver were used as a kind of currency in payments to barbarians: thus Menander the Guardsman mentioned silk vestments among the annual gifts to the Avars (Men. Prot. 25.2.65sq.). Scarlet fleeces or skins or furs as diplomatic gifts are mentioned only once by another source: Priscus lists them together with other items donated by imperial diplomats to the ruler of the village, who was one of Bleda’s wives (Prisc. 11.2.308–311). Pepper, as has been mentioned already, figures considerably often in sets of diplomatic gifts and seems to have been especially appreciated by barbarians such as the Huns and the Avars. So, besides gold and silver, the ransom sent to Alaricus consisted of different valuable commodities, which (as examples of other donations also show) were appreciated by barbarians and, dispatched in huge amounts, could form an attractive set for a ransom.

174

For the date see: PLRE-II, 47, s.v. Alaricus.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

191

In the Variae of Cassiodorus we only find a remark about some »flow of gifts« in the letter from Theodahadus to Justinian, but no further details (Cass. Var. 10.22). The same Cassiodorus also mentions different gifts, exchanged between the barbarians.175 3.8 Gifts to the Franks A precious piece of information concerning gift-giving relations is preserved by Gregory of Tours. He tells about an embassy which the Frankish King Chilpericus sent to Emperor Tiberius, perhaps with the aim of congratulating him on his accession.176 After three years of absence, the envoys left for home, carrying many valuable gifts from the Romans, not all of which they managed to take to their king, after experiencing a shipwreck. The diplomats reached Chilpericus in 581. Among the items they brought were »gold coins each of a pound’s weight sent by the emperor having on one side the likeness of the emperor and the inscription in a circle: Tiberi Constantini Perpetui Augusti and on the other a four horse chariot and charioteer with the inscription: Gloria Romanorum, and many other beautiful things« (Greg. Tur. HF 6.2). The evidence is extremely interesting, as it is generally considered that it provides the only mention in the written sources of imperial medallions, which are rather well known from archaeological material.177 I do not intend to enter this field further here, as a huge investigation of the area of Roman imperial medallions has been undertaken by A. Bursche,178 whom I cite here at length, as it seems particularly important for our subject: »Roman multipla in Barbaricum played at least the role of political media as status symbol if not real insignia of power. The gold Roman medallion, a political medium chosen by the emperors as symbol of imperial power among the barbarians, changed function within Germanic elites, starting to live a life of their own. The representation of a Roman emperor must have been as one giving and sanctifying the power of the medallion owner.179 Perhaps the offering by an emperor of his portrait was seen as legitimization of power of the recipient confirming the acquisition by him of charisma of power«.180 Our knowledge of the gift-giving aspect of Late Antique diplomacy confirms this idea and provides some more examples of when donation of the emperor’s image among diplomatic gifts and among investing insignia provided a recipient with a certain mandate of power. 3.9 Gifts to the Chersonites It is due to rather a late source, De Administrando imperio, that we have some information about gifts that were sent by Constantine I to the leaders of the inhabitants of Cherson in Crimea, as a reward for their military help and support (DAI 53.21). According to Constan175

176 177 178 179 180

E.g. clocks from Theoderic to Gundobad, the king of the Burgundians (Cass. Var. 1.46; see: Shanzer, Two Clocks); a cithara player from Theoderic to the king of the Franks (Clovis; Cass. Var. 2.40sq.); silver-coloured horses from Theoderic to Hermanfrid, the king of the Thoringi (Cass. Var. 4.1); »sable furs, slave boys who shine the fair colour of barbarians … swords« (Cass. Var. 5.1). PLRE-IIIA, 295, s.v. Chilpericus. Bursche, Roman Gold Medallions 764. See: Bursche, Roman Gold Medallions; Bursche, Die Rolle 39–53; about the role of gold medallions in Roman culture see: Clay, Roman Imperial Medallions 253–265. Here (n. 44) A. Bursche gives a reference to the article: Johansen, Rings, Fibulae and Buckles; in this connection one may also remember other cases of using the imperial portrait in diplomacy. Bursche, Roman Gold Medallions 767.

192

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

tine Porphyrogennetos, the Chersonites fought for Constantine I and successfully suppressed a revolt in Scythia. The emperor invited the Chersonite primates to Byzantium and Constantine ratified the pledges of freedom and immunity from tributes, which had already been granted to the city earlier. Besides he gave them »a golden statue with imperial cloak and clasp, and a gold crown for beautifying your city, and thereto our charter of freedom and immunity for you and for your sailors; and, for the purity of our affection, we also give you golden rings, expressing the likeness of our pious selves, wherewith you are to seal reports and petitions which shall from time to time be sent from you to us, and thus make your envoys known to us« (DAI 53.141–149). Besides the emperor promised to provide them annually with cord, hemp, iron and oil to manufacture their famous bows, and a thousand military rations (DAI 53.149–153). First of all we face the problem of the veracity of this account of De Administrando. Starting from T. Mommsen, who called the episodes described in the 53rd section of the treatise a »Chersonesos tale«,181 the attitude of scholars has been rather critical. On the other hand, R. Garnett tended to rehabilitate the reality of the background of the episodes concerning events in Crimea, described by Constantine in the 53rd chapter.182 Some scholars consider a certain local chronicle to be the base of this chapter by Constantine.183 While writing about the nature of the sources, C. Zuckerman, who examined the whole episode described in this chapter, expresses doubts as to the historical strictness of this evidence by Constantine, and demonstrates certain incompatible details in the description of military details.184 Analysis of the diplomatic aspect of the evidence by Constantine Porphyrogennetos could also shed some light on the whole episode. The first item in the set of gifts sent to the Chersonites was »a golden statue with the imperial chlamys and fibula«. Who was depicted on the statue is not indicated directly in the source, but the mention of imperial the chlamys and fibula make it almost evident that it was a portrait of the emperor, most likely Constantine himself.185 Evidently, statues of the emperor were important symbols of power186 and had special importance in the periphery of the Empire, as they were »a focus for loyalty and constant reminder of an ever present, superior authority«.187 Golden (or sometimes gilded) statues were rather widespread in the Graeco-Roman world and, since they were obviously things of power for Greek and Roman writers, were mentioned by them considerably often (see also CTh 12.13.4; 379; 15.4.1;

181 182 183 184 185 186

187

Mommsen, Istoriia Rima 270. Garnett, Gycia 100–105; see also about this problem: Konstantin Bagrianorodnyi (Litavrin/ Novosel’tsev) 450f. notes to §53. Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Moravcsik/Jenkins) 202. Zuckerman, Episkopy i garnizon 542–560. The interpretation of T. Pekàry is the same: »… eine goldene Statue geschickt, die wohl ihn selber darstellte …« (Pekáry, Das Römische Kaiserbildnis 53). For this see Greg. Naz. Or. 4.80 and the commentaries: Gregorio di Nazianzo (Lugaresi) 344f.; Gregor von Nazianz (Kurmann) 270–274; Grégoire de Nazianze (Bernardi) 203–205; Sodini, Images sculptées 48. Kelly, Emperors, Government and Bureaucracy 143.

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

193

425).188 The imperial portrait represented the emperor by proxy and received the same honours as if the emperor were present in person.189 So, it seems very likely that the gold statue that was presented by Constantine to the Chersonites represented himself. Besides all the other arguments for this assumption, there is another one: if it were not the emperor, this fact would have been mentioned in the story, because it would deserve commentaries. From the Greek phrase it should be understood that it was the statue which had a chlamys and clasp, not that they had been donated separately.190 Iconography of different types of imperial portraits, including statues, demonstrates numerous examples of the depiction of emperors, or their busts, wearing different types of gala garments and fibulae.191 As formulated by L. W. Bonfante, »The emperor himself was expected to identify with his image. The symbolism of the imperial clothes and insignia apparently played such an important role in these formalities because it helped to transform the person of the emperor.«192 The statue is mentioned as having a chlamys and fibula, but not a diadem. Perhaps this could be an argument to suppose that this statue was made and sent as a gift in the period when Constantine had not yet adopted this insignia.193 This consideration could be useful as an argument in dating the event described by Constantine Porphyrogennetos, which according to this guess should have happened before 324.194 T. Pekàry notes that though there are no other known examples, it can be presumed that Roman emperors used to send their statues to foreign allies.195 Gift-giving diplomacy perhaps provides one, though hypothetical and not strict, analogy for the donation of a depiction of an emperor in the context of diplomatic gifts – a present from Emperor Leo to the Arab ruler Amorcesus. Besides there is also a mention of an imperial portrait on the insignia vestments. 188 189 190

191 192 193

194

195

Whitehorn, Golden Statues 110, with further analysis of different cases p. 110f.; Pekáry, Das Römische Kaiserbildnis 66–80. Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism 82. Note ἀνδριάντα χρυσοῦν put in the accusative and following μετὰ καὶ and χλαμύδος βασιλικῆς καὶ φιβλατούρας, which are put in the genitive, and then another separate part of the gift – καὶ στέφανον χρυσοῦν again in the accusative. Váczy, Helm und Diadem 172f. with references; Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts e.g. fig. 30, 76, 93 and 102. Bonfante, Emperor, God and Man 410. In this assumption I follow an example and the logics of R. R. R. Smith, who proposed this explanation for the lack of diadem on the statues of Constantine of the so-called Vienna-Izmir portrait type. See Smith, Public Image 177, with references to further literature; MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 189; Bastien, Le buste monétaire 143f., 147 and 156f. for the history of the diadem before Constantine. The usual dating of the events generally corresponds to this version: the revolt which the allies of Constantine were to suppress is dated either summer 323 (Konstantin Bagrianorodnyi [Litavrin/ Novosel’tsev] 453f. n. 18 to the §53; Barnes, The New Empire 75, n. 120; p. 258, table 8) or June 310 to about 318 (Konstantin Bagrianorodnyi [Litavrin/Novosel’tsev] 453f. n. 18 to §53). However, there is a version that there was a second campaign of Constantine against the Sarmatians in 334 (Konstantin Bagrianorodnyi [Litavrin/Novosel’tsev] 453f. n. 18 to §53). R. Garnett dated the embassy »of the Diogenes« at some time between 323 and 337 (Garnett, Gycia 102). Pekáry, Das Römische Kaiserbildnis 53.

194

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

Another gift which Constantine dispatched to Cherson »for beautifying the city« was a gold crown. Gold wreaths and crowns traditionally played an important role in Roman culture, having various meanings.196 In this connection one can remember an earlier type of Roman practice: military rewards, or so-called dona militaria, something analogous to coronae aureae, which were a military reward for general acts of gallantry.197 Extremely interesting evidence is given by Constantine Porphyrogennetos about Constantine the Great’s donations to the Chersonites of golden rings, expressing the likeness of the emperor. An explanation is given of how these items should be used: reports and petitions were to be sealed with them so that the envoys bringing them would be easily recognized. As already mentioned an analogy from the earlier period can be provided here: a gold signet or signet ring is mentioned among other gifts which were given by the Romans to the Numidian King Masinissa (App. Pun. 32.).198 M. C. Ross offers an illustration to Constantine’s description by proposing that the material of which the rings were made was gold, but the actual portraits of the emperor could have also been cut in gem stones, which were set in rings. The author attributes a portrait cut in a 4th-century sapphire intaglio, the so-called Walters gem, as a depiction of the head of Constantine the Great. The gem is now set in a modern gold ring, but the author underlines that the intaglio is originally supposed to have been intended for a ring because of its size, which is at the same time »not large enough to be considered as having been intended for the imperial use«. M. C. Ross supposes that the Walters intaglio »might easily have been set in one of the rings sent by Constantine the Great to his allies«.199 Such a brave conclusion may be a bit exaggerated, but as a hypothesis it seems very interesting and provides a wonderful and considerably rare illustration to the material in the written sources, perhaps in some way supporting the veracity of all the evidence by Constantine Porphyrogennetos about gifts for the Chersonites. All of the gifts analysed here seem not only to express gratitude to true allies, but also to have had some insignial significance, which perhaps would have been natural, taking into consideration the ambiguous position and status of Cherson, which, being formally under Roman jurisdiction as a part of the Moesia II province, tended to position itself as a partly independent city-state. 3.10 Roman gifts. A summary The data provided by the written sources unfortunately does not give much material for comparative analysis of the sets of gift items dispatched from the Roman Empire to the barbarians. We are considerably well informed about the presents which the Avars used to receive from the Empire and possess less evidence about gift exchange with Persia. This may be due to a variety of reasons. Besides the evident specificity of the sources which we posses, it is possible to presume that diplomatic relations with Persia, including the gift-giving side, were so normative, traditional and routine that they did not deserve special interest from 196

See generally, J. B. Salmon, Crowns and Wreaths, in: OCD 2003, 411; K. Wessel, aurum coronarium, in: RBK 1, 1966, 447–452; McCormick, Eternal Victory 211f. 197 Maxfield, The Military Decorations 80f.; Steiner, Die dona militaria 38–40. 198 Σφραγῖδα χρυσῆν. 199 Ross, Two Gem Carvings 174.

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners

195

our authors, and the appearance on the diplomatic stage of some new, exotic characters (such as the Avars) attracted much more attention. Some reasons of an ideological nature could also have played a role. One of the tendencies of diplomatic rhetoric in some situations was to position acts of donation as humiliating and demonstrating a certain subordination (the trend, however, paradoxically coexisted with the opposite one of drawing gift giving as a symbol of supremacy). It is possible to think that some authors preferred not to put emphasis on a dubious problem, and so skipped detailed accounts about diplomatic presents.200 At the same time we should not just exclude the factor of chance in the character of the preserved material and the considerably low interest of Graeco-Roman historiography in the material side of diplomacy. Our sources allow us to distinguish different categories of status and value of gifts, depending on the figure of the donor (emperor or envoys), the kind of gift (›state‹/official or ›personal‹/private) and the situation in which the gifts were endowed (level of negotiations). Among the common categories of donations to various partners of the Empire, perhaps we can distinguish valuable garments, gold and silver and spices. Analysis of the set of gifts to the Avars (which is the most detailed one at our disposal) demonstrates a certain unity in the set and, perhaps, special semantics. Unfortunately, in most of the other cases general conclusions are less evident because of the scant material.

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners The traffic of items exchanged in the course of diplomatic communication was a two-way phenomenon. Gifts coming into the Roman Empire from various partners also attracted the attention of ancient authors. In some cases donations by barbarians of various unusual and curious objects could even arouse particular interest, which is reflected in our sources. At the same time the amount of evidence about donations to the Empire is notably less than about gifts made by the Empire, which demonstrated the natural tendency of Antique historiography to see events through the imperial prism. 4.1 Gifts from the Persians The stream of gifts from Persia to the Empire must have been rather rich and intensive and certainly only a small percentage of the acts of donations are somehow reflected in the sources we possess. It is all the more characteristic that, even when taking into consideration only Graeco-Roman and Hellenistic historiography, there are comparatively a lot of mentions about gift-bearing delegations, though sometimes details lack. Thus, Ammianus Marcellinus informed his readers about a mission from Sapor II to Constantius II in 357/ 358, when the envoy Narseus201 brought letters and presents (munera) from the shahanshah (Amm. 17.5.1). 200

The authors’ motivations and actions could have been really different: some of them mentioned rich donations made by the Romans, criticizing emperors for their weakness and extravagancy; others, on the contrary, referred to the gifts as signs of the rulers’ might and generosity. 201 About him PLRE-I, 617, s.v. Narseus.

196

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

The text of the panegyric to Emperor Theodosius I describes the items which, according to this source, Iranian Shahanshah Sapor III sent with an embassy as gifts to Theodosius in the year of 384. These presents consisted of: precious stones/gems/seals, silk and animals for triumphs (Pacat. Paneg. Theod. 22.5). »Gems« is not a very clear definition which does not explain exactly what kinds of stones were sent by Sapor. It seems possible to suppose that some precious stones would be apt as a gift of this level. Perhaps these stones were decorated somehow or had some images cut into them. Silk, which must have formed an important part of this gift, is not described in detail, so we do not even know if it was a raw material or, which looks more likely, some pieces of textile or garments. Silk seems to have been a universal kind of valuable present used by both sides in diplomatic interchange (see above). Animals for triumphs are considered to be »surely elephants« by A. Cutler,202 who is probably right, as this would not be the only case of such a donation from the Persians. Another destination for animals presented in diplomat interchanges could have been for shows in the theatres of Constantinople. It is very interesting how the author of the panegyrics positions the significance of these donations: he calls the Persian shahanshah who dispatched these presents to the Roman Emperor Theodosius I »not his federate any more, but already a tributary«.203 It was one of the favourite topoi of international relations rhetoric in Late Antiquity to position different kinds of donations within the paradigm of tribute and even servitude. In the question of gifts, there was a general tendency to postulate regularly dispatched gifts as a tribute.204 Certainly here we are looking at an even more exaggerated position, as is natural for a panegyric. A curious comparison may be made if we compare this evidence about gifts to Theodosius from the Persian ruler, who on the grounds of making this donation is called a tributary, and the description by John of Ephesus of the presents to the Turkish khagan, endowed by Zemarchus, envoy of Justin II, who, according to the source, was called a great king, as the gifts were rich. Such rhetorical ›games‹ were rather usual in the diplomacy and historiography of the studied epoch, especially in its gift-giving aspect. Pseudo-Joshua Stylites tells that, with his envoys, Persian Shah Cavades I dispatched an elephant as a present to Emperor Zeno, demanding to send him gold (Josh. Styl. 19). While the embassy was moving, Zeno died and Anastasius accessed power and it was he who received this huge gift.205 This emperor must have had a good collection of animals, as it is not the only elephant presented to him in the course of diplomatic communication.206 In the account of the reception of the Persian ambassador in Constantinople, horses are mentioned among the possible presents from Chosroes I to Justinian (de cer. 1.89 [406]). 202 203 204 205

Cutler, Silver 11. Etsi adhuc nomine foederatus, iam tamen tuis cultibus tributarius est. Blockley, Subsidies 62. It is impossible not to remember in this context the story about the Iranian embassy, sent not to the second Rome, but to the third one, to Russia in 1739. The embassy, carrying treasures, was moving slowly with 14 elephants, and thus, the gifts which had been sent to Empress Anna Ioanovna were received by the following empress, Elizabeth. So the diplomatic tradition of the heirs of Ancient Persia seems to have been preserved for centuries. 206 See further: IV.4.4.

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners

197

According to the Anonymous Chronicle of AD 1234,207 after the revolt in Persia against Chosroes II, who was supported by Byzantium,208 in 591209 Chosroes II »sent to Maurice many gifts, precious stones and garments of every kind« (Anon. Chr. 81).210 Another Syrian chronicle by Michael the Syrian – a very important source of the 12th century with traces of many earlier sources, which were later lost –211 also mentions wonderful gifts and precious stones sent by the shah on this occasion (Mich. Syr. 387). Precious stones as well as garments belong to rather a widespread category of diplomatic gifts of the supreme level. It would certainly be extremely interesting to have the possibility to look at the whole situation of Roman-Persian diplomatic relations, including the problem of gifts, from the other, Persian side. Unfortunately, as has already been pointed out, the material provided by Persian sources is very scarce,212 even though it could be extended by later Persian and Arabian tradition. Above I have already cited some passages from the text Kitab al Mahasin wal Azdad concerning the gift exchange between Maurice and Chosroes II. Among the donations of the shah there were: »golden saddles studded with hyacinths and emeralds; a large amber table with three golden legs, in the shape respectively of a lion’s paw grasping a green hyacinth, a deer’s leg with a ruby beneath the hoof, and an eagle’s claw clutching a partridge made of azure; an onyx bowl; and boxes containing musk and amber«.213 As has been noted, the veracity of this evidence is by no way absolute but this oriental fullness of details and attention to luxury items deserves special interest. According to this source, golden saddles were among both sets of gifts exchanged by Chosroes II and Maurice, but the Persian ones were also decorated with precious stones, a feature characteristic of the whole Persian set. The provenance and manner of usage of all the gems mentioned in this present deserve a special study. Musk was highly valued in the East.214 This odour, produced by musk deer, is more persistent and penetrating than any other fragrance widely used in perfumery. The hunting of this animal and extraction of musk is described by Cosmas Indicopleustes (Cosm. Ind. Top. 11.6). The amber mentioned together with musk as being presented in boxes must have been not amber – fossil resin – but a kind of a perfume, ambergris,215 which even nowadays is often used in perfumery together with musk. 207

208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215

See about this chronicle and its veracity: The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles (Palmer/Brock/Hoyland); Pigulevskaia, Vizantiia i Iran 106f., 256; Guseinov, Siriiskii anonim 1234; Konrad, Heracleus 150, n. 181; Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century XXIII, n. 5; Chabot, Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon I–V. See also about the gifts which were sent from Maurice to Chosroes as signs of support above: IV.3.1. PLRE-IIIA, 307, s.v. Chosroes II Parwez. References and English translation according to the edition: The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles (Palmer/Brock/Hoyland) 117. Pigulevskaia, Vizantiia i Iran 33–35. To a great extent because of the loss of the Persian royal annals, Khvâday-nâmag, see: Cutler, Silver 14. Ketab al-mahasen wa’ l-azdad (Pseudo-Jahez, 369sq.; cited from: A. Shapur Shahbazi, Byzantine-Iranian Relations, in: EI. Warmington, The Commerce 161. Gode, History of Ambergris.

198

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

So our sources allow us to imagine the nature and character of diplomatic gifts of the royal level which the Roman side used to receive from the Sasanian Iran. The traditional set seems to have included precious stones and elephants and valuable vessels. 4.2 Gifts from the Huns Perhaps surprisingly the text by Priscus does not contain a description of the gifts which his embassy received from Attila. Maybe this data was in the parts which were not included in the Excerpts, though it is strange, because gifts of lesser importance are described in rather full detail. The Roman envoys, Anatolius and Nomus, who negotiated with Attila, trying to mollify him after the incident with the embassy of Maximinus in 449/450, received from Attila: horses and skins of wild animals, with which the Scythian kings adorn themselves (Prisc. 11.4.13–15). It is not absolutely evident from the text, but it seems that these were the presents personally for the envoys, not for the emperor, and these items seem to correspond better with the medium-level gifts from the barbarians, especially those of nomadic culture. 4.3 Gifts from the Turks Menander the Guardsman informs us in detail about the Turkish embassy sent by their ruler Sizabul to Emperor Justin II in 568. The leader of the Sogdians, who were subjacent to the Turks, participated in the embassy, because he was looking for the markets for raw silk. Evidently the gifts consisted of a big amount of raw silk (Men. Prot. 10.1.56). The present was valuable even though in these times the Romans already had silkworms (Theoph. Byz.=Phot. Bibl. 64). Another piece of evidence about Turkish diplomatic gifts concerns a personal donation to an envoy. The Roman delegation under the leadership of Zemarchus negotiated with the Turkish ruler Sizabul and was honoured with gifts before being dismissed. Zemarchus received »a female slave, a war-captive from the people called Kherkhir« (Men. Prot. 10.3.70sq.). Some analogies of such kinds of donations, but at a high level of diplomacy, between the rulers, can be drawn. When the East Roman delegation headed by Maximinus was hosted in a Hun village, they received »attractive women for intercourse« as a mark of honour. Priscus remarked that they rejected the offer (Prisc. 11.2.297–301). Perhaps in the case of the donation to Zemarchus we are looking at the same barbarian tradition of expressing high honour to a guest. 4.4 Gifts from peoples of Africa and South Arabia In his Life of Constantine Eusebius describes how »embassies from the Indians who live near the rising sun, presented themselves, bearing gifts. These were all sorts of sparkling jewels, and animals of breeds different from those known among us« (Eus. V.Const. 4.50). Perhaps by Indians, he meant the Himyarites. This set of gifts seems to be so standard that it is even close to a topos. Sparkling stones must have been a ›brand‹ type of gift from gembearing India.216 As for different kinds of exotic animals, their import to the Roman Em216

Warmington, The Commerce 235.

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners

199

pire from India can also be deemed traditional. A great variety of animals and birds were brought to the Romans, who used them both for exhibition and beast-baiting.217 Eusebius praises the emperor with this description, underlining that all these missions and donations showed »his power extended as far as the Ocean itself and also how the rulers of the land of India, by honoring him with painted pictures and the dedication of statues, recognized and confessed him as Sovereign and Emperor« (Eus. V.Const. 4.50). So this passage by Eusebius with a list of gifts is interesting and characteristic as a kind of political propaganda, which among other arguments uses the theme of the richness of diplomatic gifts as an indicator of the mightiness of the emperor and his empire. According to Marcellinus Comes, in 448 a tiger was sent as a gift to Emperor Theodosius II from »the province of India«, by which possibly Axum was meant (Marcell. com. s.a. 448.1).218 Evidence by Marcellinus Comes continues the list of animals which were sent from India to the Romans. It was Emperor Anastasius to whom an elephant and two giraffes were sent in 496 (Marcell. com. s.a. 496.2). This is a case when we are lucky to have two parallel indications of one act of diplomatic donation. The same animals are described by the late 5thcentury naturalist, Timotheus of Gaza,219 who probably saw the two giraffes and an elephant which were being brought from India to Constantinople himself (Timoth. Gaz. Peri Zoon 24).220 Certainly these two pieces of evidence attracted the scholars’ attention. In his commentary to the fragment by the chronicler, B. Croke says that »presumably« the ani217

Warmington, The Commerce 147, for animals and animal products in commerce with India see p. 145–179. 218 There is evidence that a tiger was also presented to Augustus by an Indian embassy around 20–19 BC (Schneider, L’Éthiopie et l’Inde 171). 219 PLRE-II, 1121, s.v. Timotheus 3. 220 The tradition to send giraffes as exotic gifts survived till modern times. An account about a giraffe, received in Paris by Charles X in 1826 as a diplomatic gift, strongly resembles the story of the animals sent to Anastasius and allows us to imagine better the details that were probably lost over the centuries: Zarafa was a present to Charles X of France from the Ottoman Viceroy of Egypt, Mehmet Ali Pasha. She was captured near Sennar in Sudan and taken to Khartoum on the back of a camel, from where she was transported by boat down the Nile to Alexandria. She was accompanied by three cows that provided her with 25 litres of milk to drink each day. From Alexandria, she embarked on a ship to Marseilles. As she was so tall, a hole was cut through the deck above the cargo hold through which she could poke her neck. After a voyage of 32 days, she arrived in Marseilles on 31 October 1826. The question was only how to transport an animal of such dimensions and it was decided that the best thing was to make it walk the 880 kilometers to the capital. To protect it against inclement of weather, the giraffe was given an oilskin blanket decorated with golden fleursde-lys, the emblem of the kings of France. As soon was clear, however, the question of security had to be reformulated – the problem was not, as had been imagined, how to control a wild African animal, but rather how to control the crowds that everywhere turned up to gawk at it. En route to Paris the giraffe generated an enormous attention, and when it reached Lyons some thousand people turned out to see her in the Palace Bellecourt, the city’s main square ... After the audience, the giraffe was put on public display in the Jardin du Roi, the royal garden temporarily renamed Jardin des Plantes after the revolution. In the summer of 1827 some one hundred thousand people came to look at her, and for a few months the capital was in the grip of an intense giraffe-driven craze. The animal became the subject of songs and instrumental music, poems, music-hall sketches, and political satires; children bought gingerbread biscuits in giraffe shapes and their mothers wore their hair à la girafe. The distinctive spots and long-necked shape appeared on textiles and wallpaper, on crockery and knickknacks, soap and furniture. (E. Ringmar, Audience for a Giraffe: European Ex-

200

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

mals were sent from the kingdom of Axum.221 In his article An Elephant for Anastasius, S. M. Burstein provides additional arguments for the Axumite provenance of the animals. He underlines, with a reference to the evidence by Cosmas Indicopleustes (Cosm. Ind. Top. 11.22), that the »possession of trained elephants was a monopoly of the kings of Axum«, which »points strongly to these animals forming part of a diplomatic overture to Anastasius from a contemporary ruler of Axum«.222 Based on these facts and some additional evidence, S. M. Burstein even proposes a hypothesis that in the 490s Axum may have unsuccessfully sought Roman assistance in a conflict with Himyar.223 Another bold suggestion by the same author concerns a fragmentary papyrus, containing the remains of a letter from one Roman official to another with text and a sketchy drawing, which depicts a male figure, who seems to be a drover, a human head, both bearing horns, and an elephant (P.Mich. inv. 4290).224 The papyrus is dated approximately to the 5th or 6th century and according to S. M. Burstein the sketch depicting the animal »indicated the distinguishing features of an African elephant« in the figure of whom he attempts to see a ›memento‹ of the exhibition of the elephant.225 P. Schneider notes that since ancient times giraffes had been part of gifts sent from Nubia and, referring to the evidence by John of Biclar (Joh. Bicl. s.a. 573.6), says that the ›Indian‹ giraffes offered to the emperors as diplomatic presents originated from Nubia.226 There exists another view on this diplomatic episode. I. Shahid has also studied the two pieces of evidence concerning the donations of the elephant and giraffes and proposes another version of the animals’ provenance. He argues that it may have been a ruler of South Arabia who dispatched the gift, proposing several arguments for the possibility that it was a Himyarite initiative.227 An important part of I. Shahid’s reasoning is based on Timotheus of Gaza’s mention of a man who accompanied the animals: the man is said to have been τις ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰνδικῶν, Ἀελίσιος δέ τὸ γένος and the scholar is concerned with the identity of this »man from Ayla«. I. Shahid considers the translation of the first part of the phrase by F. S. Bodenheimer and A. Rabinowitz as »a man, dealing with Indian products« absolutely correct, and objects to the possibility of the version »a man (coming) from India«.228 I. Shahid supposes that the animals were escorted by the Himyarites or the Ethiopians until they reached Byzantine territory in Ayla, Palestina Tertia, when they were taken by others, either Rhomaioi or Arab foederati.229 Continuing his investigation, in six points 220 221 222 223 224 225

226 227 228 229

pansionism and the Quest for the Exotic, in: Journal of World History 17.4, 2006, 375–397, esp. 383–385). The Chronicle of Marcellinus (Croke) 109, commentary to 496.2. Burstein, An Elephant 56 and n. 11, supposing that this ruler could have been Tazena and further references on this subject. Burstein, An Elephant 57. P.Mich. inv. 4290 is published by T. Gagos: Gagos, Three Short Byzantine Papyri 273–276, plate VIIb. Burstein, An Elephant 55; F. S. Bodenheimer and A. Rabinowitz propose that the event was also »possibly commemorated in a mosaic pavement found in Beisan (Palestine) showing a giraffe«: Timotheos of Gaza (Bodenheimer/Rabinowitz) 31, n. 6. Schneider, L’Éthiopie et l’Inde 152. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 28f. Timotheos of Gaza (Bodenheimer/Rabinowitz) 31, chapter 24, line 3 and n. 4. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs, vol. 6.1, 29, n. 8.

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners

201

I. Shahid seeks to ground his presumption that it is probable that the »man from Ayla« was an Arab phylarch. I do not claim here to substantiate a preference for either of the two hypotheses as to the provenance of the three donated animals, as one may find some forced argumentation in both versions. Whether the gifts arrived from Axum or Himyar, the information which we possess for sure is that all three animals were seen on their journey in Gaza and all three of them must have reached Constantinople. Our sources do not usually provide any material about the conditions in which the animals that formed a ›diplomatic bestiary‹ were transported or accompanied, or about the percentage of losses (death or disease along the way). In this particular case we cannot be absolutely sure that one elephant and two giraffes were sent as an original gift from ›India‹, though it seems from the text of Marcellinus Comes that they numbered three from the very beginning. However, it is sure that the animals travelled intact between Gaza and Constantinople. This fact seems to demonstrate the notable care with which these precious creatures were carried. So, the elephant and the two giraffes had a truly unique fortune: being gifts of the supreme royal level they experienced a long journey to a distant land, and, having overcome all its difficulties, they arrived in »the capital of the world« and were immortalized thanks to the two corresponding sources. The chronicle of John of Biclar contains very interesting evidence concerning the diplomatic donations to Emperor Justin II which were brought by the envoys of the Maccuritae: elephant tusks and a giraffe. The aim of the delegation, which may have taken place in 573(?), was to propose an alliance with the Romans (Joh. Bicl. s.a. 573.6) and, according to the same John of Biclar, the Maccuritae were made Christians in 569 (Joh. Bicl. s.a. 569.3).230 The first problem about the evidence is identifying the donors, which has caused some arguments among the scholars. The version that Moorish people were meant by the chronicler231 is now not supported by the scholars. Most probably here we are dealing with evidence about contacts between Constantinople and Makuria,232 a region in the middle of Nubia.233 Elephant tusks, the material for ivory, which had been used for ornaments and decorations from the earliest times, must have been very valuable and desired gifts. Ivory as a material was extremely popular in the Graeco-Roman world. Demand for it was always satisfied by imports either from India or from Africa, so these were tusks from either Indian or African elephants (the latter could produce larger amounts of ivory than the Indian ones).234 As for giraffes, as already demonstrated above, exotic animals were »a recognized feature of ancient diplomacy«235 and could have been used e.g. for shows in the theatres of Constantinople. So, one can notice that the diplomatic donations dispatched to the Roman Empire by the rulers of different regions of Africa and South Arabia consisted of natural resources, in which their territories were rich. Precious stones and exotic animals, or animal products (such as ivory) formed standard offerings at the supreme level. It may seem surprising that there is no evidence about presents of perfumes and spices or dried fruits, which were also 230 231 232 233 234 235

Modéran, Les Maures 670. Diehl, L’Afrique 466. Modéran, Les Maures 670 with arguments and references to other scholars’ opinions. D. W. Johnson, A. Kazhdan, Nubia, in: ODB 3, 1991, 1500. Warmington, The Commerce 162, 165. Scullard, The Elephant 200.

202

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

appreciated by the Romans. Perhaps this gap in our information is first of all due to chance and the character of the preserved sources, but one may also suppose that these items could have been an article of commerce first of all and in diplomacy they could have referred to an inferior status in gift-giving procedures. 4.5 Gifts from different barbarians In the cited passage from the Life of Constantine Eusebius glorifies the emperor receiving embassies and donations from all over the world: »There were constant diplomatic visitors who brought valuable gifts from their homelands, so that when we ourselves happened to be present we saw before the outer palace gates waiting in a line remarkable figures of barbarians … Each of these in turn, as in a picture, brought their particular treasures to the Emperor, some of them golden crowns, some diadems of precious stones, others fair-haired children, others foreign clothes woven with gold and bright colors (or flowers), others horses, others shields and long spears and javelins and bows« (Eus. V.Const. 4.7.1sq.). The political significance of these offerings is immediately explained and underlined by Eusebius: »… showing that they were offering service and alliance with these things to the Emperor when he required it«, and the most distinguished were honoured with Roman titles (Eus. V.Const. 4.7.sq.). According to Eusebius, when the gifts were accepted they were recorded and the Emperor responded with equal ones. Eusebius claims that he saw the scene himself, and A. Cameron and S. G. Hall suppose that this occasion could have been the culmination of Constantine’s tricennalia and that Eusebius probably observed it in the hippodrome.236 If the described spectacle really did take place it was first of all a kind of ideological and ceremonial performance, which, however, is an essential element of high politics and diplomacy. The picture (πίναξ), to which Eusebius alludes, must have been some image with a triumphal motive, as the scene really replicates it,237 describing different images of the barbarians bringing their offerings.238 According to the text by Eusebius, among the barbarians offering their donations to Constantine there were Blemmyes, Indians (who are also mentioned in Eus. V.Const. 4.50) and Ethiopians, but that is not the full list.239 The gifts are said to have been »particular treasures«240 from every land. Golden crowns and diadems of precious stones241 resemble first of all a tradition of aurum coronarium.242 When Julian became emperor, embassies 236 237 238 239

240 241 242

Eusebius (Cameron) 312 with reference to other literature on the subject. Eusebius (Cameron) 312. Which was a conventional image of imperial triumph (A. Cutler, A. Kazhdan, Barbarians, in: ODB, 1, 1991, 252). See also above: IV.2. There is an interesting description of the appearance of the barbarians »… with their exotic dress, their distinctive appearance, the quite singular cut of hair and beard; the appearance of their hairy faces was foreign and astonishing their bodily height exceptional. The faces of some were red, of others whiter than snow, of others blacker than ebony or pitch, and others had a mixed colour in between« (Eus. V.Const. 4.7.1). Δῶρα τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς πολυτελῆ διεκόμιζον. Οἱ μὲν στεφάνους χρυσοῦς, οἱ δ’ ἐκ λίθων διαδήματα. When crowns were offered to rulers and conquerors. This was a Hellenistic as well as a Roman custom, which by the fourth century »had long since become compulsory« and also became an element of ritual exchange. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 211f.; F. Millar,  aurum corona-

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners

203

from different peoples came to him, carrying golden wreaths (Eun. fr. 24). In his letter to Constantius Cyril of Jerusalem he mentions a custom of giving an emperor »golden crowns adorned with gleaming gems«243 (Cyr. Hier. ad Const. 2). Such kinds of gifts, which open the list of offerings described by Eusebius, it seems, correspond with the whole triumphal symbolism and solemn character of the ceremony, and were most likely traditional donations from different provinces of the Empire and the subdued territories (CTh. 12.12.6; 387). Fair-haired boys244 are only mentioned by Eusebius as a kind of diplomatic gift, though we have some other evidence of donations of human beings. It is hard to say exactly which nation offered such a present, but most likely some Germanic peoples, who are normally meant by »Xantha ethne« in the treaty by Maurice (Maur. Strat. 11.3).245 Barbarian clothes woven with gold and bright colours (flowers)246 is also a unique mention of such a diplomatic gift addressed to the Romans from some barbarian side, since in all other cases the imperial side was a donor of vestments with embroidery. It is hard to say precisely who donated these items, but it is possible to presume that these were representative of some Germanic peoples. M. P. Speidel argues that it was a Germanic tradition to weave the Prachtmäntel, which may have reached Germany from Scythia or Iran, and which also influenced Roman military uniform. According to M. P. Speidel, these are what gave name to the term barbarica and barbaricarii, which derived from the characteristically woven ›barbarian‹ cloaks.247 Horses,248 which may formally qualify for the category of ›diplomatic bestiary‹, in general and in this particular case belong more closely to the group of armour donations. As an analogy, we can remember the horses donated by Attila to the Roman envoys Anatolius and Nomus (Prisc. 11.4.13–15). Perhaps some nomadic peoples could have made this kind of gift to Constantine. All the other items in the list of donations belong to different sorts of armour. Shields249 is a general term as well as type of equipment, so it is hard to guess who could have made such a present. By long spears250 most likely conti were meant and it could have been Goths, Sarmatians or Persians who offered them. Javelins and bows251 belong to items of armour which most likely could have been donated by some ›Scythian‹ peoples. So, the description by Eusebius of the ceremony in which Constantine the Great receives the foreign delegations, as well as the list of their offerings to the emperor indeed created an image of the triumphant ruler of the Oikoumene, graciously accepting offerings from his 242 243

244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251

rium, in: OCD 2003, 223; Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History, chapter XI, no. 56, 611. Ἕτεροι μὲν γὰρ ἀφ’ ὧν ἔχουσι τὴν τιμίαν σου πολλάκις στεφανοῦσι κεφαλήν, χρυσοκολλήτους στεφάνους λίθοις διαυγεστάτοις πεποικιλμένους προσκομίζοντες. Cited in the translation of E. Yarnold: Cyril of Jerusalem (Yarnold) 68. Ξανθοκόμους παῖδας. See about Xantha Ethne: Wolfram, Xantha Ethne; see also Cass. Var. 5.1. Χρυσῷ καὶ ἄνθεσι καθυφασμένας βαρβαρικὰς στολάς. Speidel, Late Roman Decorations, vol. 2, 232f. Ἵππους. Ἀσπίδας. Δόρατα μακρὰ. Βέλη καὶ τόξα.

204

IV. Gifts in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

subjects and bestowing them with some honours in response. Such a picture seems typical not only of Eusebius’s composition and the same image of Constantine, but also characterizes a certain tendency of Roman foreign policy and diplomacy to position diplomatic donations made by different peoples as sign of their subjection to the Empire. 4.6 Foreign gifts. A Summary The descriptions of different kinds of gifts which the Roman Empire used to receive from its partners and allies, sometimes presented in a panegyric manner, drawing an image of the emperor as triumphant, accepting donations, demonstrates a comparatively united set. The most characteristic elements of the set include: raw materials, precious stones and exotic animals.

5. Conclusions A student of the subject of diplomatic gifts in the Late Antique world cannot fail to notice that in contrast to aspects of diplomacy and international relations this particular subject did not attract much attention from the authors. The material on this theme, whether because of the character of sources that we possess, or due to peculiarities of Graeco-Roman tradition in this aspect, appears to be rather scanty. Comparison of Antique classical or Byzantine traditions with the mediaeval Arabian tradition demonstrates rather poor interest in the subject on the part of the East Romans. However, several conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the analysis undertaken in this chapter. Gift giving was an extremely important part of Late Antique diplomacy. In the Roman Empire, in Persia and among the barbarians there seems to have existed a strict, elaborate and universal etiquette and system of gift giving and reception. This system of gift exchange corresponds with the ›block‹ organization of embassies. Gifts exchanged within the framework of high-level diplomacy may be divided into several categories of different status and importance: – addressed from one ruler to another (primary state level) – presented to rulers (and perhaps to envoys for their rulers) by imperial officials (high state level) – presented to rulers by diplomats on their behalf (high state/personal level) – presented to diplomats personally by rulers (high personal/state level) – presented to envoys by officials (medium personal/state level) – presented to officials by envoys (medium state/personal level) – exchanged by diplomats and addressed personally to envoys (lower personal level). Gift giving also occurred in local embassies, but such presents should be considered as referring to low-level diplomacy. Gifts were indicators of the Roman Empire’s attitude towards its partners and the diplomatic presents received from the Romans marked the status of a barbarian ruler both at the international level and among his people. Mistakes in the distribution of gifts could cause a military conflict. Most precious for the barbarians were the gifts that symbolically equated their status with that of the Roman emperor and Persian shahanshah. In the cases when enough evidence is preserved it is possible to distinguish universal and specific features in the categories of donations to different peoples. Peculiarities in the number and character of gifts to different peoples were connected with: their sta-

5. Conclusions

205

tus in Roman hierarchy, the political situation of the time and position of an emperor, necessity of alliance, level of negotiations, tastes and traditions of the recipients. Of significance is the fact that while distributing diplomatic gifts, the Roman Empire tended in many cases to position them as signs of imperial dominancy, almost like insignia, given with an ambivalent message of honour and subjection. The reception of donations from the different imperial partners was also presented (by the written sources as well as by official art) in the context of the triumph of the Roman emperor’s power.

