Imágenes de páginas

(Ad). 892) is ‘stratégos of Cephallenia and Longobardia’.1 Hence Gay has rightly concluded that it is not till after this year that Longobardia became a separate theme.a But, on the other hand, there is no evidence that the separation was made before A.D. 900. Hence no inference can be drawn from the omission of Longobardia as to the date of the list.

The fact that the list includes the themes of Strymon and of Samos cannot be held to date it; for though the creation of these themes is often ascribed to Leo, this is by no means certain. The case of Thessalonica is a warning. Gelzer attributes the theme of Thessalonica to the Neuordnung of Leo VI (op. cit. 130) ; but this theme appears in the Taktikon of Michael III.3 The themes of Strymon and Samos do not appear in that document,‘ but they may have been formed before the accession of Leo VI. The evidence, however, already adduced seems sufiicient to date the source of the first list of Philotheos to the reign of Leo.

The lists of precedence in Sections II and III (cod. Lips.) agree with list 1 of Sect. I in omitting the hetaeriarch, but there are some variations in order. (a) In Section III the Drungarios of the Fleet follows, instead of preceding, the Logothete of the Course, and (b) the Logothete of the Flocks precedes, instead of following, the Protospathar of the Basilikoi (the latter does not occur in Section II) ; (c) in Section II the Comes Stabuli precedes 6 Ex 1rpoa'a'nrov r61: Gepd'rmv, but Section III agrees here with the lists of Section I. The variations are common to both MSS.

Another point of difference to be noticed between Section I and Sections II, III, is the treatment of the Magistri. In Section II we have of 6% Aonrai. 'm'ia'ai. 'rfis‘ Bevre'pas i‘J-n'dpxovo’l. 'réfews 0101! 6 pdywrpos‘, 6 pdywrpos, and in Section III (ad init.) simply 6 pdyw'rpos‘. In both cases we might expect 01 pdyLa'TpoL.

We may turn to the evidence of the Jerusalem MS. collated by Uspenski. (I) In this MS. in the lists of precedence, both in Section II and in Section III, we find the Hetaeriarch (pe’yas éraipiépxns) immediately after the Drungarios of the Watch. The fact that he occurs in both lists shows that the omission in the Leipzig MS. is not accidental. (2) The Stratégos of Longobardia appears after the Stratégos of Sicily in Section II. He is not mentioned in any of the lists in the Leipzig MS. On the other hand, the stratégos of Nikopolis is omitted in the Jerusalem MS. ; but this may be a mere scribe’s error

‘ Chron. Vulturneme (Muratori, R. I. S. i. 2. 413).
’ L’Italie méridionak, 171-4.
‘ Uspenski, 115. ‘ Phil. 713, 728.

(there are several other omissions in H which are clearly accidental). (3) Instead of dvell'rra'ros‘ narpimos the Jerusalem MS. has throughout simply dvthl-rraros. (It also has in most cases o-irafiaptoi instead of a-waflapoxavfiiodroi, but probably this is merely a mistake of the scribe.) (4) In Section II where the Leipzig MS. has 6 aéyw-rpos 6 adywrpos the Jerusalem MS. has 6 na'yw-rpos; but this may be due to parablepsia. (5) The precedence of the protospatharioi of the Chrysotriklinos is said in L to have been established 'mihai (Section III, p. 732), but in H it is attributed to Leo VI.

The probable inference seems to be that the Jerusalem fragment belonged to a slovenly copy of a later recension of Philotheos than that which is represented by the Leipzig text, which was copied from the original. The editor, whether Philotheos himself or another, brought the treatise up to date by inserting the Stratégos of Langobardia, and repaired the error of omitting the Hetaeriarch. The discrepancies between Section II and Section III seem to be due to the circumstance that Philotheos was using old lists of difierent dates and he did not succeed in eliminating all the inconsistencies.1

(4) Scope of the following investigation. General comparison of the Constantinian with the later Byzantine System.

