‘I hope to Almighty God that our celestial Majesty is destroying that man's hypocrisy’, Pope Gregory i wrote concerning Patriarch John iv the Faster of Constantinople in June 591.Footnote 1 He sent these words to his apocrisiarius, his permanent representative at the imperial court in Constantinople, urging him to oppose John's practice of referring to himself as ‘ecumenical patriarch’.Footnote 2 Yet in a separate letter to John, whose pride so angered the pope, Gregory wrote in kinder terms, saying that ‘Although I would very much like to have peace with all men, I would like it with you especially, whom I greatly love, that is if you are the same person I know.’Footnote 3 These twin approaches, one firm and the other gentle, highlight the complicated nature of political communication and begin to show the benefits that the apocrisiarial post provided for the papacy in late antiquity. During the pontificate of Gregory i, as throughout much of the period that apocrisiarii served in Constantinople (from about 450 to about 750), the apocrisiarii served as the fulcrum of papal-imperial communication. The apocrisiarii allowed the bishop of Rome to be in two places at once: in Rome, a distant Byzantine enclave, at work among his people, and in Constantinople, at the heart of the empire. Yet despite the unique nature of the office and its importance, its particulars, such as who served in this post, what they did, and how they did it, remain poorly understood.
Laurent Chevailler and Jean-Claude Genin's 1969 ‘Recherches sur les apocrisiaires’ attempted to provide the definitive study of the office. Chevailler and Genin examined its origins, its occupants and its functions across a poorly-documented and ill-defined history. Theirs remains the best work for understanding the who, the when and the why of the papal apocrisarii in Constantinople. For their analysis of the duties of the apocrisiarii, the authors relied heavily on a letter sent by the Byzantine emperor Constantine iv to Rome in 681 requesting the reintroduction of the office of papal apocrisiarius.Footnote 4 Though an excellent source, the letter provides only a limited perspective which the register of Pope Gregory i, the largest set of sources for understanding the office, can help to complete.Footnote 5 Gregory's own time in the capital serving as apocrisiarius (579–86) gave him first-hand knowledge of the demands and duties of the position, allowing him to correspond with those who filled that post under him with greater understanding.
The apocrisiarius occupied a distinctive place in the history of late antique diplomatic communications since the two parties – pope and emperor – were not members of two different political communities: both were Byzantines. In this context Andrew Gillett's study of late antique political communication is illuminating in that it notes the lack of terminological difference in contemporary sources between what he calls ‘internal’ embassies and ‘external’ ones, that is, those within a polity and those between polities.Footnote 6 Although ecclesiastical communication falls outside of Gillett's analysis, apocrisiarii fit neatly into this framework of internal political communication, having been modelled on civic legations. While sending formal delegations to the capital was a regular feature of political communication, Gillett suggests in passing that the ‘the institution of ambassadorial residence arguably originates in late antiquity with the papal apocrisiarii’.Footnote 7
The letters of Pope Gregory i help to resolve the argument: the apocrisiarii did function as resident ambassadors, dealing with internal political communication.Footnote 8 In carrying out the functions of their office, these men did more than deliver letters and repeat the words of their superior; the Roman Church charged them with conducting business in the capital on its behalf. Gregory's letters paint a picture of this institution that highlights the importance of personal relations in the conduct of this internal diplomacy. Gregory had met many of his correspondents in the capital and many of his requests drew upon those existing friendships.Footnote 9 The empire was not simply administered through impersonal mechanical procedure. Rather, where it could, it relied on networks of personal connections.Footnote 10
The term ‘apocrisiarius’ derives from the Greek verb αποκρινεσθαι, ‘to answer’. The earliest appearances of the word in the sources refer to messengers sent between two people in fixed locations.Footnote 11 Over time, the term gained more numerous and diverse referents. Early studies focused on the etymological origins of the term and attributed similar functions to any of its referents.Footnote 12 While apocrisiarii could be simple messengers in imperial, ecclesiastical or civil employment, others had a more permanent function. Some apocrisiarii attended to or travelled with a particular official, sending and receiving messages on his behalf, like a secretary. The term was not a title and so could refer to different types of emissaries.Footnote 13 However while the post of papal apocrisiarius evolved from a position as a mere messenger, by the early fifth century it had been transformed into a much more complex office.Footnote 14
Gregory's correspondence with the four men who served consecutively as apocrisiarii during his own pontificate – Honoratus, Sabinian, Anatolius and Boniface – helps to identify the dates of their tenure in the office.Footnote 15 The uneven coverage also provides clues, however scanty, about the careers of these men outside the office. The first letter of Gregory to Honoratus dates from June 591.Footnote 16 However, the Frankish king, Childebert ii, had addressed a letter ‘ad Honoratum apochrisarium’ in 584.Footnote 17 The dating of that letter suggests that Gregory's predecessor as pope, Pelagius ii, had chosen Honoratus as apocrisiarius before Gregory returned to Rome around 586, although it is not clear whether the Frankish king used the term in its specific or its more general sense.