Chapter V

Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity As has already been mentioned, in order to authorize their power the Roman Empire used to invest barbarian rulers with signs of insignia.1 According to B. Paradisi, the origin of diplomatic gifts was in the insignia of the Roman magistracy and the symbolic meaning of both was the recognition of Roman superiority.2 A specific feature of the insignia distributed among the barbarian rulers lay in their evident ambiguity. On the one hand they were symbols of power, which reflected or even, with some variations, copied different kinds of insignia belonging to the emperor himself3 and thus made the recipient of such items in a certain sense a comparable figure to the supreme sovereign.4 However, on the other hand, such acts of inauguration5 declared the local rulers’ dependence,6 putting them in the position of client (or vassal)7 of the Empire and making their status as subordinates or even ›slaves‹8 of the emperor.9 The same ambiguity, as it seems, is applicable more generally to the problem of diplomatic gifts. 1 2 3

4

5 6 7 8 9

See e.g. Marotta, Liturgia del potere 172f. Paradisi, Storia 318. Originally, as noted by J. W. Salomonson, »the Romans in contemplating the authority of the foreign kings of the Mediterranean mentally referred to their own idea of royalty, sending them the complete parallel of their own former reges … Originally a token of alliance and friendship these gifts in the course of time tended to become signs of official recognition« (Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 106, n. 55). P. C. Sands concretized that »the full king (rex) received the insignia of triumphing Roman magistrates, the embroidered toga and tunica …, the sella curulis and ivory staff, a gold crown, a gold dish, and sometimes military gifts, horses in trappings, arms and military cloak … The reguli received only toga praetexta« (Sands, The Client Princes 75f., n. 5). For descriptions of sets of imperial insignia see e.g.: Euseb. V.Const. 4.66.2; Ioan. Chrysost. De perfecta caritate 6 (PG 56, 287, A), Contra Anomoeos, Hom. 12 (PG 48, col. 809); Aster. Amas. Hom. II, De oeconomo inquitatis 11sq. (PG 40, 184, B–C); Greg. Nys. De hominis opificio 4, (PG 44, col. 136); Coripp. Iust. 1.241sq.; 2.88sq., 2.100–130. See also Odorico, Habiller le Prince. For the theme of the double imitation of God by the emperor and of the emperor by his subordinates and reflection of this theme in the iconography of the scenes of investment and adoration see: Petrusi, Insegne del potere 495f. (with references to Peter the Patrician) and 526f. Here it is not possible to treat in detail the problems of different types of imperial investitura, see e.g. Petrusi, Insegne del potere 483f.; Nelson, Symbols in Contex; Nelson, Politics and Ritual. Grabar, Imperator 27f., n. 7. Diehl, Justinien 368f. Treitinger, Kaiser- und Reichsidee 205. A. Kaldellis describes the master-slave relationship paradigm as typical in relations with subjects, especially for the times of Justinian (Kaldellis, Procopius 137); about the play on words between the terms ›friends‹, ›allies‹, ›subjects‹ and ›slaves‹ used by the Byzantine Empire in relations with Armenia see: Iuzbashian, L’Arménie et les Arméniens 199f.

208

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

All the elements of the sets of insignia for barbarians had a special significance in the hierarchy used by the Empire to evaluate its partners, in correspondence with strict rules and protocol.10 Analysis of these sets of symbols of power and the different types could provide some material for comparison and a background for a better understanding of the semantics of more standard and usual diplomatic presents. The most significant part of the sets of insignia for the barbarians described by our sources consists of the elements of the so-called Dienstkostüm11 and the reference point was the costume of the emperor himself. We possess relatively rich material about the Late Antique insignial signs distributed among imperial partners. The considerably eloquent descriptions of them, which take into consideration the rather elaborate imperial system of the status symbolism of costume and decorations, may demonstrate a kind of ranking, showing how the Empire appreciated and positioned its different partners.

1. Insignia of the Lazian kings The best information we possess about the Roman way and tradition of investment concerns the rulers of the Caucasian kingdom of Lazica. Different pieces of evidence, describing the insignia of two kings, give us many important details. In a description of the region of Colchis and the Lazi, Procopius says that this people was subordinate to the Romans, and when a king died, the Roman emperor would send symbols of power (ξύμβολα τῆς ἀρχῆς) to the one who was to inherit the authority (Proc. BP 2.15.2). Due to its location in Transcaucasia, Lazica was traditionally an area of both Roman and Persian influence and its importance and strategic significance for both sides is indicated by the scale of Byzantine and Persian diplomatic and military involvement in this region.12 The »insignia-race«, as M. Canepa has called it, was a part of the Roman-Persian competition for power.13 Which ruler would have the right to give the king symbols of power could become an item in treaties (as described by Peter the Patrician concerning Iberia at the end of the 3rd century: Petr. Patr. fr. 14) and »that right continued to be contested as they challenged each other’s ascendancy over the kingdom«.14 This competition is also reflected in correspondence between Emperor Justin I, who invested the Lazian king Ztathius (=Tzathes I) in the year 522 and the Persian shah Cavades: the latter condemns the emperor for inaugurating a Persian subject »in spite of friendship and peace« (Joh. Mal. 17.9.79–84; Chron. Pasch. s.a. 522).15 In 522,16 instead of going to the Persian court to be inaugurated and crowned there, the Lazian heir Ztathius took refuge with Justin I, fled to Constantinople and asked the em10 11 12 13

14 15 16

Diehl, Justinien 372. About this and its origin see: Delbrück, Kaiserornat. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity 273; see also: Carile, Il Caucaso e l’Impero; Diehl, Justinien 380f.; Sizgorich, Reasoned Violence 168. Canepa, Competition and Exchange 169, n. 75, 204f.; Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship. The history of this competition is rather long, as one can remember quarrels on this matter between the Romans and the Parthians over Armenia (cf. e.g. Dio Cass. 68.17). Canepa, Competition and Exchange 169; see also: Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship 188. On the authenticity of the letters see: Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien 7. The exact date is taken from Chron. Pasch. s.a. 522: the 15th indiction, consulship of Symmachus and Boethius, i.e. the year 522 (Vasil’ev, Justin the First 261, n. 11).

1. Insignia of the Lazian kings

209

peror to proclaim him King of the Lazi and baptize him.17 Ztathius was cordially received in the capital, baptized and married a Roman lady, the daughter of a patrician and curopalates (Joh. Mal. 17.9). Malalas18 provides a detailed list of items with which the king was invested (ibid.). The case of Lazian insignia is unique, as we possess another piece of evidence, by Agathias, describing the set of insignia donated to another Lazian king some thirty years later. After the troubles of the Lazian war, Justinian »complied and bestowed the royal insignia upon Tzathes19 in 555/56 according to the practice employed since 522.«20 Comparison of the two descriptions may appear important, though it is not always possible to judge whether the differences between the two were due to some real evolution that had happened or just because the authors paid attention to different details, but the great majority of the elements correspond and confirm each other. The question of whether the authors used the same sources and if these particular pieces of evidence depend on each other is unclear. Both authors were contemporaries of the events they described, though in 522, when the inauguration of Ztathius took place, Malalas could hardly have been present in Constantinople,21 while in 555/56, when Tzathes II received his regalia, Agathias possibly was.22 Most likely both historians did not rely on their personal experience in their descriptions of the Lazian insignia, but could have used the same source, or similar types of sources: the evident similarity in the structure of the two accounts, the minuteness and correspondence of the details allow us to suppose that the basis of these texts lay in some official court reports or instructions in which all the elements and aspects of the insignial sets were significant. So, according to these descriptions, the insignia the Lazi kings received from the Romans consisted of the following pieces.23 1.1 Headdress Roman imperial crown/wreath24 (for Ztathius in 522; Joh. Mal. 17.9.68sq.) Different kinds of crowns played a considerable role in imperial gift-giving diplomacy, and the crowning of client kings was a long-standing Roman tradition which continued through the period of Late Antiquity and was inherited by Byzantium25 (e.g. famous Hun17 18

19

20 21 22 23

24 25

Vasil’ev, Justin the First 260. An almost parallel text, deriving from the composition by Malalas, can be found in the Chronicon Paschale (Chron. Pasch. s.a. 522). For the dependence of the Chronicon Paschale text on Malalas see: Chronicon Paschale (Whitby/Whitby) XV–XXII. For the name of Tzathes, which is the same as the Lazian king inaugurated in 522 (so they may be called Tzathes I and II) see: Braund, Georgia in Antiquity 277, n. 32; Vasil’ev, Justin the First 250, n. 10. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity 309. The Chronicle of John Malalas (Jeffreys/Jeffreys/Scott) XXII. Bibikov, Istoricheskaia literatura 65. Here and in the further description of insignial sets, for reasons of convenience of comparison and analysis of the material I will follow the same order of objects (sceptre, headdress, chlamys, chiton, fibula, footwear, belt), although this does not always correspond with the sequence in which the items were listed in the source. Στεφάνιον Ῥωμαϊκὸν βασιλικόν. Paradisi, Storia 318.

210

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

garian crowns).26 It is not intended here to enter into the details concerning the problem of types of diadems/crowns in Late Antiquity and the complicated semantics of the act of crowning27 or the various types of diadems,28 but it seems important to note that the crown/wreath/diadem29 was Roman in type, which underlined its opposition to previous Persian investiture.30

26 27

28

29

30

See: A. Cutler, Crown, in: ODB 1, 1991, 555; Grabar, Imperator 27f., n. 7 and the references to literature there. See e.g.: A. Cutler, Crown, in: ODB 1, 1991, 554f.; and the list of literature on the question; Váczy, Helm und Diadem; Treitinger, Kaiser- und Reichsidee 7, 203f.; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 374–398; Nelson, Symbols in Context 97–119; Dagron, Empereur et prêtre 74–105; Morrisson, Les insignes du pouvoir 762. In triumphal contexts the figures of Victory are often represented holding crowns over the emperors (Cumont, L’adoration 82–88; Nike – Victoria 68f.). In the first case the emperor is praised by the supreme divinity and is symbolically crowned by him. The continuation of this theme in Christian imperial art is expressed in the image of an emperor crowned to rule by Christ. In the scenes of the adoration of the Magi Christ is adored by the three wise men, bringing him the »symbol of royalty« (Clem. Al. 2.8.17sq.). When describing the crowns of gold and precious stones of the kings of the Jews, Clemens of Alexandria says that they were symbolically wearing Christ on their heads, as the precious stone, pearl, emerald and gold signify Logos, i.e. the Lord and »this crown remains immortal on the image of the Lord …« (Clem. Al. 2.8.18sq.; cf. with the list of precious stones reserved for the imperial use – pearls, emeralds and hyacinths – CJ 11.11.1). Thus the emperor is crowned by the Lord and gains the status of divinity through this symbolic emanation (in the context of coronation by the patriarch see also: Karayannopulos, Der frühbyzantinische Kaiser 372f.; Ensslin, Das Gottesgnadentum 162f.; Charanis, Coronation 49–66, esp. 51). The images of foreign ambassadors, depicted as the Magi adoring Christ while they offer gifts to the emperor (for more details see IV.2), demonstrate the emperor in the role of Christ. In turn, the emperor crowning his subjects is the next step, which reflects the emanation received from heaven and poured out by the ruler of the terrestrial world. »The image of the god and the image of the emperor were both functional, serving as symbols of the majesty of Heaven and of the Empire« (Bonfante, Emperor, God and Man 408f.; see also Karayannopulos, Der frühbyzantinische Kaiser 372, n. 10). For the development of the court ritual »the sixth century seems to have been the crucial period. It was only then, for instance, the emperors began to be crowned in a fully developed inauguration ritual of a completely religious nature« (Cameron, Construction 127; Nelson, Symbols in Context). See also: IV.2 note 62. Alföldi, Repräsentation 157f.; Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria 53 with references to the literature, list of types and illustrations; Petrusi, Insegne del potere tab. II–III – for the evolution and the types of the crowns; for the history: Ritter, Diadem. For diadems as part of imperial insignia: Euseb. V.Const. 4.66.2; Ioan. Chrysost. De perfecta caritate 6 (PG 56, 287, A); Contra Anomoeos, Hom. 12 (PG 48, col. 809); Aster. Amas. Hom. II, De oeconomo inquitatis (PG 40, 184, B–C); Greg. Nys. De hominis opificio 4 (PG 44, col. 136); Coripp. Iust. 1.241sq.; 2.88sq., 2.100–130. See J. Arce who argues that the imperial investiture included a diadem, never a crown (Arce, Dagli imperatori ai re 24f.) and C. Morrisson about the diadem as an imperial prerogative and the evolution of types of diadems, mostly on numismatic material: Morrisson, Les insignes du pouvoir 757. In general for the origin of the elements of insignia, including the diadem see: Delbrück, Kaiserornat.

1. Insignia of the Lazian kings

211

Gold crown/wreath decorated with precious stones31 (for Tzathes in 555/56; Agath. 3.15) It is not easy to say for sure if the same type of crown as in the previous case was meant.32 It seems likely that even if the form of crown was not exactly the same as the one endowed to Ztathius (though it is quite possible), it was also an imperial kind of crown. In the studied epoch there existed a tradition to decorate imperial crowns/diadems with precious stones, as can be seen for example in the depiction of Justinian I in the famous mosaic from San Vitale in Ravenna.33 »Crowns bright with the glint of manifold jewels« are mentioned by Claudian as the insignia of Theodosius I inherited by his sons (Claud. de cons. Stil. 2.88– 94).34 D. Braund notes that, in addition to golden crowns, the kings of the Lazi wore »a turban embroidered with gold and precious stones«, the style of which may be gauged from the portrait preserved on a signet ring found in a burial at Kldeeti, which could have been the image of a Lazian king.35 This observation is interesting but it seems doubtful that Agathias was speaking about that type of headdress: the description of a ›turban‹ would perhaps have been different, not called στέφανος. In addition – a fact which seems more important – the type of crown must have been Roman as in the case of his predecessor, symbolizing imperial dominance. 1.2 Chlamys White chlamys of pure silk. Instead of the purple tablion it had the gold imperial tablion; in its middle was a true purple portrait medallion with a likeness of Emperor Justin36 (for Ztathius in 522; Joh. Mal. 17.9.69–72) This description is rather eloquent and allows us to reconstruct the status significance of this item within the insignial set. The chlamys, a long cloak, fastened on the right shoulder by means of a fibula, could vary in types and colours and by about the 6th century had become a crucial element in the court costume.37

31 32 33

34 35 36

37

Στέφανος χρυσοῦς λιθοκόλλητος. Compare with the στέφανον τὸν διάλιθον καὶ διάχρυσον described by Cassius Dio (Dio Cass. 50.44.6) and χρυσῷ καὶ λίθοις τιμίοις συνθέτῳ καὶ ποικίλῳ χρώμενοι στεφάνῳ (Clem. Al. 2.8.12sq.). Bustacchini, Ravenna; see about it: Váczy, Helm und Diadem 187f. The attention given to jewellery in the mosaics represents the culmination of the gradual development of pomp and ceremony at the imperial court over at least two centuries (Stout, Jewelry as a Symbol 85). For the different types of imperial diadems represented in art and coinage see Bastien, Le buste monétaire 147f. See the commentary: Kiilerich/Torp, Hic Stilicho 357. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity 281 and n. 48 with reference. Χλαμύδα ἄσπρον ὁλοσήρικον, ἔχον ἀντὶ πορφυροῦ ταβλίου χρυσοῦν βασιλικὸν ταβλίον, ἐν ᾧ ὑπῆρχεν ἐν μέσῳ στηθάριον ἀληθινὸν , ἔχοντα τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ αὐτοῦ βασιλέως Ἰουστίνου. A. Kazhdan, N. P. Ševčenko, Chlamys, in: ODB 1, 1991, 424; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 424; Odorico, Habiller le Prince 1025f. It is also considered to be a »costume of the ruler par excellence …« (see for its symbolism and significance in the imperial context: Galavaris, Imperial Costume 109f.); Delbrück, Kaiserornat 4f.

212

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

The colour played a significant role,38 as each court office was associated with a specific colour (as can be perfectly seen on the mosaics of San Vitale, depicting Justinian and Theodora surrounded by their officials), while a purple chlamys39 with a gold tablion was the imperial prerogative (CTh 10.21.103; CJ 11.9.2–5; Them. Or. 11.1).40 A tablion was one of a pair of rectangular or trapezoidal embroidered panels sewn at right angles to the edges of a chlamys. In the 4th century it was attached to the emperor’s chlamys below the level of the knees, but from the 6th onwards it was placed at chest level.41 The colour of the tablion purposely contrasted with that of the cloak,42 so on the purple chlamys of the emperor the tablion was gold – that is why, as it seems, Malalas underlines that on Ztathius’s chlamys the tablion was gold, an imperial one, instead of purple, which would have been more natural on the white cloak. On the San Vitale mosaics one can see that the court officials standing to the right of Justinian and Theodora, two of the emperor’s retinue and one of the empress’s wear a white chlamys with purple tablion, and one person is depicted in a golden chlamys with purple tablion.43 Another piece of evidence concerning gold tablia on the imperial chlamys is to be found in Corippus’s In laudem Iustini in his colourful description of imperial costume (Coripp. Iust. 2.100–122). The golden tablion seems to have been an imperial prerogative,44 while the combination of a white chlamys and purple tablion looks to have been usual among the officials.45 It is not rare for this particular combination to be emphasized in our source. Perhaps possession of a tablion in the same colour as the emperor’s lifted the status of the chlamys bearer. Thus in the imperial codification one finds a prohibition to have gilded borders on a tunic or linen vestments, unless this right was not granted to him because of his imperial service46 (CTh 10.21.1–3; CJ 11.9.2.382). Perhaps the most important characteristic of this chlamys is that it had a portrait of Emperor Justin. As already noted, the emperor’s image provided an item with special insignial meaning.47 According to Roman tradition, imperial portraits 38 39

40

41

42 43 44 45 46 47

For the Byzantine epoch see: Odorico, Habiller le Prince 1013–1052. For purple dress as part of imperial insignia: Euseb. V.Const. 4.66.2; Ioan. Chrysost. De perfecta caritate 6 (PG 56, 287, A); Contra Anomoeos, Hom. 12 (PG 48, col. 809); Aster. Amas. Hom. II, De oeconomo inquitatis 11sq. (PG 40, 184, B–C); Greg. Nys. De hominis opificio 4 (PG, 44, col. 136); Coripp. Iust. 1.241sq.; 2.88sq.; 2.100–130. A. Kazhdan, N. P. Ševčenko, Chlamys, in: ODB 1, 1991, 424; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 424–426; also Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.4; 2.13 (Lydus, as it seems, underlines that golden tablia were reserved for Caesar and prohibited for the others). For the purple colour, reserved for the exclusive use of the emperor see e.g.: Ioan. Chrysost. Contra Anomeos, Hom. 12; Bonfante, Emperor, God and Man 411f. with n. 34 with references to the sources and episodes when the rule was violated; Avery, Adoratio Purpurae; Rodenwaldt, Bemerkungen 104–107. N. P. Ševčenko, Tablion, in: ODB 3, 1991, 2004; John Lydus about golden decorations on imperial clothing: Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.4.16–25; and tablia: Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.13.; in the miniatures of the Rosano Gospels Pilate is clad in an ochre chlamys with blue tablion (Loerke, Miniatures 177, 185, pl. 1 [fol. 8], pl. 9 [fol. 8v]; Loekre, I Vangeli di Rossano 146). N. P. Ševčenko, Tablion, in: ODB 3, 1991, 2004. Bustacchini, Ravenna 52f., 56f. A. Kazhdan, N. P. Ševčenko, Chlamys, in: ODB 1, 1991, 424. Delbrück, Kaiserornat 5. Nemo vir auratas habeat aut in tunicis aut in lineis paragaudas, nisi ii tantummodo, quibus hoc propter imperiale ministerium concessum est. See: IV.3.5.

1. Insignia of the Lazian kings

213

were regarded as a kind of a ›vice‹ of the person depicted (de cer. 1.87 [393]): the authority of the person in the image impended over the person who received the gift.48 Depicting the emperor on garments was a part of this ›insignia tradition‹.49 Iconographical material gives rather a good illustration of this matter.50 Some diptychs show the same type of tablion with imperial portrait as described by Malalas. Imperial portraits could decorate the garments of different persons in different occasions and were not only restricted to use in relations with client kings. Cases of ›domestic usage‹ vary from consul or patricius to empresses, and this may once more demonstrate the role of Ztathius as a king of Lazica in imperial hierarchy: his status was on the one hand like that of a high imperial official, serving the empire and the emperor as a subordinate, and on the other of one who possessed a royal position. The Greek sources usually apply the term basileus to the Lazian kings, even in the official protocol of the negotiations (Men. Prot. 3 passim),51 which, taken together with the type of chlamys and its decoration, show the rather advanced status of the Lazian rulers. White chlamys with gold embroideries in the middle on both sides (with imperial fibula)52 (for Tzathes II in 555/56; Agath. 3.15) It seems that the chlamys donated to Tzathes II was of the same type as that of Ztathius. Agathias does not mention the material it was made of, but it seems obvious that it was silk; and as for the colour, this evidence contains a very interesting remark: Agathias underlined that the kings of the Lazi were not allowed to wear a purple chlamys, but only a white one, though this was not usual. The specific detail, as can be seen in Agathias’s description, was the shining gold fabric in the middle on both sides of the chlamys. As is also evident from the evidence by Malalas of the chlamys of Ztathius, it was an extraordinary feature that the white chlamys did not have a purple, but a gold tablion on it. It seems that emphasis of the fact that Lazian kings were not permitted to have a purple chlamys derives not from the implied assumption that there were some other kings who had such a right (indeed only the emperor seems to have had this prerogative), but from this particular manner of decoration, because there was a gold tablion on the white chlamys which was instead usual for purple imperial dress. The question is whether this chlamys, donated to Tzathes II, had the imperial portrait on the tablion, as in the garment of Ztathius. The description by Agathias is rather detailed, so if there had been the imperial bust on the tablion this would probably have been mentioned. Hence it is more likely that the gold embroidery had some more abstract character. If it was so, this allows us to make another assumption – that this kind of decoration could have been even more prestigious than the one with the imperial portrait, because, as it seems, it was the emperor who could have golden embroidery on the tablion 48 49 50 51

Paradisi, Storia 319. Kruse, Studien 106; Paradisi, Storia 318f. For the details and a description of the examples see: Nechaeva, The Sovereign’s Image. Though no official documents are preserved to supply positive evidence that the term was officially conceded to the king of Lazica by the imperial court: Chrysos, Basileus 40; Bréhier, L’origine des titres. 52 Λευκὴν δὲ … ἀμφὶ γὰρ τὸ μεσαίτατον ἐκείνη χρυσῷ ὑφάσματι ἑκατέρωθεν καταλάμπεται.

214

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

and this is why Agathias underlines that the chlamys itself was white, to avoid the impression that the vestment was totally the same as that of the emperor. 1.3 Chiton White sticharion, a paragaudion with gold imperial embroideries, also including the likeness of the emperor53 (for Ztathius in 522; Joh. Mal. 17.9.72–74) A sticharion was a kind of long tunic54 and paragaudion could have meant a tunic too.55 It is hard to say why in this case the embroideries are called imperial: it could be because it was woven with gold. As already mentioned, in the Code of Justinian there is mention of a prohibition on weaving and men making private use of gold and silk paragaudae inlaid with gold as these could only be made by the imperial gynaeciarii (CJ 11.9.1.369). An exception was only made for those who received this right because of their imperial service (CJ 11.9.2.382). One can compare this description with that of Corippus of the tunic in which Emperor Justin II was crowned: it was also white with a gold border56 (Coripp. Iust. 2.100– 117; cf. also Amm. 26.6.15). The San Vitale mosaic seems to depict Justinian in a similar long white gilded tunic.57 Again we see the motif of portraits of the emperor: it seems likely that this decoration was of a similar type to the one on Stilicho’s tunic, ornamentally covered with circles, each containing an imperial bust.58 The argument for assuming that, being repeated numerous times, the embroidery covered the whole surface of the tunic, is provided by Procopius’s description of the insignial tunic donated to the satraps of Armenia, adorned in every part by gold decorations, also called ploumia (Proc. Aed. 3.1.17–23).

53 54 55

56

57 58

Στιχάριν δὲ ἄσπρον παραγαύδιν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἔχον χρυσᾶ πλουμία βασιλικά, ὡσαύτως ἔχοντα τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ αὐτοῦ βασιλέως. N. P. Ševčenko, Sticharion, in: ODB 3, 1991, 1956. »The very term ›paragauda‹ was traditionally used for the border of a tunic (limbus), enriched with gold thread, worn by ladies, but not allowed to men except as one of the insignia of office. These borders were among the rich presents given by Furius Placidus in A.D. 343 when he was made consul (lineae paragaudae, SHA, Vopisc. Aurel. 15)« (Smith, DGRA 864). John Lydus mentions paragaudai, saying that this is what common folk called (not very correctly) tunics – insignia of the patricii – ornamented with spearheads, purple-edged, entirely white, with sleeves (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 1.17.16–20); G. W. Lampe gives a translation as »with a purple border« (Lampe, PGL s.v. παραγαύδιος, 1009), Du Cange defines it as a kind of tunic (Du Cange, Glossarium s.v. παραγαύδιος, coll. 1103). Tunicaque pios inducitur artus, aurata se veste tegens, qua candidus omnis enituit lumenque dedit, fuscasque removit aetherea nondum prolata luce tenebras (Coripp. Iust. 2.100–103); substrictoque sinu vestis divina pependit poplite fusa tenus, pretioso candida limbo (Coripp. Iust. 2.116sq.). Corippus (Cameron)158, n. 100; for the history of this insignia see: Alföldi, Ausgestaltung 176–178. Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen 248–250, no. 63.

1. Insignia of the Lazian kings

215

Long chiton, with gold embroideries59 (for Tzathes II in 555/56; Agath. 3.15) As in the case with the chlamys of Tzathes II it is not absolutely clear if the gold embroideries included imperial depictions like on the analogous garment donated to Ztathius or not. On the one hand the similarity in the set of insignial vestments of both kings makes it tempting to suppose that both items were decorated in the same way, but on the other hand it cannot be a coincidence that both Agathias’s descriptions, of the chlamys as well as of the chiton, miss out such an important element as the emperor’s portrait. Possibly some changes took place during the 33 years which separate the two cases of investiture and the imperial image was excluded from the Lazian kings’ costume. It is not easy to judge whether this could have been a sign of a fall in the status of Lazica and reflected a »trend toward the abolition of the local kingship«60 or on the contrary reflected some tendency toward emancipation and a certain raise in status. 1.4 Fibula Imperial fibula, decorated with precious stones and other overhung decorations61 (for Tzathes II in 555/56; Agath. 3.15) As will be demonstrated further, the fibula seems to have been one of the most characteristic and essential parts of the insignia, being closely connected with the chlamys.62 That this decoration, which became a symbol of status for different state and military officials and the emperor himself, was used in investiture is well known (e.g. Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.4.).63 The very term ἐμπερόνημα used by Agathias is standard in Late Antique usage to name the shoulder clasp.64 The fibula played a very important role in the ceremonies for promotion to Caesar, Nobilissimus and Curopalate and an investment involving fixing a fibula on the chlamys is described by Constantine Porphyrogennetos (de cer. 1.43–45).65 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Χιτώνιον ποδῆρες ὑπόχρυσον. Chrysos, Basileus 39. Βασιλικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐμπερόνημα τῆς χλαμύδος, λίθοις τε ἐκκρεμέσι καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ κατασκευῇ διαπρέπον. Byzantine tradition connected a gold fibula with a purple chlamys: Beliaev, Ocherki 49. Beliaev, Ocherki 50; S. D. Campbell, A. Kazhdan, Fibula, in: ODB 2, 1991, 784; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 411f. Beliaev, Ocherki 56f. It is probable that the ceremonial described goes back to the Roman epoch: Bastien, Le buste monétaire, vol. 2, 404. R. Delbrück proposed that this ritual is illustrated on the so-called Romulus intaglio of the early 5th century, stored in the Hermitage museum. On the sardonyx one sees a boy, probably a junior emperor, dressed in a chlamys (purple, according to Delbrück). The boy is being invested with a wreath and chlamys by an emperor – the person on the left, wearing the imperial diadem. By his gesture the emperor seems to be fixing the fibula on the boy’s shoulder. The third person – a chlamydatus – takes part in the ceremony and puts a wreath on the boy’s head. Both men, in turn, are crowned with laurel wreaths by figures of Victory. R. Delbrük interprets the figures as Honorius, as Augustus investing Valentinian III, and the person assisting as the boy’s father Constantius III (see: Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts 211–214; Bastien, Le buste monétaire, vol. 2, 404; MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 163, pl. 43). The intaglio is of extreme interest, as it seems to be the only representation in art »referring exclusively to an emperor’s accession« (MacCormack, Art and Ceremony 163, pl. 43), illustrating the process of investment with a crown and chlamys with fibula.

216

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

It seems that the character of the insignia for the Lazian kings (presence of the imperial portrait on the tablion of the chlamys and on the tunic, the gold ›imperial‹ tablion instead of purple on the tablion, the imperial type of fibula, and the term basileus applied by Greek sources for Lazian kings) demonstrates the considerably high position of Lazica in the imperial hierarchy in relations with neighbouring states and peoples. Imperial fibulae (usually made of gold and decorated with precious stones) became a part of regalia at the same time the purple chlamys was distinguished as an essential and prerogative part of the supreme ruler’s costume after Caesar (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.4.10–12), then confirmed by Emperor Constantine (Eus. laud. Const. 5.6). In the 6th century, the imperial fibula was decorated so richly that it was called a cornucopium (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.4.11–13).66 Fl. Corippus provides a description of the gold imperial fibula which was adorned with hanging decorations of precious stones, called the trophies of war (Coripp. Iust. 2.121– 125).67 Types of imperial fibulae could have been different, a characteristic feature was its round or oval shape68 and usually the presence of pendants.69 Pendants and hanging elements were significant elements of court insignia and regalia.70 A distinguishing feature of the fibulae which adorned the garments of emperors, at least from the times of Constantine the Great, was a jewelled golden brooch with the addition of three hanging pendants.71 The number of pendants was also significant and marked status.72 Emperor Leo declared that the brooches of officials worn on the chlamys were to be free of any sort of gems, and were to be »precious only for their gold of which they are composed, and for their workmanship« (CJ 11.11.1).73 The law by Leo is very strict about the decorations reserved for the emperor: if they were worn or in particular produced illegally this could even lead to a capital punishment (CJ 11.11.1). The right to wear a jewelled fibula was restricted as a prerogative of the emperor.74 In the San Vitale mosaic on the shoulder of Emperor Justinian one can see such a fibula, decorated with a huge stone surrounded with pearls and three chains with pearls on the ends, which among the other features distinguish the emperor from his retinue.75 All the subordinate noble servants are wearing gold T-shaped so-called Zwiebelknopffibeln. On the Missorium of Theodosius I the emperor has the same kind of fibula with a stone in 66 67

68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75

Beliaev, Ocherki 59. Aurea iuncturas morsu praestrinxit obunco / fibula et a summis gemmae nituere catenis, / gemmae quas Getici felix victoria belli / praebit atque favens dominis Ravenna revexit / quasque a Vandalica Belisarius attulit aula. K. Wessel, Fibel, in: RBK 2, 1971, 539–541. Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria 159f. with references to the numismatic and iconographical material. S. D. Cambell, Pendant, in: ODB 3, 1991, 1623. Stout, Jewelry as Indicators 1121; Stout, Jewelry as a Symbol 83. Janes, The Golden Clasp 141. The problem is very complex. For examples of different quantities of pendants see: Bastien, Le buste monétaire, vol. 2, 411 with references to illustrations. See also further for the details about the fibula of the Armenians: V.2.3. Fibulis quoque in chlamydibus his utantur, quae solo auro et arte pretiosae sunt. Translation: The Code of Justinian (Scott); Janes, The Golden Clasp 146. In the Theodosian Code one can also find the prohibition banning actresses and mime artists from wearing gems (CTh 15.7.11). Janes, The Golden Clasp 143. For other examples of imperial fibulae see: K. Wessel, Fibel, in: RBK 2, 1971, 539–541.

1. Insignia of the Lazian kings

217

the centre and pearls.76 So the fibula sent to the Lazian ruler was not the one associated with the costume of imperial officials. It does not seem probable that the Lazian king could receive a fibula that was absolutely the same as the one which was reserved for the emperor. Perhaps the type and style were the same, but the stones and size could have marked the difference. The problem is, as noted by P. Bastien, that it is extremely difficult to identify the precious stones that were normally used for decorating the imperial fibulae.77 Possibly, as one can also judge from the images on coinage,78 the main peculiarity of the fibula which was specifically imperial regalia lay in the decorations and pendants made of pearl, a stone which was imperial prerogative,79 as well as emeralds and hyacinths which could only be at the sovereign’s free disposal (CJ 11.12[11].1).80 Thus the imperial type of fibula, i.e. the one decorated with one big stone and several smaller ones on the upper part and a number of overhung decorations, could have been part of high-ranking insignia, but only the emperor himself could possess the fibula decorated with pearls (see also further about fibulae in other insignial sets). As with the chlamys and tunic decorations, we can again observe a delicate balance in Roman diplomacy. The Lazian kings were provided with items very close to imperial regalia that were definitely higher than insignia of military of court officials, but all these insignia elements differed from the supreme imperial ones in significant elements. 1.5 Footwear The shoes that he wore he had brought from his own country, and they were studded with pearls in Persian fashion81 (for Ztathius in 522; Joh. Mal. 17.9.74sq.) A 9th-century chronicler adds that the boots’ colour was red (rhousia; Theoph. AM 6015).82 The term tzangion was usually applied to the emperor’s purple shoes, one of the most revered insignia of imperial and royal authority (e.g. Joh. Lyd. de mag. 1.7; Amm. 15.1.2; 26.6.15; Coripp. Iust. 2.106–112; with gems: Pacat. Paneg. Theod. 45.2).83 A. Kazhdan notes that the tradition probably came to Byzantium from the East, making reference to the evidence from Malalas about the Persian manner of decoration on Tzathes’s shoes.84 On the San Vitale mosaic Justinian wears tights (hosa) in purple and red shoes decorated with 76

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

84

Kolb, Herrscherideologie 224; Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism 20; for other examples of the representation of imperial fibulae on objects of art and in coinage see: Bastien, Le buste monétaire, vol. 2, 404f. Bastien, Le buste monétaire, vol. 2, 410. See the figures: Bastien, Le buste monétaire, vol. 2, fig. 1–38. I am very grateful to M. Alföldi who attracted my attention to the problem of this distinction and for her consultation and help. Janes, The Golden Clasp 146. Τὰ γὰρ ζταγγία, ἃ ἐφόρει, ἦν ἀγαγὼν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ χώρας ῥουσαῖα, εἶχον μαργαρίτας Περσικῷ σχήματι. A. Kazhdan, Tzangion, in: ODB 3, 1991, 2135. A. Kazhdan, Tzangion, in: ODB 3, 1991, 2135; »Les chaussures impériales ont la même valeur symbolique que la couronne«: Odorico, Habiller le Prince 1028f.; Alföldi, Repräsentation 183 with n. 7; Corippus (Cameron) 158, n. 104 and 111. A. Kazhdan, Tzangion, in: ODB 3, 1991, 2135.

218

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

pearls.85 The much later description by Pseudo-Kodinos explains that the »tzankia«, ornamented with images of eagles made of precious stones and pearls, were imperial insignia used in ceremonies (pseudo-Kod. 3.171.11–1786).87 It is hard to presume what kind of boots Tzathes would have received if he had not brought these with him. Perhaps the very fact that part of the insignial set was not donated by the emperor, but was carried by the Lazian ruler from his land, demonstrates a degree of independency, demonstrated by Tzathes. The special attention paid in our source to this detail confirms its evident importance. The Persian manner of decoration may testify not just to Iranian fashion, but to significant Persian influence and it was possibly a trace of previous acts of investiture received from the shahanshah.88 On describing the visit to Constantinople of the Lazian king Gubaz, in the times of Emperor Leo, Priscus mentions the king’s Persian dress (Prisc. 44).89 Scarlet shoes (decorated with gold and precious stones)90 (for Tzathes II in 555/56; Agath. 3.15) The construction of the phrase in the text by Agathias does not allow us to say precisely if these shoes were decorated with gold and precious stones, because he describes them together with a mitra (a belt in this context, see further), and the adverb ὁμοίος could be understand as referring to the belt, thus meaning that it was of the same kind, i.e. scarlet. However, it seems more probable that, on the contrary, it was the belt which was decorated with gold and stones in the same way.91 Unfortunately there is no indication of the kind of stones used in the decoration. If the set of insignia remained the same as in the case of Ztathius, these could have been pearls, but in the account by Agathias there is no mention of whether the shoes were also brought by the Lazian king, as his predecessor had done, or if they were part of pure Roman regalia. The general similarity of the sets may testify to the first version, but then Agathias’s silence about the origin of the shoes may seem strange.92 85 86 87 88

89 90 91

92

Houston, Costume and Decoration 136. On the edition: Pseudo-Kodinos (Verpeaux) 171, lines 11–17. See also: A. Kazhdan, Tzangion, ODB 3, 1991, 2135; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 2, 1971, 446; Bezzi, Iconologia 5, n. 3. An important analogy is the insignial set of the Armenian satraps, who, according to Procopius, received »boots [that] were of red color and reached to the knee, of the sort which only the Roman Emperor and the Persian King are permitted to wear« (Proc. Aed. 3.1.17–23), see further. Περσικήν ἒχων στολὴν. Πέδιλά τε κοκκοβαφῆ καὶ μίτρα ὁμοίως χρυσῷ τε καὶ λίθοις πεποικιλμένη. The belt could have been of red colour, and it was a part of imperial costume, for example, on the San Vitale mosaic, depicting Justinian, but in this particular case an additional argument can be provided from the comparison of this evidence with that of Malalas, describing the same items in the insignial set of Tzathes I. Malalas similarly described first the shoes and then the belt using, which is most striking, the same adverb ὁμοίως, marking that the belt was decorated with pearls in the same way as the shoes. I already mentioned above that the particular correspondence of the two pieces of evidence may have been owing to the fact that the authors used the same kind of sources, and the features of their descriptions possibly demonstrate that they used official accounts. Thus the fact that in Malalas’s text the adverb ὁμοίως referred in equal circumstances to the same manner of using precious stones to decorate the belt and shoes may be considered an argument for analogous usage and meaning in Agathias’s description. It is noteworthy that the traditional rich national costume of the Cherkess (an ethnic group of the northwestern Caucasus region) includes red morocco shoes, decorated with gold.

1. Insignia of the Lazian kings

219

1.6 Belt Belt decorated with pearls93 (for Ztathius in 522; Joh. Mal. 17.9.75sq.) Traditionally, from early imperial times, a belt was an important element of military costume94 and was a military insignium.95 In the Late Roman and Byzantine epoch, belts as official insignia of the court functionaries varied in form and colour (CTh 1.12.4; 6.30.18): they could be with gold decorations and a clasp and were worn over the tunic or sticharion (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 2.13.5–23: a detailed description of the belt which was a part of the insignia of the Prefecture of the Praetoria).96 Decoration of the belt with precious stones was reserved for the emperor (Them. Or. 11.1;97 Coripp. Iust. 2.89; 2.114sq.98).99 The Code of Justinian specifies that »no one shall hereafter be permitted to decorate the bridles and saddles of his horses, or his own belts with pearls, emeralds, or hyacinths, or to insert them therein. We, however, permit them to adorn the bridles and saddles of their horses, and their own belts with other jewels«100 (CJ 11.11.1). Thus, pearls were listed among the materials reserved for the emperor. Claudian describes »belts, studded with pearls« among the insignia of Theodosius I (Claud. de cons. Stil. 2.88–94). For the later period we possess some evidence of the usage of belts in the investiture of officials: thus at the end of the 9th century, in addition to a white chiton, the emperor awarded a richly ornamented belt decorated with jewels to the highest-ranking official (magistros) in the administration of the Byzantine Empire.101 Belts are named by Constantine among the set of luxury goods which the Petschenegs received from the Romans (DAI 6). For the Late Roman period we find no mention of belts sent as diplomatic gifts, except for one case, when a belt decorated with precious stones was sent by Emperor Maurice to Chosroes II, when the latter fled to the Romans during the rebellion in Persia (Theoph. Sim. 5.3.7). As has already been noticed, in that situation the items donated to the shah by the emperor should more likely be perceived in a paradigm of the symbolism of royal power and could have been of some insignial nature.102 Upon describing the shoes, which were studded with pearls in the Persian manner, Malalas remarks that the belt was decorated with these stones in the same way. Perhaps the same Persian manner is implied here. Jewelled belts are represented in the Sasanian iconographical material, which provides exam93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101 102

Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ ζώνη αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν διὰ μαργαρίτων. G. Vikan, Belt, in: ODB 1, 1991, 280; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 371. K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 371; Galavaris, Imperial Costume 102; Reece, The Later Roman Empire 158. G. Vikan, Belt, in: ODB 1, 1991, 280; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 371; Caimi, Burocrazia e diritto 290f.; Alföldi, Repräsentation 182f. Ἢ λιθοκολλήτους ζωστῆρας ἄλλῳ τινὶ καὶ μὴ ἐκείνῳ μόνῳ ἐργάζεσθαι … καὶ τέτακται αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ σύμβολα ἱερὰ καὶ κόσμος ἄθικτος καὶ ἀνέπαφος τοῖς ἀρχομένοις. Pretiosaque cingula gemmis; nobilis gemmis et cocto lucidus auro balteus effulgens lumbos praecinxit eriles. For references to the iconograpical material see: Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria 217f. Nulli prorsus liceat in frenis et equestribus sellis vel in balteis suis margaritas et smaragdos et hyacinthos aptare posthac vel inserere. aliis autem gemmis frena et equestres sellas et balteos suos privatos exornare permittimus. See about this: Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance 94f. See: IV.3.1.

220

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

ples of belts covered with pearls: the most famous of these is the Taq-e Bostan relief depicting the investiture of Chosroes II, in which the shah is shown wearing a belt studded with rows of pearls and huge square gems.103 In Persia belts had a strong significance of ›servitude‹, being a symbol of a subordinate’s dependence on a master (king of kings for the satraps and vassals and the supreme divinity for the shah of shahs himself).104 It is hard to say precisely, but it seems possible that Ztathius could have also (ὁμοίως) brought this item with him and thus there is a possibility that it also referred to Iranian traces in the Lazian investiture. Another option, which theoretically should not be excluded, is that the belt referred to national Lazian insignia, as the special significance of belts in the Caucasian world is well known.105 Belt, decorated with gold and precious stones106 (for Tzathes II in 555/56; Agath. 3.15) As has already been mentioned, the term μίτρα most possibly meant a belt here. Such a meaning of the word exists107 and the evident symmetry of the set of Ztathius and Tzathes II makes such a presumption very attractive. As in the case of the shoes it is impossible to say precisely if the belt was decorated in the same manner as that of Tzathes I, if pearls were meant by precious stones or if the origin of this insignia was Roman or Persian. The Late Antique period is characterized not only by almost permanent conflicts and competition between the Roman and the Persian Empires, but also by the »palpable impact of one culture’s visual inventiveness on the other«108 which is demonstrated by A. Cutler concerning the example of silverware. 1.7 The Lazian kings’ insignia. A summary The set of Lazian insignia – perhaps a combination of Roman and Persian regalia – demonstrates that competition in which, as M. P. Canepa has set out, »both realms strove to establish cultural and political dominance in providing these sovereigns with the marks of legitimate kingship and extolling theirs as the ›gold standard‹ for legitimacy« (for Tzathes II in 555/56; Agath. 3.15).109

2. Insignia of the Armenian Satraps The competition between the Roman and Persian Empires for power over Armenia which lasted several centuries ended with the division of the Great Armenian kingdom and the neighbouring territories due to the agreement between Great King Sapor II and Emperor Valens.110 From 387 the eastern (larger) part of the country became dependent on Persia 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

E. H. Peck, Belts in the Parthian and Sasanian periods, in: EI. Widengren, Le symbolisme 133–155. Gadlo, Etnografiia 80. Μίτρα ὁμοίως χρυσῷ τε καὶ λίθοις πεποικιλμένη. Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1138, s.v. μίτρα; W. Speyer, Gürtel, RAC 12, 1983, 1237. Cutler, Silver 19; see also: Wiesehöfer, Rūm 111. Canepa, Competition and Exchange 168. Shaginian, Armeniia 16; Chrysos, Basileus 36; Iuzbashian, Le Caucase et les Sassanides 152.

