Page 212 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

other high-ranking individuals, not currently in court service, to the East,
but this is the only extant example. Theoderic and his successors were
keen to have their wishes presented in the eastern capital by senior rep-
resentatives of the Roman Senate, especially those who held the position
of caput senatus, president of the senate, as Agapitus would have during
37
his tenure as urban prefect. But other embassies, perhaps the majority,
were led by legates drawn from the ranks of current palatine officers. 38
The letter to Agapitus contains no instructions, and makes no reference
to any diplomatic correspondence to be conveyed to Constantinople. It
is clearly not intended to act as a letter of credence for Agapitus, for
the eastern court is described unflatteringly. Though the letter cannot
be dated exactly, the termini for its original composition show that it
is the product of the uneasy period of reconciliation between Ravenna
and Constantinople, following Byzantine aggravation towards Italy in the
middle of the decade.
As a source for the administrative arrangements for embassies, the value
of the Variae is limited. Practical concerns for the dispatch of embassies
are addressed in only two letters. In one, Theoderic provides for the
protection, tuitio, of the private affairs of the patricius Agnellus, whom he
sends as envoy to Africa probably c. 507/8, for the duration of Agnellus’
absence. The interests of provincials absent from their home on embassies
to the court had been protected by imperial law since at least the third
century; this letter attests the extension of protection to a person sent on
an embassy by the court. Theoderic himself, however, does not stand as

to 507/8, arguing that the embassy, undertaken after completion of his period in office, was
associated with Cass., Variae i, 1 (to Anastasius) and the Byzantine naval attacks on the Italian
coastin 508. There is no reason, however, that Agapitus’ mission need be associated with the
events of 508; Theoderic’s court was in frequent contact with Constantinople. The dating of
Agapitus’ prefecture in PLRE is to be preferred. The embassy could have occurred at any date
between September 509 (the date of appointment of the next attested prefect of Rome) and 511,
the terminus post quem non of Cass., Variae i–iv.
Recall of former officers to perform specific duties for court: Cass., Variae iii, 28 (to Cas-
siodorus senior, former praetorian prefect of Italy and patricius), iii, 22 (to Artemidorus, former
prefectof Rome); vii, 34 (formula for royal summons to the comitatus).
37
E.g. Theoderic dispatched the caput senatus Fl. Rufus Postumius Festus to the emperor Zeno in
490, and again to Anastasius in 497; Anon. Val. xi, 53, xii, 64. He possibly sentSymmachus,
also then caput senatus, to Constantinople as an envoy; PLRE ii, ‘Q. Aurelius Memmius Sym-
machus iunior 9’, 1045. To protest Justin’s treatment of Arians in the East, Theoderic sent four
senators together with John, the bishop of Rome; Anon. Val. xv, 90. Theodahad also dispatched
an embassy of senators to Constantinople; Procopius, Wars v, 4.15. At about this time, Cas-
siodorus drafted a letter in the Senate’s name to Justinian, appealing for peace; Cass., Variae xi,
13. Wolfram, History of the Goths, 287. Prefectof Rome as caput senatus: Jones, LRE, 332, 531,
537.
38
Below, on Cyprianus (n. 46) and Senarius; presumably Maximianus: PLRE ii, ‘Maximianus 7’,
739–40.
186