In July 593 Gregory wrote to contacts in the East, introducing a new apocrisiarius, Sabinian.Footnote 18 This man is identified as the bearer of his own introductory letter, which he carried with him on his journey from Rome. The only information about his earlier life comes from the Liber pontificalis, which records that Sabinian was born in Tuscany in the town of Blera to a man named Bonus.Footnote 19 Sabinian, like his predecessor, was a deacon when he served his term in Constantinople.Footnote 20 He filled the post for four years, and a series of letters that Gregory dispatched to the East in June 597 indicates that Sabinian had returned to Rome around then.Footnote 21 The former apocrisiarius seems to have had urgent business following his return, perhaps as a member of a papal delegation to Gaul.Footnote 22
In a letter of June 595 Gregory had chided his apocrisiarius for failing to carry out his duties in a specific matter according to the pope's instructions. While Gregory's frustration possibly continued to increase over the following two years, Sabinian's reassignment did not mean papal disapproval of his performance.Footnote 23 He was not so bad at his job that it prevented him from being elected pope upon Gregory's death.
Other letters from June 597 introduced the new apocrisiarius, Anatolius, commending him to the care of various individuals in the capital.Footnote 24 Again, not much is known about this man outside of his duties in Constantinople. However, numerous papal letters attest to his diaconal rank.Footnote 25 Beginning in 590 he had served as vicedominus, administering the papal palace.Footnote 26 This position would have given Gregory the opportunity to know Anatolius well, especially considering the amount of time that Gregory seems to have been confined to bed by illness.Footnote 27 Anatolius served in Constantinople from 597 until his death, which likely occurred sometime late in 601.Footnote 28
In July 603, responding to a complaint by the new emperor Phocas, Gregory explained why Phocas had not found a papal representative in the capital (the unsettled situation surrounding the coup that brought Phocas to power in 602) and introduced Boniface who would rectify this lapse.Footnote 29 Gregory wrote to Boniface in November 603, four months before the pope's death. This suggests that Boniface's apocrisiariat continued through to the end of Gregory's pontificate.Footnote 30 Gregory knew his last apocrisiarius well, referring, in his explanatory reply to Phocas, to a long friendship with Boniface. Gregory described Boniface as ‘first among all the defenders’ of the Church, a defender who had been sent on missions to Milan, Ravenna, Sicily, Corsica and Corinth on behalf of the pope.Footnote 31 Thus he was both a close friend and a veteran papal agent when Gregory sent him to Constantinople. The date of Boniface's return from Constantinople is unknown, although he took his place among the successors of St Peter as bishop of Rome in 607.Footnote 32
This limited sample demonstrates that no single stepping-stone qualified an individual for appointment as an apocrisiarius.Footnote 33 Anatolius ran the episcopal palace in Rome, while Boniface was first defender. These were both prestigious positions probably held by men of considerable talent who could be trusted in high-profile jobs. Honoratus and Sabinian seem to have been clerics with less prominent positions, though lack of information about their previous posts does not mean that they were insignificant. Only Boniface is known to have carried out diplomatic missions prior to his appointment, though Honoratus may have done so as well.Footnote 34
Gregory's own career merits consideration here. Before Pelagius ii sent him to Constantinople, Gregory had probably served as the city prefect, thus holding the highest public office in Rome.Footnote 35 This demonstrates his legal and administrative experience and indicates his ability prior to going to Constantinople.
