Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts Bassies As a Basic Feature of International They Travel and How Far? Nechaeva Scru- Communication

This book offers an original approach to the status significance of such donations. GH 30 late Roman and early Byzantine diplo- Ambassadors, who embodied high-level macy as a system. Assessing both official diplomacy, delivered gifts, led talks, and Ekaterina Nechaeva and clandestine perspectives, Ekaterina mediated international dialogue. Who Nechaeva examines the working mech- were these envoys? How dangerous and anisms of this diplomatic machine and adventurous were their missions? What reveals the ‘block’ organization of em- were these expeditions like? How did Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts bassies as a basic feature of international they travel and how far? Nechaeva scru- communication. Negotiations were split tinizes these and further questions by Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity into several phases and accompanied by investigating the practices of ambassa- elaborate protocol and rich ceremony. dorial business. Throughout the book the Gift exchange and the distribution of in- analysis of secret negotiations, the intelli- signia comprised a vital part of the diplo- gence system and spy activities of envoys, matic process. What were the semantics plots and political murders reveals the of these symbolic acts? The study accents shadowy side of diplomacy. Embassies – Negotiations – GiftsEmbassies – Negotiations

www.steiner-verlag.de VSWG Alte Geschichte Geographica Historica 30

Franz Steiner Verlag Franz Steiner Verlag

ISBN 978-3-515-10632-0 Ekaterina Nechaeva

9 7 8 3 5 1 5 1 0 6 3 2 0 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, cor- rections 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-Sarma- tian 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 Depart- ment, 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 Foun- dation Hermitage Italia in 2008. My investigation of the problem of diplomatic gifts was supported by a Diderot postdoc- toral 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 Voevodi- na 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 His- torica 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 ...... 23 1.1 Emperor ...... 23 1.2 Senate ...... 25 1.3 Consistorium ...... 25 1.4 Sacrum cubiculum ...... 26 1.5 The magister officiorum and his personnel ...... 26 1.6 Other administrative structures ...... 29 1.7 Decision-making ...... 33 2. Reception of embassies ...... 34 2.1 Ceremonial of reception ...... 34 2.2 Non- or partial reception of an embassy ...... 42 2.3 The release of envoys ...... 44 3. Diplomatic interchanges ...... 44 3.1 Open interchanges ...... 44 3.1.1 Embassies and negotiations ...... 44 3.1.2 Letters and speeches ...... 44 3.1.3 Rules respected and not ...... 49 3.1.4 Subsidies, gifts and titles ...... 51 3.1.5 Persons ...... 54 3.2 Secret interchanges ...... 56 3.2.1 Secret negotiations ...... 56 3.2.2 Plots ...... 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 ...... 102 2.1 Negotiations of a ›peaceful‹ origin ...... 103 2.2 Negotiations held in consequence of a military conflict ...... 106 2.2.1 Conclusion of peace/truce agreements ...... 106 2.2.1.1 Truce ...... 106 2.2.1.2 Peace treaties ...... 107 2.3 Main questions of negotiations and clauses of treaties ...... 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 ...... 118 1.1 Titles and dignities of envoys ...... 118 1.2 Qualities of a diplomat ...... 123 1.3 ›Professional diplomats‹ ...... 127 Contents 11

2. Embassy personnel ...... 131 2.1 Chief envoys ...... 131 2.2 Companions of chief envoys ...... 131 2.3 Interpreters ...... 133 2.4 Messengers ...... 135 2.5 Οἱ περὶ. The ambassador’s satellites and suite ...... 137 2.6 ›Outsiders‹ travelling with embassies ...... 138 2.7 Lists of embassy personnel and the number of people in a diplomatic delegation ...... 139 3. Diplomatic expeditions ...... 141 3.1 Ambassadors’ voyages ...... 141 3.2 Transport and logistics ...... 145 3.3 Conditions on diplomatic journeys. Envoys’ adventures ...... 148 3.3.1 Hardships of the journey ...... 149 3.3.2 Duration of the diplomatic journeys ...... 150 3.3.3 Peculiarities and surprises of reception ...... 150 3.3.4 Departure of a delegation ...... 151 4. Extra embassy functions. Information gathering ...... 152 4.1 Envoys’ reports ...... 152 4.2 Ethnographical observations ...... 154 4.3 Clandestine tasks. Late Antique envoys’ spy activity ...... 155 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 ...... 165 1.1 ›State‹ gifts. From ruler to ruler ...... 165 1.2 ›Personal‹ gifts from diplomats ...... 167 1.3 ›Personal‹ gifts for diplomats ...... 168 1.4 Summary ...... 169 2. Perception of the gift donations ...... 170 3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners ...... 174 3.1 Gifts to the Persians ...... 175 3.2 Gifts to the Avars ...... 180 3.3 Gifts to the Huns ...... 184 3.4 Gifts to the Sabirian Huns ...... 186 3.5 Gifts to the Arabs ...... 186 3.6 Gifts to the rulers of Caucasian kingdoms ...... 189 3.7 Gifts to the Goths ...... 190 3.8 Gifts to the Franks ...... 191 3.9 Gifts to the Chersonites ...... 191 3.10 Roman gifts. A summary ...... 194 12 Contents