2. Insignia of the Armenian Satraps

221

and the western part on Rome.111 The partition did not change the status of Armenia Minor, which had become a part of the Roman Empire long before, but territorial changes happened in the area of Armenia Major, situated to the east of the Euphrates, where two regions should be distinguished: the northern region, which conserved the historical name Armenia Major, also called Inner Armenia in the official documents, where imperial power was represented by comes Armeniae,112 an Armenian noble receiving a Roman title;113 and the southern part where the ›satrapies‹ were situated.114 According to the peace treaty of 363, the two satrapies, namely Ingilena and Sophena in the northwestern part of Mesopotamia, remained under Roman control and after the division of 387 (or 378)115 four more satrapies (Anzitena, Asthianena, Sophanene and Balabitena) were added, all of them remaining under the same political conditions until the reforms of Justinian in AD 536. These satrapies were political units under ›princes‹ of hereditary succession and local origin, who were invested and recognized as ›viceroys‹ by the emperor (Just. Nov. 31.1; Proc. Aed. 3.1.17).116 By the definition of E. Chrysos: »The Roman satrapies created by the Persians are no doubt the most significant example of political administrative forms which the Empire found in the East and copied.«117 In a special passage in his De Aedificiis on the forts in Armenia, Procopius of Caesaria provides a narration on the history of Armenia, mentioning the insignia of power of the five satraps. Armenians by birth, they used to inherit their power and keep it till their death (Proc. Aed. 3.1.4–18). Procopius says that they received their signs of power and remarks that he found it necessary to describe the insignia of the satraps because no one would ever see them in future. What Procopius meant were the reforms of Justinian in Armenia Major, as a result of which the office of comes Armeniae was eliminated and in the north the satraps lost their autonomous authority, two duces with troops were appointed and, as K. Jusbashjan supposes, the satraps with their military contingents were obliged to subdue these duces. The magister militum per Armeniam had supreme power, and all parts of the country were subject to him.118 The remark by Procopius that no man would ever see the Armenian insignia again must have meant that the cancellation of the institution of satrapies automatically meant elimination of the insignia, which seems rather natural, so as to avoid undesirable political perturbations or usurpations. In the description by Procopius (Proc. Aed. 3.1.18–23), the insignia of the satraps consisted of the following items.

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

See Blockley, Division 222–234; Iuzbashian, Vvedeniie v Armenistiku 8; Greatrex, Partition of Armenia. Iuzbashian, Armianskie gosudarstva 22–24. Chrysos, Basileus 63. Iuzbashian, Armianskie gosudarstva 24. Chrysos, Basileus 63. Chrysos, Basileus 46 and n. 104 with references to the sources and further literature; Güterbock, Römisch-Armenien 20f. Chrysos, Basileus 46. Iuzbashian, Armianskie gosudarstva 25.

222

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

2.1 Chlamys Chlamys made of wool, not such as is produced by sheep, but gathered from the sea. Pinnos the creature is called on which this wool grows. And the part where the purple should have been, that is, where the insertion of purple cloth is usually made, is overlaid with gold119 (with fibula). The description of this chlamys is extremely interesting. The first aspect is the unusual material of which the cloak was made. The sea creature pinnos on which the wool grows, as Procopius defines it, is the Pinna nobilis, a large bivalve mollusc which inhabits the Mediterranean Sea. It has a special gland, which produces byssus, a bunch of durable threads. In Antiquity these threads were used for the production of a special fabric.120 This byssus, or filaments (which can be up to 6cm long), is then spun and, when treated with lemon juice, turns a beautiful golden colour which never fades. The cloth produced from these filaments can be woven even finer than silk. In the Roman world this material was used as a material for togas (Tert. Pall. 3.6). It is probably the same as the »sea wool« mentioned in Diocletian’s price edict of 301 CE. This kind of material seems to have been known even beyond the borders of the Roman world: in an early Chinese chronicle there is evidence about the production of fine clothes in Roman Syria, where »they weave fine cloth, and say they use the down of water-sheep in making it; it is called Hai-hsi-pu [cloth from the west of the sea]«.121 The cloth was always very rare and sought-after and was often reserved for royalty.122 So it may be supposed that a chlamys made of byssus was of a rather high value and significance, perhaps comparable with silk.123 119

Χλαμὺς ἡ ἐξ ἐρίων πεποιημένη, οὐχ οἷα τῶν προβατίων ἐκπέφυκεν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ θαλάσσης συνειλεγμένων. πίννους τὰ ζῷα καλεῖν νενομίκασιν, ἐν οἷς ἡ τῶν ἐρίων ἔκφυσις γίνεται. 120 NEB 2, 1980, 417, s.v. byssus; DEI 7, 1930, 106, s.v. bisso; Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1405, s.v. πίνη. 121 »The San-kuo-chih, Memoir of the Three Kingdoms, compiled by Ch’en Shou, who died 297 C.E., comprises the history of the three contemporaneous states of Wei, Shu, and Wu. That of Wei contains a meager account of some of the less distant countries, the incompleteness of which, as that of the whole work, caused the Emperor Wen-ti of the earlier Sung dynasty to order P’ei Sung-chih to compile a new edition, embodying into Ch’en Shou’s text, which had been written but about 130 years prior to himself, whatever pertinent notes he could find in other contemporaneous authors. It is to this fact that we are indebted for the most detailed account we possess of the country of Tats’in. P’ei Sung-chih’s edition was submitted to the Emperor, as the Preface shows, in the sixth year of his reign, i.e., 429 C.E. The work from which this geographical account is quoted is the Wei-lio, i.e., Abridged History of the Wei Dynasty, by Yu Huan, which must have been written between the end of the Wei dynasty, i.e. 264 C.E., and the time when P’ei Sung-chih prepared his commentary, i.e. previous to 429 C.E. I am not prepared to say whether this work exists at the present day, but I am inclined to believe that it does not, and that we must be contented with the extracts given from it in other works.« (From: F. Hirth, China and the Roman Orient: Researches into their Ancient and Mediaeval Relations as Represented in Old Chinese Records, Shanghai, Hong Kong, 1885, 35– 96. The text is quoted from the Internet East Asian History Sourcebook [http://www.fordham.edu/ halsall/eastasia/romchin1.html], J. S. Arkenberg [scanned, ed., modif.], 2000). 122 »The fine golden-brown byssal fibers of the Mediterranean Pinna were used to weave the legendary Cloth-of-Gold, a fabric that must have rivaled our finest synthetics, for a woman’s scarf of this material was said to be so flexible it could be rolled into a ball the size of a walnut. So much work was involved to harvest enough of the Pinnas and to process the fiber for weaving, however, that the cloth could be afforded only by royalty« (A. M. Keen, Sea Shells of Tropical West America, Stan-

2. Insignia of the Armenian Satraps

223

Another interesting detail in the description of the chlamys is the presence of a golden insert in place of purple. The structure of the phrase is very complex and allows different ambivalent manners of understanding. The first possible variant is that the part of the porphyra, where the purple is put on it, is embroidered with gold.124 Here the porphyra is understood as a kind of cloth. The English translation, cited above, avoids this straight identification, taking the definition for porphyra as an indication of colour. The question is vital, as the colour of the chlamys was the visual sign of the owner’s status. On the one hand it seems tempting to presume that in this set of regalia a purple cloak is implied. Not least, the argument for this can be the absence in the text of any other specification of colour, the importance of which was certainly understood by Procopius. Despite unfortunately not including commentaries on the possibility of different versions of translation, N. Adonz explains the porphyra as a »purple cloak«, and takes it as evidence of the highest rank of regalia.125 However, another version should not be excluded. Among the meanings of the word porphyra is also a »purple stripe or other adornment of a garment«.126 It seems possible to suppose that Procopius meant some insert, perhaps a tablion. Such a presumption leads us to an interesting parallel with the insignial white chlamys of the Lazian king Tzathes, which had a golden imperial tablion instead (or in the place) of a purple one (πορφυροῦ; Joh. Mal. 17.9.69–79). Tzathes’s tablion had the imperial portrait on it. In the case of the Armenian satraps unfortunately no information is provided by Procopius about the character or decorations of this gold insertion. 2.2 Chiton There was a tunic of silk adorned in every part with decorations of gold which they are wont to call ploumia.127 The fabric of which the tunic was made is defined by Procopius as μέταξα which is not the most usual name for garment silk, as the term was normally used for raw silk.128 Possibly S. Kondratyev is right to translate it as »thick silk«.129 The colour of the tunic is not mentioned. Ploumia was a kind of embroidery,130 but brocade could also have been meant by this definition.131 Again it would be useful to make a comparison with Tzathes’s insignia, whose ploumia included the likeness of the emperor (Joh. Mal. 17.9.69–79). Unfortunately in this case, as well as in the case of the chlamys for the Armenians, the type and subject of the decorations is not clear. 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

ford CA, 1958, 635, s.v. pinnidae). ›Byssus‹ cloth has become a legend, ›byssus‹ is mentioned in the Old Testament as the fabric of shining and pure vestments (Revelation 15.6; 19.8). It is possible to trace some associations between byssus and silk, see Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 334, s.v. βύσσος. This is the version in the Russian translation by S. P. Kondrat’ev: Prokopii Kesariiskii (Kondrat’ev) 211. Adonz, Armeniia 88. Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1451, s.v. πορφύρα. Χιτὼν ἐκ μετάξης ἐγκαλλωπίσμασι χρυσοῖς πανταχόθεν ὡραϊσμένος, ἃ δὴ νενομίκασι πλούμια καλεῖν. Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1115, s.v. μέταξα. Prokopii Kesariiskii (Kondrat’ev) 211. Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1422, s.v. πλουμάκιον. Du Cange, Glossarium 1183, s.v. ploumos.

224

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

2.3 Fibula The cloak was fastened by a golden fibula in the middle of which was a precious stone from which hung three hyacinths by loose golden chains.132 Though Procopius does not name it as such, it is evident that a so-called imperial fibula accompanied the chlamys of this insignial set133 and an analogous type of fibula, donated to the Lazian king, was defined by Agathias as a βασιλικόν (Agath. 3.15). The presence of a stone in the middle in combination with hanging precious stones resembles several depictions of Roman emperors with imperial fibula on their chlamys.134 The mention of a precious stone in the middle and of the hyacinths is important: in the Code of Justinian we read not only that the use of any gems for decorating fibulae was reserved for the emperor, but also that this very stone, together with pearls and emeralds, is listed as prohibited in the adornment of bridles, saddles and belts (CJ 11.1].1). Pendants and hanging elements were significant elements of court insignia and regalia.135 With regard to stones hanging on three gold chains, a distinguishing feature of the fibulae which adorned the garments of emperors, at least from the times of Constantine the Great, was a jewelled golden brooch with the addition of three hanging pendants.136 Lower ranking officials wore jewelled brooches with only one or two pendants. As Caesar, not Augustus, Licinius II only wears a two-pendant brooch.137 As has been mentioned, Emperor Leo declared that the brooches of officials worn on the chlamys were to be free of any sort of gems. Thus it is evident that this fibula of the satraps was of a very high rank. As already noted,138 we are not very well informed about the types of stones which decorated the fibulae worn by the emperor himself. In most cases, the pendants seem to finish with pearls, and perhaps the presence of sapphires on the one described by Procopius distinguished it from the real imperial brooches, but we cannot affirm this with any certainty. 2.4 Footwear The boots were of red colour and reached to the knee, of the sort which only the Roman Emperor and the Persian King are permitted to wear.139 Purple boots are known to have been important insignia of imperial authority in the Byzantine world (see above in connec132 133 134 135 136 137

138 139

Περόνη χρυσῆ τῇ χλαμύδι ἐπέκειτο, λίθον ἐπὶ μέσης περιφράττουσά τινα ἔντιμον, ἀφ’ οὗ δὴ ὑάκινθοι τρεῖς χρυσαῖς τε καὶ χαλαραῖς ταῖς ἁλύσεσιν ἀπεκρέμαντο. K. Wessel, Fibel, in: RBK 2, 1971, 539–541. For examples of imperial fibulae see: K. Wessel, Fibel, in: RBK 2, 1971, 539–541. S. D. Cambell, s.v. Pendant, in: ODB 3, 1991, 1623. See also: V.1.4. Stout, Jewelry as Indicators 1121; Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen 40. The three-pendant brooch is also found in one religious context: in the Oratory of St. Andrea in Ravenna built under Theodericus, a militant Christ dressed as an imperial general has a threependant imperial brooch. A mosaic in the Capella Archivescovile in Ravenna depicts Christ represented as emperor in military dress. On his shoulder there is a disc fibula with three pendants, while the archangel Michael on another Ravenna mosaic (S. Apollinare in Classe), depicted as a dignitary, wears a disc fibula with only two pendants. See about this: Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria 160. Stout, Jewelry as Indicators 1122; about the variation in the number of pendants, which is not always easy to explain, see: Bastien, Le buste monétaire 2, 411. V.1.4. Ὑποδήματα μέχρι ἐς γόνυ φοινικοῦ χρώματος, ἃ δὴ βασιλέα μόνον Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Περσῶν ὑποδεῖσθαι θέμις.

3. Insignia of the rulers of the Moors

225

tion with Lazian insignia).140 Especially significant is the indication that these insignia were of so high a rank that only the two supreme rulers of the two empires were allowed to wear them. In the description of the insignial set of the Lazian king Ztathius there is an interesting remark that the shoes, which Tzathes brought to Byzantium with him, were decorated in the Persian manner (Joh. Mal. 17.9.74sq.). The similarity between the two sets of regalia (of the Lazian kings and the Armenian satraps) is evident and, taking into consideration the position of these two areas and the traditional ambiguity in influence and competition between the two empires for control over these lands, it is very significant that the regalia objects included insignia of both Rome and Persia, which not occasionally shared some elements of high-status court culture.141 2.5 The Armenian satraps’ insignia. A summary In general it can be noticed that the insignia given to the Armenian satraps by the emperor were very high and comparable with the regalia of the Lazi, whose kings formally had a more independent position as a national kingdom.142 According to N. Adonz, these investiture objects prove the statement that »the Satrapies were miniature kingdoms ruled by their own princes, who were equals in rank of kings«.143 At the same time N. Adonz notes that »The Armenian princes also wore a belt, but we do not know whether they received it from the Emperor. The same is true of the satrap diadem.«144 The absence of a diadem in the list of insignia could prove to be significant and perhaps indicated that the satraps did not enjoy full royal status, their less prominent authority being displayed by the lack of a crown amongst the regalia they received from the emperor.

3. Insignia of the rulers of the Moors In his account of the Vandal war, Procopius of Caesaria informs us about the delegation from the Moor chiefs in Mauretania, Numidia and Byzacena who made their submission to Belisarius in 533, promising to fight as his allies and requesting to send them the insignia of office, according to the old custom. Procopius remarks that the Moors had a law that nobody had a right to rule them, until they had received signs of power from the Roman emperor. While the Moors received these insignia from the Vandals they did not consider their power to be stable (Proc. BV 1.25.3–6). It is noteworthy that Belisarius, who was given the supreme authority of the στρατηγός αὐτοκράτωρ on this expedition, a position confirmed 140

141

142 143 144

A. Kazhdan, Tzangion, in: ODP 3, 1991, 2135; K. Wessel, E. Piltz, C. Nicolescu, Insignien, in: RBK 3, 1978, 445–447. According to P. Odorico, in the Byzantine epoch the symbolic significance of imperial shoes was comparable to that of the crown (Odorico, Habiller le Prince 1028). Purple vestments as insignia of the Roman emperor is believed to have its origin in Near Eastern practices, particularly in Persian royal garb, which was passed onto the Romans and their client kings through the mediation of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic kings and their courts (Rein hold, History of Purple 62; see also: Delbrück, Kaiserornat 1–21 and Alföldi, Insignien und Tracht 51, 57). For the classification and hierarchy of the states surrounding the Roman Empire see: Chrysos, Basileus 33. Adonz, Armeniia 88. Adonz, Armeniia 88.

226

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

in writing by the emperor145 (Proc. BV 1.11.18; 1.11.20; 1.15.20), was capable and had the right to satisfy the Moorish demand. Procopius uses two terms to define these signs of power: τὰ ξύμβολα τῆς ἀρχῆς (Proc. BV 1.25.4)146 and γνωρίσματα τῆς ἀρχῆς (Proc. BV 1.25.6). Thanks to Procopius we posses a detailed description of these ›symbols‹ of power (Proc. BV 1.25.7). 3.1 Sceptre Silver gilded sceptre.147 The word ῥάβδος used by Procopius has wider net of meaning than σκῆπτρον, but includes the sense of sceptre.148 In Republican times a sceptre was considered »the typical virga regalis, the symbol of royalty«, associated with the kings of Rome.149 In later Rome the sceptre was a symbol of the consuls’ power and authority, then adopted by the emperors in their function as consuls.150 To my knowledge, of the insignial sets distributed by the Romans among their client kings in Late Antiquity this is the only mention in the written sources of a sceptre in such circumstances.151 Material from earlier epochs can provide some interesting analogies.152 In Republican times »a scepter was frequently offered to a foreign client king, when he was named Rex et socius atque amicus by a senatorial embassy«.153 In the year 203 BC, according to Titus Livius, among the other signs of power, Scipio gave Masinissa, who was recognized as a king, an ivory sceptre154 (Liv. 30.15.11sq.). The tradition also remained customary in the early Principate:155 another parallel is the evidence by Tacitus about items 145 146 147 148 149

150 151

152 153

154

155

PLRE-IIIA, 187 s.v. Belizarius. Compare also with the same term used by Procopius to define the insignia of the Colchis: Proc. BP 2.15.2. Ῥάβδος τε ἀργυρᾶ κατακεχρυσωμένη. Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1562, s.v. ῥάβδος; see about the royal and Christian connotations of the term ῥάβδος: Loerke, Miniatures 182f. Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 1955, 63; see about the role of sceptre throughout the different periods of Roman history and its representation on coinage: Bastien, Le buste monétaire vol. 2, 419f.; see also: Alföldi, Ausgestaltung 228; Petrusi, Insegne del potere 497. A. Kazhdan, Scepter, in: ODB 3, 1991, 1849; Morrisson, Les insignes du pouvoir 760. For the interpretation of a rock crystal sphere from the grave of the Frankish king Childericus as the top of a sceptre: Quast, Zepter. For the recent archaeological findings on the Palatine Hill in Rome, where three sceptres were found in the 4th-century hoard see: Panella, I segni del potere. See the detailed account about the investiture of the African tribes and insignia gifts: Rebuffat, L’investiture. Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 64. See also: Panella, I segni del potere 37–40 for archaeological evidence of sceptres in the Roman world in general; pp. 47–62 for mentions in written sources and iconographical contexts; pp. 251–261 for iconographical contexts. There were also: a gold crown, a curule chair, an embroidered or coloured toga (toga picta) and an embroidered tunic (tunica palmata). The whole list (with the exception of the curule chair) resembles ornamenta triumphalia (Modéran, Les Maures 491). Some time later, upon officially recognizing Masinissa as the king of Numidia, the Senate of Rome sent him: two purple military cloaks, each with a golden brooch, and tunics with a broad stripe, two horses with their trappings, two sets of arms with cuirasses for a horseman, and tents and field furniture such as were customarily furnished to a consul (Liv. 30.17.13). According to Appianus, as a reward for his alliance the Romans sent Masinissa a crown of gold, a signet ring of gold, a chair of ivory, a purple robe, a Roman dress, a horse with gold trappings and a suit of armour (App. Pun. 32). Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 64.

3. Insignia of the rulers of the Moors

227

sent to Ptolemy of Mauretania in ad 24: an ivory sceptre and embroidered toga (Tac. Ann. 4.26).156 By this act the Senate is said to have restored an old custom. The coins of this king and his father show a bigger variety of insignia, but also include a decorated stick, which could have been a sceptre.157 On the coin of Aemilius Lepidus issued in 66 BC, Ptolemy V of Egypt is represented with his sceptre, while M. Lepidus is placing a wreath on his head.158 An analogy to the coins of Mauretanian client kings can be found on the coins of the Roman vassal kings of the Bosporus,159 Cotys I and his successors, from ad 50 until 150. One can find representations of a kind of sellisternium, composed of the royal insignia granted to these foreign rulers by the Roman emperors.160 On the Bosphoran coins the insignia consisted of a curule chair, a wreath and a sceptre, apparently surmounted by a small bust of the Roman sovereign.161 As formulated by J. W. Salomonson, »the image is an open testimony of clientship and dependence upon the Roman power … At its side is the instructive legend τιμαὶ βασιλέως … revealing its exact meaning. A bestowal of such insignia as represented on the coin often accompanied the conclusion of a friendly alliance between Rome and a foreign prince. It stood for an official recognition of the latter’s royal title. The Bosphoran coinage proves that this act of recognition was highly valued«.162 M. Rostovtzeff characterized the set of gifts which the Bosphoran kings used to receive and which are figured on the coins as traditional, but as clearly expressing »the dominant ideas of the Roman Empire in its dealings with Oriental vassals«.163 The chronological distance between the analogies provided and the 6th century is huge, nevertheless these parallels seem to be helpful in understanding the significance of the insignia described by Procopius. A significant difference between the sceptres mentioned by the early sources among the investiture objects of the African rulers is that they were made of ivory, while the one sent to the Moorish chiefs by Belizarius was made of silver, which seems to put the value and rank of the item a step lower.164 3.2 Headdress Silver headdress, not covering the whole head, but as a wreath, held by a silver band.165 It seems obvious from the evidence that the shape and the type of this headdress was not Roman and perhaps was rather unusual, which made Procopius describe it in detail. The term 156

157 158 159 160

161 162 163 164 165

Cognitis dehinc Ptolemaei per id bellum studiis repetitus ex vetusto more honos missusque e senatoribus qui scipionem eburnum, togam pictam, antiqua patrum munera, daret regemque et socium atque amicum appellaret. Modéran, Les Maures 491–493; Mazard, Monnayage d’or, pl. II. Sydenham, Coinage 137, no. 831 reverse, pl. 24. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks 158, pl. 30-3. Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 30. For a general account about sceptres in GraecoRoman numismatic iconography see: G. Pardini, Signa i Insignia, in: Panella, I segni del potere 78–94. Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 30, fig. 16. Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath 30f. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks 158. Modéran, Les Maures 495; in general for the role of sceptres in Republican and Imperial Rome, see Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath. Πῖλος ἀργυροῦς οὐχ ὅλην τὴν κεφαλὴν σκέπων, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ στεφάνη τελαμῶσιν ἀργυροῖς πανταχόθεν ἀνεχόμενος.

228

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

πῖλος is sometimes associated with oriental or barbarian headdresses.166 Y. Modéran proposes comparing this description with the coins of Ptolemy, indicating that the insignia depicted there include a »strange crown« which corresponds perfectly with the depiction by Procopius.167 Perhaps here we are dealing with the case when a national, and not a Roman, type of headdress was included in the insignial set distributed by the Romans. This can be interpreted ambiguously: on the one hand the incorporation of national symbols in the investiture could be a sign of a certain independence, but on the other it made the image of a local chief less close to the figure of the Roman emperor, while it seems to have been a general tendency in the epoch to ›reflect‹ or imitate his authority. It seems that the rank of this insignia crown was not very high: definitely much lower than those donated to the Lazian kings, which were either called imperial or were made of gold and decorated with precious stones. 3.3 Chlamys White cloak, like a Thessalian chlamys (fastened with a gold fibula on the right shoulder).168 The description is again not very standard: the cloak is not called a chlamys, but only said to resemble it. Instead it is called τριβώνιον, the word usually used for rough clothing, like those of some philosophers, especially the Cynics, or the Spartiates of the classical epoch.169 The Thessalian chlamys used to have a special kind of goars which were called πτερύγες, wings and a scarf.170 The white colour does not add much to understanding the significance and rank of this cloak. As for the material, which is not indicated, we may be sure that it was not silk, as it is rather likely that Procopius would have been mentioned it. The very simple and rough character of the tribonion also seems to exclude this possibility. So we may note that this chlamys was of a comparatively low rank. 3.4 Chiton White chiton with embroidery.171 Unfortunately the description is not very eloquent, so we do not know what material it was made of or what the embroidery was like. The tunics of the Lazian kings were also white in colour and had gold embroideries, some of which included the emperor’s portrait. Procopius seems to be rather attentive to detail in such descriptions, which is seen not only in this account, but also in his report about the insignia of the Armenian satraps. As we may judge from his two pieces of evidence about the investiture of different people, this particular topic was interesting and important for him. All these reasons lead us to presume that the tunic and its embroidery were relatively modest or at least did not stand out and thus did not attract much attention from the author. 166 167 168 169 170 171

Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1404, s.v. πῖλος; cf. Hdt. 3.12 about the Persians who use this type of headdress. Modéran, Les Maures 493. Τριβώνιόν τι λευκὸν … (ὦμον ἐν χλαμύδος σχήματι Θετταλῆς ξυνιόν). Modéran, Les Maures 489; Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 1817, s.v. τριβώνιον. Smith, DGRA 275; see also: Tarbell, Chlamys 287. Χιτών τε λευκός, ποικίλματα ἔχων.

3. Insignia of the rulers of the Moors

229

3.5 Fibula Gold fibula on the right shoulder.172 The fibula was an essential part of the chlamys. Again the description is not full, we just know that the material was gold, but using the ›out of silence‹ method we may presume that it was not a so-called imperial type of fibula, which Procopius depicted in detail when speaking about Armenian insignia, and which was also received by the Lazian king Tzathes II. It has already been mentioned that according to the legislation of Leo, gems were prohibited in decorations on the officials’ fibulae, being reserved for imperial use, and brooches were to be »precious only for their gold and for their craftsmanship« (CJ 11.11.1).173 Here we seem to be dealing with another type of brooch, the so-called Zwiebelknopffibeln. Such clasps were important signs in the system of imperial civilian (court and government dress)174 and military organization, since they were handed out to newly appointed officials as part of a hierarchical system of dress, in which such details would signify the rank and distinction of the wearer and were a mark of official prestige.175 Such fibulae were among the objects given by the emperor (at least in the 4th century, as the iconographical material allows to judge),176 to officials of the highest rank, thus being an important mark of office.177 Of great interest is the observation by P. Bastien, who noted that on the two solidi of Gratianus and on the coin of Valentinian III the emperor-consul holds in his left hand not the sceptre, which was traditional in that type of iconography, but an object which is most probably a fibula,178 precisely an onion-head one. In the author’s opinion this new usage was limited only to Trier and Milan and was abandoned after the year 390, but in a sense these coins illustrate the role of this type of fibula as a part of insignia distributed by the emperor. These fibulae can be seen depicted on different objects of Late Antique art: e.g. on the diptych of Stilicho; on the Monza diptych,179 in which the general is depicted with such a clasp on the right shoulder; on the San Vitale mosaic, in which the retinue of the emperor have such gold fibulae attached to their white cloaks; and on the Missorium of Theodosius, a dignitary, approaching the emperor, is dressed in a chlamys held together by a crossbow fibula.180 This kind of brooch is also known from the material of the archaeological findings deriving from the so-called barbarian prince burials, attributed to different chiefs of the barbarian tribes of the Great Migration epoch. Thus the status level of the fibulae and of the insignia donated to the chiefs of the Moors was undoubtedly lower than of those of the Lazian kings or Armenian satraps. These gold fibulae indicated the rank of appointed state officials. A very interesting semantic aspect is 172 173 174 175 176 177

Ἐς χρυσῆν περόνην κατὰ τὸν δεξιόν. See V.1.4 for more details. Janes, The Golden Clasp 129. Janes, The Golden Clasp 133; Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria 154f. Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen, Abb. 25; Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts 212f., pl. 111. Johansen, Rings, Fibulae and Buckles 231, with indications of iconographical sources and other references. 178 Bastien, Le buste monétaire, vol. 2, 415 (vol. 3, pl. 208.2 and 5; 210.2). 179 Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen 248–250, no. 63; Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism 137, pl. 78; Kiilerich/Torp, Hic Stilicho 330f. 180 Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism 20, pl. 1f.

230

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

noted by D. Janes, who attracts attention to the »conceptual link … between the brooch and service to the empire«.181 3.6 Footwear gold.182

The word ἀρβύλη was usually used for a strong shoe, coming Boots, covered with up to the ankle, or half-boot, used by country people, hunters, travellers183 and soldiers (Joh. Lyd. de mag. 1.112. 25). The colour remains unknown, it is unlikely that it was purple or maybe even red, as these colours, having special importance, usually attract the authors’ attention. The semantic field of the term ἀρβύλη is very interesting, especially if we take it together with tribonion, as this also has the shade of meaning of modest and rough clothes. Certainly not just usual and simple boots were donated to the chiefs of the Moors: they must have been specially made for a gala purpose and were gilded. Nevertheless it seems significant and hardly a coincidence that Procopius uses such terminology in his account of the Moorish insignia. It seems that the author, very possibly intentionally, tends to create an impression that these signs of power referred to a considerably low status level, and this is why a certain disrespect can be detected in his account. 3.7 The Moorish rulers’ insignia. A summary Analysis of the insignia that Belisarius, acting as the representative of Emperor Justinian, bestowed upon the Moorish rulers demonstrates their relatively ›modest‹ character if we compare them with analogous sets of regalia to the Lazian kings or Armenian satraps. Such an assessment derives first of all from the materials and colours of the insignial objects (silver, not gold headdress, and the absence of silk, gems and red and purple colours). The important question, which Y. Modéran emphasises in his investigation of these Moorish insignia, is their origin: was it Roman or on the contrary barbarian? The French scholar proposes to see in this inauguration of the chiefs »les signes d’une continuité idéologique et politique avec l’Empire romain des premiers siècles de notre ère«.184 Indeed it seems possible to find some parallels between the objects donated by the Romans to Masinissa, Juba and Ptolemy, a major part of which had consular and triumphant significance. But at the same time it attracts attention that in his description Procopius uses some words that did not effect a gala meaning, but on the contrary effected a simple shade of significance (see about the chlamys – τριβώνιον and boots – ἀρβύλη). Perhaps this lexical usage by Procopius shows that these elements of garb were not customary for the Romans and possibly referred to details of national costume to which the specific kind of headdress should also be added. Another part of the set seems to have consisted of regalia of imperial offices: a sceptre traditionally associated with the regalia of consuls, and a gold fibula, an important sign of Roman officials. Perhaps a white tunic with embroidery should also be referred to the latter group. If such a presumption is true, then we may assume that one part of the 181 182 183 184

Janes, The Golden Clasp 134. Ἀρβύλη ἐπίχρυσος. Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie 235, s.v. ἀρβύλη. Modéran, Les Maures 495.

4. The insignia of Clovis

231

Moorish chiefs’ insignia, the part perhaps associated with their authority as chiefs, was of local derivation and the second was of imperial origin, being connected with the Roman system of offices and titles. The set of insignia demonstrates that in Roman eyes the status of the Moorish rulers was not purely royal (not even in the application of the concept of royalty towards the barbarians), but more like local chiefs, »vassal phylarchs«.185 In addition, Procopius does not apply any special term to define the nature of their power, but just calls them »those who ruled« (Proc. BV 1.25.3). When seeking alliance with the Romans and asking to send them symbols of power, the rulers of the Moors proclaimed themselves subjects of the emperor and some of them offered him their children as hostages. It may be significant that Procopius used the word δοῦλοι to indicate their status, which rather eloquently demonstrates and characterizes the subordinate side of the investiture. The four insignial sets analysed above seem to form a special group (as will be underlined further) and thus have been examined separately in this section. It is necessary to say that the case of donations to the Ghassanid king Alamundarus should also be included in this category of insignia. Due to the significant and evident community of the four insignia descriptions studied in this section and since the items which Alamundarus received from the Roman emperor, as it seems, prove to be a combination of insignia of royalty with more standard diplomatic gifts, the account of his visit to Constantinople and the donations he got is situated in the section dedicated to the diplomatic gifts that the Empire donated to its partners.186

4. The insignia of Clovis There are several other examples of the usage of insignia in diplomacy and mentions of various acts of barbarian rulers’ inauguration and receiving titles from the Roman Empire, the most famous of which must be the case of Clovis. This Frankish king received honorary consulship and perhaps also the patriciate from the Roman emperor Anastasius and is described by Gregory of Tours as being garbed in a tunica blattea, chlamys and wearing a diadem. The chlamys and tunica were undoubtedly associated with consulship regalia, while the diadem, as it seems, is not so evident as an item sent from Constantinople. According to Gregory, »from that day on he was called like a consul or an Augustus« (Greg. Tur. HF 2.38). As noted by R. Mathisen: »Several controversies have surrounded this account. For one thing, it remains unclear what titles or honors Clovis obtained: the consulate, the patriciate, the emperorship, some combination – or something else? It also is unclear whether any titles Clovis assumed were all necessarily bestowed by Anastasius, or whether one or more may have been simply usurped, either by Clovis or just by popular perceptions«.187 In the opinion of W. Ensslin, the diadem, chlamys and tunic were received by Clovis from the emperor as »Zeichen der Anerkennung seines Königtums«.188 Scholars reason much about the status of Clovis, looking for an explanation of Gregory’s mention of the title of Augustus189 and the presence of a diadem in the description. R. Mathisen notes that a 185 186 187 188 189

Chrysos, Basileus 45. See: IV.3.5. Mathisen, Clovis. Ensslin, Nochmals zu der Ehrung Chlodowechs 507. See e.g.: Fanning, Clovis Augustus.

232

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

»patrician also could be referred to as ›pater Augusti‹, which would provide some formal basis for the muddled report by Gregory, who presumably was not keyed up on the intricacies of Byzantine technical terminology, that Clovis was hailed as ›Augustus‹.«190 M. McCormick marks the ambivalence: »… even though Gregory’s account of Clovis at Tours stresses the emperor’s approval of the Frank’s position, it also underscores the king’s practical independence by gestures bordering on usurpation«. This ambivalence, according to M. McCormick closely parallels evidence from other barbarian kingdoms of the early 6th century.191 The problem of the status and position of Clovis, which has received much attention from scholars, goes beyond the framework of the present investigation, hence I refer to the above-quoted paper by M. McCormick, where references to further literature on the subject can be found.192 Another evident example of a king inaugurated with different imperial titles and honours is Theodericus (›the Great‹), who, however, having obtained imperial recognition as ruler of Italy and received back the palace ornaments which Odoacer had sent to Constantinople, did not receive the imperial purple and never used the title Augustus.193 It was a common practice in the later Roman Empire to distribute different military and civil titles and offices among the barbarian rulers, thus making them part of the imperial system of offices and combining their national royal authority with the concept of service to the emperor to secure their strict subordination. As postulated in the introduction I have consciously excluded this aspect of imperial policy from my investigation. However, it is evident that in the cases when barbarian rulers received some title of imperial state hierarchy, they were also donated an appropriate insignial set.

5. Insignia distributed by the Roman Empire. A summary In this section I intended to analyse the specific evidence of the so-to-speak material side of the acts of inauguration, by trying to examine the regalia objects. I was interested first of all in the items themselves, and have paid less attention to the legislative and bureaucratic element of the insignia system as the problem of donations and the system of gifts in diplomacy is the prime aim of this investigation. The comparison of insignial objects provides extremely important data which may be used not just for analogies and as a background for the study of presents distributed by the Roman Empire to its various partners and subordinates in the course of negotiations, but also as a key to understanding their significance and attributing the right shades of perception to them.194 190 191 192 193

Mathisen, Clovis. McCormick, Clovis at Tours 158. McCormick, Clovis at Tours. PLRE-II, 1083, s.v. Theodericus 7; see for the status and position of Odoacer: Jones, The Constitutional Position of Odoacer. 194 A very interesting passage one can find in the De Administrando Imperio by Constantine Porphyrogennetos, who, among other advises to his son, recommends him »Should they ever require and demand, whether they be Chazars, ot Turks, or again Russians, or any other nation of the northerners and Scythians, as frequently happens, that some of the imperial vesture or diadems or state robes should be sent to them in return for some service or office performed by them, then thus you shall excuse yourself: ›These robes of state and the diadems, which you call kamelaukia were not

5. Insignia distributed by the Roman Empire. A summary

233

Some observations and conclusions can be made on the basis of the analysis of the insignia which the Roman Empire used to donate to its subordinates and client kings in the period of Late Antiquity. The four pieces of evidence analysed in this section in my opinion really deserved special investigation, since these descriptions are unique in their minuteness and attention to detail. In all four cases the authors were undoubtedly interested in insignia, all of them are united by the same scheme and a very similar order of mentioning the items in the sets (for the order see appendix 3.1; in general the list is usually formed this way: crown, chlamys and fibula [if present], tunic, footwear and belt [if present]; there are some exceptions and shifts in the sequence, but the general logic is always the same). It is hard to indicate one apparent reason for this evident community of different accounts. Certainly this similarity could have been caused by some standards in the perception and description of costume and accessories, especially in the area of Staatssymbolik where one may suppose that strict regulations and rules existed. At the same time this structure of accounts could derive from certain bureaucratic regulations and standards. The possibility that the authors used some kinds of official documents, concerning concrete acts of investiture or general regulations on this subject, should not be excluded either. The abundance of details and description of some peculiarities is striking and leads to the conclusion that the authors had either seen all the items themselves or had some reports at their disposal. The fact that the two descriptions of insignia of the two Lazian kings (by Malalas and by Agathias) demonstrate several differences and perhaps even a certain evolution, but at the same time perfectly correspond, is noteworthy, showing not the dependence of one author on another, but, I believe, some common scheme which they followed. The two other descriptions – of the signs of power of Armenian satraps and the Moorish chiefs, both belong to the pen of Procopius, who seems to have had some particular interest in the subject, as well as knowledge or access to material. The comparison of these two pieces of evidence by the same author also shows an awareness of special features, a common format of the accounts and at the same time evident differences in the realities (indicating the different status of the insignia). All this allows us to suppose not just a common pattern, but some good sources of information, like personal evidence and/or access to documents. The actual composition of the sets of regalia is very similar in all the known cases. The standard components were: a crown or other type of headdress (with the exception of the Armenian satraps); a chlamys, often with embroideries; tunic embroidery; a fibula (there is no mention only in the list of Ztathius’s insignia); and footwear. Additional elements, 194

fashioned by men, not by human arts devised or elaborated but, as we find it written in secret stories of old history, when God made emperor the former Constantine the great, who was the first Christian emperor, He sent him these robes of state by the hand of His angel, and the diadems which you call kamelaukia, and charged him lay them in the great and holy church of God, which after the name of that very wisdom which is the property of God, is called St. Sophia‹ …« (DAI 13.24–37). It seems evident that the object mentioned here are of insignial character, so probably the situation described was of the barbarian chiefs who demanded to be invested by the emperor. Very notable is the fact, that Constantine invents a fabulous explanation to refuse the demand, and, as it is rightly underlined by P. Odorico, the fabulous elements served to construct an image of divine origin of byzantine power (Odorico, Habiller le Prince 1051f.). The concept, which was ever present also in early Byzantine relations with the barbarians, in the consented gift and insignia donations as well as in the rejected ones.

234

V. Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity

named in singular cases, were: a belt and sceptre. The presence or lack of some element in the insignia donated must have had a special meaning: the Armenian satraps seem to have received no type of diadem, which reflected their not fully royal position; the Lazian kings were invested with belts, whose origin (Roman, Persian or national) is not absolutely clear, though some details make it possible to presume that this reveals experience of previous investitures, made by the Persians. The Moors were the only ones to receive a sceptre, which may have been the result of the revival of the old Roman investiture of African client kings and a reflection of consular insignia. All the characteristics and descriptions of the regalia objects had special significance and reflected the rank and status of the recipient in the Roman hierarchy. The type and shape, material, manner of decoration and colour were filled with meaning and semantics. The Lazian kings received crowns which referred to imperial types (Ztathius’s crown for sure and Tzathes II’s very possibly) and the reception of such insignia reflecting that of the emperor, in my opinion, was a sign of supreme honour. On the contrary, the headdresses donated to the Moorish leaders were of a specific local kind, which in its turn marked not just some grade of independency, but also signified a certain distance from the image of emperor and a reduced status. A tunic, chlamys and footwear are present in all the insignial sets and this category is very significant. The garbs of the Lazian kings and Armenian satraps all included gold embroideries, some of which included portraits of the emperor, and often they were made of silk and byssus. These garbs can be classified as combining purely imperial elements of the emperor’s costume with elements of the garments of high officials – perfectly demonstrating the ambiguity of their position in the Roman table of ranks. Moorish vestments look more like ordinary ones and correspond with the rest of the items in their insignial set, which prove they occupy a lower position in the imperial ›status ladder‹ than Lazica and the Armenian satrapies. The presence among the insignial signs given to client kings of ›imperial‹ fibulae decorated with precious stones and pendants is very significant, demonstrating that in such cases barbarian rulers were regarded and invested not just as civil or military officials of the Roman Empire (though items referring to insignia of the state officials could also be included in the sets of investiture items), but as kings, with whom the supreme ruler, the emperor of the Romans, shared his regalia. The position of Lazica and the Armenian satrapies thus is characterized by their reception of imperial fibulae, and the Moorish status by the gold clasp (Zwiebelknopffibel), referring to a lower level. The ambiguous act of inauguration by the Roman emperor of a ›client‹ ruler on the one hand put the ruler in a subordinate position and limited the independency of his territory, making him – as formulated by M. Christol and J. Gascou – a »fondé de pouvoir« of Rome.195 On the other hand, however, the same act raised his status, confirming his authority and royalty, satisfying his will to imitate the emperor.196 This double signification 195 196

Christol/Gascou, Volubilis 340. A. Cutler attracts attention to the phenomenon of the usage of the hand-me-down clothing and its significance as »signs of respect or the passage of political authority« (Cutler, The Emperor’s Old Clothes 200 and passim). However, at least for the Late Antique reality, it is not the fact that the garments had previously been worn by the emperor, but their imperial type that seems to have been of primary importance. It seems even less likely that real imperial garments would have been do-

5. Insignia distributed by the Roman Empire. A summary

235

from the Roman point of view is described thus by Y. Modéran: »elle impliquait une reconnaissance par l’Empire d’un statut spécial, théoriquement d’autonomie, pour le territoire et le peuple qu’ils dirigeaient; mais elle était aussi, et sans que cela apparaisse contradictoire pour un Etat qui se voulait universel, une affirmation de la suprématie romaine«.197 The study of the insignial sets donated by the Empire to the kings of Lazi, the satraps of the Armenians and the chiefs of the Moors proves the fairness of this statement.

196

nated. The analysed evidence shows that in all of the cases the costume was of imperial type, but significant elements (of material, colour etc.) differed from it, thus signalling the difference in status. 197 Modéran, Les Maures 495.

