Page 213 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Cassiodorus and Senarius

Agnellus’ protector, but appoints the ex-consul and patricius Fl. Rufius
Postumius Festus, in his capacity as caput senatus. Presumably Agnellus,
a patricius described elsewhere as magnificus vir, was a member of the
senatorial order, and Theoderic made use of the obligations of Festus’
position. The letter intimates that the absence of a person on an embassy
opened the possibility of unscrupulous dealings or accusations against
him; such exploitation is attested in earlier periods. The responsibility
of the caput senatus in protecting the affairs of envoys sentby the court
might well have applied to all instances of senators dispatched by the court,
and very likely continued imperial precedent. The court thus co-opted
the Senate into a supporting role for its administration. Who acted as
protector of the affairs of the caput senatus when he served as an envoy –
Festus himself had twice undertaken embassies to Constantinople on
Theoderic’s behalf while caput senatus, and other heads of the Senate are
recorded as envoys – is unclear, and there is no reference in the Variae to
similar protection of the affairs of non-senatorial court servants sent on
legations. 39
The second letter addressing practical arrangements concerns the
financing of a mission. In 536, Theodahad sent Pope Agapitus to
Constantinople, to answer charges that Theodahad had arranged the
murder of Amalasuntha; Agapitus died while in the East. A letter sent by
Cassiodorus in his own name as praetorian prefect to the treasury officials
Thomas and Petrus reveals that the mission had been funded by mon-
eys advanced to Agapitus from the royal treasury, at Theodahad’s order.
Agapitus, however, had been required to deposit vessels of the Church of
Rome and a signed pledge with treasury officials to secure the advance
of funds; the mission had thus been funded by pawning church plate
to the royal treasury. Theodahad, through Cassiodorus, later annulled
the pledge, returning the ecclesiastical vessels to the Church of Rome. 40
The letter is the only direct evidence extant for the financing of palatine
embassies. Theodahad’s release of the debt is represented as an act of gen-
erosity and piety; the implication is that it was not usual for the court to
fund the expenses incurred on an embassy by a wealthy figure such as the
bishop of Rome or, presumably, senators, even when an embassy was un-
dertaken at the command of the king. As with the letter concerning the

39
Variae i, 15. PLRE ii, ‘Agnellus’, 35–6 (he had already been in Africa, perhaps on behalf of the
court, two years previously; and was appointed to a high palatine office in 508–11), ‘Fl. Rufius
Postumius Festus 5’, 467–9. Protection of provincial envoys: above, chapter 1,n. 71. Justinian,
Nov., 123.26, provides legal protection for bishops who travel as legates to Constantinople.
40
Cass., Variae xii, 20; trans. Barnish 173–4 with note at 174 fin. For the context: Liber pont., 59;
Procopius, Wars v, 4, 6.
187