While the reasons for choosing a man to be apocrisiarius are difficult to ascertain, the reason for replacing him is even more obscure. A definitive answer may be given only in the case of one apocrisiariat: Anatolius died in post. Honoratus' election as archdeacon may have been the occasion for his recall, but this is far from certain.Footnote 36
Two of these four men would later become pope; Anatolius died before he had the opportunity. In fact, six of the thirteen papal apocrisiarii whose names are known in this period later occupied the throne of St Peter.Footnote 37 Whether the two positions – apocrisiarius and bishop of Rome – required similar abilities, or whether the experience gained in Constantinople provided an apocrisiarius with the skills and connections that made him suitable for election to the papacy, remains uncertain. Both are probably true. The considerable overlap in those who held these two positions should not be thought surprising considering the powerful combination of talent, experience and connections afforded by the opportunity of serving in the capital. This correlation also suggests that the apocrisiarii were among the brightest and best churchmen that Rome had at its disposal.
Based on these few cases, the answer to why apocrisiarii were recalled may be far more general than the sources themselves indicate. The longer an apocrisiarius remained in Constantinople, the less informed he would be about the will of the pope. While the Roman pontiffs corresponded with their apocrisiarii on a regular basis, it would be difficult for a pope fully to convey his desires to his representatives in writing. Perhaps popes would want to send a new representative – with a fresh understanding of official papal positions – every few years. A steady turnover of post-holders allowed papal representation in Constantinople to more closely mirror the current views of the Roman Church, and still enabled Rome to maintain a continuous presence in the capital. At the same time, this practice allowed several different men the opportunity to occupy a prestigious office.
What did these men actually do? Justinian's legislation (Novella vi) provides an important clue to the duties of the apocrisiarius.Footnote 38 These men were to reduce the confusion in Constantinople caused by an endless stream of churchmen arriving in the capital to petition the emperor.Footnote 39 The law aimed to reduce chaos at the imperial court, to streamline ecclesiastical appeals, and to discourage clerical absenteeism, all of which were also the goals of ecclesiastical councils.Footnote 40
Chevailler and Genin's study drew on Constantine iv's letter to emphasise three general categories of duty: to represent the pope in matters of dogma, in matters of canonical regulation, and in ‘a certain number of other affairs’. However, an analysis of Gregory's correspondence reveals a more nuanced, though complementary picture of an apocrisiarius’ duties.Footnote 41 In his letters, Gregory described the overall purpose of the apocrisiarial mission in several ways. In a letter to Patriarch John of Constantinople, Gregory told him that he had sent over ‘my most beloved son, the deacon Sabinian, in the footsteps of his masters, to provide answers to the Church’.Footnote 42 In another letter, he referred to Sabinian as ‘the deacon, who according to custom was attending at the feet of our most pious emperor for the Church responses’.Footnote 43 Gregory called Anatolius the one ‘I sent over to make reports to the Church in the royal city [Constantinople]’.Footnote 44 In these descriptions Gregory emphasises the twin aspects of the apocrisiarial mission: first, to defend the position of the Roman Church before both the emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople, and second, to sit in the emperor's presence and transmit his responses back to the Roman Church. Gregory's letters further nuance this basic definition.
Apocrisiarii in the ancient world were essentially messengers, and they retained this function during Gregory's pontificate. As official agents travelling between two parties, they brought with them letters or other goods that the two parties wished to exchange, even though they travelled primarily for other reasons. For example, in July 593, as Sabinian journeyed to Constantinople to begin his apocrisiariat, he brought with him letters from Gregory to papal contacts in the East: a letter to the patrician Priscus identified Sabinian as its bearer.Footnote 45 In June 595, Gregory wrote to Sabinian, ‘Would your Beloved [self] please take care to give [Maurice] the letter that I have sent now.’Footnote 46 This indicates the likelihood that the apocrisiarius received papal correspondence addressed to the emperor.