The following pages are not a. complete commentary on Philotheos. The investigation is confined to the determination of the functions of the oflicials, and to the origin of the ofiices and of the orders of rank. I have not entered upon the subject of the fees (o-vvfiflaai) paid for dignities and offices, and the Imperial bounties (ei‘nrsflfai, dnoxdpn/Bra, béipa) to which the dignitaries were entitled. The latter and main part of the book of Philotheos—Section IV—is important for my purpose, as it throws light on many difficulties which arise out of the earlier part; but a commentary on it belongs not to this inquiry, but to a treatise on the court ceremonies.

From Philotheos we derive no information as to the civil govemment of the provinces, except so far as finance is concerned. The provincial judges are not mentioned. We hear nothing of at dvBfi'rra-roc Kai €1rapxoi ‘r6311 (lead-mu or oi wpat-roper 163v Bead-raw who

appear in the Takt. Usp. (118, 119). A large question of considerable

1 In Phil. 788u we meet the Ka'rsmivw of Paphlagonia. In the time of Philotheos, and since the early years of Michael III, the governor of Paphl. had been a m-pam-ydr (Phil. 713,, Takt. Usp. 113). Under Theophilus he had been a Katepano (De adm. imp. 178,), and perhaps Theophilus raised the dignity of the theme. It looks as if Philotheos were here using a document dating from more than sixty years back.

dilficulty, touching the position and the districts of these officials, and their relations to the Stratégoi, is involved, and I have not been able to discuss it in the present investigation.

A few remarks may be made here as to the general character of the organization of the ninth century as contrasted with the older system which it superseded.

If we compare the scheme of administration which was founded by Diocletian, and completed by his successors, and which remained intact, except in details, till the beginning of the seventh century, with the later Byzantine system, we find that while there is no break in continuity, and the changes seem to have been gradual, the result of these changes is the substitution of a new principle.

The older system has been described as a divine hierarchy. Gibbon designates its principle as ‘a severe subordination in rank and oflice’ .1 There was a comparatively small number of great ministers and commanders-in-chief who were directly responsible to the Emperor alone. All the other administrators were ranged under these in a system of graded subordination. In the Notitia Dignitatum of the East we can count twenty-two high ofiices,2 to some of which all the rest were in subordinate relations.

In the ninth century it is quite different. There is no hierarchy of this kind, so far as ofiice is concerned.3 The number of independent officials responsible only to the Emperor is enormously larger. Instead of twenty-two it is about sixty. And these numbers do not fully express the magnitude of the change. For in the fifth and sixth centuries the territory ruled from Constantinople was far more extensive than in the ninth. It included Syria and Egypt and extended to the Danube. Long before the ninth century, Syria and Egypt and a great portion of the Balkan peninsula were lost.

This change was brought about in two ways. (1) The whole provincial administration was reorganized. The provincial territory was divided into a number of military districts, or Themes, and the governor of each theme, who was primarily a military commander, had also a certain civil jurisdiction. He was independent, subject only to the Emperor. He was not under the orders of any Master of Soldiers or Praetorian Prefect. In fact the Masters of Soldiers and the Praetorian Prefects disappeared. (2) The great central ministries of the Master of Offices, the Count of the Sacred Largesses, and the Count of the Private Estate, each of which consisted of many different departments, and had an extensive range of functions, were broken up into a large number of oflices with restricted competence.

1 Decline and Fall, 0. xvii, p. 169, in Bury, new ed. vol. ii (1909). f In the reckoning I omit the castrensis, and include the Proconsul Asiae, who was not under the vicarius Asianae or the Praef. Praet. Orientis. ' The hierarchy of rank remains and has been developed into a more elaborate scale. M 2—2


These changes were not brought about at a stroke, by a single deliberative act of administrative reform. They came about by a gradual series of modifications, but they all tended in the same direction, to substitute the principle of co-ordination for that of subordination, and to multiply supreme ofiices instead of placing immense powers in the hands of a few. We cannot point to any single emperor as the Diocletian of the new system. It is probable that Leo the Isaurian did much to normalize it, but it was in the seventh century under the Heraclian dynasty that the older system had broken down and been irrevocably abandoned, and the chief principles of the newer had been introduced. Even in the sixth century we can discern some foreshadowings of the change.