Conclusions The system created by Late Antique diplomacy was based on a strict hierarchy and classification of various partners, allies, subjects and adversaries, first of all based on positions of status and different levels of subordination. Communication between the Roman emperor and a barbarian ruler in the paradigm of the empire’s dominancy can be defined as normative for Late Antiquity. Relations with Persia, representing the model of formally accepted parity and evident competition, cannot be included in this paradigm so the meeting of a Roman emperor and Persian shah could not happen within such a scheme. For the empire, the most preferable way of direct communication between the emperor and barbarian rulers was to receive them in Constantinople, when all the elements of the action demonstrated the evident domination of Roman power (the very necessity to undertake a journey to have the luxury of seeing the emperor; grandiose receptions impressing by their splendour; often acts of the barbarian rulers’ investiture by the emperor, or baptism). Personal communication between barbarian rulers and the emperor outside situations of the Roman Empire’s prevailing dominance was not normal in the period examined in the current work and instead characterizes the later stage of development of the Byzantine state. In general it should be formulated that direct diplomatic dialogue at the supreme level between rulers was rare in Late Antiquity. The style of conducting foreign affairs and diplomatic relations preferred by the system formed in the studied period was the method of indirect or partially direct international political communication. The significance of the mediators in this communication increased. This, in its turn, explains the basic importance of the institution of embassies for Late Antique diplomacy. Analysis of various pieces of evidence describing the diplomatic communication process has highlighted a particular feature of Late Antique, especially high level, diplomacy: the organization of embassies in series, groups or ›blocks‹. Important negotiations were usually divided into several sessions: one side demonstrated the will to negotiate; the other side accepted the invitation and sent an embassy in response; followed by negotiation and the concluding of agreements. This is a simplified scheme, in reality the conclusion of a treaty could have been split into many blocks of embassies exchanged by the sides. This ›block‹ embassy system was a method of high-level diplomatic communication, used both by the Romans and the Persians and in relations with barbarians as well. Most of the negotiations on serious international questions were organized according to this principle. Usage of the ›block‹ system can be perceived as a direct consequence of the emperor figure’s superior role in the diplomatic process in combination with the tendency to develop representative diplomacy: negotiations held through mediators needed coordination and approval from the centre, which caused splitting of the communication and ›shuttle‹ diplomacy. Embassies within blocks fall into several groups, according to their tasks and status level. Minor embassies, had mostly ceremonial meaning, without the right to communicate.

238

Conclusions

They expressed only the formal will to start negotiations or notification of the accession of a ruler. They could have a different status, depending on the position and level of addressee. ›Medium‹ embassies had a right to communicate and conclude some agreements, but were of a lower status than that of the major ones. Major embassies had the right to negotiate and conclude some agreements, but not final ones, and a nevertheless very high status. Plenipotentiary embassies, perhaps the most powerful and important embassies, had a greater importance and authority than the major ones, possessed high status and represented the state itself; they had the authority to sign agreements, and in most cases belonged to high-level diplomacy between the Roman and Persian Empires. A particular role belonged to the military men in the diplomatic process: in periods of war they often led the local negotiations, and in some cases military masters were given autocracy which endowed them with decision-making privileges. In addition it was also usual for clergymen to be responsible for local negotiations, often representing their own cities. On the whole it can be remarked that Late Antique diplomacy tended to avoid personal contact between the rulers of the negotiating sides and preferred to use envoys as mediators, who carried out most of the diplomatic tasks. Thus the role of travelling diplomats was great. The negotiating process can be divided into several phases, which are united into the definition of a ›block‹ as an exchange of embassies in a certain order. The aims of embassies, negotiation issues and treaty clauses varied from mostly ceremonial to primary political importance; the purpose of a delegation correlated with its status, type and level in the imperial system of the hierarchy of diplomatic missions. The most important means of international communication was a diplomatic mission. The bureaucratic system of Late Antiquity did not create a corpus of professional diplomats in the modern sense of the word; diplomacy and ambassadorial representation would not become the officials’ main and only professional activity. There existed rules and norms for choosing personnel for diplomatic missions. The potential envoy’s status position and rank was extremely important – there was a direct correlation between the degree and rank of envoy heading the mission, and the respect for the side receiving the delegation. In the traditional Roman system ambassadors of the highest ranks, ex-ordinary consuls, were reserved for relations with Persia. Analysis of the material allows the supposition that in the 5th century a certain shift took place in the system. Attila and other powerful barbarian rulers put the Roman foreign policy under serious pressure, by insisting on negotiations with ambassadors of the supreme level, like those usually sent to the shah. The Roman diplomatic system appeared flexible enough to be updated for the new situation. Another sign of this ›status race‹ was the introduction and common use of the practice of raising diplomats’ status directly before they departed with embassies. Endowing an ambassador with a high rank in order to make him a more appropriate figure for the mission was a very opportune solution, allowing figures to be dispatched with embassies who would better fit the situation, whether their dignity beforehand had been high enough or not. In spite of the absence of a diplomatic corps and permanent diplomatic representatives, one can note an evident tendency towards professionalization in Late Antique ambassadorial business. Often we are informed about persons who served as envoys several times, in many cases in the same geographical direction, which allowed them to accumulate the experience and connections for the mission’s success. Another important feature of the system was to involve members of the same families in diplomatic activity, so that it sometimes became tra-

Conclusions

239

ditional for a family to travel to negotiate with the same people. These elements of diplomatic specialization evidently contributed a great deal to the success of international communication. Analysis of the sources has enabled the reconstruction of the basic structure of a diplomatic mission and its personnel. The typical staff of an embassy included: the head (or joint heads) of a delegation; the chief envoy’s companion who acted as his assistant; interpreter(s); messenger(s); the chief ambassador’s suite and companions; servants; attendants; perhaps guards. Rather often the other side’s diplomats would travel together with the imperial delegation. It was permitted for those whose travel was not connected with the diplomatic task of a mission, but who had to make the journey to the same territory, to join an embassy, so some ›outsiders‹ could also follow a delegation. Ambassadors and the whole delegation were protected by international rules ordering diplomats’ immunity which were accepted by all sides. In reality these norms were often neglected and envoys could be treated extremely badly. Laws of inviolability often failed to guarantee a diplomatic mission’s absolute safety and security and obliged its members to look for additional assurance, for example, by demanding hostages. A diplomatic ›expedition‹ could appear a very dangerous and hard journey, and diplomats travelling through hostile territories depended greatly on the will of the receiving side, which provided transport, logistics and safety. It is important to note that representatives of the highest Roman establishment, dispatched as ambassadors, often risked and suffered various negative circumstances on the journey as well as bad treatment. It was not rare for magistri officiorum to act as travelling diplomats, and their missions could last a long time: months or even years (sometimes they were captured by enemies). It is very significant that the whole system managed to function in the absence of the key diplomacy-making figure. Diplomatic journeys provided ideal conditions for collecting various pieces of information. The evidence in the sources allows us to presume that it was necessary for imperial diplomats to make accounts of their journeys, which contributed much to the development of geographical and ethnographical knowledge. Evidently ambassadors also acted as spies. The development and elaboration of a system of intelligence collection, also by the means of diplomacy, led to the practice of using double agents, who were sometimes recruited from the diplomats of an adversary, especially in relations between the Romans and the Persians. Gift giving must be considered a very important part of Late Antique diplomacy. There existed rituals and etiquette and a system of gift exchange, which was implemented by the Romans, the Persians and their barbarian partners. The system of gift exchange functioned in accordance with the ›block‹ principle of embassy exchange. Various categories of importance of the gifts can be distinguished: from state gifts of primary level to ›personal‹ gifts destined for the diplomats. The importance of gifts, first of all of state gifts, was not concentrated (or at least not only) in their material value, but in the status that they symbolized. Late Antique diplomatic gifts were perceived as indicators of the attitude of the Roman Empire towards its partners, marking the status of barbarian rulers in the international hierarchy and among their people. Neglecting this side and mistakes in the distribution of gifts could even cause international conflicts. Gifts that symbolically equated the status of barbarian rulers with the Roman emperor or Persian shahanshah were perceived by the barbarians as the most precious. In some cases it is possible to distinguish universal and

240

Conclusions

specific features in the categories of donations to different peoples. The following can be named among the common categories of donations to various partners of the Empire: valuable garments, gold and silver, and spices. Specific features of the set, number, value and character of the gifts donated to different peoples could demonstrate the position and status of these peoples in the imperial hierarchy, the current political situation, position and attitude of an emperor seeking an alliance or conflict, and the level and importance of negotiations. It seems likely that the tastes and traditions of the recipients were also taken into consideration in preparation of the presents. Analysis of the sets of insignia distributed among the barbarians complements the study of gift-giving diplomacy, providing an important model of the hierarchical evaluation of the imperial partners and its reflection in the insignial objects. All the characteristics and descriptions of the regalia objects had a special significance and reflected the rank and status of the recipient in the Roman hierarchy. The type and shape, material, manner of decoration and colour were filled with meaning and semantics. The sets of insignia destined to the barbarian rulers copied – though with differences in composition, design and materials – the insignia of the Roman Emperor. The full set would include: a crown or other type of headdress; a chlamys, often with embroideries; tunic embroidery; a fibula and footwear. Additional elements, named in single cases, were: a belt and sceptre. The presence or lack of some element in the insignia donated must have had a special meaning: the Armenian satraps seem to have received no type of diadem, which reflected their not fully royal position; the Lazian kings were invested with belts, whose origin (Roman, Persian or national) is not absolutely clear, though some details make it possible to presume that it revealed the experience of previous investitures, made by the Persians. The Moors were the only ones to receive a sceptre, which may have been the result of the revival of the old Roman investiture of African client kings and a reflection of consular insignia. The ambiguous act of inauguration by the Roman Emperor of a ›client‹ ruler on the one hand put the ruler in a subordinate position and limited the independency of his territory, but the same act raised his status, confirming his authority and royalty, satisfying his will to imitate the emperor. In general it may be concluded that the systems of Roman/Byzantine diplomacy in Late Antiquity represented first of all symbolic acts twisted with protocol and ceremonial, a developed bureaucracy, and methods of economic, political and military influence. Almost every phenomenon, every aspect of the diplomatic process analysed in the current investigation can be viewed through the prism of its straight functions on the one hand, and its semantic-symbolic meaning on the other. Diplomatic communication in Late Antiquity, as demonstrated, tended to avoid personal contact between the supreme rulers and to use meditative negotiation tactics through agents, leading to the development of the shuttle ›block‹ system. A ›block‹ organization of embassies seems to have been the basic feature of ambassadorial communication in high-level diplomacy, which regulated the splitting of negotiations into several necessary phases. Much protocol and ceremonial accompanied all the stages of this complex communication process. The block system allowed this style of representative negotiation to work with the Roman emperor or Persian shah taking the leading role. The grounds and reasons for the creation of such a system lay in the sphere of ideology, prestige and hierarchy: both the Roman and Persian monarchs preferred distant communication, first of all, to keep their positions of absolute supremacy, which could have

Conclusions

241

been lost in direct dialogue, untouched and safe. Many details of the protocol and diplomatic norms were concentrated mostly on keeping and distributing status positions within the imperial hierarchy and table of ranks. The types of embassies, ranks of ambassadors, delegation personnel, set of presented gifts, reception procedures – all these elements, components and instruments of the diplomacy system secured the course and making of the diplomatic process and its ceremonial, but at the same time they served to establish the rank and status of the imperial partners/adversaries and to indicate the place in the hierarchy accorded by the imperial will. The other side in its turn sought to raise its status, also using and demanding various symbolic acts. All the spheres of the diplomatic process studied in this work demonstrate that Late Roman diplomacy was orientated first of all towards Persia, as the traditionally most important, dangerous, esteemed and equal partner (and peer). The complex system of Roman diplomacy was being formed in relations with Iran and the standard for diplomatic actions elaborated in this sphere. Diplomatic communication between Rome and Persia may be taken as the etalon of supreme-level diplomacy. The changing and deteriorating circumstances of the Late Antique epoch obliged Roman diplomacy to act rather flexibly, and adopt some of the rules in relations with the barbarians, balance concessions of some positions, and keep and exploit the theme of status prestige. The evident success of Roman diplomacy was its almost immediate involvement of the newly appearing groups of barbarians which entered into contact with the Empire in the system of values, prestige and status hierarchy that it established and dictated. On the other hand, the Empire itself was in some aspects influenced by its partners in communications, sometimes voluntary accepting new features, sometimes being pressed to do so. The system of diplomacy was developing through the centuries, adding further evolutions and innovations to ancient Roman traditions. Diplomacy was moving from a more simple model of less hierarchical, sometimes even direct negotiations, towards more complex, mediatory, ceremonial-protocol communication, based on the status principle.

Appendix

1. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners 1.1 Gifts to the Persians source

donator/ recipient - priest of Constantina, Baradates - shah Cavades I

level/ context local/ ransom for city

1

Proc. BP 2.13.7

2

Josh. Styl. 81

- emperor Anastasius - shah Cavades I

primary

3

Proc. BP 2.5.12

- priest of Sura - shah Chosroes I

local/ ransom for city

4

Joh. Eph. HE 6.29

5

Theoph. Sim. 5.3.7

primary - emperor Tiberius II - pretender to the Persian throne under the name of Chosroes’s son primary - emperor Maurice - shah Chosroes II Parvez

objects - wine - figs - honey - white bread everything must have been put in some vessels - gifts - tableware made of gold

ὁ Βαράδοτος τηνικαῦτα παρὰ τὸν Καβάδην ἐλθὼν οἶνόν τε ἤνεγκε καὶ ἰσχάδας καὶ μέλι καὶ καθαροὺς ἄρτους, καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐδεῖτο μὴ ἀποπειρᾶσθαι πόλεως

- poultry - wine - white bread everything must have been put in some vessels - gold - silver - wonderful garments - horses - mules

ὃς τῶν ὑπηρετῶν τινας ἐπαγόμενος, ὄρνις τε φέροντας καὶ οἶνον καὶ καθαροὺς ἄρτους,παρὰ Χοσρόην ἀφίκετο

- belt decorated with precious stones - king’s tiara - couches of gold - tables of gold - emperor’s bodyguards

ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ λιθοκόλλητον ζώνην καὶ τιάραν βασιλικὴν κλίνας τε καὶ τραπέζας χρυσᾶς ἐς τὸ Δαρὰς τῷ Χοσρόῃ ἀπέστελλεν, πομπήν τε βασίλειον αὐτῷ συγκροτῶν ἐκ τῶν παρ’ αὐτῷ δορυφόρων μεγαλοπρεπῶς μετεδίδου

244

Appendix

1.2 Gifts to the Avars source

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

donator/ recipient Men. Prot. - emperor 5.2.3–5 Justinian - the Avars

level/ context primary

objects

- cords worked with gold - couches - silken garments - many other objects which would mollify the arrogant spirits Joh. Eph. - emperor both pri- rich presents of gold HE 6.24 mary and and silver Justinian lower (to the - garments - the Avars chiefs and to - girdles envoys) - saddles ornamented with gold Men. Prot. - emperor primary - cords worked with 8.1–6 gold which were made Justin refusto confine what was es to give escaping usual gifts - likewise couches - to the Avars - other luxury goods Men. Prot. - Roma 12.5.66–68 generals are asked by the - Khagan of the Avars Men. Prot. - emperors 25.2.65sq. regularly send - Khagan of the Avars Theoph. - Romans had Sim. 1.3.7 to pay - the Avars

small gifts (βραχέα δῶρα)

- silver dish - small amount of gold - Scythian (silken?) cloak

primary

- gold - silver - silk garments

Joh. Eph. - emperor HE 6.31sq. Tiberius II - the Avars Theoph. - emperor Sim. 1.3.8– Maurice, 10 satisfying the wish of - Khagan of the Avars Theoph. - emperor Sim. Maurice 1.3.11sq. - Khagan of the Avars

primary

- much gold - various vestments

primary

- most beautiful of emperor’s elephants

primary

- gold couch

not gifts, but - 80.000 solidi per antribute, subnum to be paid in silver sidies (anand colored garments nual)

σειράς τε χρυσῷ διαπεποικιλμένας καὶ κλίνας ἐσθῆτάς τε σηρικὰς καὶ ἕτερα πλεῖσταἐκμαλθακῶσαι οἷά τε ὄντα ἀλαζονείας ἀνάπλεα φρονήματα

ἦσαν δὲ καλῴδιά τε χρυσῷ διαπεποικιλμένα,ἐς τὸ εἴργειν τι τῶν ἀποδιδρασκόντων ἐπινενοημένα, καὶ κλῖναι ὁμοίως καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ ἐς τὸ ἁβρότερον ἀνειμένα δίσκου ἑνὸς ἀργυροποιήτου καὶ ὀλίγου χρυσίου, ἔτι γε μὴν καὶ ἀμπεχονίου Σκυθίου (σηρικοῦ?) καλὸν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν κτῆμα καὶ χρυσὸν καὶ ἄργυρον καὶ μὲν οὖν ἐσθῆτα σηρικήν ὀγδοήκοντά τε χιλιάδας χρυσῶν καθωμολόγουν ἀν’ ἔτος ἕκαστον τοῖς βαρβάροις ἐγκαταβάλλεσθαι δι’ ἐμπορίας ἀργύρου τε καὶ ποικίλης ἐσθῆτος

πέμψας ὡς αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν παρ’ αὐτῷ τρεφομένων θηρίων τὸ ἐξοχώτατον. ὁπηνίκα δ’ εἶδεν τὸ Ἰνδικὸν ζῶον ὁ Χαγάνος ἐλέφαντα ἐπώχλει δὲ τὸν Καίσαρα καὶ κλίνην χρυσῆν τεχνουργήσαντα ὡς αὐτὸν παραπέμψαι

1. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners source 10 Theoph. Sim. 7.13.5sq.

donator/ recipient - Roman general Priscus, after demand - Khagan of the Avars

level/ objects context local/ - spices: pepper, Indian during truce leaves, cinnamon, costos

245

Ἰνδικὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ Πρίσκου λαβεῖν ἀξιῶν καρυκείας. ὁ μὲν οὖν στρατηγὸς τοῦ βαρβάρου τὴν ἀξίωσιν ἐθεράπευε πέπερί τε ἐξέπεμψε καὶ φύλλον Ἰνδικὸν κασίαν τε καὶ τὸν λεγόμενον κόστον

1.3 Gifts to the Turks source 1

Joh. Eph. HE 6.23

donator/ level/ recipient context - envoys from primary emperor Justin II (embassy of Zemarchus) - Turkish ruler

objects splendid present of - gold, silver and pearls - magnificent statedresses

1.4 Gifts to the Huns source 1

Prisc. 11.2.308– 311

2

Prisc. 11.2.34 sq.

3

Joh. Mal. 18.13

donator/ level/ recipient context - embassy of medium Maximinus from emperor Theodosius II - wife of Bleda

- embassy of low Maximinus from emperor Theodosius II - Hun diplomats Edeco and Orestes primary - emperor Justinian - queen of Sabirian Huns, Boa

objects - 3 silver bowls - red skins - Indian pepper - dates and other dried fruits which barbarians value because they are not native to their own country - silk garments - Indian stones

τρισί τε ἀργυραῖς φιάλαις καὶ ἐρυθροῖς δέρμασι καὶ τῷ ἐξ Ἰνδίας πεπέρει καὶ τῷ καρπῷ τῶν φοινίκων καὶ ἑτέροις τραγήμασι

δώροις ὁ Μαξιμῖνος Ἐδέκωνα καὶ Ὀρέστην ἐθεράπευσε σηρικοῖς ἐσθήμασι καὶ λίθοις Ἰνδικοῖς

βασιλικῆς φορεσίας καὶ - imperial raiment - variety of silver vessels σκευῶν διαφόρων ἐν ἀργύρῳ

246

Appendix

1.5 Gifts to the Arabs source 1

Malch. 1

2

Joh. Bicl. s.a. 575.3

3

Joh. Eph. HE 4.39– 42

donator/ recipient - emperor Zeno - Phylarch Amorcesus

level/ context primary

primary - emperor Justin II, co-ruler Tiberius - Ghassanid king Alamundarus (in Constantinople) primary - emperor Tiberius - Ghassanid king Alamundarus (in Constantinople)

objects - very valuable portrait of him in gold, set with precious stones (variants: portrait of Amorcesus, portrait of Leo, just an image, image of property of Amorcesus; icon) - money from public treasury - gifts from the senators - splendid gifts (perhaps with appellatio regis)

καὶ τέλος ἀπέπεμψεν αὐτόν, ἰδίαν μὲν παρ’ αὐτοῦ εἰκόνα τινὰ χρυσῆν καὶ κατάλιθον λαβὼν σφόδρα τε οὖσαν πολυτελῆ, χρήματα δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκείνῳ ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου ἀντιδοὺς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κελεύσας ἕκαστον εἰσενεγκεῖν, ὅσοι ἐτέλουν εἰς τὴν βουλήν Alamundarus Sarracenorum rex Constantinopolim venit et cum stemmate suo Tiberio principi cum donis Barbariae occurrit. qui a Tiberio benigne susceptus et donis optimis adornatus ad patriam abire permissus est.

- large presents and royal gifts - bestowing military titles and (or military decorations) on the two sons - presents of gold - presents of silver - magnificent garments - saddles - bridles of gold - armor - a royal crown

1.6 Gifts to the kingdoms of the Caucasus source 1

Amm. 21.6.7sq.

donator/ level/ recipient context primary - emperor Constantius II - kings of Armenia and Iberia Arsaces and Meribanes

objects - wonderful garments - different gifts

ante omnia tamen Arsaces et Meribanes, Armeniae et Hiberiae reges, cultu ambitioso indumentorum emercabantur et multiformibus donis, damna negotis Romanis inlaturi, si rebus tum etiam dubiis descivissent ad Persas

1. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners

247

1.7 Gifts to the Goths source 1

Zos. 5.41

donator/ recipient - Romans - Alaricus

level/ context high level/ ›ransom‹

objects - 5.000 pounds of gold - 30.000 of silver - 3.000 silk robes - 3.000 scarlet fleeces (skins) - 3.000 pounds of pepper

δοθῆναι παρὰ τῆς πόλεως πεντακισχιλίας μὲν χρυσοῦ λίτρας, τρισμυρίας τε πρὸς ταύταις ἀργύρου, σηρικοὺς δὲ τετρακισχιλίους χιτῶνας, ἔτι δὲ κοκκοβαφῆ τρισχίλια δέρματα καὶ πέπερι σταθμὸν ἕλκον τρισχιλίων λιτρῶν

1.8 Gifts to the Franks source 1

donator/ recipient Greg. Tur. - emperor HF 6.2 Tiberius II - king of the Franks Chilperic

level/ context primary

objects - gold coins each of a pound’s weight sent by the emperor having on one side the likeness of the emperor and the inscription in a circle: Tiberi Constantini Perpetui Augusti and on the other a fourhorse chariot and charioteer with the inscription: Gloria Romanorum - many other beautiful things brought by the legates

aureus etiam singularum librarum pondere, quos imperatur misit, ostendit, habentes ab una parte iconicam imperatoris pictam et scriptum incirculo: Tiberii Constantini perpetui Augusti; ab alia vero parte habentes quadrigam et ascensorem contenentesque scriptum: Gloria Romanorum. Multa enim et alia ornamenta, quae a legatis sunt exhibita, ostendit

248

Appendix

1.9 Gifts to the Chersonites source 1

DAI 53.21

donator/ recipient - emperor Constantine I - the Chersonites

level/ context high?

objects - golden statue with imperial cloak and clasp - gold crown for beautifying the city - golden rings, expressing the likeness of the emperor to seal reports and petitions

Ἐπειδὴ καὶ νῦν εὐνοϊκῶς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐκάμετε, καθὼς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐσεβῶν προγόνων τῆς ἡμετέρας θειότητος, ἰδοὺ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐπικυροῦντες τὰς ἤδη ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ καὶ ἀτελείᾳ δοθείσας ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας βασιλείας δεξιάς, παρέχομεν ὑμῖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνδριάντα χρυσοῦν μετὰ καὶ χλαμύδος βασιλικῆς καὶ φιβλατούρας καὶ στέφανον χρυσοῦν πρὸς εὐπρέπειαν τῆς ὑμετέρας πόλεως μετὰ καὶ ἐγγράφου ἡμῶν ἐλευθερίας καὶ ἀτελείας ὑμῶν τε καὶ τῶν πλωΐμων ὑμῶν, καὶ πρὸς τὴν γνησιότητα τῆς ὑμῶν εὐνοίας δίδομεν ὑμῖν καὶ δακτυλίους χρυσοῦς, ἐκτυποῦντας τὰς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβεῖς εἰκόνας, δι’ ὧν τὰς κατὰ καιρὸν μελλούσας ἀποστέλλεσθαι ἡμῖν παρ’ ὑμῶν ἀναφοράς τε καὶ δεήσεις σφραγίζοντες ταύτας, γνωρίμους ἡμῖν ἀποδείκνυτε τοὺς ἑαυτῶν πρέσβεις

2. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners

249

2. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners 2.1 Gifts from the Persians source 1

Pacat. Paneg. Theod. 22.5

2

Josh. Styl. 19

3

4

5

donator/ level/ recipient context primary - shah Sapor III (by embassy) - emperor Theodosius I

- shah Cavades I - emperor Zeno de cer. 1.89 could have [406] been among the gifts from - shah Chosroes I to - emperor Justinian Anon. - shah Chr. 81 Chosroes II Parwez - emperor Maurice Mich. Syr. 387

objects - precious stones (gems, seals?) - silk - animals for triumphs

denique ipse ille rex eius dedignatus antea confiteri hominem. iam fatetur timorem et in his te colit templis in quibus colitur, tum legatione mittenda, gemmis sericoque praebendo, ad hoc triumphalibus beluis in tua esseda suggerendis, etsi adhuc nomine foederatus, iam tamen tuis cultibus tributarius est

primary

- an elephant

primary

- horses (the three doors ἐὰν ἔχῃ ἵππους εἰς τὰ ξένια of consistorium are opened, if the ambassador has horses among the gifts)

primary

- many gifts - precious stones - garments of every kind

- many gifts - precious stones

2.2 Gifts from the Huns source 1

donator/ recipient Prisc. - Attila 11.4.13–15 - Anatolius and Nomus (Roman envoys)

level/ context primary or medium

objects - horses - skins of wild animals, with which the Scythian kings adorn themselves

Ἀνατολίῳ καὶ Νόμῳ χαριζόμενος. δωρησάμενος δὲ καὶ ἵππους αὐτοῖς καὶ θηρίων δοράς, αἷς οἱ βασίλειοι κοσμοῦνται Σκύθαι, ἀπέπεμπε

250

Appendix

2.3 Gifts from the Turks source

1

2

donator/ level/ recipient context Men. Prot. - envoys of primary 10.1 the Turkish ruler Sizabul - emperor Justin II

medium Men. Prot. - Turkish 10.3.70sq. ruler Sizabul - envoy Zemarchus

objects - valuable gifts of raw silk

- female slave (a warcaptive from the people called Kerkhir)

τούτοις δήπου κατανεύσας τοῖς ῥήμασιν ὁ Σιζάβουλος ἐκπέμπει αὐτόν τε καὶ ἑτέρους τινὰς ὡς βασιλέα Ῥωμαίων πρεσβευσομένους προσρήσεις τε ἀποκομιοῦντας καὶ δῶρα μετάξης οὐκ ὀλίγον τι χρῆμα καὶ συλλαβάς τινας δώροις τε φιλοφρονησάμενος αὐτοὺς ἀφῆκε, τὸν δὲ Ζήμαρχον καὶ θεραπαίνῃ ἐτίμησε δοριαλώτῳ· ἡ δὲ ἦν ἐκ τῶν λεγομένων Χερχίρ

2.4 Gifts from peoples of Africa and South Arabia source 1

Eus. V.Const. 4.50

2

Marcell. com. s.a. 448.1

donator/ level/ recipient context primary - envoys of the Himyarites - emperor Constantine

- envoys from primary Axum? - emperor Theodosius I

objects - sparkling precious stones - animals of breeds different from those known in the Empire

- a tiger

ἐν τούτῳ δὲ καὶ Ἰνδῶν τῶν πρὸς ἀνίσχοντα ἥλιον πρέσβεις ἀπήντων δῶρα κομίζοντες, γένη δ’ ἦν παντοῖα ἐξαστραπτόντων πολυτελῶν λίθων ζῷά τε τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐγνωσμένων ἐναλλάττοντα τὴν φύσιν provincia India Theodosio principi pro munere tigrim domitam misit

2. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners source 3

Marcell. com. s.a. 496.2

4

Timoth. Gaz., Peri Zoon 24

5

Joh. Bicl. s.a. 573.6

donator/ level/ recipient context - envoys from primary the ruler of: Axum?/ South Arabia? - emperor Anastasius

- envoys of the Maccuritae - emperor Justin II

primary

251

objects - an elephant - 2 giraffes

- ivory - giraffe

India Anastasio principi elephantem, quem Plautus poeta noster Lucabum [id est Lucam bovem] nomine dicit, duasque camelopardalas pro munere misit. ὅτι διὰ Γάζης παρῆλθέ τις ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰνδικῶν, Ἀελίσιος δὲ τὸ γένος, ἄγων δύο καμηλοπαρδάλεις και ἐλέφαντα τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἀναστασίῳ. τοῦτο ἐθεάθη καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν· τῷ γὰρ βασιλεῖ τῷ Μονομάχῳ καὶ ἄμφω ταυτὶ τὰ ζῷα προσαχθέντα ἐξ Ἰνδίας ὡς θαῦμα έπὶ τοῦ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θεάτρου ἑκάστοτε τῷ λαῷ έπεδείκνυντο legati gentis Maccuritarum Constantinopolum veniunt dentes elephantionos et camelopardam Iustino principi munera offerentes sibi cum Romanis amicitias collocant

2.5 Gifts from different barbarians source 1

Eus. V.Const. 4.7.2

donator/ level/ recipient context primary - embassies from different barbarians - emperor Constantine

objects - golden crowns - diadems of precious stones - fair-haired children - foreign clothes woven with gold and bright colours (or flowers) - horses - shields - spears - javelins - bows

Συνεχεῖς γοῦν ἁπανταχόθεν οἱ διαπρεσβευόμενοι δῶρα τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς πολυτελῆ διεκόμιζον … ἐν μέρει δὲ τούτων ἕκαστοι, ὥσπερ ἐν πίνακος γραφῇ, τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς τίμια βασιλεῖ προσεκόμιζον, οἱ μὲν στεφάνους χρυσοῦς, οἱ δ’ ἐκ λίθων διαδήματα τιμίων, ἄλλοι ξανθοκόμους παῖδας, οἱ δὲ χρυσῷ καὶ ἄνθεσι καθυφασμένα βαρβαρικὰς στολάς, οἱ δ’ ἵππους, οἱ δ’ ἀσπίδας καὶ δόρατα μακρὰ καὶ βέλη καὶ τόξα, τὴν διὰ τούτων ὑπηρεσίαν τε καὶ συμμαχίαν βουλομένῳ βασιλεῖ παρέχειν ἐνδεικνύμενοι

252

Appendix

3. Insignia Sets 3.1 Insignia of the Lazian kings Ztathius (=Tzathes I) (522 C.E.) Joh. Mal. 17.9 imperial crown (wreath) στεφάνιον Ῥωμαϊκὸν βασιλικὸν white chlamys of pure silk; instead of the purple border it had the gold imperial border; in its middle was a true portrait medallion with a likeness of the emperor Justin. χλαμύδα ἄσπρον ὁλοσήρικον, ἔχον ἀντὶ πορφυροῦ ταβλίου χρυσοῦν βασιλικὸν ταβλίον, ἐν ᾧ ὑπῆρχεν ἐν μέσῳ στηθάριον ἀληθινὸν , ἔχοντα τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ αὐτοῦ βασιλέως Ἰουστίνου

Tzathes II (555 C.E.) Аgath. 3.15 gold crown (wreath), decorated with precious stones στέφανος χρυσοῦς λιθοκόλλητος they are not allowed to have purple chlamys

χλαμύδα δὲ ἁλουργῆ τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τῶν Λαζῶν οὐ θέμις ἀμπίσχεσθαι

white chlamys with gold embroideries in the middle on both sides (with imperial fibula) λευκὴν δὲ μόνον … ἀμφὶ γὰρ τὸ μεσαίτατον ἐκείνη χρυσῷ ὑφάσματι ἑκατέρωθεν καταλάμπεται chiton, with gold embroideries

white tunic, a paragaudion, with gold imperial embroideries, equally including the likeness of the emperor στιχάριν δὲ ἄσπρον παραγαύδιν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἔχον χιτώνιον ποδῆρες ὑπόχρυσον χρυσᾶ πλουμία βασιλικά, ὡσαύτως ἔχοντα τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ αὐτοῦ βασιλέως imperial fibula, decorated with precious stones and other overhung decorations βασιλικὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐμπερόνημα τῆς χλαμύδος, λίθοις τε ἐκκρεμέσι καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ κατασκευῇ διαπρέπον purple shoes, decorated with gold and precious the shoes that he wore he had brought from his own country, and they were studded with pearls stones in Persian fashion τὰ γὰρ ζταγγία, ἃ ἐφόρει, ἦν ἀγαγὼν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας πέδιλά τε κοκκοβαφῆ … ὁμοίως χρυσῷ τε καὶ λίαὐτοῦ χώρας ῥουσαῖα, εἶχον μαργαρίτας Περσικῷ θοις πεποικιλμένη σχήματι his belt was decorated with pearls belt, decorated with gold and precious stones ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ ζώνη αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν διὰ μαργαρί- μίτρα ὁμοίως χρυσῷ τε καὶ λίθοις πεποικιλμένη των

3. Insignia Sets

253

3.2 Insignia of the Armenian Satraps and of the rulers of the Moors Insignia of the Armenian Satraps Proc. Aed. 3.1.17–23

cloak made of wool, not such as is produced by sheep, but gathered from the sea; pinnos the creature is called on which this wool grows; and the part where the purple should have been, that is, where the insertion of purple cloth is usually made, is overlaid with gold (with fibula) χλαμὺς ἡ ἐξ ἐρίων πεποιημένη, οὐχ οἷα τῶν προβατίων ἐκπέφυκεν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ θαλάσσης συνειλεγμένων. πίννους τὰ ζῷα καλεῖν νενομίκασιν, ἐν οἷς ἡ τῶν ἐρίων ἔκφυσις γίνεται there was a tunic of silk adorned in every part with decorations of gold which they are wont to call ploumia χιτὼν ἐκ μετάξης ἐγκαλλωπίσμασι χρυσοῖς πανταχόθεν ὡραϊσμένος, ἃ δὴ νενομίκασι πλούμια καλεῖν the cloak was fastened by a golden brooch in the middle of which was a precious stone from which hung three hyacinths by loose golden chains περόνη χρυσῆ τῇ χλαμύδι ἐπέκειτο, λίθον ἐπὶ μέσης περιφράττουσά τινα ἔντιμον, ἀφ’ οὗ δὴ ὑάκινθοι τρεῖς χρυσαῖς τε καὶ χαλαραῖς ταῖς ἁλύσεσιν ἀπεκρέμαντο the boots were of red color and reached to the knee, of the sort which only the Roman emperor and the Persian king are permitted to wear ὑποδήματα μέχρι ἐς γόνυ φοινικοῦ χρώματος, ἃ δὴ βασιλέα μόνον Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Περσῶν ὑποδεῖσθαι θέμις

Insignia of the rulers of the Moors Proc. BV 1.25.1–9 silver gilded scepter ῥάβδος τε ἀργυρᾶ κατακεχρυσωμένη silver head-dress, not covering the whole head, but as a wreath, held by silver band πῖλος ἀργυροῦς οὐχ ὅλην τὴν κεφαλὴν σκέπων, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ στεφάνη τελαμῶσιν ἀργυροῖς πανταχόθεν ἀνεχόμενος white cloak, like Thessalian chlamys (fastened with gold fibula on the right shoulder)

τριβώνιόν τι λευκὸν … (ὦμον ἐν χλαμύδος σχήματι Θετταλῆς ξυνιόν)

white chiton with embroidery

χιτών τε λευκὸς, ποικίλματα ἔχων

gold fibula on the right shoulder

ἐς χρυσῆν περόνην κατὰ τὸν δεξιόν

boots, covered with gold

ἀρβύλη ἐπίχρυσος

Literature

Abbreviations Most of the abbreviations used follow the system of L’Année Philologique. BAR CFHB CSCO CSHB DEI DGRA DOP EI EPLBHC

British Archaeological Reports Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae Dizionario Enciclopedico Italiano A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (W. Smith [ed.]) Dumbarton Oaks Papers Encyclopaedia Iranica (E. Yarshater [ed.]) Encyclopaedic Prosopographical Lexicon of Byzantine History and Civilization (A. G. Savvides, B. Henrickx [eds.]) FCHLRE The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire FHG Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum MGH, AA Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores antiquissimi NEB The New Encyclopaedia Britannica NP Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Classical Tradition (M. Landfester, H. Cancik, H. Schneider [eds.]) OCD The Oxford Classical Dictionary (S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth [eds.]) ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (A. P. Kazhdan [ed.]) PG Patrologia Graeca PGL Patristic Greek Lexicon (G. W. Lampe [ed.]) PLRE The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (J. R. Martindale, A. H. M. Jones, J. Morris [eds.]) RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (T. Klauser [ed.]) RBK Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst (K. Wessel, M. Restle [eds.]) RE Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft SC Sources Chrétiennes VV Vizantiiskii Vremennik

Principal primary sources and main editions and translations used Main editions and translations used The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, R. C. Blockley (ed., transl., comm.), 1–2, Liverpool 1983 Historici Graeci Minores, L. Dindorf (ed.), Leipzig 1870 The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles, A. Palmer, S. Brock, R. Hoyland, (introd., transl., annot.), including two seventh-century Syriac apocalyptic texts, Liverpool 1993 Siriiskaia srednevekovaia istoriografiia. Issledovaniia i perevody, N. V. Pigulevskaia (ed., transl.), Sankt-Peterburg 2000. Including translations of: John of Ephesus (pp. 477–543), Chronicle by Zacharias Rhetor (pp. 544–570), Joshua Stylite (pp. 571–619)

256

Literature

Svod drevneishikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianakh, L. A. Gindin, S.A. Ivanov, G. G. Litavrin, V. K. Ronin (eds.), 1–2, Moskva 1994 Three Byzantine Military Treatises, G. T. Dennis (ed., transl., notes), Washington DC 1985 Vizantiiskie istoriki Deksipp, Evnapii, Olimpiodor, Malkh, Petr Patricii, Menandr, Kandid, Nonnos, Feofan Vizantiets, S. Destunis (ed., transl.), Sankt-Peterburg 11860, Riazan’ 22003 Agathias Agafii Mirineiskii, O tsarstvovanii Iustiniana, M. V. Levchenko (transl.), Moskva 11953, 21996 Agathiae Myrinaei historiarum libri quinque, R. Keydell (ed.), Berlin 1967 (CFHB 2) Agathias, The Histories, J. Frendo (transl., ed.), Berlin 1975 (CFHB 2A) Ammianus Marcellinus Ammian Marcellin, Rimskaia istoriia, I. Kulakovskii, A. Sonni (transl., comm.), Kiev 11906–1908, Sankt-Peterburg 21994 Ammianus Marcellinus, J. C. Rolfe (transl.), Cambridge (Mass.), London 1982 Ammianus Marcellinus, Römische Geschichte, W. Seyfarth (transl., comm.), 1–4, Berlin 51983–1986 Ammien Marcellin, Histoires, E. Galletier, J. Fontaine, G. Sabbah, E. Freziuls, J.-D. Berger, M.-As. Marié, L. Angliviel (introd., transl., eds.), 1–4, Paris 22002 Chronicon Paschale Chronicon Paschale, L. Dindorf (ed.), Bonn 1832 (CSHB) Chronicon Paschale, 284–628 AD, M. Whitby, M. Whitby (transl., notes, introd.), Liverpool 1989 (Translated Texts for Historians 7) The Code of Justinian The Code of Justinian, S. P. Scott (transl.), vol. 15 of The Civil Law, Cincinnati 1932 The Digest of Justinian, T. Mommsen, P. Krueger (eds.), A. Watson (transl., ed.), 1–4, Philadelphia 1985 Constantine Porphyrogennetos Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, G. Moravcsik (ed.), R. J. H. Jenkins (trans.), Washington 21967 Constantine Porphyogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, J. F. Haldon (ed.), Vienna 1990 (CFHB 28) Constantini Porphyrogeniti de ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo, J. J. Reiske (ed.), Bonn 1829 (CSHB) Konstantin Bagrianorodnyi, Ob upravlenii imperiei, G. G. Litavrin (transl., comm.), A. P. Novosel’tsev (eds.), Moskva 1991 De legationibus, Excerpta historica iussu imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, C. de Boor (ed.), vol. 1: excerpta de legationibus, 1–2, Berlin 1903 Corippus Corippe, Éloge de l’Empereur Justin II, S. Antès (transl., ed.), Paris 1981 Corippus, Flavius Cresconius, In Laudem Iustini Augusti Minoris Libri IV, Av. Cameron (transl., ed.) London 1976 Eusebius Eusebius, Werke, I. A. Heikel, E. Schwartz (eds.), 1–2, Leipzig 1902–1909 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Av. Cameron, S. G. Hall (transl., eds.), Oxford 1999 In Praise of Constantine. A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Oration, H. A. Darke (ed.), Los Angeles/London 1976, translation: 83–102 Iordannes Iordanis, De Origine Actibusque Getarum, F. Giunto, A. Grillone (ed.), Roma 1991 (Fonti per la storia d’Italia 117) Iordan, O proisxozhdenii i dejanijax getov ›Getica‹, E. C. Skrzhinskaia (transl., ed.), Sankt-Peterburg 1997

Principal primary sources and main editions and translations used

257

John of Ephesus Iohannis Ephesini, Historiae ecclesiasticae pars tertia, E. W. Brooks (ed., transl.), Louvain 1936 (CSCO 106) The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John Bishop of Ephesus, P. R. Smith (transl.), Oxford 1860 John Lydus Ioannes Lydus, On Powers to the Magistracies of the Roman State, A. C. Bandy (introd., critical text, transl., comm.), Philadelphia 1983 Joshua Stylite The Chronicle of Joshua The Stylite, W. L. D. Wright (transl., notes), Cambridge 1882 Die syrische Chronik des Joshua Stylites, A. Luther (transl.), Berlin/New York 1997 Libanius Libanii Opera, R. Foerster (ed.), 1–12, Leipzig 1903–1927 Libanius, Selected works, A. F. Norman (transl.), 1, Harvard/London 1969 Libanios, Briefe, G. Fatouros, T. Krischer (transl., ed., comm.), München 1980 Libanius, Autobiography and selected works, A. F. Norman (ed., transl.), 1, London 1992 Malalas John Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, I. Thurn (ed.), Berlin 2000 (CFHB 35) The Chronicle of John Malalas, E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, R. Scott (transl., eds.), Melbourne 1996 Malchus Malco di Filadelfia, Frammenti, Testo critico, introduzione, traduzione e commentario, L. R. Cresci (ed.), Napoli 1982 (Byzantina et neo-hellenica neapolitana 9) Menander The history of Menander the Guardsman, R. C. Blockley (ed., transl., comm.), Liverpool 1985 Olympiodorus Photiès, Bibliothèque, R. Henry (ed., transl.), 1, Paris 1959 Olimpiodor Fivanskii, Istoria, E. Ch. Skrzhinskaia, P. V. Shuvalov (transl., comm., eds.), SanktPeterburg 1999 Priscus Prisci Panitae fragmenta, F. Bornmann (ed.), Florence 1979, 9–125 Skazaniia Priska Paniiskogo, S. Destunis (transl., comm., ed.), Sankt-Peterburg, 1861 (Uchenye zapiski II otdeleniia Akademii Nauk, kniga VII, vypusk 1), 18–99 Priscus Panita, Excerpta et fragmenta, P. Carolla (ed.), Berlin 2008 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana) Procopius Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, J. Haury, G. Wirth (eds.), 1–4, Leipzig 1962–1964 Procopius, H. B. Dewing (transl., ed.), 1–7, Cambridge (Mass.)/London 1914–1940 (Loeb Classical Library) Prokopii Kesariiskii, Voina s gotami. O postroikakh, S. P. Kondrat’ev (transl., ed.), Moskva 1996 Prokopii Kesariiskii, Voina s persami, Voina s vandalami, Tainaia istroriia, A. A. Chekalova (transl., comm., ed.), Moskva 1993 Socrates Socrates, Sozomenus, Ecclesiastical Histories. A Select Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Ph. Schaff, H. Wace (ed.), London/New York 11886, 21995 Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire Ecclésiastique, P. Périchon, P. Maraval (transl.), 1–7, Paris 2004–2007 (Sources Chrétiennes 477) Sozomenus Socrates, Sozomenus, Ecclesiastical Histories. A Select Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Ph. Schaff, H. Wace (eds.), London/New York 11886, 21995

