No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Papal Apocrisiarii in Constantinople during the Pontificate of Gregory i, 590–604
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2015
Abstract
From the fifth through to the eighth century an ecclesiastical official, the apocrisiarius, streamlined the effective governance of both Church and Empire by serving as the pope's permanent representative at the imperial Byzantine court. The letters of a former apocrisiarius, Pope Gregory i, serve as the best sources for uncovering the duties of this office and its benefits to the Church and the Empire. Investigating this office under Gregory emphasises the independent ambassadorial mandate given to these men and highlights the vital role of personal relationships in the conduct of imperial business.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015
References
1 Gregory i, Sancti Gregorii Magni registrum epistolarum, ed. Dag Norberg, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina cxl, cxlA, Turnhout 1982, v.45. When providing quotations, I often use the respected translation contained in The letters of Gregory the Great, trans. John R. C. Martyn, Toronto 2004. However, in several instances I have used my own translation and have provided the original Latin.
2 Patriarch John iv used this term to assert that he was the universal patriarch, matching his authority in the Church with Constantinople's position as the centre of the Byzantine (and therefore Christian) world: Gregory i, Registrum, v. 41, 45.
3 Ibid. iii.52; Letters of Gregory the Great, 3.52. Studies of Pope Gregory i in English include Bronwen Neil and Matthew Dal Santo (eds), A companion to Gregory the Great, Leiden 2013; John Moorhead, Gregory the Great, London 2005; R. A. Markus, Gregory the Great and his world, Cambridge 1997, and Gregory the Great: a symposium, South Bend 1995; Carol Straw, Gregory the Great: perfection in imperfection, Berkeley 1988; and Jeffrey Richards, Consul of God: the life and times of Gregory the Great, London 1980.
4 J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Florence 1759–8, xi.717D; Laurent Chevailler and Jean-Claude Genin, ‘Recherches sur les apocrisaires: contribution à l'histoire de la representation pontificale (ve–viiie s)’, in Studi in onore di Giuseppe Grosso, Turin 1970, 432.
5 Pierre Blet provides a more detailed listing of the references to Gregory's apocrisiarii in his letters than do Chevailler and Genin, although he shies away from drawing conclusions: Histoire de la représentation diplomatique du saint siege des origines à l'aube du XIXe siècle, Vatican City 1982.
6 Andrew Gillett, Envoys and political communication in the late antique West, 411–533, Cambridge 2003, 6. Gillett eschews the term ‘diplomacy’, with its modern connotations of national sovereignty, in favour of ‘political communication’, by which he means ‘formal contact between parties of various levels of authority concerning public matters’.
7 Ibid. 6 n.12. Hartmann Grisar and Luigi Magi have both contributed to the debate on whether apocrisiarii should be seen as ambassadors. Grisar stops short of attributing to them the same legal power as medieval papal legates: Roma alla fine del mondo antico, trans. Angelo Mercati, ii, Rome 1930, 421–2. Magi, on the other hand equates them with ambassadors: La Sede romana nella corrispondenza degli imperitori e patriarchi bizantini, Louvain 1972, 6–8.
8 Gillett, Envoys, 6.
9 For a discussion of Gregory's contacts in Constantinople see Matthew Dal Santo, ‘Gregory the Great, the empire and the emperor’, in Neil and Dal Santo, Companion, 60–2. Gregory's most high-profile friendship was with the Emperor Maurice, who chose him to be his son's godfather.
10 Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil highlight the role played by personal connections in petitioning in late antique communications: Crisis management in late antiquity (410–590 CE), Leiden 2013, 195–6.
11 Jules Pargoire, ‘Apocrisiare’, in Fernand Cabrol and Henri LeClercq (eds), Dictionnaire d'archeologie chrétienne et de liturgie, i/2, Paris 1924, 2537–55.
12 See ibid. and Emereau, A.. ‘Apocrisiarius et apocrisiariat’, Echos d'Orient xvii (1914–15), 289–97Google Scholar.
13 Chevailler and Genin, ‘Recherches’, iii. 363. Gregory uses the term to refer to Roman legates to Ravenna: Gregory i, Registrum v.11, 15; ix.4 4; to those from Ravenna, v.16; from Cyriacus, vii. 30, 31; from Carthage, ii.40; from Istria, ix.162; and from Sardinia, ix.203.
14 Gregory did not use the term apocrisiarius in his letters, relying instead on its Latin equivalent responsalis. Often, though, he referred to them as ‘our common son and deacon’ (‘noster communis filius diaconus’) or ‘our most beloved son and deacon’ (‘dilectissimus filius noster diaconus’). In many cases he simply called them ‘deacon’.
15 Pierre Blet suggests that more than one apocrisiarius may have been working in the capital at one time since Gregory used the plural on several occasions when referring to his apocrisiarii: Histoire, 41. However, this probably results from an imprecise use of the term, which could refer to different types of envoys, than to more than one permanent representative at a time.
