Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts · 9 7 8 3 5 1 5 1 0 6 3 2 0 Franz Steiner Verlag This book offers an original approach to late Roman and early Byzantine diplo-macy as a system

Ekaterina Nechaeva

Embassies – Negotiations – GiftsSystems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity

Ekat

erin

a N

ech

aeva

Emba

ssie

s –

Neg

otia

tion

s –

Gif

tsG

H 3

0

VSWG

9 7 8 3 5 1 5 1 0 6 3 2 0

www.steiner-verlag.de

Franz Steiner Verlag

This book offers an original approach to late Roman and early Byzantine diplo-macy as a system. Assessing both official and clandestine perspectives, Ekaterina Nechaeva examines the working mech-anisms of this diplomatic machine and reveals the ‘block’ organization of em-bassies 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 in-signia comprised a vital part of the diplo-matic 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 scru-tinizes these and further questions by investigating the practices of ambassa-dorial business. Throughout the book the analysis of secret negotiations, the intelli-gence system and spy activities of envoys, plots and political murders reveals the shadowy side of diplomacy.

Alte Geschichte


Geographica Historica 30

ISBN 978-3-515-10632-0

Ekaterina Nechaeva Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts

geographica historicaBegründet 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

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 Dissertationmit den weit gespannten diplomatischen Beziehungen des Kaiserhofs in Konstantinopel inder Zeit des 4. bis 6. Jh. befaßt. Nicht zuletzt aufgrund der Gesandtschaftsreisen, die für dendiplomatischen Verkehr von fundamentaler Bedeutung waren, hat das Thema vielfältigeund wesentliche historisch-geographische Bezüge. Die Geographica Historica bieten daherden angemessenen Rahmen für diese Arbeit – ganz im Sinne der Konzeption, die seinerzeitErnst 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 whosescientific supervision I was extremely fortunate to write my PhD thesis at the University ofSiena, and who became my tutor in all the most sublime senses of the word, always beingmagnanimous, attentive, cordially ready to advise and to support, and wise in guidance. Myaffection, respect and gratitude are infinite and most sincere.

I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the reviewers of my thesis – Walter Pohl and LuisA. García Moreno, whose observations have influenced my book as well as my furtherwork.

I am very much obliged to Anthony Kaldellis for his most intense reading of the wholedraft 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 kindwillingness to read my thesis and extremely valuable suggestions for the improvement ofthe text.

I owe many acknowledgments to my instructors at the Saint Petersburg State UniversityDepartment 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, thusgiving me an impulse to study East Roman diplomacy. I express my thanks for his plentifuladvice on my PhD thesis, in particular regarding Late Antique bureaucracy and sourcestudy, as well as historical geography and the voyages of envoys. I am also grateful to AlexeyEgorov for his remarks regarding my thesis.

I feel deep gratitude to Mark Schchukin, a sentiment mixed with my deep sorrow for hisrecent death. He was a wise don, from whom it was a real pleasure to learn. My warmthanks 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 ascholar and a person.

Most heartfelt thanks are addressed to Tamara Zheglova and Nadezhda Jijina for theirinspiring 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 thisbook possible, and to Marina Kozlovskaya for her support, countenance and friendship.

Acknowledgments8

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 librariesof 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 andhelp. I am deeply indebted to Leandro Polverini for the chance to present and discuss mywork.

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 KarenWhittle’s immense effort in turning my ponderous English phrases laden with long Russianperiods (just like in this one) into a readable and clear text (where I so allowed it). It was aprivilege and a pleasure to work with Karen, and I am most grateful for her thoroughnessand professionalism.

I was fortunate to prepare a considerable part of this work in one of the most inspiringplaces on Earth – at the American Academy in Rome – and I am very thankful to the staffof the Arthur and Janet C. Ross Library, now my colleagues and friends. I am especiallygrateful to Kristine Iara for her precious help. I am also thankful to Foteini Spingou for heraid.

