Imágenes de páginas

Th. 380, 385, 388, 390). In the later period of Constantine’s reign we meet four—John Kurkuas, Kosmas, Romanos Saronites, and Romanos Musele (ib. 443). It seems to follow from Cer. 24 that in that period the number of a. was less than twelve. The text is 1;?) rdfu r131: re payirr'rpwv ml dufivmi'rwv fiyovv 113v ¢op015vrwv TOlJS‘ 5035mm Xpvo'oiiqbdv'rovs Aoipovs. This shows that there were not enough magistri to wear the twelve loroi, and that some of the anthypatoi were chosen to make up the number (the other anthypatoi appeared with the patricians as a second velum).

There is another piece of evidence which may tell in favour of the conclusion that there was a period in which the magistri were two in number. The repetition 6 pdylo'rpos, 6 pdyw-rpos in the text of Philotheos, 7272, would be explained if we may assume that it was taken from an older klétorologion compiled at a time when there were two magistri.

Two seals published by Schlumberger call for notice. One, of Isaac, warp1ix10v Kai poiywrpov, he ascribes t0 sixth—seventh century (Sig. 563); the other of John, warplm'tp Kai. payia'h'pqa, to eighthninth century. It seems probable that both seals date from the period when a. still designated an oflice and not an order of rank, and that Isaac was simply magister ofiiciorum. John, if his seal is as late as Schlnmberger thinks—not earlier I suppose than the middle of the eighth century—belongs to the period when there were only two magistri, and when the dignity had not yet been made an order of rank like the patriciate.

To sum up. Before the end of the reign of Leo III the oi‘fice of magister ofliciorum had been transformed; his special functions had been transferred to the Logothete of the Course, and other ministers ; and he was elevated to the position of head of the Senate and the ministerial world, representative of the emperor in his absence, 82c. The dignity was conferred 6L6 flpafielov, for life. He was called simply 6 pd'yw'rpos (as the a. 16m Odom 6¢¢. is usually termed by Theophanes). Perhaps at the same time, or perhaps soon afterwards, a second pciyw'rpos‘ was instituted, and the first was distinguished from him as 6 7rpwropd'yw'rpos'. This innovation was introduced before A. n. 768. I conjecture that the institution of the second F. is to be connected with the imperial absences from the city. On such occasions the presence of the a. in Constantinople was necessary, but the emperor may have found it inconvenient not to have a a. in his moving court. (Observe that in the 'n'epi 'raf. the emperor is accompanied by udyw-rpot, 48516.) This second p. would be on such occasions p. be 'npozréwov—the expression which Theophanes uses of the p.. of Artavasdos (4153). In the reign, probably, of Michael III, the dignity of a. began to be conferred on more than two ; and thus the pdyw-rpoi came to form a small order of rank. Within that grade the two I-ldyw'fpot (rfis‘ woAu-das) continued to function; and in the case of Stylianos Leo VI revived the original title pdyw'rpos‘ r651; d¢¢ixiwm In the middle of the tenth century, if we can trust Liutprand (Antapodosis, vi. 10)1—I am not quite confident that we can—there were as many as twenty-four magistri.

(15) (windy 'n'arptxla.

We have no material for determining the date of the origin of this title. The earliest (wan) ararpucia,2 of whom we hear on good authority, is Theoktiste, the mother of the Empress Theodora (Cont. Th. 90,). Antonina, according to the author of the l'Ié-rpta (ed. Preger, p. 254), was (mm-15 of Theodora (sixth century); but there does not seem to be any contemporary confirmation of this statement. The (man) na-rpm'a was the only lady who was 'n'a-rptxia in her own right, and the title might be translated, ‘mistress of the robes.’ The elaborate ceremony for conferring the dignity is described in C61‘. i. 50: it probably dates from the ninth century, and possibly from the joint reigns of Michael II and Theophilus, when, we may suppose, Theoktiste was invested.

(16) Kovpo'n'aAdrns‘.