258

Literature

The Theodosian Code The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, C. Pharr (transl., comm.), New York 1952 Theophylact Simocatta Theophylacti Simocattae historiae, C. de Boor (ed.), Stuttgart 1972 The History of Theophylact Simocatta, Michael Whitby, Mary Whitby (transl., ed.), Oxford 1986 Feofilakt Simokatta, Istoriia, S. P. Kondratiev (transl.), N. V. Pigulevskaia (ed.), K. A. Osipova (comm.), Moskva 11957, 21996 Zosimus Zosime, Histoire Nouvelle, F. Paschoud (transl., ed.), 1–5, Paris 1979–2000 Dexippi, Eunapii, Petri Patricii, Prisci, Malchi, Menandri, Historiarum quae supersunt, I. Bekker, B. G. Niebuhr (ed.), Bonn 1829

Other consulted sources Abinnaeus Archive The Abinnaeus Archive, Papers of a Roman Officer in the Reign of Constantius II, H. I. Bell, V. Martin, E. G. Turner, D. van Berchem (ed.), Oxford 1962 pseudo-Athanasius S. P. N. Athanasii Archiepiscopi Alexandrini, Opera Omnia quae extant, J.-P. Migne (ed.), Paris 1887 (PG 26) St. Athanasius, Select Works and Letters, P. Schaff, H. Wace (eds.), Ann Arbor 1957 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 4) Cosmas Indicopleustes Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographie Chrétienne, W. Wolska-Conus (introd., ed, transl.), 1–4, Paris 1968 (SC 141) Cyril of Jerusalem S. P. N. Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Hierosolymitani, opera quae exstant omnia, J.-P. Migne (ed.), Paris 1857 (PG 33) Cyrilli Hierosolymarum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, W. C. Reischl, J. Rupp (ed.), 1–2, München 11848–1860, 21967 Cyril of Jerusalem, E. Yarnold (transl., ed.), London/New-York 2000 Dio Cassius Histoire Romaine de Dion Cassius, E. Gros (trad.), V. Boissée (eds.), Paris 1861 Elisha Vardapet Armianskaia epopeia V veka, K. N. Iuzbashian (transl.), Мoscow 2001 Frontinus Frontinus, The Strategems, the Aqueducts of Rome, M. B. McElwain (ed.), C. E. Bennett (transl.), Cambridge (Mass.) 82003 (Loeb Classical Library) Gregory of Nazianus Julian the Emperor. Gregory Nazianzen’s two Invectives and Libanius’ Monody with Julian’s Extant Theosophical Works, C. W. King (transl.), London 1888 Gregorio di Nazianzo, Contro Giuliano l’Apostata. Oratio IV, L. Lugaresi (ed.), Firenze, 1993 Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 4–5 contre Julien, J. Bernardi (intr., ed., trad., notes), Paris 1983 Gregor von Nazianz. Oratio 3 gegen Julian, A. Kurmann (comm.), Basel 1988 John of Antioch Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia chronica, U. Roberto (introd., ed., transl.), Berlin 2005

Principal primary sources and main editions and translations used

259

John of Biclar Chronicon, Th. Mommsen (ed.), Chronica Minora II, Berlin, 1893 (MGH, AA 11.1) John of Biclar and his ›Cronicle‹, R. Ferry (transl.). Dissertation, Rice University, Texas: http://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/13431?show=full John of Nikiu The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, R. H. Charles (transl.), London 1916 Liutprand of Cremona Liutprandi Cremonensis, Antapodosis, Homelia Paschalis, Relation de Legatione Constantinopolitana, P. Chiesa (ed.), Turnhout 1998 Die Werke Liutprands von Cremona, J. Becker (ed.), Leipzig 1915 The works of Liutprand of Cremona, F. A. Wright (transl.), New York 1930 Lysias Lysias, W. R. M. Lamb (transl.), London 1930 Marcellinus Comes Marcellini comitis v. C. Chronicon, Th. Mommsen, Chronica Minora II, Berlin 1894 (MGH, AA 11) The Chronicle of Marcellinus, B. Croke (transl., comm.), Sydney 1995 Marutha La vie Grecque ancienne de S. Marūtā de Mayferqat, J. Noret (ed., transl.), in: Analecta Bollandiana 91, 1973, 77–103 Menander Rhetor Menander Rhetor, D. A. Russell, N. G. Wilson (ed., transl., comm.), Oxford 1981 Michael the Syrian Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antiche (1166–1199), J.-B. Chabot (trad.), 1–5, Paris 1899, 1901, 1905, 1910, 1924; Repr. 1963 Nikephoros Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople: Short Story, by C. Mango (ed., transl., comm.), Washington DC 1990 (Corpus Fontium Byzantinae 13) Nizam al-Mulk Nizam al-Mulk, Siyasat-nama, Book of Government, H. Darke (transl.), London 1960 Pacatus Drepanius Latinus XII Panegyrici Latini, E. Baeherns (ed.), Leipzig 1911 Panégyriques latins, E. Galletier (transl., ed.), 3, Paris 1955 In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici latini, R. A. B. Mynors, C. E. V. Nixon, B. Saylor Rotgers (intr., transl., comm., ed.), Los Angeles/Oxford 1994 Peter the Patrician Petrus Patricius, Historiarum Fragmenta, C. Müller (ed.), Paris 1851 (FHG IV), 184–191 Photius The Library of Photius, J. H. Freese (transl.), 1, New York, 1920 Photius bibliothèque, R. Henry (ed., transl.), 1 (codices 1–84), Paris 1959 Fozio Biblioteca, N. Wilson (ed.), Milano 1992 Prosper of Aquitaine Prosperi Tironis Epitoma Chronicon, Th. Mommsen (ed.), in: Chronica minora saec. IV., V., VI., VII., Berlin 1892 (MGH, AA 9) Pseudo-Kodinos Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des offices, J. Verpeaux (intr., transl.), Paris 1966

260

Literature

Sebeos Istorija imperatora Irakla, Sochinenie episkopa Sebeosa, K. Patkanjan (transl.), Saint-Petersburg 1862 Sebeos’ History, R. Bedrosian (transl.), New York 1985 Theophanes Confessor Theophanis Chronographia, C. De Boor (ed.), 1–2, Leipzig, 1883–1885 The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813, C. Mango, R. Scott (transl., introd., comm., with the assistance of G. Greatrex), Oxford 1997 Timotheos of Gaza Timotheos of Gaza, on Animals, ΠΕΡΙ ΖΩΩΝ, F. S. Bodenheimer, A. Rabinowitz (transl., ed.), Leiden 1949 Zacharias Rhetor Die sogenannte Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor, K. Ahrends, G. Krüger (transl.), Leipzig 1899 Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta, E. W. Brooks (ed., transl.), 1–2, Louvain 11924, 21953 The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, F. J. Hamilton, E. W. Brooks (transl.), London 1899

Secondary Sources Adonz, Armeniia: N. Adonz (= N. Adontz) Armeniia v epokhu Iustiniana, Erevan 11908, 21971 (transl. into English by N. Garsoïan: N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The Political Conditions Based on the Naxarar System, Lisboa 1970) Affortunati, Ambasciatori: M. Affortunati, Ambasciatori germanici in Italia dal II sec. a.C. al II sec. d.C., in: B. Scardigli, P. Scardigli (eds.), Germani in Italia, Roma 1994, 105–115 Albertz/Blöbaum/Funke, Räume und Grenzen: R. Albertz, A. I. Blöbaum, P. Funke, Räume und Grenzen: topologische Konzepte in den antiken Kulturen des östlichen Mittelmeerraums, München 2007 Alföldi, Ausgestaltung: A. Alföldi, Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhofe, in: MDAI(R) 49, 1934, 1–118 Alföldi, Insignien und Tracht: A. Alföldi, Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser, in: MDAI(R) 50, 1935, 1–171 Alföldi, Repräsentation: A. Alföldi, Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche, Darmstadt 1970 Allen, Hostages: J. Allen, Hostages and Hostage-Taking in the Roman Empire, Cambridge 2006 Allin, La girafe: M. Allin, La girafe de Charles X: son extraordinaire voyage de Khartoum à Paris, Paris 2000 Ando, Imperial Ideology: C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, Los Angeles/London 2000 Angeli Bertinelli/Piccirilli (eds.), Linguaggio: M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, L. Piccirilli (eds.), Linguaggio e terminologia diplomatica dall’Antico oriente all’impero Bizantino. Atti del Convegno Nazionale, Genova, 19 novembre 1998, Roma 2001 Αντωνόπουλος, Πέτρος: Π. Αντωνόπουλος, Πέτρος Πατρίκιος. Ο βυζαντινός διπλωμάτης, αξιωματούχος και συγγραφέας, Αθήνα 1990 Arce, Dagli imperatori ai re: J. Arce, Dagli imperatori ai re barbari: simboli e rappresentazione del potere, in: G. P. Brogiolo, A. C. Arnau (eds.), I Longobardi: dalla caduta dell’Impero all’alba dell’Italia, Milano 2007, 23–32 Athanassiadi, Pensée unique: P. Athanassiadi, Vers la pensée unique: la montée de l’intolérance dans l’Antiquité tardive, Paris 2010 Ausbüttel, Verträge: F. M. Ausbüttel, Die Verträge zwischen den Vandalen und Römern, in: Romanobarbarica 11, 1991, 1–20 Austin/Rankov, Exploratio: N. J. E. Austin, B. N. Rankov, Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople, London 1995

Secondary Sources

261

Averil, Justin I and Justinian: C. Averil, Justin I and Justinian, in: CAH 14, 2000, 63–85 Avery, Adoratio Purpurae: W. Avery, The Adoratio Purpurae and the Importance of the Imperial Purple in the Fourth Century of the Christian Era, in: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 17, 1940, 66–80 Aymard, Otages: A. Aymard, Les otages barbares au début de l’Empire, in: JRS 51, 1961, 136–142 Azarpay, Crowns: G. Azarpay, Crowns and Some Royal Insignia in Early Iran, in: IA 9, 1972, 108– 115 Azarpay, The Role of Mithra: G. Azarpay, The Role of Mithra in the Investiture and the Triumph of Šāpūr, in: IA 17, 1982, 181–187 Babut, L’Adoration des empereurs: E.-Ch. Babut, L’Adoration des empereurs et les origines de la persécution de Dioclétien, in: RH 123, 1916, 225–252 Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria: I. Baldini Lippolis, L’oreficeria nell’impero di Costantinopoli tra IV e VII secolo, Bari 1999 Baldwin, Malchus: B. Baldwin, Malchus of Philadelphia, in: DOP 31, 1977, 91–107 Baldwin, Menander: B. Baldwin, Menander Protector, in: DOP 32, 1978, 100–125 Baldwin, Olympiodorus: B. Baldwin, Olympiodorus of Thebes, in: AC 49, 1980, 212–231 Baldwin, Priscus: B. Baldwin, Priscus of Panium, in: Byzantion 50, 1980, 18–61 Balty, Hiérarchie: J. Ch. Balty, Hiérarchie de l’Empire et image du monde, in: Byzantion 52, 1982, 60–71 Barlow, Kinship: J. Barlow, Kinship, Identity and Fourth-Century Franks, in: Historia 45.2, 1996, 223–239 Barnes, Abinnaeus: T. D. Barnes, The Career of Abinnaeus, in: Phoenix 39.1, 1985, 368–374 Barnes, The New Empire: T. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge (Mass.) 1982 Barrington Atlas: R. J. A. Talbert, R. S. Bagnall (eds.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton 2000 Bastien, Le buste monétaire: P. Bastien, Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains, 1–3, Wetteren, 1992–1994 Bayless, Treaty: W. Bayless, The Treaty with the Huns of 443, in: AJPh 97, 1976, 176–179 Baynes, Justinian and Amalasuntha: N. Baynes, Justinian and Amalasuntha, in: EHR 40, 1925, 71–73 Beliaev, Ocherki: N. M. Beliaev, Ocherki po Vizantiiskoi arkheologii. 1. Fibula v Vizantii, Praha 1929 (Seminarium Kondakovianum, Recueil d’études 3) Betten, Roman Itineraries: F. J. Betten, Roman Itineraries, in: CHR 7.3, 1921, 296–302 Bezzi, Iconologia: M. Bezzi, Iconologia della sacralità del potere: il Tondo Angaran e l’etimasia, Spoleto 2007 Bibikov, Istoricheskaia literatura: M. V. Bibikov, Istoricheskaia literatura Vizantii, Sankt-Peterburg 1998 Bleckmann, Reichskrise: B. Bleckmann, Die Reichskrise des 3. Jh. in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras, München 1992 Blockley, The Coded Message: R. C. Blockley, The Coded Message in Ammianus Marcellinus 18.6.17–19, in: EMC 30 (n.s. 5), 1986, 63–65 Blockley, Division: R. C. Blockley, The Division of Armenia between the Romans and the Persians at the End of the Fourth Century A.D., in: Historia 36, 1987, 222–234 Blockley, Doctors: R. C. Blockley, Doctors as Diplomats in the Sixth Century AD, in: Florilegium 2, 1980, 89–100 Blockley, Foreign Policy: R. C. Blockley, East Roman Foreign Policy. Formation and Conduct from Diocletian to Anastasius, Leeds 1992 (ARCA 30) Blockley, Marriages: R. C. Blockley, Roman-Barbarian Marriages in the Late Empire, in: Florilegium 4, 1982, 63–77 Blockley, Subsidies: R. C. Blockley, Subsidies and Diplomacy: Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity, in: Phoenix 39, 1985, 62–74 Boak, Master: A. E. R. Boak, The Master of the Offices in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empire. Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration, 1, London 1924

262

Literature

Börm, Königtum: H. Börm, Das Königtum der Sasaniden – Strukturen und Probleme. Bemerkungen aus althistorischer Sicht, in: Klio 90, 2008, 423–443 Börm, Prokop: H. Börm, Prokop und die Perser: Untersuchungen zu den römisch-sasanidischen Kontakten in der ausgehenden Spätantike, Stuttgart 2007 (Oriens & Occidens 16) Bonfante, Emperor, God and Man: L. W. Bonfante, Emperor, God and Man in the Fourth Century, in: PP 99, 1964, 401–427 Borodin/Surkova, Istoriia: O. R. Borodin, S. N. Surkova, Istoriia geograficheskoi mysli, SanktPeterburg 2000 Bradbury, Selected Letters: S. Bradbury, Selected Letters of Libanius: From the Age of Constantius and Julian, Liverpool 2004 Braund, Friendly King: D. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship, London 1984 Braund, Georgia in Antiquity: D. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC–AD 562, Oxford 1994 Bréhier, Institutions: L. Bréhier, Les institutions de l’empire byzantin, Paris 21970 Bréhier, L’origine des titres: L. Bréhier, L’origine des titres impériaux à Byzance, in: ByzZ 15, 1906, 161–178 Brennan, Embassies Gone Wrong: C. T. Brennan, Embassies Gone Wrong: Roman Diplomacy in the Constantinian Excerpta de Legationibus, in: C. Eilers (ed.), Diplomats and Diplomacy in the Roman World, Leiden 2009 (Mnemosyne Suppl. 304), 171–192 Büttner-Wobst, Anlage: T. Büttner-Wobst, Die Anlage der historischen Encyklopädie des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos, in: ByzZ 15, 1906, 88–120 Bursche, Die Rolle: A. Bursche, Die Rolle römischer Goldmedaillone in der Spätantike, in: W. Seipel (ed.), Barbarenschmuck und Römergold. Der Schatz von Szilágysomlyó, Wien 1999, 39–53 Bursche, Roman Gold Medallions: A. Bursche, Roman Gold Medallions in Barbaricum: Symbols of Power and Prestige of Germanic Elite in Late Antiquity, in: B. Kluge, R. Weisser (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Numismatic Congress, Berlin 1997, Berlin 2000, 758–771 Burstein, An Elephant: S. M. Burstein, An Elephant for Anastasius: a Note on P.Mich. inv. 4290, in: AHB 6.2, 1992, 55–57 Burstein, Le relazioni: S. M. Burstein, Le relazioni dei Greci con Kush e Aksum, in: P. Stefenelli (ed.), I Greci. Storia. Culture. Arte. Società, 3.1: Greci oltre la Grecia, Torino 2001, 471–498 Bury, Ceremonial Book: J. B. Bury, The Ceremonial Book of Constantine the Porphyrogennetos, in: EHR 22, 1907, 209–227 Bury, LRE: J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire. From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian, 1–2, New York 1958 Bury, The Treatise: J. B. Bury, The Treatise de administrando imperio, in: ByzZ 15, 1906, 517–577 Bury, Turks: J. B. Bury, The Turks in the Sixth Century, in: EHR 12, 1897, 417–426 Bustacchini, Ravenna: G. Bustacchini, Ravenna. The Capital of Mosaic, Ravenna 1989 Caimi, Burocrazia e diritto: J. Caimi, Burocrazia e diritto nel de magistratibus di Giovanni Lido, Milano 1984 Cameron, Agathias on the Sasanians: Av. Cameron, Agathias on the Sasanians, in: DOP 23/24, 1969/70, 67–183 Cameron, Construction: Av. Cameron, The Construction of Court Ritual: The Byzantine Book of Ceremonies, in: D. Cannadine, S. Price (eds.), Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, Cambridge 21992, 106–136 Cameron, Images: Av. Cameron, Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth Century Byzantium, in: P & P 84, 1979, 3–35 Cameron, Last Days: Al. Cameron, The Last Days of the Academy at Athens, in: PCPhS 195, 1969, 7–29 Cameron, Mediterranean World: Av. Cameron, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, AD 395–600, London 1993 Cameron, Wandering Poets: Al. Cameron, Wandering Poets: A Literary Movement in Byzantine Egypt, in: Historia 14.4, 1965, 470–509

Secondary Sources

263

Cameron/Ward-Perkins/Whitby, CAH: Av. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XIV. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425–600, Cambridge 2000 Campbell, War and Diplomacy: B. Campbell, War and Diplomacy: Rome and Parthia, 31 BC–AD 235, in: J. Rich, G. Shipley (eds.), War and Society in the Roman World, London/New York 1993, 213–240 Canepa, Art and Ritual of Kingship: M. P. Canepa, The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran, Berkeley 2009 Canepa, Competition and Exchange: M. P. Canepa, The Two Eyes of the Earth: Competition and Exchange in the Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran, PhD Thesis University of Chicago, 2004 Carile, Il Caucaso e l’Impero: A. Carile, Il Caucaso e l’Impero Bizantino (secoli IV–XI), in: Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia. Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo 43, [Spoleto] 1995, Spoleto 1996, 9–80. Cerfaux/Tondriau, Un concurrent: L. Cerfaux, J. Tondriau, Un concurrent du Christianisme, le culte des souverains dans la civilisation Gréco-Romaine, Tournai 1957 Chabot, Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon: I.-B. Chabot (ed.), Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, 2, Louvain 1916 Charanis, Coronation: P. Charanis, Coronation and its Significance in the Later Roman Empire, in: P. Charanis (ed.), Social, Economic, and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire, London 1973, 49– 66 Chevallier, Roman Roads: R. Chevallier, Roman Roads (transl. by N. H. Field), London 1976 Christensen, L’Iran:. Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen 21944 Christol/Gascou, Volubilis: M. Christol, J. Gascou, Volubilis, cité fédéré, in: Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Antiquité 92, 1980, 329–345 Chrysos, Aspects: E. Chrysos, Some Aspects of Roman-Persian Legal Relations, in: Kleronomia 8, 1976, 1–60 Chrysos, Basileus: E. Chrysos, The Title of ›Basileus‹ in Early Byzantine International Relations, in: DOP 32, 1978, 29–75 Chrysos, Buy the Peace: E. Chrysos, Buy the Peace or Risk the War?, in: 18th International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Summaries of Communications, 1, Moskva 1991, 231 Chrysos, Byzantine Diplomacy: E. Chrysos, Byzantine Diplomacy, A.D. 300–800: Means and Ends, in: J. Shepard, S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the 24th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot 1992, 25–39 Chrysos, Legal Concepts: E. Chrysos, Legal Concepts and Patterns for the Barbarians’ Settlement on Roman Soil, in: E. Chrysos, A. Schwarcz, (eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Wien 1989, 13–23 Ciancaglini, Lettere Persiane: C. A. Ciancaglini, Le ›lettere Persiane‹ nelle Storie di Teofilatto Simocatta, in: Atti dei convegni lincei 201, 2004, 633–664 Clauss, Magister: M. Clauss, Der Magister officiorum in der Spätantike (4.–6. Jh.). Das Amt und sein Einfluß auf die kaiserliche Politik, München 1980 Clay, Roman Imperial Medallions: C. L. Clay, Roman Imperial Medallions: The Date and Purpose of their Issue, in: H. A. Cahn, G. Le Rider (eds.), Actes du 8ème congrès international de numismatique, New York/Washington 1973, Paris 1976, 253–265 Clermont-Ganneau, Le tâdj-dâr Imrou’l-Qais: Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, Le tâdj-dâr Imrou’lQais et la royauté general des Arabes, in: Recueil d’Archéologie Orientale 7, 1906, 167–170 Cormack, Art: R. Cormack, But is it Art?, in: J. Shepard, S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the 24th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot 1992, 219–236 Courtois, Vandales: F. Courtois, Les Vandales et l’Afrique, Paris 11955, Aalen 21964 Cresci, Diplomazia: L. R. Cresci, Diplomazia tra retorica e ideologia nella monografia storica del XII secolo, in: L. Piccirilli (ed.), Retorica della diplomazia nella Grecia antica e a Bisanzio, Roma 2002, 112–166 Cresci, Eredità: L. R. Cresci, Eredità del mondo greco e innovazioni nel linguaggio diplomatico, in: M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, L. Piccirilli (eds.), Linguaggio e terminologia diplomatica dall’Anti-

264

Literature

co oriente all’impero Bizantino. Atti del Convegno Nazionale, Genova, 19 novembre 1998, Roma 2001, 87–106 Cresci, Teoria e prassi: L. R. Cresci, Teoria e prassi nello stile e nella storiografia di Menandro Protettore, in: Koinonia 5, 1981, 63–96 Crogiez-Pétrequin, Les correpondances: S. Crogiez-Pétrequin, Les correpondances: des documents pour l’histoire du cursus publicus?, in: R. Delmaire, J. Desmulliez, P.-L. Gatier (eds.), Correspondances. Documents pour l’histoire de l’Antiquité Tardive. Actes de colloque international Université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 20–22 novembre 2003, Lyon 2009, 143–166 Croke, Count Marcellinus: B. Croke, Count Marcellinus and his Chronicle, Oxford 2001 Cumont, L’adoration: F. Cumont, L’adoration des mages et l’art triomphal de Rome, in: MPAA 3, 1932, 81–105 Curiel/Gignoux, Intaille sasanide: R. Curiel, P. Gignoux, Sur une intaille sasanide du Cabinet des Médailles à Paris, in: Studia Iranica 4, 1975, 41–49 Cutler, Barberiniana: A. Cutler, Barberiniana. Notes on the Making, Content, and Provenance of Louvre, OA. 9063, in: Tesserae. Festschrift J. Engemann, Münster 1991 (JbAC Ergänzungsband 18), 329–339 Cutler, The Emperor’s Old Clothes: A. Cutler, The Emperor’s Old Clothes: Actual and Virtual Vesting and the Transmission of Power in Byzantium and Islam, in: P. Pagès, M. Balard, E. Malamut, J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Byzance et le monde extérieur: contacts, relations, échanges. Actes de trois séances du XXe Congrès international des études byzantines, Paris, 19–25 août 2001, Paris 2005, 195–210 Cutler, Gift and Gift-Exchange: A. Cutler, Gift and Gift-Exchange as Aspects of the Byzantine, Arab, and Related Economies, in: DOP 55, 2001, 247–278 Cutler, Significant Gifts: A. Cutler, Significant Gifts: Patterns of Exchange in Late Antique, Byzantine and Early Islamic Diplomacy, in: Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 38.1, 2008, 79– 101 Cutler, Silver: A. Cutler, Silver Across the Euphrates, in: G. Peckers, H. Restle, A. Shalem (eds.), Austausch diplomatischer Geschenke in Spätantike und Byzanz, in: Mitteilungen zur Spätantike, Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte 4, 2005, 9–37 Dagron, Empereur et prêtre: G. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le ›Césaropapisme‹ byzantin, Paris 1996 Daim, Byzantine Belts and Avar Birds: F. Daim, Byzantine Belts and Avar Birds, in: E. Pohl, I. Wood, H. Reimitz (eds.), The Transformation of Frontiers from Late Antiquity to the Carolingians, Leiden 2000, 147–188 Dain, L’encyclopédisme: A. Dain, L’encyclopédisme de Constantin Porphyrogénète, in: Lettres d’humanité. Supplement critique au Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé 13, 1953, 64–81 Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen: R. Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, Berlin 1929 Delbrück, Kaiserornat: R. Delbrück, Der spätantike Kaiserornat, in: Die Antike. Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur des klassischen Altertums 8, 1932, 1–21 Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts: R. Delbrück, Spätantike Kaiserporträts. Von Constantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs, Berlin 1933 Delmaire, Institutions: R. Delmaire, Les institutions du Bas-Empire Romain de Constantin à Justinien, 1. Les institutions civiles palatines, Paris 1995 Delmaire, Largesses: R. Delmaire, Largesses sacrées et res privata. L’aerarium impérial et son administration du IVe au VIe siècle, Rome 1989 Delmaire/Desmulliez/Gatier (eds.), Correspondances: R. Delmaire, J. Desmulliez, P.-L. Gatier, (eds.), Correspondances. Documents pour l’histoire de l’Antiquité Tardive. Actes de colloque international Université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 20–22 novembre 2003, Lyon 2009 Demandt, Osmosis: A. Demandt, The Osmosis of Late Roman and Germanic Aristocracies, in: E. Chrysos, A. Schwarcz (eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Wien 1989, 75–85 Demandt, Zeitkritik: A. Demandt, Zeitkritik und Geschichtsbild im Werke Ammians, Bonn 1965 Desideri, Varrone: P. Desideri, Varrone e il concetto di pace a Roma, in: M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, L. Piccirilli (eds.), Linguaggio e terminologia diplomatica dall’Antico oriente all’impero Bizantino. Atti del Convegno Nazionale, Genova, 19 novembre 1998, Roma 2001, 107–119

Secondary Sources

265

Diehl, L’Afrique: C. Diehl, L’Afrique Byzantine, Paris 1896 Diehl, Justinien: C. Diehl, Justinien et la civilisation Byzantine, Paris 1901 Dilke, Itineraries: O. A. W. Dilke, Itineraries and Geographical Maps in the Early and Late Roman Empires, in: J. B. Harley, D. Woodward (eds.), The History of Cartography, 1. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, Chicago/London 1987, 234–257 Dilke, Maps: O. A. W. Dilke, Greek and Roman Maps, London 1985 Doblhofer, Diplomaten: E. Doblhofer, Byzantinische Diplomaten und östliche Barbaren, Graz 1955 Dodgeon/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier: M. H. Dodgeon, S. N. C. Lieu (eds.), The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226–363): A Documentary History, London/New York 52002 Dölger, Familie der Könige: F. Dölger, Die ›Familie der Könige‹ im Mittelalter, in: F. Dölger, Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt. Ausgewählte Vorträge und Aufsätze, Darmstadt 1964, 34–69 Dölger/Karayannopulos, Urkundenlehre: F. Dölger, J. Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, München 1968 Drake, Violence: H. A. Drake (ed.), Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices, Aldershot, 2006 Du Cange, Glossarium: C. Du Cange (ed.), Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, Graz 1958 Durand, L’art byzantin: J. Durand (ed.), L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises, Paris, 1992 Eliot, New Evidence: C. W. J. Eliot, New Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post, in: Phoenix 9.2, 1966, 76–80 Engemann, Diplomatische Geschenke: J. Engemann, Diplomatische ›Geschenke‹ – Objekte aus der Spätantike?, in: G. Peckers, H. Restle, A. Shalem (eds.), Austausch diplomatischer Geschenke in Spätantike und Byzanz, in: Mitteilungen zur Spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte 4, 2005, 40–64 Ensslin, Das Gottesgnadentum: W. Ensslin, Das Gottesgnadentum des autokratischen Kaisertums der frühbyzantinischen Zeit, in: Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini, Roma 20–26 settembre 1936, Roma 1939 (Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 5), 154–166 Ensslin, Nochmals zu der Ehrung Chlodowechs: W. Ensslin, Nochmals zu der Ehrung Chlodowechs durch Kaiser Anastasius, in: HJ 56, 1936, 499–507 Esbroeck, Lazique, Mingrélie, Svanéthie: M. van Esbroeck, Lazique, Mingrélie, Svanéthie, in: Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia. Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo 43, [Spoleto] 1995, Spoleto 1996, 195–218 Evans, Age of Justinian: J. A. S. Evans, The Age of Justinian. The Circumstances of Imperial Power, London/New York 1996 Evans, Theodora: J. A. S. Evans, The Empress Theodora: Partner of Justinian, Austin 2002 Fanning, Clovis Augustus: S. Fanning, Clovis Augustus and Merovingian Imitatio Imperii, in: K. Mitchell, I. Wood (eds.), The World of Gregory of Tours, Leiden/Boston/Köln 2002 (Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions: Medieval and Early Modern Peoples 18), 321–335 Fisher, Between Empires: G. Fisher, Between Empires: Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2011 Fowden, Barbarian Plain: E. K. Fowden, The Barbarian Plain. Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran, Los Angeles/London 1999 Frye, Iran: R. N. Frye, The Political History of Iran under the Sasanians, in: E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran 3.1: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge 11983, 3 2003, 116–262 Gadlo, Etnografiia: A. V. Gadlo, Etnografiia narodov Srednei Azii i Zakavkaz’ia: traditsionnaia kul’tura, Sankt-Peterburg 1998 Gagos, Three Short Byzantine Papyri: T. Gagos, Three Short Byzantine Papyri from the Michigan Collection, in: ZPE 79, 1989, 271–280 Galavaris, Imperial Costume: G. P. Galavaris, The Symbolism of the Imperial Costume as Displayed on Byzantine Coins, in: Museum Notes 8, 1958, 99–117

266

Literature

Gardthausen, Kryptographie: W. Gardthausen, Zur byzantinischen Kryptographie, in: ByzZ 14, 1905, 616–619 Garnett, Gycia: R. Garnett, The Story of Gycia, in: EHR 12, 1897, 100–105 Garsoian, Hiérarchie: N. G. Garsoian, Le rôle de l’hiérarchie chrétienne dans les rapports diplomatiques entre Byzance et les Sassanides, in: REArm 10, 1973–74, 119–138 Gazzano, Diplomazia: F. Gazzano, La diplomazia nelle ›Storie‹ di Erodoto. Figure, temi, problemi, in: L. Piccirilli (ed.), La retorica della diplomazia nella Grecia antica e a Bizanzio, Roma 2002, 7– 67 Giardina, Aspetti: A. Giardina, Aspetti della burocrazia nel basso impero, Roma 1977 Gibbon, Decline and Fall: E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2 (J. B. Bury [ed.] 1946) Gignoux/Gyselen, Sceaux de femmes: P. Gignoux, R. Gyselen, Sceaux de femmes à l’époque sassanide, in: L. de Meyer (ed.), Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in honorem L. Vanden Berghe, Gent 1989, 877–896 Gillett, Envoys: A. Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411– 533, Cambridge 2003 Gindin/Ivanchik, Prisk Paniiskii: L. A. Gindin, A. I. Ivanchik, Prisk Paniiskii, in: L. A. Gindin, S. A. Ivanov, G. G. Litavrin, V. K. Ronin (eds.), Svod drevneishikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianakh, 1, Moskva 1994, 86–96 Γκουτζιουκώστας, Θεσμός: Α. Ε. Γκουτζιουκώστας, Ο θεσμός του κοιαίστωρα του ιερού παλατίου: Η γένεση, οι αρμοδιότητες και η εξέλιξή του, Θεσσαλονίκη 2001 Gode, History of Ambergris: P. K. Gode, History of Ambergris in India between about A.D. 700 and 1900, in: Chymia 2, 1949, 51–56 Godelier, L’énigme: M. Godelier, L’énigme du don, Paris 1996 (=M. Godelier, Zagadka dara [transl. by A. Shcherbakova], Moskva 2007) Goffart, Barbarian Tides: W. Goffart, Barbarian Tides: the Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire, Philadelphia, Pa, 2006 Gorce, Les voyages: D. Gorce, Les voyages, l’hospitalité et le port des lettres dans le monde chrétien des IVe et Ve siècles, Paris 1925 Gordon, Age of Attila: C. D. Gordon, The Age of Attila. Fifth-Century Byzantium and the Barbarians, Ann Arbor 21961 Grabar, Imperator: A. Grabar, Imperator v Vizantiiskom iskusstve (in Russian, transl. of: L’Empereur dans l’art Byzantin. Recherches sur l’art officiel de l’Empire d’Orient, Paris 1936), Moskva 2000 Greatrex, Partition of Armenia: G. Greatrex, The Background and Aftermath of the Partition of Armenia in A.D. 387, in: AHB 14.1–2, 2000, 35–48 Greatrex, Rome and Persia: G. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 502–532, Leeds 1998 Greatrex/Lieu (eds.), Eastern Frontier: G. Greatrex, S. N. C. Lieu (eds.), The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, 2. AD 363–630. A Narrative Sourcebook, London/New York 2002 Grecu, Menander: V. Grecu, Menander Protiktor und der persische Gesandschaftsbericht Petros’ Patrikios, in: Bulletin de la Section Historique de l’Académie Roumaine 22.2, 1941, 78–84 Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien: K. Güterbock, Byzanz und Persien in ihren diplomatisch-völkerrechtlichen Beziehungen im Zeitalter Justinians. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Völkerrechts, Berlin 1906 Güterbock, Römisch-Armenien: K. Güterbock, Römisch-Armenien und die römischen Satrapieen im vierten bis 6. Jh., Königsberg 1900 Guilland, Études sur l’histoire: R. Guilland, Études sur l’histoire administrative. Le questeur: ὁ κοιαίστωρ, quaestor, in: Byzantion 41, 1971, 78–104 Guilland, Études topographiques: R. Guilland, Études topographiques de Constantinople Byzantine, Berlin 1969 Guseinov, Siriiskii anonim 1234: R. Guseinov, Siriiskii anonim 1234 goda o Vizantii i eie sosediakh, in: Antichnaia drevnost’ i srednie veka 10, 1973, 146–150 Gyselen, Catalogue des sceaux: R. Gyselen, Catalogue des sceaux, camées et bules sassanides de la Bibliothèque Nationale et du Musée du Louvre, Paris 1993

Secondary Sources

267

Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: J. F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: the Transformation of a Culture, Cambridge 1997 Haldon, Economy and Administration: J. F. Haldon, Economy and Administration: How did the Empire Work?, in: M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005, 28–59 Hamilton/Langhorne, Practice: K. A. Hamilton, R. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: its Evolution, Theory, and Administration, New York 11995, 32005 Hannestad, Les relations: K. Hannestad, Les relations de Byzance avec la Transcaucasie, in: Byzantion 25–27, 1955–1957, 421–456 Haussig, Theophylakts Exkurs: H. W. Haussig, Theophylakts Exkurs, in: Byzantion 23, 1953, 275– 462 Heather, Goths: P. Heather, The Goths, Oxford 11996, 21997 Heather, Goths and Romans: P. Heather, The Goths and the Romans 332–489, Oxford 11991, 21994 Heather/Matthews, Goths: P. Heather, J. Matthews, The Goths in the Fourth Century, Liverpool 11991, 22004 Helm, Untersuchungen: R. Helm, Untersuchungen über den auswärtigen diplomatischen Verkehr des römischen Reiches im Zeitalter der Spätantike, in: Archiv für Urkundenforschung 12.3, 1932, 375– 436 (repr. in: E. Olshausen, H. Biller [eds.], Antike Diplomatie, Darmstadt 1979, 321–413) Herman, Ritualized Friendship: G. Herman, Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City, Cambridge 1987 Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders: T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders: 376–476, 2, Oxford 1895 Hohlweg, Formazione culturale: A. Hohlweg, La formazione culturale e professionale del medico a Bisanzio, in: Koinonia 13.2, 1989, 165–188 Hornblower/Spawforth, OCD: S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford 1996 Houston, Costume and Decoration: M. G. Houston, Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Costume and Decoration, London 1947 Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur: H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 1, München 1978 Ierusalimskaia, Kavkaz: A. A. Ierusalimskaia, Kavkaz na shelkovom puti. Katalog vremennoi vystavki, Sankt-Peterburg 1992 Iluk, Aspects: J. Iluk, Aspects économiques et politiques de la circulation de l’or au Bas-Empire, Wetteren 2007 Iluk, Export: J. Iluk, The Export of Gold from the Roman Empire to Barbarian Countries from the 4th to the 6th Centuries, in: MBAH 4.1, 1985, 79–102 Inostranzev/Nariman, Iranian Influence: M. Inostranzev, G. K. Nariman (trad.), Iranian Influence on Moslem Literature, 1, Bombay 1918 Isaac, Limits: B. Isaac, The Limits of the Empire. The Roman Army in the East, Oxford 11991, 21992 Iuzbashian, L’Arménie et les Arméniens: K. N. Iuzbashian (=K. Yuzbashian), L’Arménie et les Arméniens vus par Byzance, in: ByzF 25, 1999, 189–202 Iuzbashian, Armianskie gosudarstva: K. N. Iuzbashian (=K. Yuzbashian), Armianskie gosudarstva epokhi Bagratidov i Vizantiia IX–XI verka, Moskva 1988 Iuzbashian, Le Caucase et les Sassanides: K. N. Iuzbashian (=K. Yuzbashian), Le Caucase et les Sassanides, in: Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia. Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo 43, [Spoleto] 1995, Spoleto 1996, 144–164 Iuzbashian, Vvedeniie v Armenistiku: K. N. Iuzbashian (=K. Yuzbashian), Vvedeniie v Armenistiku, Sankt-Peterburg 2003 Ivanov, Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo: S. A. Ivanov, Vizantiiskoe missionerstvo. Mozhno li sdelat’ iz ›varvara‹ khristianina?, Moskva 2003 Jacob/Ulmann, Ammianus Marcellinus: L. Jacob, I. Ulmann, Ammianus Marcellinus, in: J. Hermann (ed.), Griechische und lateinische Quellen zur Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas bis zur Mitte des 1. Jt. u.Z., 4, Berlin 1991, 430–469 Jäger, Unverletzlichkeit: M. Jäger, Die Unverletzlichkeit der Gesandten zur Zeit der römischen Republik, Münster 1995 (Juristische Schriftenreihe 51)

268

Literature

Janes, The Golden Clasp: D. Janes, The Golden Clasp of the Late Roman State, in: Early Medieval Europe 5, 1996, 127–153 Johansen, Rings, Fibulae and Buckles: I. M. Johansen, Rings, Fibulae and Buckles with Imperial Portraits and Inscriptions, in: JRA 7, 1994, 225–242 Jones, The Constitutional Position of Odoacer: A. H. M. Jones, The Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theoderic, in: JRS 52.1–2, 1962, 126–130 Jones, Later Roman Empire: A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284–602. A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 1–4, Norman 1964 Jones, Kinship and Diplomacy: C. P. Jones, Kinship and Diplomacy in the Ancient World, London 1999 Jonge, Commentary-17: P. de Jonge, Philological Commentary of Ammianus Marcellinus, 17, Groningen 1977 Jonge, Commentary-18: P. de Jonge, Philological Commentary of Ammianus Marcellinus, 18, Groningen 1980 Kaegi, Conceptions: W. E. Kaegi, Seventh and Eight Century Conceptions of War, in: 18th International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Summaries of Communications, 1, Moskva 1991, 502f. Kähler, Der Sockel des Theodosiusobelisken: H. Kähler, Der Sockel des Theodosiusobelisken, in: AAAH 6, 1975, 45–55 Kaldellis, Agathias: A. Kaldellis, The Historical and Religious Views of Agathias: A Reinterpretation, in: Byzantion 69, 1999, 206–252 Kaldellis, Procopius: A. Kaldellis, Procopius of Caesarea. Tyranny, History and Philosophy at the End of Antiquity, Philadelphia 2004 Karayannopulos, Der frühbyzantinische Kaiser: J. Karayannopulos, Der frühbyzantinische Kaiser, in: ByzZ 49, 1956, 369–384 Kazhdan, Notion: A. Kazhdan, The Notion of Byzantine Diplomacy, in: J. Shepard, S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the 24th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot 1992, 3–21 Kazhdan, ODB: A. P. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, New York 1991 Keaveney, Treaties: A. Keaveney, Roman Treaties with Parthia c. 95–c. 64 BC, in: AJPh 102, 1981, 195–212 Kelly, Emperors, Government and Bureaucracy: C. Kelly, Emperors, Government and Bureaucracy, in: Av. Cameron, P. Garnsey (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XIII. The Late Empire, AD 337–425, Cambridge 1998, 138–183 Kelly, Ruling: C. Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire, Cambridge, Mass., 2004 Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism: B. Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism in the Plastic Arts, Odense 1993 Kiilerich, The Obelisk Base: B. Kiilerich, The Obelisk Base in Constantinople: Court Art and Imperial Ideology, in: AAAH s.a. in 8°, 10, 1998, 5–194 Kiilerich/Torp, Hic Stilicho: B. Kiilerich, H. Torp, Hic est: Hic Stilicho. The Date and Interpretation of a Notable Diptych, in: JDAI 104, 1989, 319–371 Klein, Friedensschluß: K. K. Klein, Der Friedensschluß von Noviodunum, in: AAHG 6, 1952, 189– 192 Klein, Frithigern, Athanarich: K. K. Klein, Frithigern, Athanarich und die Spaltung des Westgotenvolkes am Vorabend des Hunneneinbruchs (375 n.Chr.), in: Süd-Ost-Forschungen 19, 1960, 34–51 Kolb, Herrscherideologie: F. Kolb, Herrscherideologie in der Spätantike, Berlin 2001 Kolb, Transport: A. Kolb, Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich, Berlin 2000 Konrad, Heracleus: L. Konrad, Heracleus in Early Islamic Kerygma, in: G. J. Reinink, B. H. Stolte (eds.), The Reign of Heraclius (610–641): Crisis and Confrontation, Leuven/Paris 2002, 113–156 Korsunskii/Günter, Upadok i gibel’: A. R. Korsunskii, R. Günter, Upadok i gibel’ zapadnoi rimskoi imperii i vozniknovenie germanskikh korolevstv (do serediny VI veka), Moskva 1984=A. R. Korsunskij, R. Günter, Germanen erobern Rom. Der Untergang des Weströmischen Reiches und die Entstehung der germanischen Königreiche bis zur Mitte des 6. Jh., Berlin 21988 (Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR 15) Kovalev, Istoriia Rima: S. I. Kovalev, Istoriia Rima, Leningrad 21986