Sabinian again served as a messenger when he returned from Constantinople to Rome in 597, though this time he transported more than correspondence. Gregory dispatched several letters to Constantinople in that year with the new apocrisiarius, Anatolius, which indicate the receipt of certain gifts sent back with Sabinian. Gregory thanked the Emperor Maurice's sister, Theoctista, for the gift of thirty pounds of gold that she had sent ‘to be given for the ransoms of captives and to be paid out to the poor’.Footnote 47 Sabinian also returned with an unspecified amount of money to be used for the same purposes, sent by Theodore, the imperial doctor.Footnote 48 In addition, Gregory wrote to the priest Anastasius, thanking him for the gift of a relic, which arrived with the returning deacon.Footnote 49 Sabinian also had brought with him other letters, such as one from the bishop of Antioch.Footnote 50
Anatolius, who left Rome shortly after the arrival of Sabinian, took the replies to these letters back with him to Constantinople. He was probably the deacon to whom Gregory referred as the bearer of a letter of June 597 to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, which the pope probably sent through Constantinople.Footnote 51 Gregory also identified Boniface as the bearer of a letter sent to the capital in July 603.Footnote 52 He, too, likely played the role of messenger on his journey, carrying letters to Phocas, to the Empress Leontia and to the new Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyriacus.Footnote 53 Thus the apocrisiarii served as messengers as they travelled between Rome and Constantinople.
This task was by no means their primary responsibility, however. The apocrisiarii brought a wide variety of petitions before the emperor. One such concern involved Sabinian, bishop of Zara. Sabinian had been dealing with this, the case of the simoniacal consecration of Maximian of Salona.Footnote 54 Although Gregory noted that the emperor ‘does not usually involve himself in the cases of bishops’, the pope assured Bishop Sabinian that he had ‘given very detailed orders to our emissary’, and that ‘action is being taken that no opposition by anybody can either disturb or oppress you in any way’.Footnote 55
A letter to Marinianus, bishop of Ravenna, discussed another instance in which a bishop on the island of Caorle was deposed and replaced by a bishop consecrated by the schismatic Istrians. As a result of numerous canonical irregularities, the people of that island appealed to Gregory for redress. Gregory implored Marinianus to inform the emperor about the matter before noting that ‘we have also written this to our son Anatolius, to notify our most pious emperor’.Footnote 56
In 603 the pope asked his apocrisiarius, Boniface, to inform Emperor Phocas about a dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction on the island of Corcyra.Footnote 57 In this particular case the bishop of Euria had attempted to remove the castle of Cassiopas from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Corcyra and append it to his own.Footnote 58 The pope had forwarded a letter to Boniface which he had received from the bishop of Corcyra asking for papal intervention. In July of the same year Gregory wrote to Phocas, suggesting that the emperor would learn from the deacon whom he was sending to the capital of the troubles that he faced: specifically the danger posed by the Lombards: ‘For we cannot explain with any words that we could suggest, how we have been oppressed for the length of thirty-five years already (just imagine it!) by daily sword thrusts and by great incursions from the Lombards.’Footnote 59
Gregory also complained to the emperor about the use of the title ‘ecumenical patriarch’ by John iv of Constantinople and John's successor, Cyriacus. ‘None of my predecessors accepted this title’, wrote the pope, ‘because of course if one patriarch is called universal, the title is diminished for the rest of the patriarchs.’Footnote 60 Gregory sent letters regarding the matter to Maurice, to Maurice's wife, to John himself, to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria and also to his apocrisiarii.Footnote 61 He repeatedly forbade his apocrisiarii from celebrating mass with the patriarch on account of this.Footnote 62 After explaining his position on this issue, he wrote to Maurice: ‘But I have given a more detailed report to my emissary Deacon Sabinian … and following the request of the aforesaid deacon, Sabinian, my most pious Lordship [Maurice] should either deign to judge himself or put pressure on the man I have often mentioned [John].’Footnote 63 While Gregory sent personal letters to these men, he directed both of them to his apocrisiarius for a fuller explanation of his position.
Gregory also brought smaller matters before the emperor through his apocrisiarius. He wrote to Honoratus in 592 asking him to recommend a certain Lord Venantius for the diploma of ex-consul.Footnote 64 He informed Honoratus of Venantius' worthiness for the honour, instructing him to help him in any way possible to secure the title.