In the early part of the fifth century curapalati was the title of officials of spectabilis rank, who were subordinate to the Castrensis, and whose duties seem to have concerned the material condition of the imperial palace. See Not. Dig., Or. 17. 5; C. Th. xi. 18. 1 (probably A. D. 412, see ed. Mommsen). At the court of Theodoric we find a curapalati of spectabilis rank, but apparently not in the ofiicium of a castrensis (there seems to have been no castrensis at Ravenna): Cass., Var. 7. 5. There is some reason for supposing that in the course of the fifth century at Constantinople a new curapalati was instituted, independent of the castrensis, and at least equal in importance to him. For in the reign of Justin I the granddaughter of a certain Nomos (or Oninos), a patrician, married the king of the Lazi, and N omos is described as Euro I<ovpo1raM11-iiw.3 It is not at all probable that an ordinary curapalati would have been created a patrician unless he had risen to some higher oflice, and in that case he would have been designated by that higher ofice. I infer that in the time of Anastasius, at latest, there existed a high official, entitled Curapalati, to be distinguished from the earlier subordinate curapalati (who was one of several). If this conclusion is right we can the more easily understand the action of Justinian, who, towards the end of his reign, exalted the dignity and gave it a new significance by conferring the title upon his nephew J ustin.1 The title was taken to mean that Justin was marked out to be the successor to the throne, and the dignity evidently did not involve any of the functions connoted by the name. Through jealousy, perhaps, Justinian did not care to create his nephew a Caesar, but Kovpo-n'aAd-ms was interpreted as equivalent. This is expressly said by Corippus (in laud. Just. i. 184- sqq.) :

1 Four magistri are mentioned under Constantine VII in Cont. Th. 443. Some of them were stratégoi.

’ {um-r’; must mean cingulo donata (Combefis, and Reiske, ii. 166), not ornatrix as Ducange thought. One seal of a (man) (Maria Melissene), of the Commenian epoch, is published by Sehlumberger, Sig. 607; she is simply {., not 5. 1r.

'‘ Chron. Pasch. 613, Theoph. 168,, ; cp. John Mal. 413.

par extans curis, solo diademate dispar,

ordine pro rerum vocitatus curapalati,

dispositu nam Caesar eras.

After this, and till the tenth century, the title curapalati, Kovpo'n'ahd'nys‘, was only bestowed on a relative of the emperor: and the patriarch Nicephorus (73) describes the post as rip: nerd Baorme’a n-pé-rnv tipxfiv (i. e. of course, when there was no Caesar). From the nature of the case it was, like Caesar, only occasionally conferred. The following is a list of the KOUPO‘ITG-Aéflll. till A.D. 900 :—

Emperor. Kuropalates.
Justinian I Justin (nephew): Corippus, loc. cit.,
Evagrius, 5, 1.

Maurice Peter (brother): Chron. Pasch. 694-6.
Phocas Domentziolos (nephew): Theoph. 292%.
Heraclius Theodore (brother) : Niceph. 7 .

Leo III Artavasdos(son-in-law): Theoph.395,2.2
Nicephorus I Michael (son-in-law) : Theoph. 492,.
Michael III Bardas (uncle) : Cont. Th. 1763.

Leo VI conferred the title on the Iberian king Adranases (De adm. imp. 199); it had been more than once in earlier times bestowed on Iberian princes. In the tenth century Nicephorus II created his brother Leo a Kovpo-n-dAa-rns; in the eleventh the title was no

‘ May the idea of this dignity have been derived from Persia? Cp. Theoph. Sim. 3. 18. 12.

’ A seal of Artavasdos is extant, Sig. 249 'ApmudaBg 1rarp[|xi'qi] xovp[o1m)\é'rg] xni Kd'tbfl] roii F 60¢[vh1iK-rov] B[amh4xm§ rid/mice].

longer confined to relatives of the Emperor (cp. the seals in Schlumberger, Sig. 490 sqq.).

A ceremony for the creation of a kuropalates is described in Cer. i. 45, p. 229 sqq. When this description was first written down there were two emperors, one of whom was still a boy (6 ampds). It may be conjectured that it refers to the creation of Michael by Nicephorus I and Stauracius. At the end of the chapter there is a notice to the effect that a kuropalates can be created (‘u n?» Z6619 by the Basileus, without a public ceremony. I conjecture that Bardas was thus invested, and that this additional notice dates from the reign of Michael III.

(17) vuflehfirnaos.