Secondary Sources

269

Krasheninnikov, Novaia rukopis’-I: M. N. Krasheninnikov, Novaia rukopis’ izvlechenii περί πρέσβεων Ῥωμαίων προς ἐθνικούς (Cod. Cantabrigiensis Coll. SS. Trinit. O.3.23) [part I], in: VV 21, 1914, 45–102 Krasheninnikov, Novaia rukopis’-II: M. N. Krasheninnikov, Novaia rukopis’ izvlechenii περί πρέσβεων Ῥωμαίων προς ἐθνικούς (Cod. Cantabrigiensis Coll. SS. Trinit. O.3.23) [part II], in: Vizantiiskoe obozrenie 1, 1915, 45–102 Krasheninnikov, O rukopisnom predanii: M. N. Krasheninnikov, O rukopisnom predanii konstantinovskikh izvlechenii o poslakh, in: VV 8, 1901, 479–514 [part I]; VV 10, 1903, 416–459 [part II]; VV 11, 1904, 1–44, 494–500 [part III–IV] Krautschick, Cassiodor: S. Krautschick, Cassiodor und die Politik seiner Zeit, Bonn 1983 Krautschick, Familie der Könige: S. Krautschick, Die Familie der Könige in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, in: E. Chrysos, A. Schwarcz (eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Wien 1989, 109–142 Krumbacher, Geschichte: K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527–1453), 1, München 11891, 21897 Kruse, Studien: H. Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reiche, Paderborn 1934 Lambton, The Dilemma of Government: K. S. Lambton, The Dilemma of Government in Islamic Persia: The Siyāsat-Nāma of Nizām al-Mulk, in: Iran 22, 1984, 55–66 Lampe, PGL: G. W. Lampe (ed.), Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961 Landfester/Cancik/Schneider, NP: M. Landfester, H. Cancik, H. Schneider (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. Classical Tradition, Leiden 2006–2011 Lee, Abduction: A. D. Lee, Abduction and Assassination: The Clandestine Face of Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity, in: The International History Review 31.1, 2009, 1–23 Lee, Embassies as Evidence: A. D. Lee, Embassies as Evidence for Movement of Military Intelligence between the Roman and Sasanian Empires, in: P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986, Oxford 1986 (BAR International Series 295), 455–461 Lee, Hostages: A. D. Lee, The Role of Hostages in Roman Diplomacy with Sasanian Persia, in: Historia 40, 1991, 366–374 Lee, Information: A. D. Lee, Information and Frontiers: Roman Foreign Relations in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 1993 Lee/Shepard, Double Life: A. D. Lee, J. A. Shepard, Double Life: Placing the Peri presbeon, in: Byzantinoslavica 52, 1991, 15–39 Lemerle, Byzantine Humanism: P. Lemerle, Byzantine Humanism. The First Phase, Canberra 1986 Lemerle, Premier humanisme: P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisme Byzantin, Paris 1971 Lenski, Failure: N. E. Lenski, Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD, Berkeley/Los Angeles 2002 Lévi-Strauss, Introduction: C. Lévi-Strauss, Introduction à l’oeuvre de Marcel Mauss, in: M. Mauss, Sociologie et Anthropologie, Paris 1950, XXIV–XL Levinskaia/Tokhtas’ev, Menandr: I. A. Levinskaia, S. R. Tokhtas’ev, Menandr Protektor, in: L. A. Gindin, S. A. Ivanov, G. G. Litavrin, V. K. Ronin (eds.), Svod drevneishikh pis’mennykh izvestii o slavianakh, 1, Moskva 1994, 313–315 Liddell/Scott/Jones/McKenzie: H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones, R. A. McKenzie, Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 101996 Lieu, Captives: S. N. C. Lieu, Captives, Refugees, and Exiles: A Study of Cross-Frontier Civilian Movements and Contacts between Rome and Persia from Valerian to Jovian, in: P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986, Oxford 1986 (BAR International Series 295), 475–505 Löhren, Beiträge: A. Löhren, Beiträge zur Geschichte des gesandschaftlichen Verkehrs im Mittelalter. Die Zeit vom vierten bis zum Ende des 9. Jh., Heidelberg 1894 Loerke, Miniatures: W. C. Loerke, The Miniatures of the Trial in the Rossano Gospels, in: ABull 43.3, 1961, 171–195 Loekre, I Vangeli di Rossano: W. C. Loekre, I Vangeli di Rossano: le miniature, Roma 1987

270

Literature

Λουγγής, Μια άγνωστη οικογένεια: Τ. Λουγγής, Μια άγνωστη οικογένεια βυζαντινών πρεσβευτών την εποχή του Ιουστινιανού, in: Παρνασσός 17, 1975, 556–561 Loukonin, Monnaie d’Ardachir I: V. G. Loukonin, Monnaie d’Ardachir I et l’art officiel Sassanide, in: IA 8, 1968, 106–117 Lounghis, Adaptability: T. C. Lounghis, Adaptability as Diplomatic Message, in: Comunicare e significare nell’Alto Medioevo. Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo 52, [Spoleto] 2004, Spoleto 2005, 335–361 Lounghis, Ambassades: T. C. Lounghis, Les ambassades Byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation des états barbares jusqu’aux Croisades (407–1096), Athènes 1980 Lounghis, Ambassadors: T. C. Lounghis, Ambassadors, Embassies and Administrative Changes in the Eastern Roman Empire Prior to the Reconquista, in: E. Chrysos, A. Schwarcz (eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Wien 1989, 43–153 Lounghis, Diplomacy: T. C. Lounghis, Byzantine Diplomacy, in: N. Russell (ed.), Byzantine Diplomacy: a Seminar (transl. by S. Lampakes), Athens 2007, 15–82 Lozovsky, Maps and Panegyrics: N. Lozovsky, Maps and Panegyrics. Roman Geo-Ethnographical Rhetoric in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, in: R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden/Boston 2008, 169–188 Luther, Syrische Chronik: A. Luther, Die syrische Chronik des Joshua Stylites, Berlin/New York 1997 Luttwak, Force: E. Luttwak, Force and Diplomacy in Roman Strategies of Imperial Security. PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1975 Luttwak, Strategy Byzantine Empire: E. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge, Mass. 2009 Luttwak, Strategy Roman Empire: E. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century A.D. to the Third, Baltimore 1976 Maas, Fugitives: M. Maas, Fugitives and Ethnography in Priscus of Panium, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 19, 1995, 146–160 Macartney, On the Greek Sources: C. A. Macartney, On the Greek Sources for the History of the Turks in the Sixth Century, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 11, 1943/46, 266–275 MacCormack, Art and Ceremony: S. G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1990 Maenchen-Helfen, World of the Huns: O. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture, Berkeley 1973 Maltese, A proposito: E. V. Maltese, A proposito dell’opera di Prisco di Panio, in: QS 9, 1979, 297– 320 Mango/Scott/Greatrex, Chronicle: C. Mango, R. Scott, G. Greatrex, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813, Oxford 1997 Marotta, Liturgia del potere: V. Marotta, Liturgia del potere. Documenti di nomina e cerimonie di investitura fra principato e tardo impero Romano, in: Ostraka 8.1, 1999, 145–220 Martindale, PLRE: J. R. Martindale (ed.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II, AD 395–527, Cambridge 1980; III, AD 527–641, Cambridge 11992, 22000 Martindale/Jones/Morris, PLRE: J. R. Martindale, A. H. M. Jones, J. Morris (eds.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I, AD 260–395, Cambridge 1971 Mason, Greek Terms: J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974 Masur, Verträge: I. Masur, Die Verträge der germanischen Stämme, Berlin 1952 Mathisen, Clovis: R. Mathisen, Clovis, Anastasius, and Byzantine Honorary Titles circa A.D. 500, in: 16th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference Baltimore 1990. Abstracts of papers, Washington D.C. 1990, 46f. Mathisen, Patricians: R. Mathisen, Patricians as Diplomats in Late Antiquity, in: ByzZ 79, 1986, 35– 49 Matthaei, Classification: L. E. Matthaei, On the Classification of Roman Allies, in: CQ 1, 1907, 182–204

Secondary Sources

271

Matthews, Ammianus: J. Matthews Ammianus and the Eastern Frontier in the Fourth Century: A Participant’s View, in: P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986, Oxford 1986 (BAR International Series 295), 549–564 Matthews, Empire: J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus, Baltimore 1989 Matthews, Hostages: J. Matthews, Hostages, Philosophers and Pilgrims, and the Diffusion of the Ideas in the Late Roman Mediterranean and the Near East, in: F. M. Clover, R. S. Humphreys (eds.), Tradition and Innovation in Late Antiquity, Madison 1989, 29–49 Matthews, The Journey of Theophanes: J. Matthews, The Journey of Theophanes. Travel, Business, and Daily Life in the Roman East, New Haven 2006 Matthews, Olympiodorus: J. Matthews, Olympiodorus of Thebes and the History of the West (A.D. 407–425), in: JRS 60, 1970, 79–97 Mauss, Don: M. Mauss, Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques, in: L’Année Sociologique, 1923–1924, 30–186 Mauss, The Gift: M. Mauss, The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (transl. by I. Cunnison), London 1966 Maxfield, The Military Decorations: V. Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army, Berkeley 1981 Mayerson, Phylarchos: P. Mayerson, The Use of the Term Phylarchos in the Roman-Byzantine East, in: ZPE 88, 1991, 291–295 Mazard, Monnayage d’or: J. Mazard, Monnayage d’or des rois de Numidie et de Maurétanie, in: RN ser. 5, 14, 1952, 1–19 Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia: M. Mazza, Cultura, guerra e diplomazia nella tarda antichità. Tre studi, Roma 2005 McCormick, Clovis at Tours: M. McCormick, Clovis at Tours, Byzantine Public Ritual and the Origins of Medieval Ruler Symbolism, in: E. Chrysos, A. Schwarcz (eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Wien 1989, 155–180 McCormick, Eternal Victory: M. McCormick, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval East, Paris/Cambridge 11986, 31990 McCormick, European Economy: M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy. Communications and Commerce, AD 300–900, Cambridge 2001 McCormick, Lettre: M. McCormick, La lettre diplomatique byzantine du premier millénaire vue de l’Occident et l’énigme du Papyrus de Paris, Paris, 2005 (Byzantina Sorbonensia 21), 135–149 Meyer-Flügel, Bild: B. Meyer-Flügel, Das Bild der ostgotisch-römischen Gesellschaft bei Cassiodor: Leben und Ethik von Römern und Germanen in Italien nach dem Ende des Weströmischen Reiches, Bern/Frankfurt a.M./New York 1992 Millar, Emperors: F. Millar, Emperors, Frontiers and Foreign Relations, 31 BC to AD 378, in: Britannia 13, 1982, 1–23 Miller, Itineraria: K. Miller, Itineraria Romana. Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana, Stuttgart 1916 Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East: F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East: Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire, Chapel Hill, NC 2004 Miller, The Spice Trade: J. I. Miller, The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire 29 B.C. to A.D. 641, Oxford 1969 Miller, Studies: D. A. Miller, Studies in Byzantine Diplomacy: Sixth to Tenth Centuries, Thesis Rutgers State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1963 Miller/Rochester, Treaty-Making: D. A. Miller, N. Y. Rochester, Byzantine Treaties and Treaty-Making: 500–1025 AD, in: Byzantinoslavica 32, 1971, 56–76 Modéran, Les Maures: Y. Modéran, Les Maures et l’Afrique Romaine (IVe–VIIe siècle), Rome 2003 Mommsen, Istoriia Rima: Th. Mommsen, Istoriia Rima, 5, Moskva, 1949 (translation of: Römische Geschichte, 5, Berlin 1894) Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica: G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2, Berlin 21958 Morrisson, Les insignes du pouvoir: C. Morrisson, Les insignes du pouvoir impérial au Ve au VIe siècle, in: M. Rouche (ed.), Clovis. Histoire et mémoire. [Actes du colloque international d’histoire de Reims, Reims 1996], 1, Paris 1997, 753–768

272

Literature

Mosley, Diplomacy: D. J. Mosley, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece, London 1975 Mosley, Envoys: D. J. Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece, Wiesbaden, 1973 (Historia Einzelschriften 22) Mosley, Griechenland: D. J. Mosley, Griechenland in Klassischer Zeit, in: E. Olshausen, H. Biller (eds.), Antike Diplomatie, Darmstadt 1979, 57–235 Muthesius, Silken Diplomacy: A. Muthesius, Silken Diplomacy, in: J. Shepard, S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the 24th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge March 1990, Aldershot 1992, 237–248 Nechaeva, Les activités secrètes: E. Nechaeva, Les activités secrètes des ambassadeurs dans l’Antiquité Tardive, in: A. Becker, N. Drocourt (eds.), Ambassadeurs et ambassades au cœur des relations diplomatiques. Rome – Occident Médiéval – Byzance (VIIIe s. avant J.-C. – XIIe s. après J.-C.), Metz 2012, 183–202 Nechaeva, Avars: E. Nechaeva, The ›Runaway‹ Avars and Late Antique Diplomacy, in: R. Mathisen, D. Shanzer (eds.), Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World, Farnham 2011, 175–181 Nechaeva, Double Agents: E. Nechaeva, Double Agents in the Intelligence Service under Justinian. Evidences of Procopius of Caesaria, in: ZAnt 54.1–2, 2004, 137–147 Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy: E. Nechaeva, Geography and Diplomacy. Journeys and Adventures of Late Antique Envoys, in: S. Conti, B. Scardigli, M. C. Torchio (eds.), Geografia e viaggi nel mondo antico, Ancona 2007, 149–161 Nechaeva, Predstavleniia o diplomatii: E. Nechaeva, Predstavleniia o diplomatii v epokhu Pozdnei Antichnosti, Almanakh Universitetskii Istorik, 3, Saint-Petersburg, 2005, 77–86 Nechaeva, Problema perebezhchikov: E. Nechaeva, Problema perebezhchikov v dipomaticheskix otnosheniaikh mezhdu gunnami e vostochnorimskoi imperiei, Vestnik Sank-Peterburgskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, seria 2, vypusk 4, Saint-Petersburg 2007, 172–174 Nechaeva, Sciti: E. Nechaeva, Gli ›Sciti‹ delle grandi migrazioni, in: C. Ebanista, M. Rotili (eds.), La trasformazione del mondo romano e le grandi migrazioni: nuovi popoli dall’Europa settentrionale e centro-orientale alle coste del Mediterraneo. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Cimitile – Santa Maria Capua Vetere, 16–17 giugno 2011, Cimitile 2012, 19–31 Nechaeva, The Sovereign’s Image: E. Nechaeva, The Sovereign’s Image Abroad: Imperial Portraits in Early Byzantine Diplomacy, in: Ephemeris Dacoromana 14, 2012, 199–213 Nechaeva, Uchastie vrachei: E. Nechaeva, Uchastie vrachei v pozdneantichnoi diplomatii, Zhebelevskie Chteniia – III, Saint-Petersburg 2001, 194–200 Nelson, Politics and Ritual: J. L. Nelson, Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, London 1986 Nelson, Symbols in Context: J. L. Nelson, Symbols in Context: Rulers’ Inauguration Rituals in Byzantium and the West in the Early Middle Ages, in: Studies in Church History 13, 1976, 97–119 Nike – Victoria: Nike – Victoria on Coins and Medals [a Volume Published for the 170th Anniversary of the Numismatic Museum; Hellenic Ministry of Culture], Athens 2004 Nöldeke, Ghassânische Fürsten: T. Nöldeke, Die Ghassânischen Fürsten aus dem Hause Gafna’s, Berlin 1887 Nutton, From Galen to Alexander: V. Nutton, From Galen to Alexander. Aspects of Medicine and Medical Practice in Late Antiquity, in: J. Scarborough (ed.), Symposium on Byzantine Medicine [Washington 1983], in: DOP 38, 1984, 1–14 Obolensky, Principles: D. Obolensky, The principles and methods of Byzantine diplomacy, in: Actes du XIIe Congrès international d’études Byzantines, 1, Ochride 1961, Beograd 1963–1964, 45– 61 Odorico, Cultura: P. Odorico, La cultura della Συλλογή, in: ByzZ 83, 1990, 1–21 Odorico, Habiller le Prince: P. Odorico, Habiller le Prince. Vêtements et couleurs à la cour de Byzance, in: Comunicare e significare nell’Alto Medioevo. Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo 52, [Spoleto] 2004, Spoleto 2005, 1013–1052 Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance: N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris 1972 Olajos, Les sources: Th. Olajos, Les sources de Théophylacte Simocatta historien, Leiden 1988

Secondary Sources

273

Orsi, Trattative: D. P. Orsi, Trattative internazionali nelle ›Elleniche‹ senofontee. Aspetti del lessico: I verbi della comunicazione, in: L. Piccirilli (ed.), La retorica della diplomazia nella Grecia antica e a Bizanzio, Roma 2002, 69–109 Ostrogorsky, Emperor: G. Ostrogorsky, The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order, in: The Slavonic and East European Review 35, 1956, 1–14 Ostrogorsky, Staatenhierarchie: G. Ostrogorsky, Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie, in: Seminarium Kondokovianum 8, 1936, 41–61 Pallas-Brown, Perception: R. Pallas-Brown, East Roman Perception of the Avars in the Mid- and Late Sixth Century, in: S. Mitchell, G. Greatrex (eds.), Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity, London 2000, 309–329 Παναγοπούλου, Διπλωματικοί γάμοι: Α. Γ. Παναγοπούλου, Οι διπλωματικοί γάμοι στο Βυζάντιο (6ος– 12ος αιώνας), Λιβάνη 2006 Panella, I segni del potere: C. Panella (ed.), I segni del potere: realtà e immaginario della sovranità nella Roma imperiale, Bari 2011 Paoli-Lafaye, Messagers et messages: E. Paoli-Lafaye, Messagers et messages. La diffusion des nouvelles dans la correspondance d’Augustin, in: R. Delmaire, J. Desmulliez, P.-L. Gatier (eds.), Correspondances. Documents pour l’histoire de l’Antiquité Tardive. Actes de colloque international Université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 20–22 novembre 2003, Lyon 2009, 125–141 Paradisi, Amicitia: B. Paradisi, L’›amicitia‹ internazionale nell’alto Medio Evo, in: Scritti in onore di C. Ferrini, 2, Milano 1947, 178–225 Paradisi, Storia: B. Paradisi, Storia del diritto internazionale del medio evo, 1, Milano 1940 Paspates/Metcalfe, Great Palace: A. G. Paspates, W. Metcalfe, The Great Palace of Constantinople, London 1893 Pazdernik, Dangerous Liberty: C. F. Pazdernik, A Dangerous Liberty and a Servitude Free From Care. Political Eleutheria and Douleia in Procopius of Caesaria and Thucydides of Athens, PhD Thesis Princeton University, 1997 Pekáry, Das Römische Kaiserbildnis: T. Pekáry, Das Römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft, dargestellt anhand der Schriftquellen, Berlin 1985 Peretz, Roman Interpreter: D. Peretz, The Roman Interpreter and His Diplomatic and Military Roles, in: Historia 55.4, 2006, 451–471 Petrusi, Insegne del potere: A. Petrusi, Insegne del potere sovrano e delegato a Bisanzio e nei paesi di influenza bizantina, in: Simboli e simbologia nell’alto Medioevo. Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano sull’alto Medioevo 23, [Spoleto] 1975, Spoleto 1976, 481–563 Pharr, Theodosian Code: C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions, Princeton 1952 Piccirilli, L’invenzione della diplomazia: temi: L. Piccirilli, L’invenzione della diplomazia: temi del linguaggio, in: M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, L. Piccirilli (eds.), Linguaggio e terminologia diplomatica dall’Antico oriente all’impero Bizantino. Atti del Convegno Nazionale, Genova, 19 novembre 1998, Roma 2001, 74–76 Piccirilli, L’invenzione della diplomazia nella Grecia Antica: L. Piccirilli, L’invenzione della diplomazia nella Grecia Antica. Rapporti interstatali nell’antichità, 1, Roma, 2002 Pieler, Adoption: P. E. Pieler, L’aspect politique et juridique de l’adoption de Chosroès proposée par les Perses à Justin, in: RIDA ser. 3, 19, 1972, 399–433 Pighi, Nuovi studi: G. B. Pighi, Nuovi studi Ammianiei, Milano 1936 Pigulevskaia, Vizantiia i Iran: N. V. Pigulevskaia, Vizantija i Iran na rubezhe VI i VII vekov [Byzantium and Iran on the Turn of the 6th and 7th Centuries], Moskva/Leningrad 1946 Pohl, Die Awaren: W. Pohl, Die Awaren: ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa, 567–822 n.Chr., München 1988 Pohl, Barbarian Places of Power: W. Pohl, The ›regia‹ and the ›hring‹ – Barbarian Places of Power, in: F. Theuws, M. de Jong, C. van Rhijn (eds.), Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages. The Transformation of the Roman World 6, Leiden 2001, 419–466 Pohl, The Empire and the Lombards: W. Pohl, The Empire and the Lombards: Treaties and Negotiations in the Sixth Century, in: W. Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity. The Transformation of the Roman World 1, Leiden 1997, 75–134

274

Literature

Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms: W. Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity. The Transformation of the Roman World 1, Leiden/New York/Köln 1997 Potemkin (ed.), Istoriia diplomatii: V. Potemkin (ed.), Istoriia diplomatii, 1, Moskva 1941 Potiomkin, Diplomazia: V. Potiomkin (= V. P. Potemkin) Storia della diplomazia, 1, Firenze 1956 Prontera, Darstellung: F. Prontera, Die Darstellung Kleinasiens in der Tabula Peutingeriana. Überlegungen zur aktuellen Diskussion über die antike Kartographie, in: Albertz/Blöbaum/ Funke, Räume und Grenzen Qaddūmiī (ed., transl.), Book of Gifts: G. H. Qaddūmiī (Ghāda al-Hijjāwī al-Quaddūmī; ed., transl.), Book of Gifts and Rarities (Kitāb al-Hadayā wa al-Tuhaf). Selections Compiled in the Fifteenth Century from Eleventh-Century Manuscript on Gifts and Treasures, Cambridge (Mass.) 1996 Quast, Zepter: D. Quast, Ein spätantikes Zepter aus dem Childerichgrab, in: AKB 40.2, 2010, 285– 296 Queller, Ambassador: D. E. Queller, The Office of Ambassador in the Middle Ages, Princeton 1967 Ramsey, Speed: A. M. Ramsey, The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post, in: JRS 15, 1925, 60–67 Rapp, Literacy Culture: C. Rapp, Literacy Culture under Justinian, in: M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge 2005, 376–397 Rebuffat, L’investiture: R. Rebuffat, L’investiture des chefs de tribus africaines, in: F. Vallet, M. Kazanski (eds.), La noblesse romaine et les chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, Rouen 1995, 23–33 Reece, The Later Roman Empire: R. Reece, The Later Roman Empire: an Archaeology, AD 150–600, Stroud 1999 Reinach, Répertoire: S. Reinach, Répertoire de Reliefs Grecs et Romains, 1, Paris 1909 Reinhold, History of Purple: M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity, Bruxelles 1970 (Collection Latomus 116) Ritter, Diadem: H. W. Ritter, Diadem und Königsherrschaft, München/Berlin 1965 Roberto, Socrate: U. Roberto, Socrate e la barbarizzazione dell’impero romano, in: Mediterraneo Antico. Economie, società, culture 8.2, 2005, 475–493 Rodenwaldt, Bemerkungen: G. Rodenwaldt, Bemerkungen zu den Kaisermosaiken in San Vitale, in: JDAI 59/60, 1944–1945, 88–110 Ross, Two Gem Carvings: M. C. Ross, Two Gem Carvings of the IV Century A.D., in: AJA 61.2, 1957, 173f. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks: M. Rostovtzeff, Iranians and Greeks in South of Russia, Oxford 1922 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History: M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford 1926 Rothman, The Thematic Organization: M. S. P. Rothman, The Thematic Organization of the Panel Reliefs on the Arch of Galerius, in: AJA 81.4, 1977, 427–454 Rotman, Les esclaves: Y. Rotman, Les esclaves et l’esclavage: de la Méditerranée antique à la Méditerranée médiévale, VIe–XIe siècles, Paris 2004 Rubin, Conversion: Z. Rubin, The conversion of the Visigoths to Christianity, in: MH 38, 1981, 34–54 Rubin, Diplomacy and War: Z. Rubin, Diplomacy and War in the Relations between Byzantium and the Sassanids in the Fifth Century AD, in: P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986, Oxford 1986 (BAR International Series 295), 677–695 Rubin, Eastern Neighbours: Z. Rubin, Eastern Neighbours: Persia and the Sasanian Monarchy (224– 651), in: J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500–1492, Cambridge 2008, 130–155 Rubin, The reforms: Z. Rubin, The reforms of Khusro Anûshirvân, in: Av. Cameron (ed.), The Byzantine and Islamic Near East 3. States, Resources, and Armies, Princeton 1995, 281 Rubin, Zeitalter Iustinians: B. Rubin, Das Zeitalter Iustinians, Berlin 1960 Safran, Points of View: L. Safran, Points of View: the Theodosian Obelisk in Context, in: GRBS 34.1, 1993, 409–435 Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath: J. W. Salomonson, Chair, Sceptre and Wreath. Historical Aspects of their Representation on Some Roman Sepulchral Monuments, Amsterdam 1955

Secondary Sources

275

Sands, The Client Princes: P. C. Sands, The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic, Cambridge 1908 Savvides/Henrickx, EPLBHC: A. G. Savvides, B. Henrickx (eds.), Encyclopaedic Prosopographical Lexicon of Byzantine History and Civilization, 1–2, Turnhout 2008 Scardigli, Ostaggi: B. Scardigli, Ostaggi – ›ospiti‹ a Roma, in: S. Conti, B. Scardigli (eds.), Stranieri a Roma: atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Certosa di Pontignano, 22–23 maggio 2006, Ancona, 2009 Scardigli, Trattati: B. Scardigli (ed.), I trattati Romano-Cartaginesi, Pisa 1991 Scardigli/Scardigli, Rapporti: B. Scardigli, P. Scardigli, I rapporti fra Goti e Romani nell III e IV secolo, in: Romanobarbarica 1, 1976, 261–295 Scharf, Spätrömische Studien: R. Scharf, Spätrömische Studien. Prosopographische Studien und quellenkundliche Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des 5. Jh. n.Chr., Mannheim 1996 Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber: M. Schmauder, Oberschichtgräber und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jh. Zum Verhältnis zwischen dem spätantiken Reich und der barbarischen Oberschicht aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen, 1–2, Bukarest 2002 Schmidt, Friede: K. Schmidt, Friede durch Vertrag. Der Friedensvertrag von Kadesch von 1270 v.Chr., der Friede des Antalkidas von 386 v.Chr. und der Friedensvertrag zwischen Byzanz und Persien von 562 n.Chr., Frankfurt a.M. 2002 Schneider, L’Éthiopie et l’Inde: P. Schneider, L’Éthiopie et l’Inde. Interférences et confusions aux extrémités du monde antique (VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.–VIe siècle apr. J.-C.), Rome 2004 Schoenebeck, Die zyklische Ordnung: H. v. Schoenebeck, Die zyklische Ordnung der Triumphalreliefs am Galeriusbogen in Saloniki, in: ByzZ 37, 1937, 361–371 Schreiner, Byzanz: P. Schreiner, Byzanz, München 1986 Schreiner, Diplomatische Geschenke: P. Schreiner, Diplomatische Geschenke zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen ca. 800–1200. Eine Analyse der Texte mit Quellenanhang, in: DOP 58, 2004, 251– 282 Schreiner, Historikerhandschrift: P. Schreiner, Die Historikerhandschrift Vat. gr. 977: ein Handexemplar zur Vorbereitung des Konstantinischen Exzerptenwerkes?, in: JÖByz 37, 1987, 1–29 Schulz, Entwicklung: R. Schulz, Die Entwicklung des Römischen Völkerrechts im vierten und 5. Jh. n.Chr., Stuttgart 1993 Scott, The Civil Law: S. P. Scott, The Civil Law, Cincinnati 1932 Scott, Diplomacy: R. Scott, Diplomacy in the Sixth Century: the Evidence of John Malalas, in: J. Shepard, S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the 24th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot 1992, 159–165 Scullard, The Elephant: H. M. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman world, Ithaca 1974 Seeck, Die Briefe: O. Seeck, Die Briefe des Libanius, Leipzig 1906 Semenovker, Bibliograficheskie: B. A. Semenovker, Bibliograficheskie pamiatniki, Moskva 1995 Shaginian, Armeniia: A. K. Shaginian, Armeniia nakanune arabskogo zavoevaniia, Sankt-Peterburg 2003 Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs IV: I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century, Washington, D.C. 1984 Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs V: I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fifth Century, Washington, D.C. 1989 Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs VI: I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, Washington, D.C. 1995 Shahid, Byzantium and Kinda: I. Shahid (=I. Kawar) Byzantium and Kinda, in: ByzZ 53, 1960, 57– 73 (repr. in: I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Semitic Orient before the Rise of Islam, London 1988, 57–73) Shahid, Kebra Nagast: I. Shahid The ›Kebra Nagast‹ in the Light of Recent Research, in: Le Muséon 89, 1976, 133–178 (repr. in: I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Semitic Orient before the Rise of Islam, London 1988, 133–178) Shandrovskaia, Pechati perevodchikov: V. S. Shandrovskaia, Vizantiiskie pechati perevodchikov, in: V. A. Jakubskij (ed.), Albo Dies, Natanda Lapillo, Kollegi i ucheniki G. E. Lebedevoj, SanktPeterburg 2005, 109–115

276

Literature

Shanzer, Two Clocks: D. Shanzer, Two Clocks and a Wedding: Theodoric’s Diplomatic Relations with the Burgundians, in: Romanobarbarica 14, 1996–1997, 225–254 Shchukin, Gotskii put’: M. B. Shchukin, Gotskii put’ (Goty, Rim i Cherniakhovskaia kultura), Sankt-Peterburg 2005 Shepard, Manners Maketh Romans?: J. Shepard, Manners Maketh Romans? Young Barbarians at the Emperor’s Court, in: E. Jeffreys (ed.), Byzantine Style, Religion, and Civilization, in honour of Sir St. Runciman, Cambridge 2006, 135–158 Silverstein, Postal Systems: A. J. Silverstein, Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World, Cambridge 2007 Sivan, Appropriation: H. Sivan, The Appropriation of Roman Law in Barbarian Hands: ›RomanBarbarian‹ Marriage in Visigothic Gaul and Spain, in: W. Pohl, H. Reimitz (eds.), Strategies of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800. The Transformation of the Roman World 2, Leiden 1998, 189–203 Sizgorich, Reasoned Violence: T. Sizgorich, Reasoned Violence and Shifty Frontiers: Shared Victory in the Late Roman East, in: H. A. Drake (ed.), Violence in Late Antiquity. Perceptions and Practices, Aldershot 2006, 167–176 Skrzhinskaia, Olimpiodor: E. C. Skrzhinskaia, Olimpiodor i ego sochinenie, in: VV 8, 1956, 223– 276 Smirnova, Evnapii i Zosim: O. V. Smirnova, Evnapii i Zosim v Excerpta de sententiis i Excerpta de legationibus Konstantina Bagrianorodnogo, in: VV 89, 2005, 61–76 Smith, DGRA: W. Smith (ed.), A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London 1875 Smith, Public Image: R. R. R. Smith, The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Early Fourth Century, in: JRS 87, 1997, 170–202 Snellman, De interpretibus: W. I. Snellman, De interpretibus Romanorum deque linguae Latinae cum aliis nationibus commercio, 1–2, Leipzig 1919 Sodini, Images sculptées: J.-P. Sodini, Images sculptées et propagande impériale du IVe au VIe siècle: Recherches récentes sur les colonnes honorifiques et les reliefs politiques à Byzance, in: A. Gouillou, J. Durand (eds.), Byzance et les images: cycle de conférences 1992, Paris 1994, 43–94 Souris, Provincial Embassies: G. A. Souris, The Size of the Provincial Embassies to the Emperor under the Principate, in: ZPE 48, 1982, 235–244 Speidel, Late Roman Decorations II: M. P. Speidel, Late Roman Decorations II: Gold-Embroidered Capes and Tunics, in: Antiquité Tardive 5, 1997, 231–237 Stallknecht, Außenpolitik: B. Stallknecht, Untersuchungen zur römischen Aussenpolitik in der Spätantike (306–395 n.Chr.), Bonn 1967 Stein, Bas-Empire: E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2, Paris, 1949 Stein, Studien: E. Stein, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Reiches vornehmlich unter den Kaisern Justinus II und Tiberius Constantinus, Stuttgart 1919 Steiner, Die dona militaria: P. Steiner, Die dona militaria, in: BJ 114/115, 1906, 1–98 Stock, Großgesandter: K. Stock, Yazdān-Friy-Šāpūr: Ein Großsgesandter Šāpūrs III. Ein Beitrag zur persisch-römischen Diplomatie und Diplomatik, in: Studia Iranica 7, 1978, 165–182 Stout, Jewelry as Indicators: A. M. Stout, Jewelry as Indicators of Power and Status in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Periods, in: 18th International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Summaries of Communication, 1, Moskva 1991, 1121f. Stout, Jewelry as a Symbol: A. M. Stout, Jewelry as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire, in: J. L. Sebesta, L. Bonfante (eds.), The World of Roman Costume, Madison 1994, 77–100 Sydenham, Coinage: E. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, London 1952 Szádeczky-Kardoss, The Avars: S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, The Avars, in: D. Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge 1990, 206–228, 452–457 Talbert, Mapping: R. Talbert, Greek and Roman Mapping: Twenty-First Century Perspectives, in: R. J. A. Talbert, R. W. Unger (eds.), Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh Perspectives, New Methods, Leiden 2008, 10–27 Tarbell, Chlamys: F. B. Tarbell, The Form of the Chlamys, in: CPh 1.3, 1906, 283–289 Thompson, Goths: E. A. Thompson, The Goths in Spain, Oxford 1969 Thompson, History: E. A. Thompson, A History of Attila and the Huns, Oxford 1948 Thompson, Notes on Priscus: E. A. Thompson, Notes on Priscus Panites, in: CQ 41.1/2, 1947, 61–65

Secondary Sources

277

Thompson, Olympiodorus: E. A. Thompson, Olympiodorus of Thebes, in: CQ 38, 1944, 43–52 Thompson, Visigoths: E. A. Thompson, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila, Oxford 1966 Tinnefeld, Ceremonies: F. Tinnefeld, Ceremonies for Foreign Ambassadors at the Court of Byzantium and their Political Background, in: ByzF 19, 1993, 193–213 Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus: A. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World, London 1973 Treadgold, Diplomatic Career: W. Treadgold, The Diplomatic Career and Historical Work of Olympiodorus of Thebes, in: The International History Review 26.4, 2004, 709–733 Treitinger, Kaiser- und Reichsidee: O. Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell, Jena 1938 Trümpelmann, Triumph: L. Trümpelmann, Triumph über Julian Apostata, in: JNG 25, 1975, 107– 111 Udal’tsova, Diplomatiia: Z. V. Udal’tsova, Diplomatiia rannei Vizantii v izobrazhenii sovremennikov, in: Z. V. Udal’tsova (ed.), Kul’tura Vizantii IV – pervaia polovina VII veka, Moskva 1984, 371–392 Udal’tsova, Ideino-politicheskaia bor’ba: Z. V. Udal’tsova, Ideino-politicheskaia bor’ba v rannei Vizantii (po dannym istorikov IV–VII vekov), Moskva 1974 Udal’tsova, Razvitie: Z. V. Udal’tsova, Razvitie istoricheskoi mysli rannei Vizantii, in: Z. V. Udal’tsova (ed.), Kul’tura Vizantii IV – pervaia polovina VII veka, Moskva 1984, 119–271 Váczy, Helm und Diadem: P. Váczy, Helm und Diadem, in: AAntHung 20, 1972, 169–208 Vasil’ev, Justin the First: A. Vasil’ev, Justin the First: an Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great, Cambridge MA, 1950 Vitiello, Momenti: M. Vitiello, Momenti di Roma ostrogota: adventus, feste, politica, Stuttgart 2005 (Historia Einzelschriften 188) Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten: W. F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters, Mainz 1952 Warmington, The Commerce: E. H. Warmington, The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India, London 1974 Wessel/Restle, RBK: K. Wessel, M. Restle (eds.), Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, Stuttgart 1963– Wessely, Ein neues System: C. Wessely, Ein neues System griechischer Geheimschrift, in: WS 26, 1904, 185–189 Wheeler, Limits: E. L. Wheeler, Methodological Limits and Mirage of Roman Strategy, 1–2, in: The Journal of Military History 57.1–2, 1993, 7–41, 215–240 Whitby, Balkans: M. Whitby, The Balkans and Greece 420–602, in: Av. Cameron, B. WardPerkins, M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History XIV. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425–600, Cambridge 2000, 701–730 Whitby, From Frontier: M. Whitby, From Frontier to Palace: Personal Role of the Emperor in Diplomacy, in: J. Shepard, S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the 24th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot 1992, 295–303 Whitby, Omission: M. Whitby, On the Omission of a Ceremony in Mid-Sixth Century Constantinople: Candidati, Curopalatus, Silentiarii, Excubitores and Others, in: Historia 36, 1987, 462–488 Whitehorn, Golden Statues: J. E. G. Whitehorn, Golden Statues in Greek and Latin Literature, in: G&R, 2nd ser., 22.2, 1975, 109–119 Widengren, Le symbolisme: G. Widengren, Le symbolisme de la ceinture, in: IA 8, 1982, 133–155 Wiesehöfer, Rūm: J. Wiesehöfer, Rūm as Enemy of Iran, in: E. S. Gruen (ed.), Cultural Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity, Stuttgart 2005 (Oriens et Occidens 8), 105–120 Wilson, Scholars: N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, 2, London 1996 Winter, Friedensverträge: E. Winter, Die sasanidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jh. n.Chr., Frankfurt a.M. 1988 Winter/Dignas, Rom und Perserreich: E. Winter, B. Dignas, Rom und das Perserreich. Zwei Weltmächte zwischen Konfrontation und Koexistenz, Berlin 2002 Wirth, Attila: G. Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa, Stuttgart 1999

278

Literature

Wolfram, Athanaric: H. Wolfram, Athanaric the Visigoth: Monarchy or Judgeship?, in: Journal of Mediaeval History 1, 1975, 259–278 Wolfram, Goths: H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, Berkeley, 1989 Wolfram, Gotische Studien: H. Wolfram, Gotische Studien I. Das Richtertum Athanarichs, in: Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 83, 1975, 1–32 Wolfram, Goty: H. Wolfram, Goty. Ot istokov do serediny VI veka (opyt istoricheskoi etnografii), Sankt-Peterburg 2003 (Russian translation of Die Goten: Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie, München 1990) Wolfram, Xantha Ethne: H. Wolfram, Byzanz und die Xantha Ethne 400–600, in: E. Chrysos, A. Schwarcz (eds.), Das Reich und die Barbaren, Wien 1989, 237–246 Wood/Serre, Diplomatic Ceremonial: J. R. Wood, J. Serre, Diplomatic Ceremonial and Protocol. Principles and Practices, New York 1970 Wooten, Ambassador’s Speech: C. W. Wooten, The Ambassador’s Speech: a Particularly Hellenistic Genre of Oratory, in: The Quarterly Journal of Speech 59, 1973, 209–212 Yarshater, EI: E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, http://www.iranicaonline.org/ Zasetskaia/Kazanskii/Akhmetov/Minasjan, Morskoi Chulek: I. Zasetskaia, M. Kazanskii, I. Akhmetov, R. Minasjan, Morskoi Chulek. Pogrebeniia znati iz Priazov’ia i ich mesto v istorii plemen Severnogo Pricchernomor’ia v postgunnskuiu epokhu, Sankt-Peterburg 2007 Ziegler, Beziehungen: K.-H. Ziegler, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich, Wiesbaden 1962 Zuckerman, L’empire: C. Zuckerman, L’empire d’Orient et les Huns. Notes sur Priscus, in: Travaux et mémoires 12, 1994, 159–182 Zuckerman, Episkopy i garnizon: C. Zuckerman (=K. Tsukerman) Episkopy i garnizon Khersonesa v IV veke, in: Mater’ialy po arxeologii, istorii i etnografii Tavriki (МАИЭТ) 4, 1995, 542–560 Zuckerman, Xazary: C. Zuckerman (=K. Tsukerman) Xazary v Vizantii: pervye kontakty, in: Mater’ialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavriki 8, 2001, 312–333

Personal names

Abinnaeus (praefectus alae in Egypt) escorted embassy of the Blemmyes 150, → embassies (incoming, outgoing/imperial), escorting; Blemmyes Abramius (Roman ambassador) 130 Adamantius (Roman ambassador) 95f., 121 Aetius 139 as a hostage 55, → hostages Alamundarus (leader of the Ghassanid Arabs) 61, 75, 130, 187–189, 231, 246 Alamundarus (leader of the Lakmids Arabs) 18 Alaricus I (leader of the Visigoths) 55, 182–184, 190, 247 Alavivus (leader of the Visigoths) 59 Alexander (Roman ambassador) 56, 130f. Alexander the Great 225 Amalasuintha (queen of the Ostrogoths) plot of assassination 24, 60f., → clandestine diplomacy Ammianus Marcellinus (historian, protector domesticus) espionage mission 157f., → intelligence Amorcesus (leader of the Ghassanid Arabs) 75, 78, 169, 186f., 193, 246 Anastasius (emperor) 128, 176, 196, 199, 231, 243, 251 Anatolius (Roman ambassador) 84, 119, 127f., 134, 168, 203, 240 Anthemius (emperor) 35, 103f. Anthemius (Roman ambassador) 122 Antoninus (Roman deserter) 158 Apollonius (Roman ambassador) 43, 62, 84 Ardaburius (MVM) 132 Arethas (leader of the Kindite Arabs) 130 Arinthaeus (magister peditum) 73, 76 Arminius (leader of the Cherusci) 74 Arsaces III (king of Armenia) 75, 190, 246 Athanaricus (leader of the Visigoths) 59f., 72–74, 76 Athanasius (Roman ambassador) 130, 137 Attila (king of the Huns) and his empire 170f. ›blocks‹ of embassies 85, → ›blocks‹ of embassies embasssies from him 83, 119, 129, 238, → embassies (incoming)

embassies to him 18, 30, 43, 62, 85, 101, 103, 119, 124, 127f., 130, 132f., 138f., 143, 150f., 154, 160, 167f., 184f., 198, 203, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) negotiations 111, 119f., → negotiations plot against him 26, 29, 43, 58, 61f., 130, 132– 134, 136, 146, 155, → clandestine diplomacy problem of payments 104, → payments to the barbarians and to Persians reception of embassies 183, 249, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) treaties with 49, 111, → agreement, peace, treaty Augustus (emperor) 76 Bahram V (Persian shah) 63 Bahram Chobin (pretender to the Persian throne, rebelled against Chosroes II) 71, 176, 243 Baianus (khagan of the Avars) 62, 97, 134f., 181f. Baradates (bishop of Constantina) 99, 178, 243 Belisarius (magister militum) 44, 48, 57, 82, 97f., 107, 225, 230 Berich (Hun chief and ambassador) 84, 139 Binganes (Persian general) 99 Blach (king of the Sabirian Huns) 186 Bleda (king of the Huns, brother of Attila) 49, 183f., 190, 245 Boa (queen of the Sabirian Huns) 186, 245 Boethius, 179 Bonus (MVM) 182 Bradicius (Persian interpreter) 159 Caesar, Gaius Julius 216 Caisus (chief of the Kindite Arabs) 130 Caligula, Gaius Caesar (emperor, proclaimed successor of the emperor at the moment) meeting with Phraates V 76 Candide (bishop of Sergiopolis) 100 Carpilio (son of Aetius) as a hostage 55, → hostages Cassiodorus as magister officiorum and quaestor sacri palatii of the Ostrogoths 32 as author of the Variae 45 Cavades I (Persian shah) 64, 82, 99, 103, 119, 129, 176, 178, 196, 208, 234, 249