A quick review of the types of matters that Gregory requested his apocrisiarii to bring before the emperor shows a wide variety of concerns. They included matters of ecclesiastical organisation, the acquisition of personal honours, issues of canon law, protection of those oppressed by their leaders and the defence of individuals. Gregory petitioned the highest authority, the emperor, on issues that he could not resolve himself. The variety of cases offers a useful corrective to the reduction of papal-imperial relations to one or two major issues at any one time. While relief from the Lombards and the quarrel over the title ‘ecumenical patriarch’ have traditionally dominated discussion of this relationship, Gregory's letters show that the two men worked together on a variety of issues during this period.
Gregory used his apocrisiarii to bring matters before other important people in addition to the emperor and the patriarch. In February 601 the pope addressed the matter of the daughters of Lord Venantius, on behalf of whom Gregory had written to his apocrisiarius about acquiring honours. Venantius had fallen gravely ill and certain men were attempting to deprive his daughters, Barbara and Antonina, of their property while their father still lived. Gregory wrote to Bishop John of Syracuse that he had ‘taken care to write immediately to [his] most beloved son and deacon Anatolius, saying that he should be keen to have a talk with the glorious lady and patrician Rusticiana’ about this issue.Footnote 65 Interestingly, in the same month as Gregory wrote to John of Syracuse, he sent a letter to this Rusticiana, a well-to-do friend of Gregory in Constantinople, whose husband owned estates in Italy and Sicily. In this letter, Gregory mentioned nothing about the case of the Sicilian girls, preferring instead to have his apocrisiarius handle the matter.
In addition to bringing matters before the emperor, the apocrisiarii also listened. Gregory relied on them to keep him abreast of affairs in the imperial capital. His letters indicate the variety of information received in this way. In a letter to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregory said ‘For the same deacon [Anatolius], more than two years ago now, wrote to me that monks had come from the same region [of Jerusalem] to the city of Constantinople, making such inquiries as he was keen to ask how I felt.’Footnote 66 To the same patriarch Gregory wrote one month later that ‘Our common son and deacon Anatolius has notified me in his letters that in the royal city no Church affairs have been disturbed by secular cases, but some others have.’Footnote 67 So too did he write to Anatolius: ‘Your Beloved has written to me saying that our most pious Lordship [Maurice] is ordering a successor for my most beloved brother John, bishop of Prima Justiniana, because of the headaches he suffers.’Footnote 68 Another report of malady reached Gregory's ears regarding Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, leading him to offer condolences to the bishop: ‘For before this time, a letter from my emissary, Boniface, who is staying in the royal city, disturbed me greatly, as it said that your Holiness, so very sweet and charming to me, had endured the loss of your eyesight.’Footnote 69
Gregory's letters also mention his displeasure concerning matters of which his apocrisiarii were not informed, implying that he expected his representatives to be told the latest news. As he complained to the Empress Constantina, ‘But the bishop of Salona has been consecrated without the knowledge of my emissary and of me, something that has been done, which happened under no previous emperors.’Footnote 70 Thus the pope stayed abreast of affairs both in Constantinople and in the rest of the empire through his apocrisiarius. While many of Gregory's other contacts also relayed information concerning affairs around the empire, the apocrisiarii were ideally placed for this purpose.