16 Gregory i, Registrum, i.47.
17 Childebert ii, ‘Epistula ad Honoratum Apochrisarium’, MGH, Epistolae Austrasiacae, Berlin 1842, 32.
18 Gregory i, Registrum, iii.51.
19 Le Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, Paris 1886–92, i. 315; ‘Life of Sabinian’ , in Liber pontificalis: the book of pontiffs, trans. Raymond Davis, Liverpool 2000, 64.
20 Gregory i, Registrum, iii.51, 52, 65; v.6, 37, 39, 43, 44; vii.23, 25, 29, 31. Honoratus is called deacon in i.6, 47; ii.49; iii. 6, 7.
21 Ibid. vii.23, 25, 29, 31.
22 J. N. D. Kelly, The Oxford dictionary of the popes, Oxford 1986, 68.
23 Letters of Gregory the Great, 5.45. Maurice had written to Gregory asking him to allow the title. Gregory admonished Sabinian for allowing Patriarch John to convince the emperor that his title could be permitted. Kelly used this evidence to suggest papal displeasure with Sabinian's apocrisiariat: Oxford dictionary, 68. Kelly acknowledges that Sabinian then went on official business to Gaul.
24 Gregory i, Registrum, vii.27, 28.
25 Ibid. vii.27, 28; viii.24; ix.187, 188, 190, 202, 237; x.14, 21, 25.
26 Ibid. i.11.
27 Richards, Consul of God, 74.
28 Gregory had written to Anatolius earlier in 601. In January 602 he referred to his death in a separate letter: Registrum, xi.29; xii.6.
29 Ibid. xiii .39.
30 Ibid. xiv. 8.
31 Ibid. xiii. 39; Letters of Gregory the Great, 13.39. See also Gregory i, Registrum, viii.16. In the papal administration, the defenders of the Church, as their name suggests, worked to protect the interests of the Church, particularly of the poor, though in reality they were employed in a wider variety of roles as ‘executive agents of papal will’: Jeffrey Richards, The popes and the papacy in the early Middle Ages, 476–752, London 1979, 292.
32 Liber pontificalis, i. 316; ‘Life of Boniface iii’, Liber pontificalis: the book of pontiffs, 64.
33 Andrew Gillett notes the absence of regularised criteria for choosing legates for missions of political communication: Envoys, 231–8.
34 See Richards, Consul of God, 73.
35 Ibid. 30–1.
36 For the election of Honoratus as archdeacon see Gregory i, Letters, appendix iii, especially n. 5 which suggests a revised date, placing this event after December 593. This should be seen as a correction to the convoluted discussion in Richards, Consul of God, 73–4. One of Gregory's later letters refers to him as archdeacon, a rank he probably received after returning from Constantinople: Registrum, v.44.
37 Chevailler and Genin, ‘Recherches’, 419. These men were Vigilius, Pelagius, Gregory i, Sabinian, Boniface ii and Martin.
38 Corpus juris civilis: novellae, ed. Rodolf Schoell and Wilhelm Kroll, 10th edn, iii, Berlin 1997, vi, cxxiii.
39 Novella, vi, 2, 3.
40 See Chevailler and Genin, ‘Recherches’, 377–83, esp. p. 380 n. 56. Canon viii of the Council of Sardica (343), for example, stipulates that a bishop's petition to Constantinople must be brought by a deacon. However, Claire Sotinel observes Rome's indifference to using deacons to bear letters to the capital during late antiquity: ‘La Circulation de l'information dans les églises’, in La Circulation de l'information dans les états antiques: actes de la table ronde: la circulation de l'information dans les structures de pouvoir antiques, Institut Ausonius, Pessac, 19–20 janvier 20, Bordeaux 2006, 192–3. She notes that between 312 and 604, of the 135 people identified as bearing messages to the East from Rome, only fourteen were deacons.
41 Chevailler and Genin, ‘Recherches’, 433.
42 Gregory i, Registrum, iii.52; Letters,3.52.
43 Idem, Registrum, v.41; Letters, 5.41.
44 Idem, Registrum, vii.27; Letters, 7.27.
45 Idem, Registrum, iii.51.
46 Idem, Registrum, v.45; Letters, 5.45.
47 Idem, Registrum, vii.23; Letters, 7.23.
48 Idem, Registrum, vii.25.
49 Ibid. vii.29.
50 Ibid. vii.24.
51 Ibid. vii.31.
52 Ibid. vii.41.
53 For the letter to Phocas see ibid. xiii.39; to Leontia xiii.40; to Cyriacus xiii.41; to Eulogius xiii.42, 43; to John xiii.38, 45.
54 Ibid. vi.3.
55 Ibid. iv.20; viii.11; Letters, 4.20, 8.11.
56 Idem, Registrum, ix.156; Letters, 9.156.
57 Idem, Registrum, xiv.8.
58 See ibid. xiv.7. At this time, Corcyra and the rest of Greece were subject to the bishop of Rome and not to the patriarch of Constantinople.