280

Indices

Celer (magister officiorum, Roman ambassador) 113, 128 Charaton (king of the Huns) 59 Childericus (king of the Franks) 226 Chilpericus (king of the Franks) 191, 247 Chosroes I (Persian shah) 24, 30, 36, 38, 46, 48– 50, 82, 88–90, 93, 96f., 99f., 106f., 109, 112, 119, 121, 124f., 128f., 135, 140, 157, 159, 177f., 196, 243, 249 Chosroes II (Persian shah) 63, 71, 176–181, 187, 219f., 243, 249 Chrysaphius (spatharius, cubicularius) role in the plot against Attila 58, 61, 168 Clovis (king of the Franks) 191, 231f. Comitas (Roman ambassador) 62, 134 Constantianus (Roman ambassador) 125, 128 Constantine I (emperor) 26, 29, 31f., 40, 165, 191– 194, 202–204, 216, 224, 233, 248, 250 letter to Sapor II 31 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (emperor) 17, 152f., 174, 178, → de cerimoniis Constantinus (1) (Roman ambassador) 43, 130 Constantinus (2) (Roman ambassador, father of Constantinus (1)) 130 Constantius (notarius of Attila) 139 Constantius II (emperor) 75, 77, 79, 86f., 118, 123, 135, 189f., 195, 203, 246 Constantius III (emperor) 215 Cosmas (Roman ambassador) 30 Cotys I (king of Bosporus) 227 Darmarius (scribe) 18 Decebalus (king of Dacia) 86 Diocletian (emperor) 95, 222 Domitianus (bishop of Metilene) 100 Donatus (king of the Huns (?)) 58f., 142 Edeco (Hun ambassador) 58, 139f., 185, 245 Elpidius (Roman ambassador) 84f., 138 Ephraemius (patriarch of Antioch) 99 Epigenes (quaestor, Roman [fellow] ambassador) 30, 132 Eslas (Hun ambassador) 84, 129 Eumphemius (magister officiorum) 18 Euphrasius (Roman ambassador) 130 Eusebius (Roman ambassador) 114 Eustathius (philosopher, Roman ambassador) 123f., 132 Fritigern (leader of the Visigoths) 59 Gabinius (chief of the Quadi) 59 Galerius (emperor, Caesar at the moment of the described events) 95, 173 Geisericus (king of the Vandals) 43, 103f., 138, 156 Georgius (Roman ambassador) 63

Georgius (Roman messenger) 136 Gratianus (emperor) 60, 229 Gregory (pope) 32 Gubazes (king of the Lazi) 61, 75, 218 Gudeliva (wife of the king of the Ostrogoths Theodahad) 61 Gundobad (king of the Burgundians) 179, 191 Hadrian (emperor) 122 Hariobaudes (Roman ambassador) 155f. Heliocrates (ambassador to Constantinople from the Western Roman Empire) 35 Helion (Roman ambassador) 63, 85f., 132 Heraclius (emperor) 30, 77, 103 Hereka (Attila’s wife) 154, 167 Hermanfrid (king of the Thoringi) 191 Hermogenes (magister officiorum) 48 Honorius (emperor) 53, 215 Hormizd (Persian shah) 189 Hortarius (chief of the Alemanni) 59, 155 Hunericus (king of the Vandals) 75 Hypathius (MVM, Roman ambassador) 119 Iezdekos → Isdigousnas Isdigousnas (Persian ambassador) 50, 129 attempt of a sabotage 36, 140f., → clandestine diplomacy embassy to Constantinople and reception 35– 42, 82, 91, 141, 168, → embassies (incoming) negotiations of the Roman-Persian Peace of 561/562 112–115, → peace rhethorical skills 48, → rhetoric (diplomatic) special privileges he enjoyed 42 John (Roman ambassador, Ioannes 7 in PLREIIIA) 130 John (Roman ambassador, Ioannes 81 in PLREIIIA) 43, 48–51, 103–105, 152 Jovian (emperor) 73, 76 Juba II (king of Numidia) 230 Julian (emperor, Caesar at the moment of some of the described events) 21, 72, 75–77, 81, 87, 149, 160, 202f. Julian (Roman ambassador) 24, 84, 128, 133, 142f., 147, 153 Justin I (emperor) 30, 82, 119, 130, 208, 211f. Justin II (emperor) 24, 30, 42f., 50f., 54, 57, 75, 79, 84, 87, 90, 92, 97, 103f., 133, 146, 150, 152, 166, 178, 180, 183, 187, 196, 198, 201, 214, 244–246, 250f. Justinian (emperor) 24f., 30–32, 45, 48, 60, 75, 82f., 87, 98f., 101, 104, 106–109, 124f., 128, 130, 142, 145, 150, 159, 166–168, 175, 180, 186, 191, 196, 211f., 214, 216–218, 221, 230, 244, 249

Personal names

281

Khusro I → Chosroes I Koubratos (king of the Bulgarians) 75 Kouridachus (leader of the Akatziri) 171

Onegisius (Attila’s confidant) 167, 185 Orestes (patricius, notarius of Attila and a Hun ambassador) 84, 139, 185, 245

Leo I (Pope) 18, 101, 187 Leo I (emperor) 43, 53, 75, 78, 83, 103f., 186, 193, 216, 218, 224, 229 Leo (Roman ambassador) 176 Lepidus, Marcus Aemilius (administrator of Egyptian affairs and a guardian of the infant king Ptolemy V) 227 Libanius (sophist) 46, 132 Liberius (Ostrogoth ambassador) 35 Licinius II (Caesar) 224 Lucillianus (comes domesticorum, on diplomatic mission to Persia) 158

Palladius (Roman ταχυδρόμος) 136 Pap (king of Armenia) 59 Pelagius (deacon of Rome at the moment of the described events, later Pope) 101 Perozes (Persian shah) 50, 130 Peter the Patrician (magister officiorum) as an ›ideal ambassador‹ 125 codification of diplomatic protocol 34, 41, 63, 88f., 91, 107, 109, 112, 147, 153 embassy to the Ostrogoths 57, 60–62, 127, 131, 137 embassy to Persia and negotiations of the Roman-Persian Peace of 561/562 18, 46–50, 82, 112–115, 124, 127, → peace Philippicus (MVM) 47, 98 Phraates IV (Persian shah) 76 Phraates V (Persian shah) meeting with Caligula, Gaius Caesar 76 Phylarchus (Roman ambassador) 103 Plintha (MVM, Roman ambassador) 30, 125, 132 Polychronius (specialist in the office of the magister officiorum, relations with the Huns) 128, 134 Priscus (historian, Roman [fellow] ambassador) 18, 124f., 131f., 139, 142, 147, 153 Priscus (MVM) 98, 183, 245 Procopius (Roman ambassador) 158 Proculus (quaestor sacri palatii) 30, 32 Prosper (comes rei militaris, Roman ambassador) 123f. Ptolemy (king of Mauretania) 227f., 230 Ptolemy V Epiphanes (king of Egypt) 227

Macrianus (leader of the Alemanni) 59, 73 Maiorianus (emperor of the Western Roman Empire) 156 Maniach (Turkish ambassador) 140, 166 Marcianus (emperor)18, 103f. Marcus Aurelius (emperor) 75, 77 Martyrius (specialist in the office of magister officiorum, relations with the Huns) 128, 134 Marutha (bishop of Mayperqat [Martyropolis]) 100f., 126, 128 Masinissa (king of Numidia) 179, 194, 226, 230 Maurice (emperor) 32, 47, 63f., 71, 87, 98–100, 176–182, 197, 203, 219, 243f., 249 Maximinus (Roman [fellow] ambassador, Maximinus 3 in PLRE-II) 132 Maximinus (Roman ambassador, Maximinus 11 in PLRE-II) 18, 43, 58, 63, 83, 85, 119f., 124f., 128, 131, 133–136, 138f., 147, 149, 151, 155, 167f., 185, 198, 245 Mebodes (Persian ambassador) 43, 47, 57, 96, 119, 129 Megas (biship of Beroea) 99 Meribanes (king of Iberia) 190, 246 Nabedes (Persian general) 97, 99 Nadoes (Persian ambassador) 80, 88, 93 Narses (spathatius, Roman ambassador) 180 Narseus (Persian shah) 95 Narseus (Roman ambassador) 195 Nomus (Roman ambassador) 84, 119, 168, 203, 249 Nonnosus (Roman [fellow] ambassador) 130, 133, 142, 147, 149, 153f. Odoacer (king of Italy) 118f., 232 Olybrius (emperor) 104 Olympiodorus (historian, Roman [fellow] ambassador) 132, 142, 146, 149, 152–154 Olympius (dux of Osrhoene) 64

Reccaredus I (king of the Visigoths) 32, 115 Romanos I (emperor) 152 Rua (king of the Huns) 49, 83, 129 Rufinus (MVM, Roman ambassador) 108, 119, 127, 129f., 150, 167 Rusticius (co-traveller with East-Roman embassy to Attila) 134, 139 Sabriso (Persian katholikos) 100 Sapor I (Persian shah) 71 Sapor II (Persian shah) 81, 118f., 123f., 195, 220 exchange of letters and embassies with Constantius II 79, 86 receives letter from Constantine I 31 Sapor III (Persian shah) 196, 249 Scipio (Roman general) 226 Senator (East-Roman ambassador) 65, 119, 146 Seoses (Persian ambassador) 119 Sergius (Roman ambassador) 124f., 128

282

Indices

Sergius (Roman interpreter and translator) 134f. Sethus (MVM) 97 Severus (Roman ambassador) 118, 121, 125, 138 Sicorius Probus (Roman ambassador) 95 Sigebert (king of the Franks) 146, 150 Sizabul (khagan of the Turks) 137, 144, 151, 154, 181, 198, 250 Sophia (empress) reception of embassies 24, 35, 56, 82, 89, 92, 107 Spectatus (tribunus and notarius, Roman [fellow] ambassador) 45, 123f., 132, 155, 169 Stephanus (physician, Roman ambassador) 125f. Stilicho (magister militum) 214, 229 Surena (Persian ambassador) 114 Tagma (Turkish ambassador) 85, 138, 140 Targitis (Avar ambassador) 64, 85, 87, 129, 134, 138 Tatian (Roman ambassador) 43 Tatulus (co-traveller with West-Roman embassy to Attila) 139 Theodahad (king of the Ostrogoths) embassies from 35, 57, 60–62, 137, 191 Theodebaldus (king of the Franks) ›blocks‹ of embassies with 83, → ›blocks‹ of embassies Theodericus I (king of the Ostrogoths) 179, 191, 224, 232 as a hostage 55, 75, → hostages exchange of embassies 83, 94, 96, 121 Theodericus Strabo (leader of the Goths) ›blocks‹ of embassies with 83, → ›blocks‹ of embassies Theodora (empress) 24, 60f., 145, 167, 212 Theodorus (honorary magister militum, Roman ambassador) 121 Theodorus (magister officiorum, Roman ambassador) 63, 89f., 93, 96, 147, 157 Theodorus (physician, Roman ambassador) 98, 124f. Theodosius I (emperor) 172, 196, 211, 216, 219, 229, 249f. Theodosius II (emperor) 18, 58–60, 63, 79, 83–85, 100, 103f., 132, 134, 136, 151, 170f., 184f., 199, 245 Theognis (MVM) 97, 135 Thomas (bishop of Apamea) 99 Thucydides (Ancient Greek historian) 47

Tiberius II (emperor) 54, 75, 82, 90, 93, 97, 103f., 106f., 121, 150, 177, 180, 183, 188, 191, 243f., 246f. Totila (king of the Ostrogoths) 101 Traianus (Roman ambassador) 30, 89f., 93, 107, 109 Trajan (emperor) 71, 85 Tribunus (East-Roman physician at the Persian court) 126 Turxanthus (khagan of the Turks) 48f., 63, 144, 151, 154 Tzathes I (king of the Lazi) 75, 208f., 211–214, 217f., 220, 225, 252 Tzathes II (king of the Lazi) 75, 209, 211, 213, 215, 218, 220, 223, 225, 229, 252 Uranius (cancellarius of the magister officiorum, Roman ambassador) 128 Uranius (philosopher, physician, Roman ambassador) 125 Ursicinus (magister equitum) 123 Vadomarius (leader of the Alemanni) 59 Valens (emperor) 72–74, 77, 81, 101, 120, 220 Valentinian I (emperor) 73, 77 Valentinian III (emperor) 215, 229 Valentinus (Roman ambassador) 63, 104f., 128, 137–140, 144, 146f., 151 Valerian (emperor) 71 Valerianus (MVM) 97, 99 Victor (magister equitum) 73 Vigilas (East Roman interpreter) 29, 58, 61f., 130, 133–136, 139 Vitalianus (East-Roman interpreter) 62, 134 Vithicabius (leader of the Alemanni) 59 Vitigis (king of the Ostrogoths) 83 Yazdagard I (Persian shah) 100, 128, 130 Zaberganes (associate of Chosroes) 24, 129 Zacharias (Roman ambassador) 57, 63, 89f., 92, 96, 107, 109, 121, 125–127, 147 Zanticus (king of the Iazyges) 75 Zemarchus (Roman ambassador) 84f., 136f., 140, 144, 146f., 149–151, 153, 167, 183, 196, 198, 245, 250 Zeno (emperor) 52, 83, 95, 108, 118, 121, 196, 246, 249 Ztathius (I) → Tzathes I

Geographical names and places

Adrianople 73, 101, 143 Adriatic Sea 149 Akatziri 170f. Alemanni giving hostages 54, → hostages negotiations 73–75, 87, 155, 160, → negotiations plots against 59, → clandestine diplomacy treaties 73, → treaties Alexandria embassies passing through 142, 150 Altai mountains 144 Amida 113, 158 Ancyra embassies passing through 37 Antioch captive citizens 100, → captives embassies passing through 37, 99, 124, → embassies (incoming) ransom for 99 Anzaba 158 Anzitena 221 Apamea 99, 107 Arabs, Ghassanid negotiations with 75, → negotiations plots against 61, → clandestine diplomacy rulers coming to Constantinople 75, 78, 169, 231 Arabs, Kindite negotiations with and embassies to 130, 133, 142, → embassies (outgoing/imperial), negotiations Armenia 21, 50, 246 insignia for 189f., 214, 218, 220–224, 228– 230, → insignia plots against 59, → clandestine diplomacy quarrels of Rome with Parthia for 76, 208 quarrels of Rome with Persia for 81, 88, 99, 107, 109, 220f. Asiana, diocese of 27 Asthianena 221 Avars alliance 48 ›blocks‹ of embassies with 84f., 97, → ›blocks‹ of embassies

conflicts with 97 embassies from 18, 35, 42, 64, 87, 104, 129, 134, 138, → embassies (incoming) embassies to 18, 30, 62f., 120, 125, 128, 134, 138, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) giving hostages 54, → hostages negotiations 54, 77, 87, 97f., 135, 171, 181, → negotiations payments to 52, → payments to the barbarians and to Persians treaties 50, → treaties Axum embassies from 199–202, 250f., → embassies (incoming) embassies to 84, 128, 133, 142, 147, 150, 154, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) Ayla 200f. Balabitena 221 Bassiane 157 Beroea 99 Black Sea 146, 149 Blemmyes embassies from 150, 202, → embassies (incoming) embassies to 18, 128, 152, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) Bosporus 21, 227 Bulgarians giving hostages 75, → hostages Burgundians 179 Byzacena 225 Cappadocia embassies passing through 36 Carthage 104 Caucasus 144 Chalcedon welcoming embassies 26, 37f. Chalcidis (island) 64, 87 Chamavi negotiations with 72, 74, 76, 87, → negotiations Cherson 147, 191f., 194 Chlomaron 99 Colchis 208, 226 Constantia → Constantina

284

Indices

Constantina 99, 178, 243 Constantinople 18, 51, 144, 185, 196, 199, 201, 232 as imperial residence 23, 59–61, 63f., 71, 75, 92, 104, 120, 130, 136, 138, 143, 172, 180f., 186, 231 reception of barbarian rulers 75, 78, 169, 186f., 189, 208f., 218, 237, 246, → negotiations, direct communication reception of embassies 26, 28, 34, 35, 36–42, 58, 64, 66, 75, 78, 82–84, 87f., 97, 119, 141, 150, 157, 165, 168f., 196, → embassies (incoming) Crimea 191f. Ctesiphon embassies to 132, 155, 179, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) Dabube 43 Dacia envoys from and to 71, 86 Dakibyza embassies passing through 37 Damascus 18 Danapris → Dnieper Danube 97, 143f., 146f. Dara 152, 176 meeting the Persian embassies 36, 140f., 150, → embassies (incoming) querrels of Rome with Persia for 57, 107 Dnieper 144 Dubios, district in Persarmenia 99 Dzungaria 144 Edessa embassies passing through 43, 100 Ektag 144 Ephthalitae agreements with Persia 50 Epirus 96 Ethiopians → Axum Etruria 57, 60 Euphrates 76, 99, 178, 221 Flavus (leader of the Cherusci) serving the Romans 74 Franks ›blocks‹ of embassies with 83, → ›blocks‹ of embassies Carolingian laws 45 embassies from 146, 191, → embassies (incoming) insignia for 231f., → insignia Galatia embassies passing through 36 Gaul 101, 150 Gaza 201

Goths ›blocks‹ of embassies 83, 101, 120, → ›blocks‹ of embassies giving hostages 54f., 75, → hostages Ostrogothic kingdom 19 ›blocks‹ of embassies with 83, 94, 107, → ›blocks‹ of embassies embassies from 35, 44, 57, 97, 203, → embassies (incoming) embassies to 44, 57, 97, 127f., 130, 137, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) letters from 32, 98, → correspondence (diplomatic) negotiations with 107, 130, → negotiations payments to 52, → payments to the barbarians and to Persians plots against 60, → clandestine diplomacy Visigothic kingdom 32, 115 negotiations with 72, 74, 76, → negotiations plots against 59, → clandestine diplomacy taking hostages 55, → hostages treaties with 60, 72, → treaties Hebrus 144 Helenopolis embassies passing through 37 Hephthalites 155, 181 Himyar 200f., 250 embassies from 198, → embassies (incoming) embassies to 128, 142, 185, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) Horreum Magnum 143 Huns 42 ›blocks‹ of embassies with 83–85, → ›blocks‹ of embassies embassies from 58, 119f., 128f., 138, → embassies (incoming) embassies to 25, 30, 43f., 62, 101, 119f., 127f., 131–134, 138–140, 143f., 146, 149, 151, 154f., 183, 198, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) payments to 52f., → payments to the barbarians and to Persians; negotiations, main questions plots against 26, 29, 43, 58f., 61f., → clandestine diplomacy problem of deserters 111, → deserters; negotiations, main questions shifting the balance of power in Roman diplomacy 120, → diplomacy taking hostages 55, → hostages treaties with 49, → treaties Iberia insignia for 190, 208, → insignia Illyricum 27, 97, 138

Geographical names and places Ingilena 221 Isaurians payments to 52, → payments to the barbarians and to Persians Italy 18, 44, 56f., 60, 128, 130, 232 Jews 210 Kherkhirs 198 Kinda embassies to 130, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) Kldeeti 211 Koutigours 171 embassies from 45, 150, → embassies (incoming) Lazica giving hostages 75, → hostages insignia for 75, 208–220, 229f., 252, → insignia negotiations with 213, → negotiations plots against 61, → clandestine diplomacy quarrels of Rome with Persia for 109 Lilybaeum 56, 98 Makuria 201, 251 Margus 49, → peace Martyropolis 100f., 126 Mauretania 225 Mayperqat → Martyropolis Mesopotamia 132 embassies passing through 157, 221 Metilene 100 Meuse place of negotiations 72 Milan 229 Moesia II 194 Mogontiacum 73 Monza 229 Moors 201 giving hostages 21, 54, → hostages insignia for 75, 189, 225–230, → insignia Municipium 143 Naissus 143 Nicea embassies passing through 36 Nicomedia embassies passing through 37 Nile 142 Nisibis meeting the Persian embassies 36, 95, → embassies (incoming) Nobadae christianizaion of 24, 145, 149 embassies to 18, 128 Nubia 152, 200f. Numidians 179, 194, 225

285

Oriens (diocese of) 27 Osrhoene 64 Palestina III 200 Persia agreements with the Ephthalitae 50 appreciation of Greek medicine and ›medical diplomacy‹ 125f. competition with Rome for insignia distribution 208, → insignia embassies from 26, 28, 35–44, 81–83, 89, 91, 103, 129, 140, 150, 157, 168f., 195f., 203, → embassies (incoming) embassies to 30, 42–44, 46, 51, 63f., 73, 81–83, 88, 90–92, 95, 103, 107, 118, 121, 124–128, 132, 135, 146f., 150, 152, 155, 157f., → embassies (outgoing/imperial) equality of status with Rome 70 gifts from 38, 165–167, → gifts gifts to 165–167, → gifts giving and taking hostages 55, 81, → hostages negotiations 36, 40–42, 47–51, 57, 73, 79, 81– 83, 85, 87f., 90, 93f., 96–99, 105, 107, 109f., 112–116, 119, 124, 127f., 130, → negotiations Parthia giving hostages 76, → hostages payments to 52, → payments to the barbarians and to Persians quarrels with Rome 51, 107 relations with Rome 19, 76, 208 testing of ambassadors 126f., → ambassadors (incoming) treaties 50, 81, 106–109, 112–116, → treaties Petra 186 Petschenegs 219 Phasis 21, 146 Philippopolis 143 Pompeii 143 Pontica (diocese of) 27 Quadi giving hostages 54, → hostages plots against 59, → plots Ravenna 59, 83, 146, 211f. Capella Archivescovile 224 Oratory of Saint Andrea 224 San Vitale 212, 214, 216–218, 229 Sant’Apollinare in Classe 224 Red Sea 142, 147 Rhine 73, 148 Rogatorium 146 Rome 18, 101 Sabirian Huns 186, 245 Saracens 75, 155

286 Sardica embassies passing through 143 Sarmatians 203 giving hostages 54, → hostages negotiations with 135, → negotiations ›Scythia‹ 119f., 139, 192, 203, 244 Sergiopolis 100 Sicily 61 Singidunum 97 Sinope 147 Sirmium 62, 97 Sogdiana 151, 198 Sophanene 100, 128, 221 Sophena 221 Suania conflict with Persia about 42, 51, 103, 114 Sura 99f., 178, 243 Syria 107, 158, 222 Taq-e Bostan 220 Tekes 144 Thebais 18, 145 Thessaloniki 173 Thracia (diocese of) 27, 98 Tigris 21, 150, 158 Transcaucasia 208 Trapezus 145, 146 Trier 229 Turks ›blocks‹ of embassies with 84, → ›blocks‹ of embassies

Indices embassies from 64, 138, 166, 198, → embassies (incoming) embassies to 18, 44, 48, 63, 104, 128, 136–140, 143–147, 149, 151, 154f., 167, 181, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) negotiations 48, 77, 144, → negotiations Tyana embassies passing through 37 Tzani agreements with 49 Ugurs meeting embassies 147, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) Utigurs 171 Vandals embassies to 43f., 103–105, 118–120, 138, 156, → embassies (outgoing/imperial) giving hostages 54, 75, → hostages giving insignia to the Moors 225, → insignia payments to 53, → payments to the barbarians and to Persians treaties 108, → treaties Viminacium 143 Visurgis 74 Western Roman Empire embassies from 35, 41, → embassies (incoming) gifts to and from 35, → gifts Yemen 142

Notions, ideas and concepts

Academy of Athens flee to Persia and protection by a diplomatic treaty 112, → deserters/fugitives; negotiations, main questions admissionales → embassies (incoming), reception of; magister officiorum, office and personnel involved in diplomacy, officium admissionum and proximus admissionum adoption 71, 82, 119 adoration of the Magi 173–175, 210 agentes in rebus → magister officiorum, office and personnel involved in diplomacy agreement 49, → peace; treaty; truce ends with the death of the emperor who concluded it 104, → emperor, representation of the state violation of 48–50, 55, 82, 88 ambassadors (general) decision-making (limitations) 86, 88, 90, 93, 96, 102, 136, → decision-making information gathering → embassies (outgoing), extra functions of an embassy; clandestine diplomacy; intelligence, ambassadors as collectors personal connections with the negotiating partners 92 training and testing 49, 126f., → ambassadors (outgoing/imperial), selection of envoys → embassies (general, incoming, outgoing); mediation in diplomacy ambassadors (incoming) dangers and hardships 50, 64 exotic appearance 42 honours and privileges 40, 42 imprisonment and captivity 64, 87 limitations of freedom 42, 44, 151, 161f., → embassies (general), control of movements maltreatment 43, 50, 64, 79, 87, 161 professionalization (same person’s multiple participation in embassies) 129–131 qualities, requirements, competence 125, 131 rhetorical skills 125, 131, → rhetoric (diplomatic) threats of death 64 → embassies (incoming)

ambassadors (outgoing/imperial) ambassador-autocrator 94–96, → embassies (general), classification of, plenipotentiary embassies chief envoy 124, 131, 161, 239 companion(s) of chief envoys (often skilled in rhetorics) 46, 124, 131–133, 161, 239 dangers and hardships 50, 62–65, 135, 139, 142, 148, 151, 155, 161, 239 great/major ambassador → embassies (general), major embassy limitations of freedom 146, 151, 158, 161f., → embassies (general), control of movements maltreatment 50, 62–65, 132, 137, 147, 149, 151, 161, 239 imprisonment and captivity 62f., 132, 137, 152 threats of death 62 professionalization 27, 69, 117, 127–131, 160f., 238 ambassadorial dynasties 130f., 161, 238f. geographical specialization 130, 161, 238 same person’s multiple participation in embassies 127–129, 134, 161 ›professions‹ ›imperial bodyguard‹ (spatharius?) 121 physician 90, 121, 125f. qualities, requirements, competence 46, 48, 51, 123–127, 161 cleverness 125, 161 courtesy 125 justice 125, 161 ›men of letters‹ 123f. moderation 125 rhetorical skills 124f., 132, 151, 161, → rhetoric (diplomatic) wisdom 125 ranks/dignities 117–123, 125, 151, 160, 238, → ›blocks‹ of embassies; embassies (general), classification of demand of high-ranking envoys by the other side 119f., 160 ex-ordinary/honorary consuls 118–122, 160, 238

288

Indices

[ambassadors (outgoing/imperial), ranks continued]

illustris 118f. magister officiorum 122, 239, → magister officiorum patricians 91, 118f., 121f. promotion of rank to rise the status of embassy 118, 120–122, 238 spectabilis 118f. selection of envoys 124, → ambassadors (general) testing of envoys 126, → ambassadors (general) → embassies (outgoing) amicitia 73 archive 32, 115, → correspondence (diplomatic) envoy’s accounts 32, 47, 141–144, 152–155, 239 aurum coronarium 173, 194, 202f. autocratic embassies → embassies (general), classification of, plenipotentiary embassies automata 41, → gifts, types, items, materials αὐτοψία → intelligence, ambassadors as collectors ›blocks‹ of embassies 43, 69, 72f., 78, 80–86, 101, 106, 116, 138, 166, 237, 240, → embassies (general), classification of; mediation in diplomacy final conference for signing a treaty 93, 96, 102, 109f., 112–116, → treaty, procedure of conclusion and gift exchange 168f., → gifts initiating and responding embassies travelling together 85, 138 ranks of inviting and responding embassies within a ›block‹ 85, 90, → ambassadors (outgoing/imperial); embassies (general), classification of sessions in ›blocks‹ 81, 86, 101, 112–116, 168, 237 with the Avars 84 with the Goths 83 with the Huns 83f. with Persia 81–83, 88–91, 93 with the Turks 84 Book of Ceremonies → De cerimoniis captives 138, → negotiations, main questions; Christianity, clergymen in diplomacy; payments to the barbarians and to Persians ceremonial 15, 33, 41, 43, 46, 57, 66, 69, 76, 78, 84, 87, 89–93, 98, 104, 112–116, 120, 135, 157, 168, 213, 240, → diplomacy emperor (role of) 24, 34–37, 186, → emperor gift exchange 31, 35, 37, 38–40, 53, 75, 116, 155, 163, 165–170, 178, 202, 239, → gifts reception of embassies 29, 34–44, 66, → embassies (incoming)

Christianity Christianisation of other peoples baptizing barbarian rulers 75, 209, → insignia, investiture missionary activities 24, 54, 145, 201 clergymen in diplomacy 118, 243, → embassies (general), classification of bishops representing their cities 98–100, 102 Christian priests as barbarian ambassadors 101 Christian priests as Persian ambassadors 99f. mediation in the ransoming of captives 100, 102, → captives; payments to the barbarians and to the Persians mediation in the ransoming of cities 99, 102, 178, 243 and diplomatic oaths 50, → oaths citatio → embassies (incoming), reception of clandestine diplomacy eunuchs, role in 26, → sacrum cubiculum method of diplomacy 56, 66, 155–160 plots 24, 26, 43, 57–61, 130, 132–134, 155, → Amalasuintha; Attila secret negotiations 56–57, 75, 155 spy activities 155–160, 239, → embassies (general); intelligence crypted messages and cyphers 157–159 disguise 156 comes sacrarum largitionum → gifts consistorium big consistorium 25f., 38 reception of embassies 25, 28f., 32, 35, 38 role in diplomacy 25–27, 66 small consistorium 25f., 39 coronation → investiture; crown; gifts, types, items, materials; insignia, of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings; insignia, types, items, materials; titles and ranks (distributed by the Roman Empire) correspondence (diplomatic) 31, 44f., 81f., 85, 122 letters from the emperor/Roman state 36f., 41, 45, 49, 79, 86, 137, 145, 157 letters from imperial ambassadors 43 letters from the magister officiorum 36f., 97f. letters to the emperor/Roman state 39, 41, 45, 47, 84, 88, 157, 195 magister epistularum 31f. magister memoriae 31, 95 method of diplomacy 21, 44f., 137 oral messages 45 sacra scrinia 31–33, 66

Notions, ideas and concepts scrinia memoriae 32 scrinium epistularum 31 security of letters 41 structure of a letter 45 crown 75, 189, 192, 194, 202, 210f., → gifts, types, items, materials; insignia, of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings; insignia, types, items, materials, headdress cursus publicus → embassies (incoming, outgoing/ imperial), transport and travel De administrando imperio 152 De cerimoniis 34, 41 on the reception of embassies 34–42 decision-making 15, 23–25, 31, 33, 66, 78, 86, 88, 90, 93, 96, 98, 102, 136, → ambassadors (general); diplomacy; emperor decurio → embassies (incoming), reception of deserters/fugitives 111, 112, 138, 140, → negotiations, main questions diplomacy ceremonial, protocol, etiquette 15, 33, 41, 43, 46, 57, 66, 69, 76, 78, 84, 87, 89–93, 98, 112– 116, 120, 135, 157, 168, 213, 240, → ceremonial; embassies (incoming), reception of concept of (in Late Antiquity) 20f., 48 continuity of 31f. and deception 48 decision-making 15, 33, → decision making ›equality‹ with Axum 84 ›equality‹ with Persia 71, 74, 78, 91, 102, 240 ›brotherhood‹ 70, 103, 237, → familia principum flexibility and reaction to circumstances 15, 19, 119–123, 126, 130f., 160f., 238, 240 hierarchy of partners 66, 69–78 (esp. 76), 85, 120, 237, 240 international rules and norms 20, 41f., 49f., 62, 66, 99 violation of 62–66 ius gentium 62 local traditions 42, 150f., 154f. matrimonial diplomacy 15, 56 methods of 15, 20f., 44 strategy 28, 33 symbolic acts 15f., 34, 53, 55, 66, 76, 171f., 174, 187, 237, 240 universalism of rules 66 duces limitanei role in diplomacy 30, 36, 93f., 112, 114

289

elephants 142, 183, 196, 198–201, 244, 249, 251, → gifts in triumphal art 173 embassies (general) accusation of espionage 160, → clandestine diplomacy ›blocks‹ of embassies → ›blocks‹ of embassies classification of 88–102, 116, 137, 237f. major embassy 36, 88f., 92–94, 107, 109, 116, 126, 238 authorized to negotiate 90f., 93, 238 rank of the major ambassador 90f., 109, 121, 126, → ambassadors (outgoing); ›blocks‹ of embassies ›medium‹ embassies 92f., 109, 238 authorized to negotiate 92f., 105 notifications of the accession of a new ruler 92f., 103–105, 152 rank of the ›medium‹ ambassador 92f., → ambassadors (outgoing); ›blocks‹ of embassies with the barbarians rather than with Persia 92 minor embassy 88f., 92–94, 101, 105, 116, 237f. not authorized to negotiate 86, 88, 93, 237f. position within a ›block‹ 89, → ›blocks‹ of embassies plenipotentiary embassies 90, 93–96, 102, 109f., 116, 238, → ambassadors (outgoing/imperial) authorized to sign treaties 93f., 96 autocratic embassies 94, 96, 225f. need for supreme ratification 94, 96 represent their states 93 local negotiations 101, 107, 110, 182, 238, 243 clergymen 98–101, 238, 243, → Christianity magistri militum 97f., 107, 122f., 161, 182, 238, 245, → magister militum control of movements 27, 44, 146, 151, → embassies (incoming, outgoing/imperial) coverage for other purposes 82, 155–160, → clandestine diplomacy detainment of 44, 151, 158 information gathering → intelligence inviolability 50, 62–66, 139, 151f., 161, 239 not respected 50, 62–66, 151f., 159, 161, 239 method of diplomacy 15f., 44, 66

290

Indices

non reception of 42f., 87 παραπρεσβεία (mistake or misconduct of envoy) 42f., 50f., 82, 96 partial reception 43 problems of safety 85, 159 release of 44, 84, 97, 151f. → ambassadors (general, incoming, outgoing/ imperial) embassies (incoming) escorting of 28, 36, 65, 137f., 144–146, 150f., 157, 161f., → control of movements; embassies (outgoing/imperial) logging, accommodation and supplies 35–37, 40, 148 comes rerum privatarum 30f., 37, 150 mensores, metatores 29 praefectus urbi 30f., 37 meeting delegations at the frontier 36, 43, 72– 74, 138, 157, → embassies (general); frontier pretext for subversive acts 36, 140f. rank/status 29, 35–37, 41, 66, 69, 81f., 85, 101, → embassies (general), classification of embassies; ambassadors (outgoing); ›blocks‹ of embassies reception of admissionales 26, 28f., 35, 38, → magister officiorum, office and personnel involved in diplomacy ceremonial 29, 34–44, 66, → ceremonial citatio 26, 28, 38 consistorium → consistorium decurio 26, 29, 38f., 168 gift exchange → gifts hospitium 29 imperial audiences 29, 35, 38–42, 66, → emperor notarii 26, 32 splendor of reception 78 transport and travel 29, 36f. cursus publicus 26, 28, 36, 137, 147f., 157, → embassies (outgoing/imperial), transport and travel duration of journeys and embassies 36, 150, 239 horses 148 sea 148 → ambassadors (incoming); emperor; magister officiorum embassies (outgoing/imperial) aims 122 Christianization 24 entertainment and reception 147, 154 escorting of 65, 137f., 145f., 151, 157, 161f., → embassies (general, incoming)

extra functions of an embassy 152–160, → embassies (general), classification of embassies information gathering 152, 155f., 162, 239, → clandestine diplomacy; intelligence providing reports 152–155, → archive instructions for 23, 85f., 90 logging, accommodation and supplies 147, 150, 161 insufficient supplies 147 meeing delegations at the frontier 137f., 146, 157, 161, → embassies (general, incoming); frontier Οἱ περί (satellites and suite) 137f., 239 ›outsiders‹ travelling with embassies for safety reasons 65, 138–141, 161, 239 peculiarities of reception 150f., 154 personnel 117–141, 155, 161, 239, 240 rank/status 85, 90, 92, 96, 101, 117–123, 137, 168, 238, 241, → embassies (general), classification of embassies rules of reception ›abroad‹ 42, 44, 150 source of geographical/ethnological/naturalist knowledge 141–145, 152, 154, 162, 239 transport and travel 141–148, 161 cursus publicus 137, 143, 145, 157, → embassies (incoming), transport and travel duration of journeys and embassies 136f., 149f., 191 hardships of the journey 147–151 horses 36, 146f. itineraries 143f. journeys 84, 132, 136, 139, 141–152 means of transport 145–147 travelling by sea 146f., 149 travelling by river 146f. postal service and transport of envoys in Persia 145f., 148 problems with transport on foreign territory 146 → ambassadors (outgoing) emperor ceremonial of diplomacy 24, 34–37, 186, → ceremonial decision-making 23–25, 31, 33, 66, 78, 86, 96, 98, 102, 136, → decision making gift-giving diplomacy 30, 38–41, 165, 167, 169, 186, → gifts images (portraits) of role in diplomacy 35, 113, 186f., 192–194, 211–215, 234, 252 → gifts, insignia insignia → insignia Kaiserkritik 52f. personal involvement in diplomacy 21, 23, 27, 66, 69–78, 237

Notions, ideas and concepts ratification and control of diplomatic actions 24f., 43, 45, 51, 57, 90, 94, 96, 113–115, 132, 135, → embassies (general), classification of reception of embassies 35, 38–43, 66, 82, 97, 165, → embassies (incoming) proskynesis 35, 39, 166, 169, 172, 174 representation of the state 23, 52, 66, 103f., 116, 237 empress role in diplomacy 24, 82, 89, 92, 107, 167, 213 eunuchs → clandestine diplomacy Excerpta de legationibus 17f., 50, 88 familia principum 70 frontier embassies met at 36, 43, 72–74, 137f., 146, 157, 161, → embassies (incoming, outgoing/imperial) place of negotiations 36, 72–74, 76, 82, 93f., 102, 107, 112–116, → negotiations gifts acts of donation in art 172–174, 207, 210 comes sacrarum largitionum, role in gift-giving diplomacy and distribution of payments 26, 28, 30f., 41, 52f. distributed by the Roman Empire 26, 28, 30f., 35, 37, 41, 43, 59f., 62, 71, 104 for the Akatziri 171 for the Alemanni 171 for the Arabs 182, 186–189, 193, 246 for the Avars 104, 171, 177, 180–184, 188, 190, 194f., 244f. for the rulers of the Caucasian kingdoms 189f., 246 for the Chersonites 191–194, 248 for the Franks 191, 247 for the Goths 182, 190f., 247 for the Huns 182, 184–186, 190, 245 for Persia 155, 175–180, 182, 194, 243 for the Sabirian Huns 186, 245 for the Turks 167, 182, 185, 196, 245 donativa 35 gift exchange and ceremonial 31, 35, 37–40, 53, 75, 116, 155, 163, 165–170, 178, 202, 239, → ceremonial sacravestis 26, 31, 39, 166 silentiarii 26, 35, 39, 166, 169 insignial symbolism/significance 174, 176f., 179, 181, 187, 189, 191, 193f., 205, 219, 231, 240, → insignia level of gifts 195 ambassadors to ambassadors 184f. local 99, 178, 184, 204, 245 low 184, 204, 245

291

medium gifts 183f., 186, 198, 204, 245, 249, 250 ›personal‹ gifts for ambassadors 155, 168– 170, 180, 195, 198, 204, 239, 244 according to their rank 168, 205 ›personal‹ gifts from ambassadors 40, 129, 151, 155, 165, 167–170, 182, 195, 204, 239 ›small gifts‹ 171, 181–183, 204, 244 state gifts 31, 35, 38f., 84, 164–167, 169f., 176–183, 186f., 189f., 195f., 204, 239, 243–247, 249–251 method of diplomacy 16, 53, 66, 164–205, 239 mistakes in the distribution 171, 239 problem of equality 165f., 202, 204 received by the Roman Empire 31, 35, 38–40, 84, 151, 155, 164f. from peoples of Africa and South Arabia 198f., 250f. from ›different barbarians‹ 202, 251 from the Huns 198, 203, 249 from Persia 155, 165–167, 173, 185, 195– 198, 249 from the Turks 166, 183, 198 status significance (for donor and for receiver) 16, 53, 71, 164, 170–175, 181, 187, 195f., 202–205, 227, 232, 239f. superiority/humiliation controversy 164f., 172–174, 181, 187, 195f., 202, 205, 207, 227, 232, 240 types, items, materials amber 197 animals 38, 198–201, 250 elephants 183, 196, 198–201, 244, 249, 251 giraffes 199–201, 251 horses 38, 177–179, 191, 198, 202f., 243, 249, 251 mules 170, 177–179, 243 tiger 199, 250 animals for triumphs 196, 249 armour 188, 191, 202, 246, 251 bodyguards 176f. cithara player 191 cords worked with gold 180f., 244 couches (golden) 176f., 180f., 243f. crowns/diadems 189, 192, 194, 202, 209, 246, 248, 251, → crown; insignia, of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings; insignia, types, items, materials representations in art 173, 202f. foodstuff, beverages, spices 99, 178, 183f., 190, 195, 240, 243, 245, 247