In the third century nobilissimus was the standing epithet of the title Caesar which the emperors conferred on natural or adopted sons (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.3 1141 and note). In the fourth century we find Jovian creating his child-son Valerian a vwflem’maos, but not Caesar; the epithet becomes an independent title (Philostorgius 8. 8). In the fifth century Constantine, the ‘tyrant’ of Britain and Gaul in the reign of Honorius, creates his eldest son, Constans, Caesar, and his second, Julian, vwfisMoo'Lpos‘ (Olympiodorus, fr. 12). Honorius created his child-nephew, Valentinian, nobilissimus (ib. 34), and afterwards V. was invested as Caesar at Thessalonica before he was crowned Augustus at Ravenna (ib. 46). Nobilissimus is thus a title lower than Caesar, but confined to the emperor’s family. Justinian ‘ introduced the new title of kuropalates to do duty for nobilissimus or Caesar, but in the eighth century Constantine V revived the dignity of vwflekrio'mos'. In A.D. 768 he created his second and third sons Caesars, and his fourth voBeMmaos' (Theoph. 444) : afterwards also his fifth son (ib. 4502) : and the sixth received the same dignity from Leo IV (ib.).

A description of the ceremony performed on the first of these occasions is described in Cer. i. 44 (the mention of two Caesars proves this, as Diehl has shown). As to the insignia there is a discrepancy between Cer. and Theoph. The latter says that the vo/S. was invested with a XAaIva Xpvo‘fi and 6 aréqaavos. In Cer. 229 we read that his Xaamig is not purple like that of the Caesar but Kdxxwos‘, and o're'qbavov 01’; mpirlflemi. Philotheos says that the insignia are XL-nbv if dhovpyt'fios Xpvodderos‘ Kai. Xhapn‘ls Kai. {aivm It is clear, then, that Theoph. has made two mistakes ; he has confounded the XAa'iva

1 He seems himself to have borne the title under his uncle; cp. Marcellinu

sub A. 1). 527. Women sometimes received the dignity, e. g. Galla Placida, c. 1. L. 15, 7153.

M 3—2

- .4" .

or Xhapuis with the tunic which was Xpvao'Oe-ros, and he erroneously supposed that the vwfiehfimpos was crowned like the Caesar.

(18) Ka'io'ap.

For the Caesar title, as a promise of succession under the Principate, see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.~°' 1140. After J ustinian’s reign we find it conferred on Tiberius by Justin II; on Germanus and Maurice by Tiberius II; on Constantine junior by Heraclius; on David and Marinus by Heraclius ; on Christophorus and Nicephorus by Constantine V ; on Alexios Musele by Theophilus; on Bardas by Michael III. The only case I know (later than the third century) of the elevation to this rank of one who was not a near relative (by birth, adoption, or marriage) of the emperor is that of Patricius, son of Aspar, who was created Caesar by Leo I.

From Theodosius I it was the invariable practice of the emperor, if he had a son, to create him a colleague (Basileus and Augustus). Hence the title Caesar was rarely conferred. Justin II and Tiberius II conferred it to mark out their successors, but after Maurice it was only conferred on persons who might, in certain events, succeed. Heraclius and Constantine V bestowed it on younger sons; Theophilus on a son-in-law; Michael III, who was childless, on an uncle.

The ceremony which accompanied the elevation of the sons of Constantine V is described in Cer. i. 43.

C. OFFICES (ai Bid Ad'yov dft'at).

The administrative officials are grouped by Philotheos in seven classes: I. o‘rpa'myoi, II. oope'a'nxot, III. xprraE, IV. aexpe'rtxoi, V. orlpoxpdrat, VI. G'rpa'rdpxat, VII. various (dfiat stoma‘) ; and it will be convenient to take them in his order.

The use of the term 6¢¢u<uiluot, which frequently occurs in his pages, has not, so far as I know, been precisely explained. But he supplies the material for determining its denotation. In early times ofliciales seems to have been applied only to the members of the oflicium of a minister, but not to the minister himself. The Master of Ofiices, or the Count of the Sacred Largesses, would not have been called an oflicialis. In the time of Philotheos, it was applied to the ministers as well as to their subordinates.1 And it was applied to all the functionaries holding ofiice or command, with the exception of the a'rparnyoi. This can be proved from the following passages.

' Speaking of the posts in the stafl's and bureaux of the high officials, Philotheos (716') says that these dignities Kfll aim‘: d¢¢lma 6|/opu'{ovrm.

« AnteriorContinuar »