B. DIGNI'I‘IES (ai 614i flpafieiwv dflat).

In the sixth century, apart from the exceptional titles of Caesar, nobilissimus, and curopalates, there were a number of dignities, unattached to ofiice, which could be conferred by the Emperor. The highest of thee was the Patriciate (introduced by Constantine), which was confined by a law of Zeno to men who had been consuls or prefects, but was opened by Justinian (Nov. 80) to all men of illustrious rank. There were also the titular ofiices of the consulship, the prefecture, and the stratélasia (magisterium militum). The acting administrative ofiicials were distinguished as in actu positi or é’awpaK-roi 1 from the titular officials (évrpam-oi), who were of two kinds, (1) illustres vacantes, and illustres honorarii.2 The vacantes not only bore the title but wore the cingulum, the insigne of oflice; the honorarii had the title but not the cingulum. But in all cases the dignity was conferred by codicilli. In the case of most offices, the titular dignity was probably conferred only on those who had once held the oflice, but the consulship, the prefecture, and the stratélasia were regularly conferred on others than ofiicials. The comitiva, which was in principle an order of the same kind, had been appropriated with its three grades to particular oflices, to which it belonged as a matter of course.

1 In later texts we generally find the forms é'p-rrpa-ror and i’z’1rpa-ros, e. g. Ger. 239 xdv o'rpa'rq-yds‘ E'prrpuror m'z'v re l'l'npa'ros‘. Cp. 'n'epi ‘mg. 5021., e'v fair (,pfl'pli'rmi‘ 1rpoclleéaww. In Cer. 798 we find a curious third term peirénpa-ror. From this passage it would appear that Epnpa-ror was specially used of the Stratégos, and psa'd'n'pa'ror 'n'a'rpi'xwr was applied to Patricians who held oflicial posts in the capital (6 s'pnohrrixor ddxfitnifihes).

' C. I. 12. 8. 2. Cp. Mommsen, Eph. Epig. v. 129.

In the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, the number of these orders, or titular oflices, was largely increased, and they were conferred by investiture with insignia. There were several schools of officers in the palace, who had various duties connected with the Imperial service : silentiarii, vestitores, mandatores, candidati, stratores, spatharii. All these titles came to be used as ranks of honour, and were conferred upon all the more important civil and military officials according to their degree. The chief of the school of spatharioi was entitled the protospatharios, and this term was adopted to designate a higher rank than spatharios—the rank next to Patrician itself. Between the spatharioi and protospatharioi was interpolated a new class of spatharokandidatoi. To the hypatoi (consuls) was added a new and higher class of disypatoi (his consules).

The protospatharioi were probably not instituted as an order before the end of the seventh century. In the seventh century, the Patricians and Hypatoi were the two most eminent ranks, and the dn'oe'n'dpxmv (ea: Praefectis) and O'TpaTTiltdTlll. were still very high dignitaries. In the course of the next two centuries these orders were rearranged and multiplied. The Patricians were divided into two ranks: the ordinary Patricians (nepLBAe-moi), who retained as their insigne (,Bpaflei‘ov) the ivory tablets, and those to whom the dignity of Proconsul was added (&véhirra-roi Kai na-rpi'moi) who had purple tablets. More important and interesting is the creation of a new and higher rank, that of ndyw-rpoi. This innovation was obviously connected with the abolition of the office of magister ofiiciorum. At first it was intended that there should be only one magister (as there was only one curopalates) ; very soon we find more than one, but throughout the ninth century the dignity was sparingly conferred.

In this place it will be convenient to add a note on the use of the terms z’iirpa-ros, M'ro's‘, and irayavés which occur in Philotheos. a'rrparos (means), to which reference has already been made, is used of persons who hear the titles of oflices of which they do not actually perform the duties (e.g. orparnyol, dw’nKpfiTaL, &c., see Phil. 71011, 7373, 5, 7). M16; is applied to persons who have orders (dignities bui flpafielwv), but are not ministers or oflicials; Phil. 72915 oi. M'roi. &vdénaroi, ib.22 Amfw na'rpixlwu (where there is question of an office being conferred on such), 73015. 1raycw6s1 seems to be a less technical term, and to

1 The nearest equivalent of nayawis is ‘ordinary’. Cp. Cer. 548,, fipe'pav 112. ordinary day (not a s ecial feast), 2342 xvpiam‘lv 1r. ordinary Sunday, 367 Zrrno

« AnteriorContinuar »