So too were the apocrisiarii useful for reporting affairs in Rome to Constantinople. Gregory wrote to the Emperor Maurice, saying that ‘I have given a more detailed report to my emissary, Deacon Sabinian, as to what has been done recently in this city.’Footnote 71 He also wrote to his friend, the bishop of Mitylene, who was probably staying in Constantinople, saying that ‘Indeed the brevity of my letter prohibits me from describing the evils which I am suffering both externally and internally, but our common son, Deacon Sabinian, will reveal our wounds to your most charming Holiness for you to cure.’Footnote 72
Justinian's Novella vi suggests that a role proper to the apocrisiarial post was to coordinate the incoming traffic of clerics to the capital and represent them before the imperial throne.Footnote 73 Gregory's letters confirm that this was so. In July 599 he wrote to the bishop of Milan, Constantius, saying that he had sent a letter to the apocrisiarius, Anatolius, ‘to recommend your men, as you wanted’.Footnote 74 That letter, found next in Gregory's register, reads, in its entirety:
Our most reverend brother and fellow bishop, Constantius, hastening to send his men over to Constantinople for the sake of the benefit of his church, wanted them to be recommended to your Beloved. Therefore, as far as you can, with God's help please assist them in a reasonable way, wherever it proves necessary, and give them your support, so that while they are bolstered by your assistance, as they deserve, they may be less likely to suffer there, and our aforesaid brother may recognize the benefits accruing to his church, with your support.Footnote 75
A similar pair of letters shows that Gregory used the same arrangement for the bishop of Ravenna, allowing one to imagine that this was a regular practice.Footnote 76 In a request for aid in a different matter, Gregory urged Anatolius to ‘assist [visiting emissaries] so that with your help they may be less fatigued when they get there and may more easily obtain what is just’.Footnote 77
Other petitioners also seem to have been received by the apocrisiarius. The letter from the Frankish king Childebert ii appealed to Honoratus, citing his widespread notoriety and asking him to receive the accompanying legates from the king and assist their cause in strengthening the peaceful relationship between them and the Byzantines.Footnote 78 In another instance, Gregory wrote to Anatolius asking for his help in assisting the proconsul of Dalmatia, Marcellinus, who had supported a simoniacal bishop.Footnote 79 Marcellinus, who had since repented of his actions, was in Constantinople under investigation for his involvement in the matter. Gregory exhorted Anatolius that ‘when he comes to the royal city, you support him with total endeavour and total effort, and are keen to assist him with all your comforts, so that he should find things easier there … You will be keen to attend to him just as if he was our real son, and to bestow on him the affection of my love in every way’.Footnote 80
What did Gregory mean when he requested this support? While he never included precise instructions, clues may be identified in the letters of introduction that he dispatched to his acquaintances in Constantinople on behalf of his new apocrisiarii. To the physician Theotimus, Gregory wrote in August 593 that ‘I recommend to your Beloved the deacon Sabinian, who is coming there, seeking that you love our priests also with the love which you have for me.’Footnote 81 To his friend Narses, a count in Constantinople, Gregory wrote:
I pray also that your most charming Beloved may frequently visit my son, the deacon, Anatolius, whom I sent over to make reports to the Church in the royal city, and that, after the labours which he endures in secular affairs, he may find rest with you in the word of God, and wipe away the perspiration from his earthly toil, as it were, with a white napkin. Commend him to all the persons you know, although I know that, if he is known really well, he needs no commendation.Footnote 82
Permanent representation offered considerable improvements in timing and tact over diplomatic letters. Writing to Narses, Gregory assured him that he had asked his representative to bring a previously-discussed matter to the emperor ‘at an opportune moment’, because ‘one should not begin with complaints at the very beginning of one's correspondence’ with the emperor.Footnote 83 Gregory's apocrisiarius, however, could mention the issue at an appropriate time, increasing the likelihood of the appeal's success. Gregory used similar language in instructions sent to Honoratus in Constantinople in June 591 regarding the oppression of the residents of Sardinia by their duke, asking Honoratus to bring the matter before the emperor ‘at an appropriate time’.Footnote 84
In addition to instruction on which matters the apocrisiarii were to bring before the emperor, Gregory occasionally gave them specific instructions on how best to accomplish this. In writing to Boniface regarding the dispute on Corcyra, he says, ‘Therefore let your Beloved explain all this to his Piety [Phocas] diligently, and add constantly that this is totally wicked, totally unjust, totally illegal and extremely hostile to the sacred canons.’Footnote 85 Later in the same letter, he adds, ‘In this matter you must ensure that, if it can be done, he should also give the order himself.’Footnote 86 In another matter concerning a petition of Lord Venantius, Gregory instructed Honoratus, ‘But if you observe some difficulty in the same case, you ought to indicate also that he [Venantius] makes this demand through me.’Footnote 87
Apocrisiarial duties were carried out in public during the normal operation of the imperial court.Footnote 88 Gregory wrote to his friend, the imperial physician, concerning a law enacted by Maurice, whereby the emperor had forbidden those with public occupations or who were soldiers from becoming monks. The pope had written personally to the emperor on this matter, informing him that the law was contrary to the will of God, although he had obediently helped to enforce it. Yet to the physician, Theodore, Gregory wrote that
I have suggested to the same Lordship that this greatly upsets me. But would your Glory offer my suggestion to him privately, at an opportune moment? I do not want it to be given by my emissary in public, because you who serve him as a friend can say more openly and freely what is for the good of the soul.Footnote 89
This suggests that the apocrisiarii typically brought matters before the emperor during the course of public business. In this case, given Gregory's concern for being a loyal subject and for advocating as the successor of St Peter, perhaps he did not wish to air his grievances before the court, but rather remonstrate with the emperor in a private, pastoral way that preserved the appearance of obedience. Gregory sent this letter in August 593, only two months after dispatching Sabinian to the capital as his new apocrisiarius. Considering the importance of relationships in Gregory's diplomacy, he may have wished to appeal to an old friend with existing connections rather than working through a new man fresh on the scene.