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 ofimmense importance.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter I: Mechanisms of diplomacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1. State structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.1 Emperor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.2 Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251.3 Consistorium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251.4 Sacrum cubiculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.5 The magister officiorum and his personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.6 Other administrative structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291.7 Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2. Reception of embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342.1 Ceremonial of reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342.2 Non- or partial reception of an embassy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.3 The release of envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3. Diplomatic interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.1 Open interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.1.1 Embassies and negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.1.2 Letters and speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.1.3 Rules respected and not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.1.4 Subsidies, gifts and titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513.1.5 Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.2 Secret interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.2.1 Secret negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563.2.2 Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4. Diplomatic inviolability and the problem of the safety ofdiplomatic delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

10 Contents

Chapter II: Diplomatic negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

1. The negotiating parties and agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691.1 Rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

1.1.1 Relatively equal basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721.1.2 Paradigm of the empire’s dominancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751.1.3 Direct communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761.1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

1.2 Ruler and representative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791.2.1 ›Blocks‹ of embassies: initiative and response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

1.2.1.1 Relations with Persia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811.2.1.2 Relations with the Goths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831.2.1.3 Relations with the Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831.2.1.4 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841.2.1.5 ›Block‹ system of embassies. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

1.2.2 Single embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871.2.3 Classification of embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

1.2.3.1 Minor embassy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881.2.3.2 Major embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891.2.3.3 Conventionally distinguished group of ›medium‹ embassies . . . 921.2.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

1.3 Negotiations between representatives of rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931.3.1 Plenipotentiary and ›autocratic‹ embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

1.3.1.1 Authorized embassies. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961.3.2 Local negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

1.3.2.1 Magistri militum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971.3.2.2 Clergymen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

1.4 Agents of negotiation. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

2. The purposes of embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022.1 Negotiations of a ›peaceful‹ origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032.2 Negotiations held in consequence of a military conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

2.2.1 Conclusion of peace/truce agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062.2.1.1 Truce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062.2.1.2 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181.1 Titles and dignities of envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1181.2 Qualities of a diplomat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1231.3 ›Professional diplomats‹ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

11Contents

2. Embassy personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312.1 Chief envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312.2 Companions of chief envoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312.3 Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1332.4 Messengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1352.5 Οἱ περὶ. The ambassador’s satellites and suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1372.6 ›Outsiders‹ travelling with embassies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1382.7 Lists of embassy personnel and the number of people in a

diplomatic delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

3. Diplomatic expeditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1413.1 Ambassadors’ voyages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1413.2 Transport and logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1453.3 Conditions on diplomatic journeys. Envoys’ adventures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

3.3.1 Hardships of the journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1493.3.2 Duration of the diplomatic journeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1503.3.3 Peculiarities and surprises of reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1503.3.4 Departure of a delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

4. Extra embassy functions. Information gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1524.1 Envoys’ reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1524.2 Ethnographical observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1544.3 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 1651.1 ›State‹ gifts. From ruler to ruler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1651.2 ›Personal‹ gifts from diplomats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1671.3 ›Personal‹ gifts for diplomats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1681.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

2. Perception of the gift donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

3. Sets of gifts donated by the Roman Empire to different partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1743.1 Gifts to the Persians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1753.2 Gifts to the Avars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1803.3 Gifts to the Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1843.4 Gifts to the Sabirian Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1863.5 Gifts to the Arabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1863.6 Gifts to the rulers of Caucasian kingdoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1893.7 Gifts to the Goths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1903.8 Gifts to the Franks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1913.9 Gifts to the Chersonites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1913.10 Roman gifts. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

12 Contents

4. Sets of gifts donated to the Roman Empire by different partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1954.1 Gifts from the Persians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1954.2 Gifts from the Huns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984.3 Gifts from the Turks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984.4 Gifts from peoples of Africa and South Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984.5 Gifts from different barbarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2024.6 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2081.1 Headdress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2091.2 Chlamys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2111.3 Chiton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2141.4 Fibula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2151.5 Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2171.6 Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2191.7 The Lazian kings’ insignia. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

2. Insignia of the Armenian Satraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2202.1 Chlamys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2222.2 Chiton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2232.3 Fibula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2242.4 Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2242.5 The Armenian satraps’ insignia. A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

3. Insignia of the rulers of the Moors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2253.1 Sceptre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2263.2 Headdress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2273.3 Chlamys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2283.4 Chiton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2283.5 Fibula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2293.6 Footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2303.7 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

13Contents

Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255Principal primary sources and main editions and translations used . . . . . . . . . . . . 255Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279Personal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279Geographical names and places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283Notions, ideas and concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287Index locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Introduction