59 Ibid. xiii.39; Letters, 13.39.
60 Idem, Registrum, v.41; Letters, 5.41. The third canon of the second ecumenical council at Constantinople in 381 had afforded the see of Constantinople the second place of primacy after Rome. This ranking was a matter of honour, however, and did not denote the authority of one over the other.
61 For the letter to Maurice see idem, v.37; for the letter to Constantina, v.39; for the letter to John, iii.52; for the letter to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, v.41.
62 Ibid. v.45.
63 Ibid. v.37; Letters, 5.37.
64 Idem, Registrum, ii.49.
65 Ibid. xi.25; Letters, 11.25.
66 Idem, Registrum, x.14; Letters, 10.14.
67 Idem, Registrum, x.21; Letters, 10.21.
68 Idem, Registrum, xi.29; Letters, 11.29.
69 Idem, Registrum, xiii.43; Letters, 13.43.
70 Idem, Registrum, v.39; Letters, 5.39.
71 Idem, Registrum, v.37; Letters, 5.37.
72 Idem, Registrum, v.43; Letters, 5.43.
73 Novella, vi.
74 Gregory i, Registrum, ix.187; Letters, 9.187.
75 Idem, Registrum, ix.188; Letters, 9.188.
76 For Gregory's letter to Marinianus of Ravenna see Registrum, ix.189, and for the letter commending agents of the church of Ravenna to Anatolius see ix.190.
77 Idem, Registrum, ix.202; Letters, 9.202.
78 Childebert ii, ‘Epistula’.
79 Gregory i, Registrum, ix.237.
80 Ibid. ix.237; Letters, 9.237.
81 Idem, Registrum, iii.65; Letters, 3.65.
82 Idem, Registrum, vii.27; Letters, 7.27. This fits well with Gillett's description of the reception of envoys in the fifth and sixth centuries: Envoys, 243–4.
83 Gregory i, Registrum, i.6; Letters,1.6.
84 Idem, Registrum, i.47; Letters,1.47.
85 Idem, Registrum, xiv.8; Letters,14.8.
86 Ibid.
87 Idem, Registrum, ii.49; Letters, 2.49.
88 For Byzantine court ceremony in late antiquity see Gillett, Envoys, 244–9.
89 Gregory i, Registrum, iii.64; Letters, 3.64.
90 Chevailler and Genin note that the apocrisiarii were able to exercise a certain level of initiative, but they do not explore this essential feature of their mission: ‘Recherches’, 444.
91 ‘Et quia easdem cartas emere ut dixi paratus [est], nec ualde necesse est ut ex me aliquid serenissimis principibus dicatur. Sed magis ex se agat dilectio tua, quatenus, oblatis in sacella consuetudinibus, honores mereatur accipere. Si quid tamen potueris mitius agere, maximam de eo mercedem habes’: Gregory i, Registrum, ii.49.
92 Ibid. viii.24; Letters, 8.24.
93 Idem, Registrum, iii.7; Letters, 3.7.
94 ‘Ideoque praedictae ecclesiae responsalem uenire ad te facito atque causam ipso praesente cognosce et de capitulis quibus te ratio mouerit fratri et coepiscopo nostro Eusebio scribe’: idem, Registrum, xiv.8. Eusebius was archbishop of Thessalonica.
95 See, for example, Michele R. Salzman, ‘Travel and communication in the letters of Symmachus’, in Linda Ellis and Frank L. Kidner (eds), Travel, communication, and geography in late antiquity, Aldershot 2004, 81.
96 Neil and Allen, Crisis management, 195, 198.
97 Claire Sotinel, ‘Information and political power’, in Philip Rouseau (ed.), A companion to late antiquity, Oxford 2009, 125–38.
98 Gregory i, Registrum, iii.52; Letters, 3.52.
99 For a comprehensive description of this trend see Thomas F. X. Noble, The republic of St Peter: the birth of the papal state, 680–825, Philadelphia 1984, at pp. 1–60.
100 Gregory i, Registrum, xiii.39; ‘antiquam consuetudinem’: Letters, 13.39.
101 ‘iuxta morem’: idem, Registrum, v.41.
102 Claire Sotinel provides details in ‘How were bishops informed? Information transmission across the Adriatic Sea in late antiquity’, in Ellis and Kidner, Travel, 65–6.
103 For apocrisiarii in the period following Gregory's pontificate see Chevailler and Genin, ‘Recherches’, and Blet, Histoire.
104 See Judith Herrin, ‘Constantinople, Rome and the Franks’, in Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (eds), Byzantine diplomacy, Aldershot 1992, 93–4; Donald E. Queller, The office of ambassador in the Middle Ages, Princeton 1967, 6; Mattingly, Garrett, ‘The first resident embassies: medieval origins of modern diplomacy’, Speculum xii (1937), 423–39Google Scholar; and Noble, Republic of St Peter, 239.