Page 296 - Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West 411 - 533

Envoys and Political Communication,411–533

Germanus’ missions were relegated to a minor place. 226 Chroniclers
redacting Hydatius’ work, with the partial exception of Fredegar, deleted
his accounts of embassies, and did not write their own. 227 By default,
narrative historia, a genre almost absent for the fifth-century West, is the
source most likely to register the occurrence of embassies.
Procopius’ Wars and Gregory of Tours’ Histories, the two lengthiest
extant works of the sixth century, give considerable attention to palatine
embassies. Municipal embassies do, however, appear in their narratives
at crucial times: when a city faces a siege or is otherwise threatened
with changing masters. Procopius records embassies to both the east
Roman and the Gothic armies from Italian cities facing siege, most im-
portantly Naples (before its occupation and slaughter of its population by
the Byzantine army) and Rome. 228
The most substantial account by Gregory of exchanges of embassies
involving cities concerns a dispute in 584 between the Frankish kings
Guntram and Childebert II involving the towns of Tours and Poitiers,
which both kings seek to subjugate. The towns send and receive envoys
from the two kings and their generals; moreover, Tours and Poitiers re-
peatedly exchange legati with each other. 229 What authority represented
the towns is unclear; one can hope for, but not expect, such informa-
tion from Gregory. Though Gregory mentions ‘the bishop and citizens’
of Poitiers as the recipients of an embassy, he refers only to nos when
describing the dispatch of legations from Tours. 230 This exchange of em-
bassies amongst cities, generals, and the king is recorded only because it
involved Gregory’s own see, which suffered considerable harm in the pro-
cess. There are few other indications in Gregory’s works of similar activity,
though the cause for this traffic in embassies, attempts by Frankish mon-
archstoannexcitiescontrolledbytheirfellowkings,occuredrepeatedly. 231
Elsewhere, Gregory describes bishops, including himself, sending envoys
to Frankish kings and generals, and even treating with raiding Bretons. 232
His privileging of bishops as principals of non-palatine legations is to be
expected, and should not be taken as a necessarily accurate picture of

226
Texts associated with existing cults: above, chapter 4,n. 89–90.
227
Above, chapter 2, nn. 18–19.
228
Procopius, Wars v, 8.6–25 (Naples); vii, 16.4–32 (Rome); vi, 19.4–5 (Urbinus), 21.27 (Milan).
229
Gregory of Tours, Hist. vii, 12 (Tornici to Guntram), 13 (Childebert’s dux Gararic to Tours;
Toronici to Pectavis: rursum . . . remissis; Poitiers to Tours), 24 (Guntram to Poitiers; Poitiers to
Guntram).
230
Gregory of Tours, Hist. vii, 13: episcipo et civibus.
231
Cf. Gregory of Tours, Hist. iii, 21 (Cabri` eres receives envoys from Theudebert).
232
Gregory of Tours, Hist. iii, 34; v, 4, 31; viii, 18. Bishops also send legationes to citizens of their
sees: v, 11; vii, 47.Cf. n. 46 above: Gregory privileges bishops over palatine officials both as
principals and as named envoys.
270