The general aim of this book is to examine the phenomenon of Late Roman diplomacy, itsformation and operation as a whole system during the Late Antique period. The Romanimperial diplomacy’s traditional sphere of activity was in relations with Iran – first Parthianand later Sassanian. The experience accumulated in this interaction formed the basis andstandard 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 periodthrough 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 intoa 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 thenewcomers’ imitation of that Empire. When the Roman Empire faced the barbarians of theGreat Migration epoch it had to draw up new foreign policy methods. The Late Antiquitywas the time for the formation of a very elaborate and accurate, future Byzantine system ofdiplomacy, based on rules and norms and ceremony. The system proved to be strict butflexible when necessary. It seems important to investigate the making (and the process be-hind it) of a diplomatic system in the Late Antiquity period which helped a state and societynot to collapse in the collision with the new reality but to take a new life, and become in-volved in the new processes.1 Diplomacy can be regarded as an aggregate of methods, rulesand norms adopted by the sides in their mutual communication that helped either to avoidor correct the consequences of conflicts.

The main subject of the research is the structure of the diplomacy system, how it workedand its semantics and patterns of development. On the other hand, it is not intended tomake a serious prosopographical analysis of the ambassadors and key decision-making fig-ures. Aspects of matrimonial diplomacy are left apart, as they deserve a special study mostlywithin the context of the West. Neither is it the purpose of the current study to concentrateon 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 pat-terns of structural relations and communication, concentrating on the issues of negoti-ations and ambassadorial practices. I do not hazard to intrude into the economic basis andimplications 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 diplo-matic relations and their political and socio-economical prerequisites as a reaction to numerous re-cent studies of military history and ›frontier archaeology‹ (Mazza, Cultura, guerra, diplomazia123).

Introduction16

of diplomatic interaction, which seems to have been the most important foundation andexpression of Late Antique diplomacy. That is why the work does not aim to analyse thesubsidies 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 theircost, 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 diplo-macy. 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 myfield of competence and the goals of this work. The scope of the study is to concentrate onthe main working mechanisms of the diplomatic machine and the principles behind them,especially on various aspects of international diplomatic communication. The most impor-tant 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 organiza-tion of the negotiating process, its rules and regulations, the phenomenon of diplomaticmission and ceremonial forms of diplomacy.

Another aspect is the role of diplomatic gifts as a method and language of communica-tion. An investigation of the types of objects donated and the directions for distribution, se-mantics and status symbolism of these presents is a necessary element in the reconstructionof the diplomatic system as a whole.

It is important to recognize, as noted precisely by F. Tinnenfeld, that the complex andincreasingly ceremonial system was charged with »refined semiotics – to use a modern ex-pression – 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 inceremonial and political meanings are not expressly emphasized in our sources,2 and ingeneral can be applied to different symbolic acts of East Roman/Byzantine diplomacy. Thepresent 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 investi-gate 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 centu-ries, i.e. beginning with Ammianus and finishing with Theophylact as sources. The re-search refers first of all to the Eastern Roman Empire in its relations with the peoples of theprovinces, boundary and neighbouring areas, such as: the Pontic and Caucasian region,Eurasian steppes, Central and West Europe, Near East and North Africa. Diplomacy in theWestern part of the Empire is not given specific attention here for various reasons. The LateAntique West, especially from the V century AD, was developing its own way, within a dif-ferent paradigm from the Eastern, future Byzantine Empire. The system of Western politi-cal 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 centuriesAD seem logical as they allow us to look at the phenomenon within the historical epochthat can be regarded as a last stage of the Roman Antique world and also the time when anew one was born. A combination of general historical reasons (the IV century as the sig-nificant 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 RomanEmpire, 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 diplo-macy.

My book is based on the written sources of Greek-Roman historiography. Mainly theworks 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 alsoincludes historical compositions which have only survived in fragments, conserved in theconspectus by Photius, like Olympiodorus of Thebes for example,5 and especially in Con-stantine’s De legationibus excerpts. Compiled following the order of emperor ConstantineVII Porphyrogennetos (945–959), this was a sort of moralistic ›encyclopaedia‹,6 perhaps itis better to say, ›bibliotheca‹, ›a library‹ or a ›collection‹,7 a sort of reference book that couldalso be used with educational purposes.8 Of special interest for this study is one of its 53sections – the one ›on embassies‹. Its two parts, Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum andExcerpta 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 thisstudy 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 theHuns (Olymp. 19). The date of this embassy is fixed by Gordon as 412 (Gordon, Age of Attila186); 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 (OlimpiodorFivanskii [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 profaneLiteratur 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 (theoriginal French edition: Lemerle, Premier humanisme 280–288); Smirnova, Evnapii i Zosim 71,75.