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners ...... 195 4.1 Gifts from the Persians ...... 195 4.2 Gifts from the Huns ...... 198 4.3 Gifts from the Turks ...... 198 4.4 Gifts from peoples of Africa and South Arabia ...... 198 4.5 Gifts from different barbarians ...... 202 4.6 Foreign gifts. A Summary ...... 204 5. Conclusions ...... 204

Chapter V: Insignia in the diplomatic practice of Late Antiquity ...... 207 1. Insignia of the Lazian kings ...... 208 1.1 Headdress ...... 209 1.2 Chlamys ...... 211 1.3 Chiton ...... 214 1.4 Fibula ...... 215 1.5 Footwear ...... 217 1.6 Belt ...... 219 1.7 The Lazian kings’ insignia. A summary ...... 220 2. Insignia of the Armenian Satraps ...... 220 2.1 Chlamys ...... 222 2.2 Chiton ...... 223 2.3 Fibula ...... 224 2.4 Footwear ...... 224 2.5 The Armenian satraps’ insignia. A summary ...... 225 3. Insignia of the rulers of the Moors ...... 225 3.1 Sceptre ...... 226 3.2 Headdress ...... 227 3.3 Chlamys ...... 228 3.4 Chiton ...... 228 3.5 Fibula ...... 229 3.6 Footwear ...... 230 3.7 The Moorish rulers’ insignia. A summary ...... 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 ...... 255 Abbreviations ...... 255 Principal primary sources and main editions and translations used ...... 255 Secondary Sources ...... 260

Indices ...... 279 Personal names ...... 279 Geographical names and places ...... 283 Notions, ideas and concepts ...... 287 Index locorum ...... 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 protago- nists, 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 under- standing how that transformation could happen, how different masses of peoples and cul- tures – 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 re- constructed 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 in- clusion 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 func- tioning 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 mean- ingful 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 Ro- man Empire’s diplomatic contacts. My concern is only to show the main characteristic fea- tures 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 domina- tion; 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 Si- mocatta. 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 Con- stantine’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 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. 4 See: FCHLRE. 5 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 hon- oured 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, Olym- piodoros (11; von Theben), in: RE 18, 201–207; FCHLRE 1, 27–47; 2, 152–220]; Hunger, Hoch- sprachliche profane Literatur 281f. with references to bibliography; PLRE-II, 798f., s.v. Olympio- dorus 1; Cameron, Wandering poets 470–509; Baldwin, Olympiodorus 212–231; Matthews, Olympiodorus 81f.; Thompson, Olympiodorus 43–52; Udal’tsova, Razvitie 143–145; Tread- gold, Diplomatic Career 709–733. 6 The term, used by K. Krumbacher and followers: Krumbacher, Geschichte (1897) 258; Bütt- ner-Wobst, Anlage 88–120; Dain, L’encyclopédisme 64–81; Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 361–366. 7 Odorico, Cultura 5. 8 Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur 361; see on the methods of work and about the Ex- cerpta 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 Me- nander 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, No- vaia 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 pre- sumption 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 (Zucker- man, 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 me- moriae. 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, Eu- phemius. 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, Pris- cus (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/Ivanchik, Prisk Paniiskii 81– 83; Zuckerman, L’empire 159–182; Udal’tsova, Ideino-politicheskaia bor’ba 100–142; Dobl- hofer, 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, wis- dom, 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 Pa- trician, 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 Re- publican, 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 re- quires 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; An- geli Bertinelli/Piccirilli (eds.), Linguaggio; Matthaei, Classification; Ziegler, Bezie- hungen; Keaveney, Treaties; Pohl (ed.), Kingdoms; Campbell, War and Diplomacy; Affor- tunati, 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 ex- ploited 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 differ-