While Gregory's letters confirm that the papal apocrisiarii served as messengers, gave and received responses to the emperor on behalf of the Roman bishop, and aided the activities of visiting clergy, they also reveal that these men served an additional function that has been under-appreciated in the scholarship. The apocrisiarius was more than the mouth and ears of the pope, more than a one-man greeting committee, and more than his letter-bearer or secretary. Gregory's letters show that the pope expected his apocrisiarii to show initiative in conducting business on his behalf, exhibiting good judgement and independence – both inside the capital and especially outside it. They were to investigate ecclesiastical matters, render judgements and solve problems. In doing so, they were to use their own judgement, rather than always waiting for Gregory's specific instructions.Footnote 90
In the case of the Lord Venantius, who had written to Gregory asking for aid in securing titles, Gregory instructed Honoratus to fulfil that request with care in order to reward Venantius and to eliminate the need for Gregory himself to get involved.Footnote 91 Here Gregory was allowing his apocrisiarius a certain amount of discretion in how to handle the matter. Similarly, the pope assured Bishop Sabinian of Zara that he had encouraged Anatolius to ‘do strictly and zealously whatever concerns the peacefulness of your Charity and of your sons’.Footnote 92 A letter of October 592 indicates that Honoratus had carried out a preliminary investigation into a dispute involving the city of Prima Justiniana before Gregory became involved. Gregory wrote to that city's bishop, ‘We wondered why you did not send over your men, to provide a reason for your judgement, as per the caution given to your church through an exchange of letters by our Deacon Honoratus.’ In that same matter, also involving John, the bishop of Larissa, Gregory noted, ‘And when the appeal was brought forward by his men, and when the other things which were done by your Fraternity were brought to our most pious emperor, a deputation was sent as we have said by Honoratus, deacon of our see, and by the papal secretary Sebastian, of glorious memory.’Footnote 93 Honoratus had the authority to investigate, correspond and send missions to resolve disputes on behalf of the Roman Church.
A letter of Gregory to Boniface of November 603 contains the most explicit reference to this independence. In discussing the case of the island of Corcyra, Gregory instructed his apocrisiarius to call the representative of the Corcyran Church to him, investigate the case and then to write to the offending bishop ‘concerning the chapters about which reason impels you’.Footnote 94 Here Gregory asks several times for Boniface to investigate matters on his own, indicating the direction in which he should proceed but allowing him to handle matters as he deemed appropriate. Envoys often had a measure of discretionary authority; even so, the apocrisiarii occupy a distinct place in the history of political communication. Their permanent residence, combined with discretionary agency, justifies identifying them as an early form of ambassador.