Introduction18

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 firein 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 againstDe legationibus [de Boor] and Blockley [FCHLRE], using the published and unpublishedworks 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 providesvaluable data on different embassies and diplomatic actions, as not only did he have a particular in-terest in the problem and access to the sources (he served under the command of the magister offi-ciorum, a figure traditionally involved in diplomatic activity), but he also participated personally inone 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 quiteexhaustive 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 withMaximinus (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 ofMaximinus, the head of the famous embassy to the court of Attila described by Priscus in his com-position. Later in the autumn of 450 he was in Rome, where Maximinus was sent at that time, per-haps with a letter announcing the enthronement of Marcianus. On November 9, 450 Maximinusreceived a letter from Pope Leo to carry to Constantinople. Later Priscus accompanied Maximinuswho held negotiations with the Arabs at Damascus and then with the Blemmyes and Nobadae inThebais. 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 thiswas one of the reasons why he created a positive, but realistic image of Attila. Priscus was not inter-ested in military history, instead showing more interest in the political history and diplomatic rela-tions. Diplomatic orations in his text are made on the basis of real facts, but are considered to havebeen 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 supportthe identification of PLRE-II Maximinus 10 and 11, and possibly 6, proposed by Ensslin againstBlockley’s scepticism p. 48, 143 no. 5: the fact that Maximinus 17=11 was the strategos in hismission to make peace with the Nubades and Blemmyes after their defeat by the previous governordoes not necessarily mean he had to be a soldier by profession); Hunger, Hochsprachliche profa-ne 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 objectivityand attention to the Empire’s ambassadorial problems and relations with the barbarians. Malchushad 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 is-sues with the Persians and the barbarians. Of outstanding significance is his account of negoti-ations 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’ jour-neys 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’tso-va, Ideino-politicheskaia bor’ba 243–274; Grecu, Menander 78–84.

Introduction 19

studied subject, because they demonstrate a certain unity of style, methods, approaches andtraditions, and provide a full picture of the historical process and diplomatic realities andthe collisions within it.

In addition to the main sources, chronicles, epistolographical13 and hagiographicalsources and church histories have been occasionally used. The character of the materialprovided by these sources seems rather selective and less applicable to the reconstruction ofthe system of diplomacy than the data provided by historiography. Additional sourcesmainly of Oriental descent (from the Syrian, Arabic and Persian traditions) are used intranslation.

The diplomacy of Late Antiquity, having introduced and elaborated many principleswhich were later adopted and used by the Byzantine diplomatic system, inherited and de-veloped 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 derivingthrough Hellenistic traditions.14 The paradigm of Roman-Persian relations as the etalon ofthe relations of supreme status partners was being formed in the times of the early Empirewith the Parthians to then develop in the later epoch. It is evident that from the times of thePrincipate the emperor started to play a dominant and decisive role in the conduction andformation of the diplomacy, while the senate tended to maintain more formal and con-sultative positions – such a scheme was partly relevant for Late Antiquity as well. It is im-portant to note that it was the time of the early Principate when the special bureaucraticstructures,15 which later played a significant role in making the diplomacy, were beingformed and also applied for diplomatic use. Certainly in the situation of the new epoch andinternational circumstances, with the growing might of Persia, the great migration process-es which brought numerous new partners and enemies into the orbit of the Roman worldand changes in the situations within Empire, the Roman state had to develop and improvethe diplomatic system, adapting it to the new circumstances. Thus it was the Late Antiqueperiod when traditional Roman diplomacy was partly changed, increased and greatly devel-oped, 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 ofdifferent reasons. As already noted, the book does not aim to seriously investigate the diplomacy ofthe Western kingdoms and the post-Roman traditions of the Gothic Italian court. Instead, I mainlyintend to concentrate on the ›classical‹ traditional diplomacy of the Eastern Empire, on traditionaldirections 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 be-tween diplomatic realities and influences from literature. A. Gillett has devoted a serious workto the subject of the West’s political communication and the Variae in particular (Gillett, Envoys172–219).

