Page 252 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

There are several procedural differences between the receptions of the
western imperial and Persian legations. Though similarities between the
functions of palatine officials in Ctesiphon and Constantinople were ob-
served by contemporaries, Persian envoys were not equated with Roman
counterparts; consequently, expressions of honour through the selection
of officials to greet the envoys were a matter for the judgementof the
magister officiorum; and at court, the Persian envoys were conducted by
chartularii of the scrinium barbarorum, partof the officium of the magister.
When Persian and other ‘barbarian’ embassies were received, an armed
guard was provided in the consistorium by the palatine forces known
as the candidati; no guard was present for the reception of western im-
perial envoys. 17 It was expected that the envoy would present gifts to
the emperor from both the shah and himself; procedures for a ritualised
exchange of gifts, including an assessment of the worth of the Persian
items, are given. Essential elements, however, were the same as for the
reception of western imperial envoys: the magister officiorum acted as host,
intermediatory, and perhaps substantive negotiator with the envoy, as well
as stage-manager of the envoy’s imperial audiences, which took place in
the full consistorium.
The types of situations described in these two sections of De ceremoniis
are very specific. There is no outline of procedures for the reception of
western imperial legates who are not palatine officials, or whose mission
concerns issues other than recogition of a new emperor. Nor is there
provision for representatives of the Roman Senate, of the see of Rome,
of rulers of the kingdoms in the former Roman West, of barbarian leaders
beyond imperial boundaries, or of the constant flow of eastern provin-
cial and municipal embassies to court. Peter patricius, during his tenure
Elements of De cer. i, 89 which may refer to Isdigousnas’ embassies: provisions to prevent
a Persian annexation of Daras under cover of a Persian embassy (De cer. i, 89 (Reiske 399);
cf. Procopius, Wars ii, 28.31–44, concerning the embassy of 547/8; Tinnefeld, ‘Ceremonies
for Foreign Ambassadors’, 207–8); the provision of travelling expenses for 206 days (De cer. i, 89
(Reiske 400); cf. the length of Isdigousnas’ stays in Constantinople in 547/8 and 550/1: Procopius,
Wars ii, 28.31–44 (ten months), viii, 11.4–10, 17.9 (abouta year)).
Other Constantinopolitan officials extensively involved in embassies and negotiations with
Persia: PLRE ii, ‘Rufinus 13’, 954–7; PLRE iii, ‘Alexander 1’, 41–2; ‘Hermogenes 1’, 590–3.
Persian officials: Mebodes, successor to Isdigousnas (Menander Protector, Fr., 9.3; PLRE iii
‘Mebodes 2’, 868–70); other Persian envoys are listed at PLRE iii, 1538–9.
17
Similarities of palatine offices: Menander Protector, Fr., 6.1 bis (Blockley, 55, 65)with PLRE iii,
722: Isdigousnas as cubicularius or praepositus sacri cubiculi; Menander Protector, Fr., 23.9 (Blockley,
209–11): Persian equivalents to a secretis and magister officiorum (the astabadh; A. Christensen, L’Iran
sous les Sassanides, 2nd edn (Copenhagen, 1944), 136, 352, 521); cf. Procopius, Wars i, 5.4: Persian
chanaranges equivalentto Roman strategos;cf. 6.18, 11.25; i, 11.26: equivalentto magister officiorum.
On Sassanian courtofficials: ibid., 132–6; V. G. Lakonin, ‘Political, Social and Administrative
Institutions’, in Cambridge History of Iran iii.2, 681–746, esp. 709–13.
Persons assigned to honour and lead Persian envoys: De cer. i, 89. Candidati: De cer. i, 87, 89;
Whitby, ‘On the Omission’, 466, 483.
226