The apocrisiarii fit comfortably into the mechanics of information circulation in the late antique world. Many of their duties corresponded to those of any messenger or letter-carrier: they not only physically carried correspondence from one place to another but could help to explain matters more fully to the recipient.Footnote 95 They often carried gifts and relied on personal contacts.Footnote 96 Yet Gregory's letters show that the apocrisiarii were unique. They were not occasional, dispatched for narrowly-defined missions. Rather, they represented the bishop of Rome on a more permanent basis and possessed a greater degree of agency. Claire Sotinel has written on the relationship between information and political power in the Roman world, noting the importance of information in maintaining the unity of the empire.Footnote 97 During the pontificate of Gregory the Great, at the very least, the apocrisiarius served as a lynchpin in this endeavour.
These sources reveal the personal, pastoral nature of Gregory's internal diplomacy – as well as its complexity. His letters to his apocrisiarii and to John the Faster over the title ‘ecumenical patriarch’ show how Gregory sought to use his former friendship with his adversary to ensure a welcome for the very man whom the pope would use to upbraid him and petition the emperor to censure him. The concerns of the Christian Church and its relationship with the emperor were dependent upon relationships and personalities at the highest levels. The apocrisiarii helped to preserve these relationships and strengthened them when men who had lived in the Constantinople and had known the emperor and the patriarch personally later occupied the throne of St Peter. Gregory's letters bear witness to these relationships, which stand out even from the formalised niceties of diplomatic correspondence. Despite Gregory's dispute with Patriarch John, he could still draw upon his past relationship with him, asking him to welcome his new apocrisiarius ‘so that he at least finds that Lord John whom I knew in the royal city [Constantinople]’.Footnote 98
This emphasis on relationships does not suggest that the apocrisiarii eliminated the strain of contentious issues. The actual difference that they made can only be a matter for speculation. Over the course of the period when the apocrisiarii resided in Constantinople, relations between Rome and Constantinople became, broadly speaking, more antagonistic.Footnote 99 Certain popes, such as Vigilius and Martin, both of whom, like Gregory, were apocrisiarii before becoming pope, experienced troubled relationships with contemporary emperors. Gregory's prior relationship with John the Faster did not prevent him from refusing to allow his representatives to celebrate mass with him or result in a successful (from a Roman perspective) resolution to the dispute over John's title. Yet even if the apocrisiarii could not solve these intractable problems, Gregory's letters indicate the great number of smaller issues that the apocrisiarii probably were able to resolve. For every John the Faster, there were probably many Lords Venantius or Rusticiana's daughters. In these smaller matters, if not always in the bigger ones, the apocrisiarii improved the lives of the men, women and children who were in Gregory's pastoral care.
Assessing how unique was the pontificate of Gregory is no easy task – particularly regarding his employment of apocrisiarii. His unique abilities, the attributes which led to the preservation of his correspondence in the first place, oblige caution in extrapolating the realities of his pontificate to the whole the period, as though they were representative. Even so, they help to construct a model of an institution sorely lacking in documentary sources. When responding to the new Emperor Phocas in 602, Gregory wrote that ‘For as your Serenity did not find a deacon from the apostolic see to remain permanently in your palace, according to the ancient custom, this was not a sign of my own negligence but of a very heavy necessity.’Footnote 100 Gregory had used similar language eight years earlier, stating that his apocrisiarius was stationed at the imperial court ‘according to custom’.Footnote 101 These passages suggest that Gregory's employment of these men was not unique, even if their presence was not without interruption. Gregory's references suggest that these sources provide a tolerably representative picture of the apocrisiarial office.
Barriers to communication in the late antique world, where land transport was usually slow, sea transport was often interrupted, and both were unreliable, hindered the governance of distant parts of the empire, as Italy was by the late sixth century.Footnote 102 Rome's status as the ecclesiastical centre of the Byzantine West made the bishop of Rome a critical part of its administration. The letters of Gregory i reveal the variety of matters, falling on each side of what we would call the divide between sacred and secular, upon which Gregory's flock asked him to adjudicate. The division between secular and sacred, as we are so often reminded in studies of late antiquity, was not a clearly separated dichotomy.
The relationship between Rome and Constantinople, and indeed the situation in all of Italy, would change dramatically over the next several centuries. During that time the sparse historical record loses track of the apocrisiarii.Footnote 103 The fascinating question remains: what happened to these men and how did this office fit into the history of diplomatic institutions?Footnote 104
