Page 280 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

With regard to visiting envoys, the ceremonial involved in the reception
of an embassy established a backdrop with its own messages of reassurance
or intimidation. On the one hand, ceremonial could signify the degree
of respect the host wished to pay to the embassy and its principal (just
as the rank of a dispatched envoy conveyed the degree of honour the
sender wished to pay to the recipient). Justinian received the Persian
legate Isdigousnas in late 550 ‘[not] simply as an envoy, but counted
him worthy of much more friendly attention and magnificence’; the
citizens of Constantinople were disgruntled at the scale of this public
. 154 Procopius presents a dialogue between the Gothic
king Totila and the deacon of Rome (later Pope) Pelagius, debating in
whatmanner itis mostappropriate for a hostto honour an envoy. 155
On the other hand, disrespect and displeasure could be demonstrated
by manipulation of protocol, and could be aimed at undermining the
envoy himself or atsending an aggressive message to his principal. When
Totila received Pelagius, the king spoke first; according to Procopius,
Pelagius took this reversal of the usual order of speech and reply as a de-
liberate insult, calculated to pre-empt his mission and make him appear
ineffectual before the citizens of Rome who had sent him. 156 Delayed and
cold receptions, restrictions on the envoy, and brusque dismissal without
the informal meetings and negotiations which conventionally followed
an audience all conveyed the host’s displeasure. 157 Mostbluntwas refusal
to receive an embassy at all, which could express annoyance with the

of speech for conquest(so H. B. Dewing, n. to Procopius, Wars i, 11.22). Analogues are available
to both options from the few examples available. For preclusion from inheritance: Cass., Variae
viii, 9.8 (the Goth Gensimund, adopted presumably by Theoderic, is not a member of the Amal
family for purposes of succession to the throne); for an attribute of military defeat and submission:
Jordanes, Get., 273–7 (the Suevic king Hunimund is defeated by the Gothic king Theodemer
and adopted under duress, but later rebels and kills Theodemer). The custom marks submission
of one ruler to a superior; cf. Jordanes, Get., 289 (the emperor Zeno adopts Theoderic the
Amal, probably when he was magister utriusque militiae praesentalis and patricius; PLRE ii, 1079).
Notwithstanding the comparison made by the quaestor Proclus between Roman adoption by
written document and barbarian adoption, adoption-in-arms could be carried out by letter:
Cass., Variae iv, 2 (Theoderic adopts the king of the Heruli); presumably viii, 1.3 (the emperor
Justin had adopted Eutharic, nominated successor of Theoderic). See Amory, People and Identity,
64 n. 97.
154
Procopius, Wars viii, 11.7 (trans. Dewing).
155
Procopius, Wars vii, 16.9–32. Cf. Malchus, Fr., 17: the emperor Zeno ‘received the envoys
[of the Vandal king Huneric] in a friendly manner, bestowed upon them the honour due to
ambassadors, [and] sent them away laden with the appropriate gifts’.
156
Procopius, Wars vii, 16.27–32.
157
Brusque dismissal: never more so than Gregory of Tours, Hist. vii, 14 (horse dung and other
filth thrown on envoys – note that Gregory specifies that this happens to the envoys euntes, i.e. as
they formally depart); cf. Hyd., 238 [234]; Procopius, Wars vii, 21.25; viii, 24.5; Malalas, Chron.
xviii, 57 (Justinian abuses Vandal envoys from the Vandal usurper Gelimer). Other obnoxious
changes to convention: Priscus, Fr., 11.2 (Hunnic envoy Orestes insulted at not being invited to
a convivium as his partner Edeco was; Roman envoys offended at being asked to state the purpose
254