16 A. Gillet emphasized that the information we have on the Late Antiquity is not enough to examine diplomacy itself: Gillett, Envoys 1–7. 17 Nechaeva, Predstavleniia o diplomatii 77–86. 18 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; Obo- lensky, Principles. 19 Here and hereafter I quote Menander in the edition: The history of Menander the Guardsman [Blockley]. 20 In general about the Roman concept of peace e.g.: Desideri, Varrone 107–119; Kaegi, Concep- tions 502f. 21 Chrysos, Buy the Peace 231. Introduction 21 ence in methods and mark a contraposition between aggressive and ›diplomatic‹ ones. Pa- cific 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 com- prehension 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 See about this passage: Matthews, Empire 106. 23 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, decision- making 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 pro- moted the development of mediating shuttle diplomacy, which saw envoys, agents of international communication, travelling there and back to negotiate and make agreements. Me- diatory 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 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). 2 Paradisi, Storia 182. 3 Lee, Information 42. 4 Cf. Millar, Emperors 6. 5 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 regula- tion 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 See: I.3.1.3; II.1.2. 7 See: II.3. 8 Millar, Emperors 19. 9 Whitby, From Frontier; Lee, Information 42. 10 According to Procopius, she wrote a letter to a Persian Zaberganes (PLRE-IIIB, 1410, s.v. Zaber- ganes 1), a close associate of Chosroes (whom she met during his diplomatic mission to Constanti- nople), 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 Jus- tinian 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. Mill- er, 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 decision- making 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 Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 329. 13 Miller, Studies 140. 14 Bréhier, Institutions 11949, 181f.; Miller, Studies 138f. 15 Miller, Studies 139–141. 16 See: III.1.1; Miller, Studies 138f. 17 Miller, Studies 139. 18 Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 329. 19 Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 334. 20 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 dupli- cate 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. Rep- resentatives 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 Here and hereafter, in brackets I refer to the Reiske edition: Constantini Porphyrogeniti [Reis- ke]. 22 See: IV.1; Whitby, Omission 478–483. 23 Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 337f. 24 See about this structure with a list of the literature: Delmaire, Institutions 49–160. 25 B. Kübler, Decurio, in: RE 4, 1901, 2319–2352. 26 Helm, Untersuchungen 425f. 27 See: I.3.2.2. 28 Some of the eunuchs may have sometimes been quite powerful and played a large role in policy: Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 341. 29 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 neighbor- hood 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 spe- cially 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 Ro- man 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 Boak, Master 93; see about the master of offices’ role in the foreign embassy reception process Clauss, Magister 64–67. 31 Helm, Untersuchungen 422. 32 Delmaire, Institutions 91. 33 Jones, Later Roman Empire I, 368f. 34 See: II.1. 35 See: III.1.3. 36 Lee, Information 42–48. 37 Giardina, Aspetti, 59–63. 38 Boak, Master 94–96. 39 Adiutor (Not. Dig. Or. 11.41; Occ. 9.41). 40 Helm, Untersuchungen 425. 41 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 Il- lyricum. 42 Helm, Untersuchungen 425; Boak, Master 102. 43 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 Con- stantinople (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 bu- reau, which probably was not necessary.«54 D. A. Miller distinguishes three possible sources of ›linguists‹: bilingual citizens of various nationalities; merchants and ›frontiers- men‹; 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 in-

44 Delmaire, Institutions 83; Boak, Master 95. 45 Miller, Studies 2. 46 Boak, Master 103; Clauss, Magister 65. 47 Helm, Untersuchungen 423; Boak, Master 103. 48 Clauss, Magister 65. 49 Miller, Studies 12. 50 Helm, Untersuchungen 423; Boak, Master 103. 51 The curiosus cursus publici praesentalis (Not. Dig. Or. 11.50; Occ. 9.44) and curiosi per omnes pro- vincias (Not. Dig. Or. 11.51; Occ. 9.45); interpretes diversarum gentium (Not. Dig. Or. 11.52; Occ. 9.46). 52 See: III.3.2; Helm, Untersuchungen 423; A. Kolb, Cursus publicus, in: NP 3, 2003, 1022f. 53 See: III.2.3; Helm, Untersuchungen 424, note 7 with the list of mentions of actual interpreters. 54 Miller, Studies 19. 55 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 See evidence and reasoning on the problem: Miller, Studies 24f. 57 See: III.2.3. 58 Jones, Later Roman Empire 1, 368f. 59 Helm, Untersuchungen 423f; Boak, Master 92. 60 About this office: Boak, Master 66. 61 O. Seeck, Candidatus, in: RE 3, 1899, 1468f. 62 See about them Clauss, Magister 27–32. 63 Clauss, Magister 63. 64 Boak, Master 71–73. 65 Boak, Master 81. 66 Boak, Master 19f. Helm does not mention mensores as participants in the diplomatic process (Helm, Untersuchungen 422–426).