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.

Introduction20

Concept of diplomacy in Late AntiquityDiplomacy as an aggregate of methods, rules and norms which allowed domestic politicalaims to be fulfilled using alternative means to the military undoubtedly existed and wasquite well developed in the Late Antiquity. Though, in spite of its Greek origin, the actualword ›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 diplomacyby Late Antique authors, a phenomenon whose very existence in that epoch is obvious forus now.17

Ancient authors rarely write about what we now call diplomacy as a whole. The majorityof the evidence deals with concrete events of foreign policy: concluding treaties, exchangeof embassies, etc. It is evident that in Antiquity the main components of what we today calldiplomacy 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 generalnotion of the phenomenon of diplomacy, guided mostly by the modern paradigm of thisconcept.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 aresome examples when ancient authors characterize the barbarian chiefs not only as goodwarriors, 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 ofthese characteristics all of them should refer to what we today call ›diplomacy‹, but in theanalysed 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 ofstrength and leads aggressive policies and wars, with the senior age at which rulers tendedto turn to peaceful life, using not instruments of war, but pacific tools instead (Proc. BV1.4.12; 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 ofthe historical sources seem to favour the warlike attitude as synonymous with correct impe-rial behaviour, while the titles εἰρηνικός/pacificus remained in fashion only for a very shortperiod in imperial rhetoric. At the same time E. Chrysos notes that less official sourcestend to give emperors more merit for the advantages of peace than the imperial propagandawould 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 exam-ine 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 bythe 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 akey to distinguishing the concept of the means which helped to achieve peace, i.e. the vari-ous 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 pro-vided by Ammianus:22

He gained a reputation among foreign nations for eminence in bravery, sobriety, and knowledgeof military affairs, as well as of increase in all noble qualities; and his fame gradually spread andfilled the entire world. Then, since the fear of his coming extended widely over neighbouring andfar distant nations, deputations hastened to him more speedily than usual: on one side, the peo-ples beyond the Tigris and the Armenians begged for peace; on another, the Indian nations as faras the Divi and the Serendivi vied with one another in sending their leading men with gifts aheadof time; on the south, the Moors offered their services to the Roman state; from the north and thedesert regions, through which the Phasis flows to the sea, came embassies from the Bosporani andother hitherto unknown peoples, humbly asking that on payment of their annual tribute theymight 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 peo-ples all over the world seek peace with him, employing diplomacy. In this case receivingvarious embassies appears very honourable and his role not only as a warrior, but also a dip-lomat, emphasizes the greatness.

It may be concluded that ancient authors wrote rather often about diplomacy in ourmodern 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 de-scribed 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 isemphasized, he is called ἐμβριθής, φοβερός, φιλοπόλεμος or φερέπονος. Their definitionsare numerous and few of them are used systematically. It seems possible to suppose that inthe period of Late Antiquity a general concept which would unite all the forms of foreignpolicy undertaken by alternative means to the military had not yet been found. Thus onefaces a certain paradox – in this epoch diplomacy evidently existed, since it was quite devel-oped and complete, but the term and the notion were lacking, hence the final, definitiveperception 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 thanactually dealt with here, with the aim to give the context for the study. The main thrust ofthe book is in the following chapters, where some of the questions touched in the first chap-ter are analysed in more detail.

1. State structures1.1 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. Evidentlythe supreme ruler’s degree of personal involvement in these matters depended greatly onthe sovereign himself. It is also important to note that the general principle of the organiza-tion 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. Hecontrolled foreign policy, making peace and wars at will«.1 Officially all the letters and em-bassies from abroad were addressed personally to the emperor, and all the response actionsderived from him.2 There were consulting bodies and various state structures that assistedhim in different matters (see further). Throughout the period of Late Antiquity the extentof the emperors’ real personal involvement in the problems of wars, frontiers and diplo-macy decreased with the evident »shift from the mobile emperors to the emperors residentin Constantinople«.3 So long as they remained personally active on the frontiers, emperorsretained much more direct involvement in negotiations with foreign peoples,4 whereas, byrelinquishing this role and remaining in the capital, emperors of the 5th and 6th centuriescreated 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 inter-national communication, travelling there and back to negotiate and make agreements. Me-diatory diplomacy differed technically from diplomacy with more direct involvement fromstate rulers, but the principle of the superiority of all the monarch’s actions remained. It wascarried 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 indicationshere 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.