292

Indices

[gifts, types continued]

garments 170, 172, 177–183, 185f., 188, 190, 195, 197, 202f., 240, 243–246, 249, 251, → insignia, types, items, materials belt 176f., 219, 243, → insignia, types, items, materials chlamys 192f., → insignia, types, items, materials fibula 192f., → insignia, types, items, materials tiara 176f., 243 gold 172, 177, 180–183, 188, 190, 195, 240, 243–247, → insignia, types, items, materials harness 178–180, 182, 188, 197, 244, 246 imperial images (portraits) 186f., 192–194, 246, 248, → emperor ivory, elephant tusks 201, 251 medallions 191, 247, → insignia, types, items, materials musc 197 pearls 172, 183, 185, 245, → insignia, types, items, materials precious stones 179, 185–187, 196–198, 201, 243, 245f., 249f., → insignia, types, items, materials rings (golden) 192, 194, 226, 248, → insignia, of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings silk 178–180, 182, 185, 190, 196, 198, 244f., 249f., → insignia, types, items, materials; silk silver 172, 177, 180, 182f., 188, 190, 195, 240, 243–247, → insignia, types, items, materials skins/furs 198, 249 red skins 184, 190, 245, 247 furs 191 slave fair-haired boys 191, 202f., 251 slave women 198, 250 tables amber with golden legs 197 golden 176f., 179, 243 tableware 178, 198, 243 golden 176, 243 silver 181f., 184, 186, 244f. onyx 197 works of craftsmanship and mechanical wonders 179, 191 hostages as guarantees of agreements 54–56, 81, 111 long-term hostages hostage exchange with the barbarians 55f. noble host-guests in the Empire 54–56, 75, 231

promoting Roman influence 55 Roman empire giving hostages 55 short-term hostages hostage exchange with Persia and with the Goths 55f., 81, 111 suffering retributions 55, 111 → negotiations, main questions imitatio imperii 120 immunity (diplomatic) → embassies (general) insignia 71, 75, 116, 118, 174, 176f., 179, 181, 188f., 207–235, 240, 252f. competition with Persia for distribution 208, 210, 218, 220f., 225, 234 Dienstkostüm 108, 212, 217, 219, 229, 231– 233 distributed by the Roman Empire for the Armenian satraps 189f., 214, 218, 220–224, 228–230, 233–235, 253 for the kings of the Franks (Clovis) 231f. for the Lazian kings 208–220, 225, 229f., 233–235, 252 for the rulers of the Moors 225–230, 233– 235, 253 hierarchy 208, 225, 227–235, 240 imperial 174f., 192f., 207f., 210–212, 216–219, 224, 226, 229, 232–235, 240 representations in art 210–214, 216f., 219f., 226, 229 representation of Christ with imperial insignia 173, 207, 210, 224 of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings 175, 207, 230f. armour 207, 226, → gifts, types, items, materials crowns/diadems/wreaths (golden) 175, 226–228, → crown; gifts, types, items, materials; insignia, types, items, materials dish (golden) 175, 207, → gifts, types, items, materials fibulae 226, → gifts, types, items, materials; insignia, types, items, materials field furniture 226 horses 175, 207, 226, → gifts, types, items, materials, animals ivory 207, 226, → gifts, types, items, materials military cloak 175, 207, 209 ring 226, → gifts, types, items, materials scepter 226f., → insignia, types, items, materials sella curulis 207, 226f. tents 226 toga 175, 207, 226f., → insignia, types, items, materials trappings 175, 207, 226

Notions, ideas and concepts tunica 175, 207, 226, → insignia, types, items, materials superiority/humiliation controversy 174f., 181, 187, 195, 207, 213, 227f., 230–232 ξύμβολα τῆς ἀρχῆς 208, 226, → insignia types, items, materials belt 218–220, 233f., 240, 252 byssus 222, 234, 253 embroideries 211–215, 223, 227f., 234, 240, 252f. ploumia 214, 223, 252f. fibulae 211, 213, 215–217, 222, 224, 226, 228–230, 233, 240, 252f., → gifts, types, items, materials; insignia, of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings cornucopium 216 imperial 215–217, 224, 229, 234, 252f. pendants 216f., 224, 234, 252f. Zwiebelknopffibeln 216, 229, 234 footwear 217–219, 224f., 230, 233f., 240, 252f. garments 179, 188, → gifts, types, items, materials chiton 214f., 219, 223, 228, 230f., 233f., 240, 252f. chlamys 211–217, 222–224, 228f., 231, 233f., 240, 252f. paragaudion → chiton sticharion → chiton tablion 211–213, 216, 223 tunica → chiton white 211–214, 228, 252f. gold 210–216, 218–220, 222–224, 226, 229f., 234, 252f., → gifts, types, items, materials headdress crown/diadem/wreath 124, 189, 194, 210f., 225, 227f., 231–234, 240, 252f., → crown; gifts, types, items, materials; insignia, of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings imperial images (portraits) 211–215, 234, 252, → emperor medallions 191, → gifts, types, items, materials pearls 210, 217–220, 224, 252 precious stones 210f., 216–220, 228–230, 234, 252, → crown; gifts, types, items, materials emeralds 210, 217, 219, 224 hyacinths 210, 217, 219, 224, 253 purple 177, 212f., 216f., 222f., 225f., 230, 232, 252 scepter 226f., 234, 240, 253, → insignia, of Roman magistrates and barbarian kings

293

silk 211, 213, 223, 230, 234, 252, → gifts, types, items, materials; silk silver 226f., 230, 253, → gifts, types, items, materials intelligence 33, 42, 111, 145, → clandestine diplomacy ambassadors as collectors 42, 44, 56, 152, 155– 160, 162, 239 ambassadors collaborating with strategic intelligence 158 interpreters 57f., 72, 79, 96, 113–115, 130, 133– 135, 155, 161, → magister officiorum, office and personnel involved in diplomacy; treaty investiture 75, 105, 186–189, 210, 215, 218, 226, 231f., 234, 237, → insignia; negotiations, of a ›peaceful‹ origin; titles and ranks (distributed by the Roman Empire) inviolability (diplomatic) → embassies (general) καταφυγόντες → deserters/fugitives; negotiations, main questions letters → correspondence (diplomatic) magister epistularum 31f., → correspondence (diplomatic); scrinium epistularum magister memoriae 31, 95, → correspondence (diplomatic); scrinia memoriae magister militum 97–99, 102, → embassies (general), classification of, local negotiations magister officiorum 60, 85f. ambassador 122, 161 member of consistorium 27, → consistorium office and personnel involved in diplomacy adiutor 27 agentes in rebus 26f., 29 candidate 26, 29, 38f. chartularii barbarorum 28, 38–40 interpreters 28f., 133, → interpreters officium admissionum 29, 35, → embassies (incoming), reception of optio barbarorum 28, 37 proximus admissionum 29, → embassies (incoming), reception of scholarii 29, 35 scrinium barbarorum 27f., 36, 40 silentiarii 36, 38, 75, → gifts, gift exchange ceremonial subadiuvae adiutoris 27 subadiuvae barbarorum 27, 38 reception of embassies 27, 31, 35–41, 66, 165f., → emperor; embassies (incoming) role in diplomacy 26–29, 31–33, 36f., 66, 122, 128, 133f., 145, 161, 169, 239 major ambassador → embassies (general), classification of Master of offices → magister officiorum

294

Indices

matrimonial diplomacy → diplomacy mediation in diplomacy 23, 27, 41, 69–71, 73, 76, 78–102, 116, 135, 237, → ›blocks of embassies‹; negotiations; shuttle diplomacy ›medium‹ embassy → embassies (general), classification of messengers 40, 133, 135–138, 145, 161, 178, 239 ταχυδρόμος 136 minor embassy → embassies (general), classification of negotiations direct comunication balance of status and prestige 76–78, 85, 116, 118, 120, 237 dominancy of the Empire 75f., 78, 116, 237 negotiations with the emperor involved in a military campaign 72–74, 77f., 116 personal meetings between the rulers 69– 78, 116, 237 reception of barbarian rulers 75, 78, 237 relatively equal basis 72, 116, 237 shift from more direct to mediatory diplomacy in the 5th century 78 shift of the paradigm of dominancy in the 7th century 77 in consequence of a military conflict truce 106f., 171, 181, 245 peace treaties 107–110 → agreement; peace; treaty; truce in Constantinople 40f., 237 indirect communication 69, 71, 79–102, 116, 136, 237, 240, → mediation in diplomacy ›blocks‹ → ›blocks‹ of embassies shifting off the responsibility 79, 85f., 133 single embassies (one-session) 87, → embassies (general), classification of embassies informal talks 125 main questions captives 111, 126, → captives; payments to the barbarians and to Persians deserters/fugitives 110f., 134, → deserters/ fugitives hostages 111, 231, → hostages payments 110, 113, → payments to the barbarians and to the Persians territorial problems 110, 114 trade 105, 110 method of diplomacy 15f., 44, 47, 66, 69, 152, 237 of a ›peaceful‹ origin 103–105 conclusion of alliance, confirmation (or not) of previous agreements 105, 225, → agreement; treaty

donation of an investiture 105, 174f., → investiture expression of homage 105 notifications of the accession of a new ruler 92f., 103–105, → embassies, medium embassies regulation of problems of commerce 105 places of negotiations border/frontier zones 36, 82, 93f., 102, 107, 112–116, → frontier ›water diplomacy‹ 72–74, 76 problem of equality 69f., 76f., 103, 118, 237 notarii → embassies (incoming), reception of oaths 48–50, 73, 81, 115 and religion 50, → Christianity; Zoroastrianism on salt 50 violations of 49f., 59 orations → rhetoric (diplomatic) παραπρεσβεία → embassies (general) patricians 38, 91, 187, 213, → ambassadors/outgoing (imperial), ranks/dignities payments to the barbarians and to Persians 16, 31, 43, 49, 51–54, 72, 83, 87, 104, 108, 110, 113f., 182, 247, → negotiations, main questions Kaiserkritik 52f., 110, 168, → emperor means of delivery 52 method of diplomacy 51–54, 163–165 opposed to gifts 51f., 110, 163, → gifts peoples receiving payments 52, 83 ransom for captives 100, → captives; Christianity, clergymen in diplomacy ransom for cities (during military hostilities) 99, 178, 183f., 190, 243, 247, → Christianity, clergymen in diplomacy regularity 51f., 172 sign of ›slavery‹ 52f. sums paid and amount of expenses 52f., 244 peace duration 107, 114 ›eternal‹ peace 108, 112 partial (local) peace 109 Peace of Margus 49 Roman-Persian Peace of 561/562 50, 94, 108f., 112–116, 118, 135, 145, 157 ›universal‹ peace 94, 109 violation of 48, 50 → agreement; negotiations, in consequence of a military conflict; treaty; truce Peri Presbeon 34, 123, 126 plenipotentiary embassies → embassies (general), classification of praefectus praetorio 79, 86, 219

Notions, ideas and concepts procuratoria safe conduct of letters 65 proskynesis → emperor, reception of embassies quaestor sacri palatii 29f., 32, 90, 122 rhetoric (diplomatic) diplomatic speeches 18, 21, 46–49, 57, 112– 116, 124 method of diplomacy 20, 44, 46–49 rhetoric skills of the diplomats 46, 124, 131, → embassies (incoming, outgoing/imperial), qualities, requirements, competence; embassies (outgoing/imperial), companion(s) of chief envoys ›river diplomacy‹ → negotiations, places of negotiation, ›water diplomacy‹ sacra scrinia 31–33, 66 sacravestis → gifts, gift exchange ceremonial sacrum cubiculum 26, 28f., 33, 38f., 58, 61, 66, → clandestine diplomacy sakrai (sacrae) ratification from the supreme rulers 84, 94, 113–115, → emperor, ratification and control of diplomatic actions scrinia memoriae 31f., → correspondence (diplomatic); magister memoriae scrinium epistularum 30–32, → correspondence (diplomatic); magister epistularum scrinium libellorum 30 senate 74 gifts from 186, → gifts role in diplomacy 25, 66, 75, 227 selection of envoys 25, 132, → ambassadors (outgoing/imperial) senators-ambassadors 25 shuttle diplomacy 23, 69, 72f., 116, 136, 237, → ›blocks‹ of embassies; mediation in diplomacy silentiarii → gifts, gift exchange ceremonial; magister officiorum, office and personnel involved in diplomacy

295

silk silk trade 64, 198 → gifts, types, items, materials; insignia, types, items, materials speeches → rhetoric (diplomatic) ›superiority‹, imperial 19, 42, 51–55, 66, 69, 72, 75, 165, 172–175, 195, 199, 202–205, 207, 234, 237, 240 titles and ranks (distributed by the Roman Empire) 53f., 57, 60, 75, 202, 231f., 246, → investiture hierarchy and prestige 53f., 231f., 237 treaty clauses 50, 111, 114, 118, 145, 157, → negotiations, main questions procedure of conclusion 112–116 first debate session 113 second debate session 114f. sealing the document 115, 135, 192 signing 49, 69, 93f., 96, 113–116, 135 text 50, 96, 113f. translation and verification of the text 114f., 135, → interpreters → agreement; peace; truce triumph 173, → gifts, types, items, materials; triumphal art triumphal art 172–174, 202, 205, → triumph truce conclusion 89, 92, 97, 106f., 113 duration 89f., 92f., 106f. local truce 107, 245 → agreement; negotiations, in consequence of a military conflict; peace; treaty Variae 45 vestosacra (sacravestis) → gifts, gift exchange ceremonial Vienna Congress 91 Zoroastrianism 177 and diplomatic oaths 50, → oaths

Index locorum

Abinnaeus, Archive 1.6–10 150 Agathias 1.12 1.18.5 1.21 2.28.2 2.29 2.31.4 3.2.4–6 3.14.3 3.15 3.19 4.1–11 4.15.1–3 4.20.8–10 4.30.3sq. 4.30.8sq. 4.31 5.12.6sq. 5.14 5.23sq. 5.24.2–25.6 15.2.5

56 56 53 49 125 112 61 75 213, 215, 218, 220, 224, 252 107 61 56 56 135 129 109, 119 171 20 53 20 75

Ammianus Marcellinus 15.1.2 217 15.5.18 166 16.9.2–4 79, 82 16.12.23 54 17.5.1 195 17.5.1–15 82 17.5.3 70 17.5.10 70 17.5.12 79, 86 17.5.15 118f., 123, 150 17.10.3 75 17.10.8 75 17.12.9–16 75 17.12.11–16 54 17.14.1–3 82, 150 18.2.2 155 18.2.13 59 18.6.17 82 18.6.17–19 158 19.11.5 135

20.11.1–4 21.4 21.6.7sq. 22.7.9sq. 23.3.8 25.7.5–14 25.7.7 26.5.7 26.6.15 27.5.6 27.5.7 27.5.9 27.5.10 27.10.3sq. 28.2.6 29.4 29.5.11 29.6 29.7.7 30.2.1–6 30.2.4 30.2.5 30.2.18–23 30.3.4sq. 31.3 31.3.1–3 31.3.4 31.4.13 31.5.5 31.12.8–13 31.12.13 31.12.14 31.12.14–16

75 59 190, 246 21 75 81 73 171 214, 217 72 73 72f. 60 59 54 59 54 59 59 81 51 81 59 73 154 72 72 73 59 101 120 111 55

Anonymous Chronicle of AD 1234 81 197, 249 Antonine itinerary 133–138 143 311 128, 134 Appian, Punica 32 194, 226 Asterius of Amasea Homilia II, De oeconomo inquitatis 11sq. 207, 210, 212

297

Index locorum Aulus Gellius 17.9.6–27

159

Cassiodorus, Variae 1.45.6sq. 179 2.40sq. 191 4.1 191 5.1 203 8.1.5 45 10.20.4 61 10.22 190 10.22.3 45 10.32.4 45 Cassius Dio 50.44.6 59.17.3 68.9 68.9.1sq. 68.17 72.16 75.5.1

211 185 71 86 208 75 185

Chronicon Paschale s.a. 522 75, 208f. s.a. 628 70, 103 Claudian, De consulatu Stilichonis 2.88–94 211, 219 Clement of Alexandria 2.8.12sq. 211 2.8.17sq. 210 2.8.18sq. 210 Codex Justinianus 1.31.4 30 1.46.4 30 4.63.4 157 11.9.1.369 214 11.9.2.382 212, 214 11.9.2–5 212 11.11.1 176, 210, 216, 219, 224, 229 12.23.7 28 12.50.16 147 Codex Theodosianus 1.12.4 219 1.22.4 32 6.30.18 219 7.1.9 148 8.5.57 137, 147 9.5.4 145 10.21.1–3 212 10.21.103 212 11.1.1 190 12.12 148

12.12.2 12.12.5 12.12.6 12.12.9 12.13.4 15.4.1

142, 150 41 203 145 192 192f.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio prooimion 152 6 219 13.24–37 233 43.18 170, 185 53.21 191, 248 53.141–149 192 53.149–153 192 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De ceremoniis 1.43–45 215 1.87 [393] 213 1.87 [394.1] 29 1.87 [394.4] 27 1.87 [395.9–14] 35 1.88 [397sq.] 35, 168 1.88 [397.1] 41 1.88 [397.9] 30 1.89 [399sq.] 36 1.89 [399.4] 26 1.89 [400sq.] 28, 37, 150 1.89 [401sq.] 37 1.89 [401.6] 28 1.89 [401.12] 148 1.89 [401.14sq.] 148 1.89 [401.16] 30 1.89 [402sq.] 38, 169 1.89 [402.4–11] 148 1.89 [402.8] 26 1.89 [402.13] 28 1.89 [403.11sq.] 42 1.89 [403.15] 26 1.89 [403.18] 27 1.89 [403.19] 26 1.89 [404] 38 1.89 [404–407] 39 1.89 [404.3] 29 1.89 [404.15] 28 1.89 [405.6] 29 1.89 [405.18] 28 1.89 [406] 174, 196, 249 1.89 [406.1] 26 1.89 [406.1sq.] 41 1.89 [406.4] 29 1.89 [406.5] 26 1.89 [406.6–12] 166 1.89 [406.17–19] 166 1.89 [407] 166

298 1.89 [407.6] 1.89 [407.10] 1.89 [407.20] 1.89sq. 1.90 1.90 [408sq.] 1.90 [408.10] 1.90 [409sq.] 1.90 [410] 2.15 [569]

Indices 26, 168 31 26 25, 35, 90, 157 90 39f., 167 26 40, 63 169 41

Corippus, In laudem Justini minoris 1.241sq. 207, 210, 212 2.88sq. 207, 210, 212 2.89 176, 219 2.100–117 214 2.100–122 212 2.100–130 207, 210, 212 2.106–112 217 2.114sq. 176, 219 2.121–125 216 3.215 177, 181 3.220sqq. 35, 41 3.231–401 129 3.255–259 26, 168 3.267sqq. 41 Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christiana Topographia 11.6 197 11.22 200 Cyril of Jerusalem, Epistula ad Constantium 2 203 Digesta Justiniani 50.7 148 50.7.5 122 50.7.5.6 131 50.7.18 62 Eunapius, Fragments (numeration of the fragments: FCHLRE) 18.6 72 24 203 Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum 6.5.2–10 118f., 123f., 132 Eusebius, Oratio de laudibus Constantini 5.6 216 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 2.47sq. 31 4.7sq. 165, 168, 202 4.7.1sq. 202 4.7.2sq. 172, 251 4.8sq. 31

4.11 4.50 4.66.2

70 185, 198f., 202, 250 210, 212

Evagrius, Historia ecclesiastica 4.13 127 4.25 99 5.12 127 Frontinus, Strategemata 3.13.2–4 159 3.13.5 159 3.13.6–8 159 Gregory I, Epistolarum registrum 9.229 32, 115 Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes 4.80 192 Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio 4 207, 210, 212 Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum 2.8 55 4.40 146, 150 5.30 183 6.2 150, 191, 247 Hero of Alexandria, Pneumatica 14 179 43sq. 179 68 179 Herodotus 1.50 8.38 9.82

181 146 181

John Chrysostom, Contra Anomoeos 12 207, 210, 212 John Chrysostom, De perfecta caritate 6 207, 210, 212 John Lydos, De magistratibus 1.7 217 1.17.16–20 214 1.112.25 230 2.4 212, 215 2.4.10–12 216 2.4.11–13 216 2.4.16–25 212 2.10 145 2.13 212 2.13.5–23 219 2.15.15–22 113 2.25 34

299

Index locorum 3.20.3 3.53

30 128

John of Biclar, Chronicon s.a. 569.3 201 s.a. 573.6 200f., 251 s.a. 575.1 183 s.a. 575.3 75, 187, 246 John of Ephesus, Historia ecclesiastica 2.24 107 3.6.12 127 3.6.26 127 3.32–4 61 3.40sq. 61 4.6 24, 145, 147 4.7 149 4.8 107 4.39 189 4.39–42 75, 187f., 246 6.3sq. 61 6.6 99 6.12 126 6.22 63, 149 6.23 150, 172, 182f., 185, 245 6.24 180, 182, 188, 244 6.29 177, 179, 182, 243 6.31sq. 180, 244 10 183 John of Nikiu 120.47 75 Jordanes, De origine actibusque Getarum 128 154 141sq. 59f. 142 72 143 60 144 59 145 60 168sq. 20 183 20 186 20 271 54, 75 281 54, 75 Josephus Flavius, Antiquitates Judaicae 18.2 76 Joshua Stylite 19 50 61 80 80sq. 81

196, 249 127 111 64, 111 128 115, 176, 243

95sq. 97

128 111

Libanius, Epistulae 331 119, 123 331.1 152, 155, 169 331.2–6 46, 124, 132 331.4sq. 124 333 119, 123 Libanius, Orationes 18.52sq. 160 Liutprand of Cremona, Antapodosis 6.5 41, 179 Livius 30.15.11sq. 30.17 30.17.13

226 179 226

Lysias, In Agoratum 13.9sq. 95 Malalas, Chronographia 13.27 76 15.9 75 17.9 75, 209, 252 17.9.68sq. 209 17.9.69–72 211 17.9.69–79 223 17.9.72–74 214 17.9.74sq. 217, 225 17.9.79–84 208 17.9.84sq. 70 17.10.13 70 18.13 245 18.13.38–40 186 18.44 70 18.50 127f. 18.54 127 18.56 84, 128, 142, 153f. 18.56.84–93 142, 147 18.56.95 142 18.61 127, 187 18.61.1–6 24, 167 18.72 127 18.76 110 18.76.25–30 70 Malchus (numeration of the fragments: FCHLRE) 1 75, 78, 246 1.36–40 169, 186 2 83, 110, 111 2.10 44 5 111, 138

300 5.1–6 5.3sq. 6.2 14.26sq. 15.10–14 15.21 17.2.7–11 18.1.5–7 18.2 18.3 18.4 20 20.43–45 20.46sq. 20.46–48 20.125sq. 20.146

Indices 118, 121 125 111 118 25 44 25 111 53, 83, 110 83 110 65, 83, 96 94sq. 118 121f. 111 55

Marcellinus Comes s.a. 382.2 60 s.a. 448.1 199, 250 s.a. 496.2 199, 251 s.a. 533 127 Maurice Strategikon 11.3 203 Menander Rhetor 2.13.423.6–424.2 49 Menander the Guardsman (numeration of the fragments: Blockley) 1.6.394–397 113 2 110 2.1.10 108 2.6–12 106 3 213 5.1sq. 20 5.2 128 5.2.3–5 180, 244 5.4 110 5.4.34–38 44 6.1 20, 94, 110, 127, 129, 157 6.1.1 108 6.1.1–5 109 6.1.3 108 6.1.7 108 6.1.15–17 112 6.1.16 114 6.1.17–99 113 6.1.34–36 49 6.1.40–43 48 6.1.43–47 48 6.1.50 21 6.1.100–201 113 6.1.105–108 48

6.1.134sq. 6.1.134–143 6.1.140–143 6.1.165 6.1.182sq. 6.1.187sq. 6.1.203–313 6.1.285–287 6.1.288–303 6.1.295 6.1.309–313 6.1.314–397 6.1.326–328 6.1.326–330 6.1.384–389 6.1.408–412 6.1.408–423 6.1.416–423 6.1.489–494 6.1.522–528 6.2.4–6 6.2.6–9 6.2.12–16 6.2.22–26 6.2.32sq. 8 8.1–6 9.1sq. 9.1.1–29 9.1.16–21 9.1.59–61 9.1.62sq. 9.1.75–90 9.1.79–82 9.1.108–110 9.1–3 9.2.3–9 9.2.12sq. 9.3 9.3.6sq. 9.3.10–28 9.3.22–27 9.3.29sq. 9.3.35–40 9.3.89sq. 9.3.111–115 10.1 10.1.2 10.1.33–35 10.1.37–41 10.1.41–43 10.1.56 10.1.62–65 10.1.64sq. 10.1.68sq.

108 108 108 84 70 70 114 50 52 52 115 114 145 118 50 114 135 115 49 52 46f. 46 46 46 46 104 180, 244 20, 50, 92, 103, 110 136 152 48 49 52 104f. 51 43 51 51 41, 79, 129 43 43 149 129 43 133 44 250 147 64 64 64 198 166 41 41

301

Index locorum 10.2 10.2.10 10.2–5 10.3sq. 10.3.1sq. 10.3.1–20 10.3.9–20 10.3.10sq. 10.3.21–23 10.3.26 10.3.27–30 10.3.30sq. 10.3.42–73 10.3.43–45 10.3.50–52 10.3.53 10.3.57–59 10.3.58sq. 10.3.59–64 10.3.62sq. 10.3.65–67 10.3.70sq. 10.3.72sq. 10.3.74–106 10.3.90–101 10.3.102 10.3–10.5 10.4.1–34 10.4.11–14 10.4.15–18 10.4.19sq. 10.4.24–27 10.5.1–24 10.5.2–22 10.5.9–16 10.5.12–16 11 12.4 12.4.5sq. 12.5sq. 12.5.57–60 12.5.66–68 12.6sq. 12.6.1–8 12.6.80 12.6.81–83 12.7.17 15.1 15.1.7 15.1.11sq. 16.1 16.1.56sq. 18.1 18.1–6 18.1–18.4

140 140 84 85, 138, 151f. 137, 140 151 154 137 144 137 154 167 151 154 154 181 154 181 154 179 137 198, 250 44 149 140 44 140 149 136 136, 138, 140 147 147 149 146 149 137, 140 108 62, 134 63 20 171 181f., 184, 244 52, 87, 129 134 44 97 44 20, 54, 110f. 54 54 20 44 83 24 127

18.2 18.2.5 18.2.10 18.3 18.3.1sq. 18.3.6 18.3.21sq. 18.3–5 18.4 18.4.4 18.4.5 18.4.7 18.4.16 18.5 18.6 18.9–11 19 19.1 19.1.1 19.1.5sq. 19.1.6 19.1.7sq. 19.1.9–17 19.1.18sq. 19.1.18–25 19.1.18–135 19.1.21–26 19.1.24 19.1.35–43 19.1.50–63 19.1.75–82 19.1.102–105 19.1.105sq. 19.1.122–124 19.1.132sq. 19.2.5sq. 20.1 20.1.16sq. 20.1.23sq. 20.2 20.2.110 20.2.118–125 20.2.128–131 22 23.1 23.7 23.8sq. 23.8.5–8 23.8.5–12 23.8.21–24 23.8.23 23.8.37sq. 23.8.48–57 23.8.52 23.8.52–56

89f., 92, 107, 109, 125 108 108 30, 90, 107, 109, 125 118 108 115 89 90, 93, 129 108 108 108 108 53 89f., 94, 151, 157 85 84 20, 105, 128 104 137f., 140 144 138 138 147 149 144 147 147 104 49 144 63 63 151, 154 44 44 88, 94, 96, 127 129 118 20, 96, 110, 127 57 57 57 53 108, 127, 129 100 90, 110f., 125, 127 125 121 121 108 107 44 108 106

302 23.9 23.9.24–60 23.9.99–101 23.9.102–109 23.9.109–117 23.9.111sq. 23.9.117 24 25.1 25.1.46sq. 25.1.87–89 25.2 25.2.65sq. 26.1 27.2sq. 27.2.10sq. 27.3

Indices 129 63 52 63 63, 149 147 44 53 129 97 97 41, 50 180, 182, 190, 244 20, 110, 127 97, 111 135 52, 97

Michael the Syrian 373 61 387 197, 249 Michigan Papyrus inv. 4290 200 Nikephoros, Breviarium 10 77 10.5 30 12 77 Nizam al-Mulk, Siyasat-nama 7.87 146 22.2 153 Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Occidentis 9.4–9 29 9.9 29 9.14 29 9.41 27 9.43 27 9.44 28 9.45 28 9.46 28, 133 11.94 31 Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Orientis 11.4–11 29 11.11 29 11.41 27 11.43 27 11.44 27 11.45–49 27 11.50 28 11.51 28 11.52 28, 133 13.28 31

Novellae Constitutiones 31.1 221 65 praef. 1 100 120.9 100 Olympiodorus (numeration of the fragments: FCHLRE) 19.3sq. 146, 149 19.4–8 59 19 17, 142, 149, 154 28.1sq. 149 35.1–4 149 Orosius 7.34.6sq.

60

Pacatus Drepanius, Panegyricus Theodosio Augusto dictus 22.5 172, 185, 196, 249 45.2 217 Peri Strategias 42.8 43 43.1–5 43.1–13

156 34, 123, 126 62 157

Peter the Patrician (numeration of the fragments: FCHLRE) 13 71 14 95, 208 Photius 3 3.4–7 3.12 3.20–30 3.20–38 3.24–30 3.29sq. 64 214

149 149 130 154 130, 142, 147, 153 130 130 103, 198 17

Priscus (numeration of the fragments: FCHLRE) 2.4sq. 129 2.10 118 2.16–18 25 2.18–20 30, 125, 132 2.20 132 2.24–29 154 2.38–40 49 3.6 110 9.2 65, 118f., 146 9.3 52, 119, 127 10.7–9 168 11.1sq. 61, 110, 128 11.1.1–9 139

Index locorum 11.1.14–17 11.1.16sq. 11.1.21sq. 11.1.28sq. 11.1.28–56 11.1.49–56 11.1.61–64 11.1.64–66 11.2 11.2.1–7 11.2.1–20 11.2.1–361 11.2.4sq. 11.2.4–7 11.2.13–18 11.2.13–20 11.2.20–25 11.2.21sq. 11.2.24sq. 11.2.24–26 11.2.28–35 11.2.33–50 11.2.34sq. 11.2.52–54 11.2.53–61 11.2.61–64 11.2.71–73 11.2.82–85 11.2.87–91 11.2.95sq. 11.2.117–120 11.2.126–131 11.2.145 11.2.145–147 11.2.170 11.2.192 11.2.193 11.2.232–235 11.2.234 11.2.246–248 11.2.250sq. 11.2.260–263 11.2.261 11.2.267 11.2.274 11.2.277–280 11.2.283–286 11.2.289–312 11.2.297sq. 11.2.297–301 11.2.308–311 11.2.313–316 11.2.314 11.2.320–326 11.2.354–365

119 91 132 58 58 134 27, 29, 133 134 43, 85, 124, 138, 147, 152 134 139 149 133 139 119 91 143 125, 139 140 139 151 139 182, 185, 245 169 138, 140 143 147 138 150 71 134 58 65, 134 139 167 129 55 146 147 171 171 84, 134 129 140, 146 154 147, 154 149 149 147 151, 154, 198 167, 183f., 190, 245 150 140, 146 139 154, 167

11.2.373–387 154 11.2.401sq. 167sq. 11.2.517–519 167sq. 11.2.547–549 167 11.2.549–563 154 11.2–14 132 11.2–15.2 58 11.3.7–11 168 11.4.5sq. 168 11.4.13–15 169, 198, 203, 249 11.5–18 58 11–14 84 13.1sq. 151 13.1.5 119 13.1.12–15 119 13.1.21–13.3.22 154 13.1.61–65 154 13.2.1–25 154 13.2.80–83 154 13.3.1–22 154 14.25–53 151 14.51–53 44 14.54sq. 84 14.57–77 139 14.57–91 143 14.82–85 134 15.1 130 15.1.11 62 15.1.16–25 62 15.2 52, 129 15.2.29sq. 84 15.3 84, 118, 127 15.3.5sq. 122f. 15.3.6 118 15.4 110, 120 20.1 103f. 23.3.8sq. 43 23.3.9–12 52 23.3.14–20 43 23.3 62, 84 27.1 111, 128 41.1.24–27 118 41.1.25sq. 118 41.2 136 41.2.1–6 43 41.2.3–9 43 44 218 52 103f. Procopius, Anecdota 2.32–35 129 2.32–36 24 4.13 30 4.31 127 12.17 111 14.7sq. 25

303

304 16.2 16.2–6 16.3 19.13 30.1–11 30.32sq.

Indices 108 60 24, 61 52, 111 143 52

Procopius, De Aedificiis 3.1.4–18 221 3.1.17 221 3.1.17–23 214, 218, 253 3.1.18–23 221 Procopius, De Bello Gothico 1.3 110f., 131 1.3.13–16 128 1.3.13–28 56 1.3.28–30 57 1.3.30 124f., 127 1.4 131 1.4.11 119 1.4.17sq. 57 1.4.30 24, 61 1.6 110, 115, 127 1.6.1–13 57 1.6.19–22 57 1.6.25sq. 130 1.7 71 1.7.11–25 62 2.6 110f. 2.6.34 108 2.6.36 97, 107f. 2.7.13 55 2.22 44, 151 2.22.22–24 83 2.22.23–25 150 2.22.24 127, 137 2.23sq. 128 2.29.1 108 2.29.18–28 57 3.2.15sq. 57 3.15.5–11 122f. 3.16 108, 111 3.16.5–7 101 3.21.18 101, 125 3.21.18–22 21 3.21.23 108 3.22 44 4.4 44 4.10 111 4.10.16 126 4.11.1 122f. 4.11.4–10 129 4.11.9sq. 159 4.11.25 53 4.15 42, 44, 168

4.15.1 4.15.7–17 4.15.14 4.15.16 4.15.19sq. 4.19 4.24.29sq. 4.25 6.26 7.24 15.1–13 15.19–29 17.8 22.23sq.

108 52 108 108 42, 82 45, 110 83 25 128 130 129 129 129 62

Procopius, De Bello Persico 1.2.11–15 110, 127 1.2.12 127 1.3.8 122f., 151 1.4.1 50 1.4.9 50 1.9.24 118, 122f., 128 1.10.13–18 110 1.11.1 44, 108 1.11.1–30 30, 82 1.11.22sq. 119 1.11.24 118f., 127 1.12.6 118 1.13.11 127 1.14.1 49 1.14.1–3 21 1.14.4sq. 48 1.14.7–10 50 1.15.22sq. 49 1.16.1 44 1.16.1–3 21 1.16.1–10 110, 127f. 1.16.2 49 1.20.9 110, 128, 142, 153 1.21.1 122f. 1.21.23 111 1.22.1–6 127f. 1.22.1–19 110 1.22.3 108 1.22.7sq. 150 1.22.11 45 1.22.16sq. 127 1.22.16–19 108, 111 1.26.1–4 44, 168 2.1.1 53 2.1.10 128, 142, 153 2.4.14 21, 44 2.4.16 151 2.4.17–19 49 2.4.25 50 2.4.26 151

305

Index locorum 2.5.1 2.5.12 2.5.13 2.5.27 2.5.28–32 2.6.16 2.6.16–2.7.1 2.7.15sq. 2.10.10 2.10.10–23 2.10.22sq. 2.11.16–23 2.13.1 2.13.3 2.13.7 2.13.8–14 2.13.13–15 2.13.29 2.15.2 2.20.2 2.20.20 2.21.1–28 2.21.10 2.21.19–29 2.21.20 2.21.26sq. 2.24.3 2.24.3–9 2.24.6–9 2.24.7–10 2.26.16–19 2.26.31–41 2.27.17–37 2.27.24 2.28.3 2.28.31 2.28.31–44 2.28.37–45 2.28.39

108 44, 99, 184, 243 178 151 100, 111 99 99 99, 128, 130 21 48 52 99 111, 128 100 184, 243 178 99 108 208, 226 100 111 82 111 21 107f. 111 108, 124f., 128 97 99 99 129 111, 125f. 36 108 106, 108, 124, 126, 128, 168 41f., 140 129 141 41

Procopius, De Bello Vandalico 1.4.12 20 1.4.12–15 54, 111 1.4.13 75 1.7.4 156 1.7.5–10 156 1.7.26 108 1.9.8 44 1.11.18 226 1.11.20 226 1.15.20 226 1.25.1–9 75, 253 1.25.3 231 1.25.4 54, 226 1.25.6 226 1.25.7 226

2.5.11–25 2.8.9–11 4.5

98 54 104

Prosper of Aquitaine s.a. 382 60 Pseudo-Kodinos 3.171.11–17 218 Scriptores Historiae Augustae Flavius Vopiscus, Aurelian 15 214 Sebeos 3.32

177

Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina 14.3 185 Socrates 5.10 7.8 7.19 7.20

60 100 136 63, 79f., 86, 132

Strabo 1.1.17

145

Suetonius, Divus Augustus 88 159 Suetonius, Divus Iulius 56.6 159 Tacitus, Annales 4.26 227 15.71 166 31.2.9sq. 74 Tertullian, De pallio 3.6 222 Themistius, Orationes 10 74 10.135a–d 72 11.1 176, 212, 219 15 59 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia AM 5906 100 AM 5916 100 AM 5977 75 AM 6015 217 AM 6015.168.26sq. 75 AM 6022 127 AM 6050 42 AM 6064 84, 113, 128, 142, 153 AM 6081 176

306 Theophanes of Byzantium =Phot. Bibl. 64 103, 198 Theophylact Simocatta 1.3.6 108 1.3.7 182, 244 1.3.8–10 183, 244 1.3.11sq. 180, 244 1.4.6 108 1.4.6–9 119 1.5.1 50 1.5.10 50 1.6.4 84f., 108f., 138 1.8.1 52 1.8.7–9 64, 87, 129 1.15.1–12 129 1.15.1–13 98 1.15.3–10 49 1.15.13 47 3.9.4 52 3.9.7 64 3.11sq. 181 3.12.1 103 3.12.3 108f. 3.15.5–11 108, 118f. 3.17.1 103 3.17.2 108, 110 4.11.11 71 4.13.2 71 4.13.3 41 4.13.3–14.1 25 4.15.8–10 100

Indices 5.3.7 5.3.11 6.6.7 6.11.7 7.5.13 7.13.1 7.13.5sq. 8.1.4

71, 110, 176, 181, 219, 243 71, 176 50 98, 111, 124f. 110 108 180f., 183f., 245 63

Thimotheos of Gaza, Peri Zoon 24 199, 251 Vegetius, De re militari 3.6 143 Vita Maruthae 7–10 100, 128 Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica 7.5 113 8.3 130 9.7 129, 167 9.7.17 127 Zosimus 3.7.7 3.31.1 4.16.4 4.20 4.26.1–9 4.34 5.36–45 5.41

54 73 59 154 54 60 55 183f., 190, 247

geographic a historic a

Begründet von Ernst Kirsten, herausgegeben von Eckart Olshausen und Vera Sauer. Die Bände 1–8 sind in den Verlagen Dr. Rudolf Habelt (Bonn) und Adolf M. Hakkert (Amsterdam) erschienen.

Franz Steiner Verlag

9.

ISSN 1381–0472

Gerhard H. Waldherr Erdbeben – Das außergewöhnliche Normale Zur Rezeption seismischer Aktivitäten in literarischen Quellen vom 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. 1997. 271 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07070-6 10. Eckart Olshausen / Holger Sonnabend (Hg.) Naturkatastrophen in der antiken Welt Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 6, 1996 1998. 485 S. mit zahlr. Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07252-6 11. Bert Freyberger Südgallien im 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Phasen, Konsequenzen und Grenzen römischer Eroberung (125–27/22 v. Chr.) 1999. 320 S. mit 16 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07330-1 12. Johannes Engels Augusteische Oikumenegeographie und Universalhistorie im Werk Strabons von Amaseia 1999. 464 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07459-9 13. Lâtife Summerer Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Amisos Ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des Pontosgebietes 1999. 232 S. und 64 Taf., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07409-4 14. Stefan Faller Taprobane im Wandel der Zeit Das Śrî-Lankâ-Bild in griechischen und lateinischen Quellen zwischen Alexanderzug und Spätantike 2000. 243 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07471-1 15. Otar Lordkipanidze Phasis The River and City in Colchis 2000. 147 S. und 8 Taf., kt.

ISBN 978-3-515-07271-7 16. Marcus Nenninger Die Römer und der Wald 2001. 268 S. mit 3 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07398-1 17. Eckart Olshausen / Holger Sonnabend (Hg.) Zu Wasser und zu Land – Verkehrswege in der antiken Welt Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 7, 1999 2002. 492 S. mit zahlr. Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08053-8 18. Maria Francesio L’idea di città in Libanio 2004. 157 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08646-2 19. Frauke Lätsch Insularität und Gesellschaft Untersuchungen zur Auswirkung der Insellage auf die Gesellschaftsentwicklung 2005. 298 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08431-4 20. Jochen Werner Mayer Imus ad villam Studien zur Villeggiatur im stadtrömischen Suburbium in der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit 2005. 266 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08787-2 21. Eckart Olshausen / Holger Sonnabend (Hg.) „Troianer sind wir gewesen“ – Migrationen in der antiken Welt Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 8, 2002 2006. 431 S. mit 58 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08750-6 22. Jochen Haas Die Umweltkrise des 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. im Nordwesten des Imperium Romanum Interdisziplinäre Studien zu einem Aspekt der allgemeinen Reichskrise im Bereich der beiden Germaniae sowie der Belgica und der Raetia

2006. 322 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08880-0 23. Klaus Tausend Verkehrswege der Argolis Rekonstruktion und historische Bedeutung 2006. 226 S. mit 6 Abb., 22 Ktn. und CD-ROM, kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08943-2 24. Gerhard H. Waldherr / Anselm Smolka (Hg.) Antike Erdbeben im alpinen und zirkumalpinen Raum / Earthquakes in Antiquity in the Alpine and Circum-alpine Region Befunde und Probleme in archäologischer, historischer und seismologischer Sicht / Findings and Problems from an Archaeological, Historical and Seismological Viewpoint. Beiträge des Interdisziplinären Workshops Schloss Hohenkammer vom 14.–15. Mai 2004 2007. 189 S. mit 125 s/w-, 3 Farbabb. und 5 Tab., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09030-8 25. Klaus Tausend Im Inneren Germaniens

Beziehungen zwischen den germanischen Stämmen vom 1. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum 2. Jh. n. Chr. Mit Beiträgen von Günter Stangl und Sabine Tausend 2009. 282 S. mit 14 Ktn., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09416-0 26. Eckart Olshausen / Vera Sauer (Hg.) Die Landschaft und die Religion Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 9, 2005 2009. 422 S. mit 94 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09422-1 27. Frank Stini Plenum exiliis mare Untersuchungen zum Exil in der römischen Kaiserzeit 2011. 378 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09894-3 28. Eckart Olshausen / Vera Sauer (Hg.) Die Schätze der Erde – Natürliche Ressourcen in der antiken Welt Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 10, 2008 2012. 425 S. mit 55 Abb., 1o Tab. und CD-ROM, kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10143-1

This book offers an original approach to late Roman and early Byzantine diplomacy as a system. Assessing both official and clandestine perspectives, Ekaterina Nechaeva examines the working mechanisms of this diplomatic machine and reveals the ‘block’ organization of embassies as a basic feature of international communication. Negotiations were split into several phases and accompanied by elaborate protocol and rich ceremony. Gift exchange and the distribution of insignia comprised a vital part of the diplomatic process. What were the semantics of these symbolic acts? The study accents

the status significance of such donations. Ambassadors, who embodied high-level diplomacy, delivered gifts, led talks, and mediated international dialogue. Who were these envoys? How dangerous and adventurous were their missions? What were these expeditions like? How did they travel and how far? Nechaeva scrutinizes these and further questions by investigating the practices of ambassadorial business. Throughout the book the analysis of secret negotiations, the intelligence system and spy activities of envoys, plots and political murders reveals the shadowy side of diplomacy.

www.steiner-verlag.de Franz Steiner Verlag

ISBN 978-3-515-10632-0

9

7835 1 5 1 063 20