Page 208 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

a number of titles are shared with addressees of illustris rank or bishops. 20
The diplomatic letters generally do not have learned digressions such
as grace the letters in the Variae to Symmachus and Boethius; the im-
portance of the letters to rulers precludes distractions from the matters at
issue. In general, these letters are clear and readily comprehensible, which
cannot be said for all other letters in the Variae. 21
A final distinctive feature of the diplomatic letters concerns references
to envoys. The Variae is one of the most important sources of prosopo-
graphical information for the early sixth century, naming many officials
otherwise unknown or poorly attested. This does not hold true for the
envoys of the Ostrogothic monarchs. Almost all the letters to rulers con-
clude with a statement that the legati bearing the letter will more fully
convey the Ostrogothic monarch’s views orally. Like most ancient corre-
spondence, the letters could be expected to be read publicly and possibly
to circulate, thus serving as an introduction to discussions. Private ne-
gotiations could then be held with the envoys, for whom the written
document served as a letter of credence.
The envoys were named in mostif notall the original letters to em-
perors and kings, but in every case, as the letter stands in the Variae,the
envoys’ names have been removed and the words ille et ille substituted. 22
Similar deletions of specific information occur elsewhere in the Variae,
but for no category of information or group of court functionaries

20 Fridh, Terminologie et formules, 176–8, 190–1 (terms exclusively for rulers: excellentia,virtus), 191–4
(solely for eastern emperors or empresses), 187–91 (terms used also for other recipients of high
rank: fraternitas,potestas,prudentia,sapientia).
21 Digressions: the sole exception is Cass., Variae v, 2.2–3, to the king of the Haesti (on the origin
of amber).
The diplomatic letters are particularly susceptible to modern readings which construe con-
ventional rhetoric as articulated ideology and foreign policy. Most recently: Amory, People and
Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 50, 59, 61–6, where the assertiveness evident in many of the letters of
Theoderic to western kings is construed as ‘a condescending, at times sneering, tone’ towards
barbarian rulers (61), set in apposition to a schematised interpretation of the theme of civilitas in
the domestic letters of the Variae. This alleged ‘condescension’, hardly an advisable approach to
diplomatic communication, represents no more than a negotiating position.
Other aspects of Amory’s treatment of Theoderic’s letters to kings require amendment: the
claim that, in the earliest diplomatic correspondence in the Variae, Theoderic asserted that he
had ‘no special relationship’ (62) with the kings of the Franks and Burgundians (yet Theoderic
was tied by marriage to both); the assertion that, after the battle of Vouill´ e, the Thuringians were
more important to Theoderic’s strategic interests than the Heruls, and consequently Theoderic
pursued appropriately differentiated forms of alliance, a marriage-tie with the Thuringian king
and ‘adoption-in-arms’ of the Herul ruler (63–4; neither the greater strategic importance of the
Thuringians, nor the innate superiority of marital over adoptive ties, is demonstrated; Theoderic
adopts a superior, paternal role in both pseudo-familial alliances).
22
This occurs with such regularity thatitcan atleastbe said thatenvoys usually travelled in pairs,
apparently acting jointly as principals of the embassy, e.g.: Cass., Variae i, 1; ii, 41; iii, 1, 2, 3, 4;
iv, 43; viii, 1; ix, 1; x, 32, 33, 35. For other examples: see below, chapter 6 nn. 67–8.
182