I. Mechanisms of diplomacy24

were obliged to follow,6 and imperial ratification was required for all the acts of agreementsand treaties.7 In the sphere of reception and negotiations with foreign embassies arriving inthe empire, the emperor remained the most important figure in all the ceremonies andtalks.

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 inthe course of politics as the result of the will of emperor or the accession into power of anew ruler with a new political programme. According to F. Millar, emperors »both couldand did draw on systematic sources of up-to-date information from beyond the frontiers«.8At the same time it must be admitted that without a staff of professionals and experts re-sponsible for the realization of concrete actions and orders, and those who could provideserious consultations on matters of diplomacy and foreign policy, the system would hardlyhave functioned. Scholars mark a notable tendency: through the period from the 4th to the6th centuries the role of emperor in diplomacy was becoming more and more ceremonial,9thus the role of consulting bodies and state bureaucratic structures involved in the diplo-macy process must have increased. It also seems very important to underline that in differ-ent cases the patters could have been different, as they depended much (if not mostly) onthe emperor’s personality, his own political will, programme and power, which determinedthe degree and level of the influence of bureaucracy and concrete figures.

Empresses may also have played some role in diplomacy and foreign policy. Theodoraseems to have been rather active in foreign policy.10 We are also informed about EmpressSophia’s involvement in the reception and dispatching of embassies (Men. Prot. 18.1–6).11Thus, at least some of the empresses could act for the emperors in certain situations or evenact 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 af-fairs is the episode of the Christianization of the Nobadae, when the empress dispatched her ownMonophysite 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 toassassinate 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 mayhave been sent on behalf of the emperor and the empress, as noted by John Malalas about gifts tothe Persians from Justinian and Theodora (Joh. Mal. 18.61.1–5; see: IV.1.2). See Evans, Theodora63–66.

11 PLRE-IIIA, 1179f., s.v. Aelia Sophia 1. She took an active part in government when her husbandJustin 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, whichcorrelates with the general devaluation of its importance as an effective council of state asits role became more ceremonial throughout Late Antiquity.12 However, some diplomaticactivity and involvement of the senate in discussing and decisions of international mattersis evident. In some cases decisions were taken by the emperor in cooperation with the sen-ate (e.g. Malch. 15.10–14; 17.2.7–11; Proc. BG 4.25; Theoph. Sim. 4.13.3–14.1). Priscus pro-vides evidence of the episode when the envoy for the mission to the Huns was selected bythe senate and then ratified by the emperor (Prisc. 2.16–18).

The cases when the senate participated in diplomatic activities seem to have fully de-pended 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 Justinianwhen the senate participated in political decisions on the problems of foreign policy seemto 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 in-crease in the role of the senate: this body gained perceptible influence in matters of foreignpolicy and was more than a consultative organ.14 D. A. Miller provides references to cas-es 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 senatorsto act as ambassadors,16 but this argument cannot be used to seriously characterize the roleof the senate as an institution, as the senate was formed of retired civil servants17 and am-bassadorial business required a high status and position, a condition which was met by thesenators.

It was probably the principal position of the consistorium in the process of receiving em-bassies that limited the senate’s involvement. Perhaps there was some fluctuation in theroles of the »official bodies of advisors«,18 the senate and the consistory in their involve-ment in diplomatic affairs. Important influence by the senate in making principal decisionsin 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 4thcentury,19 debated matters of foreign policy. Official receptions of embassies and diplo-mats’ 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, Étudestopographique 57).


which is why, perhaps, the officials of the consistorium – notarii and silentiarii participatedin the reception and escorting of embassies (de cer. 1.89 [399.4; 402.8]).21 It was the job ofthe 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 thesacravestis (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, theycould 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 diplomaticsphere, and perhaps also duplicated some functions of the agentes in rebus (which were sub-ject to the master of offices). According to A. H. M. Jones, by the 6th century the consisto-rium itself had become as ceremonial a body as the senate: it merely ceremonially receivedforeign 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 ac-companied the candidati armati from the small consistorium and lined them up in the bigconsistorium. He gave an order ›to the left‹ (de cer. 1.89 [406.1; 406.5; 407.20]) and thenbrought them back to the small consistorium (de cer. 1.89 [407.20]).26 Another decuriotransmitted 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 inConstantinople (de cer. 1.89 [403.19]). The role of the sacrum cubiculum in diplomacy israther vague and uncertain. First: they provided security and were guards to the emperorduring 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 arealso aware of the main eunuch’s role in the plot against Attila,27 so it may be presumed thatan important part of diplomacy, perhaps mostly clandestine, belonged to the sphere of thecubiculum.28

