Page 216 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

and so were more likely to be organised directly by the imperial or
royal consistory than through one of the palatine magisteries, leaving no
documentation. 44

senarius, ‘ceaseless wayfarer of the world’

The third category of document in the Variae, the eulogistic letters of
appointment for high officials, also contains only a small number of ref-
erences to embassies. They provide, however, prosopographical details
and indications of the potential advantages to individuals’ careers which
could come from participation in embassies. Several eulogies include the
completion of embassies among tasks deserving acclaim. The praise for
envoys’ rhetorical skills in these passages is reminiscent of Cassiodorus’
own pride in his diplomatic correspondence. Cassiodorus attributes the
appointment of the former advocate Arator to a high position in the
officium of the patricius praesentalis Tulvin in part to the eloquence Arator
had shown when he had acted as an envoy to Theoderic’s court, repre-
senting the province of Dalmatia. 45 In praising officers for their former
embassies, Cassiodorus employs two literary topoi: the cunning of the
Constantinopolitan court, and the fury of barbarian kings, both dan-
gers to be overcome by the courage and eloquence of envoys. The comes
sacrarum largitionum Cyprianus, best known as the accuser of Boethius, is
praised for being impervious to the grandeur of the eastern court; his lin-
guistic skills prevented his succumbing to Greek argutia. Cassiodorus’ own
grandfather is honoured for boldly withstanding the rage of Attila, and
destroying the king’s iniquitous pretexts for conflict with his arguments. 46

44 Cass., Variae iv, 3.3; for similar descriptions of proximity to the royal consistory: i, 4.10 (im-
periale secretum); viii, 12.8 (arcana nostri imperii); 18.3 (quote in text); xi, 6.3 (consistorii nostri
secreta). Cf. Priscus’ description of the organisation of Maximus’ embassy to Attila in 449;
Priscus, Fr., 11.1–2 (Fr. Class. Hist., 245–7); Sid. Ap., Ep. iii, 7.3 (envoys trading in the sec-
reta dirigentium principum); Ennodius, Vita Epiphani, 136 (Theoderic commissions Epiphanius to
travel to Gundobad secretius). Recognition of the secrecy of the imperial and quasi-imperial
consistorium extended well beyond diplomatic affairs; cf. Ambrose, Ep., 75.20; Eunapius,
Fr., 50.
45
Cass., Variae viii, 12.2–4, 7; PLRE ii, ‘Arator’, 126–7 with Barnish, Cassiodorus: Variae, 103
n. 3.
46
Cyprianus: Cass., Variae v, 40.5;cf. ii, 6.2 to Agapitus, who is warned that, when he travels to
Constantinople, he must contra subtilissimos disputare et in conventu doctorum sic agere,ne susceptam
causam tot erudita possint ingenia superare. The Byzantine courtiers are characterised as artifices.
(For Grecian deceits of another order met by an envoy of the Ostrogothic court: Maximianus,
Elegia v (cited above, chapter 1 atn. 82): Hic me suscipiens Etruscae gentis alumnum/Inuoluit patriis
Graia puella dolis. Such a liaison carried risks to the envoy: cf. below, chapter 6,atnn. 104–5.)
Cassiodorus senior: Cass., Variae i, 4.11–12, characterising the elder Cassiodorus’ speeches as
veritas.Cf. Variae iv, 3.2 on Senarius, discussed below.
190