1.5 The magister officiorum and his personnel

The general practical direction, realization and control of foreign policy are considered tohave belonged to the master of officers, who during the later 5th and the 6th centuries playeda 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 timethey 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.


an escort, to receive and entertain them, to introduce them to the emperor, to give themsuitable 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 directedmeetings 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 con-cerned with negotiations and treaties (Prisc. 11.1.61–64).33 In analysing the evolution of thecharacter 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 cen-turies he tended to be less personally involved in activity on the frontiers and negoti-ations.34 This evolution must have led to an increase in the officials’ role of mediating indiplomacy. An investigation into the personnel of the magistri and the ambassadors (whoseem to have become more ›professional‹)35 in this period leads A. D. Lee to the conclusionthat there was an »increasing recognition of the need for greater attention to the conduct offoreign 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 hadbecome 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 ofthe subadiuvae adiutoris41 brought the invitation (de cer. 1.89 [403.18]).42 These officialswere 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 dip-lomatic 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 hispast, 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) andin 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 processClauss, 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.


they were in the territory of the empire;44 and were concerned with the disbursement offunds.45 It was the scrinium barbarorum which preserved the accounts of the expendituresmade 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 thePersian 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 thepaperwork involved in overseeing the affairs of foreigners,49 they accompanied envoys onthe way from the schola of the magister to the anteconsistorium together with the admissio-nalis and interpretes, they transmitted a citatio to the admissionalis and read it to the em-peror in the cubiculum before he entered the consistorium (de cer. 1.89 [404.15; 405.18]).50Officers barbarorum were perhaps responsible for some organizational matters concerningreceiving a foreign delegation, but they could hardly have had important influence over thereally 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) ofsubordinate employees in every department. Their presence is evident but the numbers arenot clear because there is no source for this office like we have for the comes sacrarum largi-tionum (CJ 12.23.7).

The officers of the cursus publicus51 were responsible for the transportation of the for-eign 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 deeperinvolvement in the diplomatic process, as translation always implies some interpretationand in many cases they could appear the only persons in the delegation to have direct com-munication with the receiving side. As noted by Miller : »There seems to be no evidencethat 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 possiblesources of ›linguists‹: bilingual citizens of various nationalities; merchants and ›frontiers-men‹; immigrants and allies.55 It is important to perceive that most likely interpreters werevery often natives of the peoples whose language they translated or were half-blooded bar-barians, 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.


fluence in concrete cases could have been rather great (we are aware of some cases when in-terpreters acted as ambassadors;56 a significant example here is the case of the interpreterVigilas who was the key figure in the plot against Attila).57

Besides the officium of master of offices, an important role in diplomatic relations be-longed to the underlying officium admissionum (Not. Dig. Or. 11.17; Occ. 9.14). He was re-sponsible 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 theembassy (de cer. 1.87. [394.1]), accompanied envoys from their dwelling to the palace orfrom 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 thestandard-bearer during the reception (de cer. 1.89 [404.3]). These officials’ functions seemto have been similar to a herald’s – they were responsible for the ceremonial side of receiv-ing embassies, assisting the master of offices,60 and, most likely, they accompanied the mis-sions, gave them directions and made sure that the protocol worked correctly. So, this of-fice’s main task must have been to maintain the ritual; their influence over diplomacy strat-egy 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 theguard of honour, headed by one decurio from the sacrum cubiculum, besides the emperorduring 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 andbrought 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 duringtheir 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) werealso involved in the diplomacy-making process, as well as in assisting and maintaining em-bassies.

The rank and position of the quaestor sacri palatii, the post was created by Constantinethe 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).

Documents

Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts · 9 7 8 3 5 1 5 1 0 6 3 2 0 Franz Steiner Verlag This book offers an original approach to late Roman and early Byzantine diplo-macy as a system