¹ On the continuity of administration after A. D. 476 see A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602 (Oxford 1964) 248ff., 253ff.; E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire (Paris 1949) 2.41ff., 119ff.; W. Ensslin, Theoderich der Grosse (Munich 1947) 157ff.Google Scholar

² Anonymus Valesianus 60: ‘Militiam Romanis sicut sub principes esse praecepit.’Google Scholar

³ See especially Jones, op. cit. 174f. on the concentration of power in the hands of military leaders in the West and 1027–1031 on the military crisis and its effect on the destinies of both halves of the empire.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. 341ff. for the emergence of the magistri militum as the strongest force in government. See also the earlier and basic studies of W. Ensslin, ‘Zum Heermeisterambt des spätrömischen Reiches, Klio 23 (1929–30) 306-352; 24 (1930–31) 102-147, 467-502; and his ‘Der konstantinische Patriziat und seine Bedeutung in 4. Jh.,’ Melanges Bidez (Brussels 1934) 361-376.Google Scholar

⁵ Originally noticed by Ensslin, Klio 24 (1930–31) 500.Google Scholar

⁶ Coll. Avell. epp. 29-32.Google Scholar

⁷ Nov. Val. 17.Google Scholar

⁸ Nov. Maior. 11.Google Scholar

⁹ Cod. Theod. 15. 14. 14.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Nov. Val. 36.Google Scholar

¹¹ Provincial embassies to Aetius: Hydat. Val. 7; his treaty ceding Pannonia to the Huns: Priscus frg. 7; embassy of Ricimer to Gaiseric: Priscus frg. 29, Apoll. Sid. Carm. 2.356. In all these cases infringement on the competence of the Master of the Offices is probably implied.Google Scholar

¹² See Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theoderic,’ JRS 52 (1962) 126–130.Google Scholar

¹³ See Stein, op. cit. 2.121f., who has collected the evidence for comites Gothorum and has estimated the importance of their infringement on Roman administration.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Jones, Later Empire 103, 368f., 575-84 and passim has most recently commented on the powers of the office.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Jones, ibid 578ff. with whom I disagree on certain points concerning ranks and functions of principes officiorum. See my ‘Chiefs of Staff and Chiefs of the Secret Service.’ Byz. Zeit. 57 (1964) 78-105, whose conclusions regarding the identity of comitiaci and officium nostrum should be revised in the light of Jones’ recent research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Boak, A. E. R., The Master of the Offices in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empires (New York 1924) 42f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Cassiod. Var. 6. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Var. 6. 6. 6 would indicate that actually acquired new ones locally at Ravenna, such as supervision over markets and prices in the city. But original acquisition of this power may well be earlier than Theoderic's reign and possibly dates from the removal of the Court to North Italy.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Var. 6. 6. 7-8 and 11.35 seem to show that the traditional organization of the ministry of the agentes in rebus with an adiutor at its head and promotion of retiring agents to the chief position in prefectural staffs was maintained. But the organization and rewards of these bureaucrats shed no light on their activities.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cass. Var, 6. 6. 1: ‘ipse insolentium scholarum mores procellosos moderationis suae prospero disserenat.’ Procop. HA 26.27f. speaks of the disbandment of the corps, which is also commented on by Jones, Later Empire 256.Google Scholar

²¹ Cassiod. Var. 6. 6. 4. The most recent mention of an agens in rebus acting in a diplomatic capacity seems to be in Olympiodorus frag. 31 (A. D. 416).Google Scholar

²² Jones, Later Empire, 342.Google Scholar

²³ Cassiod. Var. 6. 6. 3. See infra, at n. 51. A comparison of this formula with the section of the Notitia Dignitatum (Oc. 9. 40ff.) dealing with his staff reveals interesting discrepancies. Cassiodorus ignores, for example, the corps of interpretes omnium gentium serving the Master of the Offices. Nor does he allude to control over the arsenals, part of the Masters’ jurisdiction of an earlier day. In spite of Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 6. 399, and Boak, op. cit. 43, Cassiod. Var. 17 and 18 cannot be taken as evidence pertaining to the chain of command in which arsenals operated. On this point see E. Stein, Untersuchungen über das Officium der Prätorianerpräfektur seit Diokletian (2nd ed. Amsterdam 1962) 70f.Google Scholar

²⁴ Marini, Papiri Diplomatici no. 138.Google Scholar

²⁵ Var. 11.35.Google Scholar

²⁶ Var. 5. 5. 4: officium magisteriae dignitatis. Var. 4. 47. 2: vicis agentes (magistri officiorum), on whom more below, at n. 52.Google Scholar

²⁷ On the comitiaci, Saiones, and their functions, see the evidence cited in the comments, of Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 6. 410ff., 473; Ensslin, Theoderich 166f.; E. Stein, Histoire 2.122f. 125; and Jones, Later Empire 254ff., 265.Google Scholar

²⁸ Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 6. 406ff.Google Scholar

²⁹ Seeck, O., ‘Comitiaci,’ RE 4 (1901) 715f.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. The name occurs more frequently and earlier in the Greek transliteration μαγιστριανός, and then only in unofficial sources. The earliest occurrence of magisterianus in Latin appears to be in a letter of Pope Leo the Great to the eastern Court, PL 54.942 (ep. 95). Latin edicts in the Code of Justinian call them invariably agentes in rebus. The expression μανιστριανός occurs in Cod. Iust. 12.60. 7.2 (a constitution written, however, in Greek) and occasially in Justinian's Novels.Google Scholar

³¹ Seeck, ibid. There is other evidence for the activities of officiales magistri militum in the fifth century, who, of course, were not always called comitiaci. See Coll. Avell. ep. 30 (p. 76. 11ff) with the comments of Ensslin, Klio 24 (1930–31) 500; CIL 6. 8406, a scriniarius inl. patriciae sedis, whom Ensslin, Klio 24, 499, has convincingly shown to belong to the Master of the Soldiers. For a cancellarius of the magister praesentalis Sigisvultus see Ensslin, loc. cit. 483 n. 3 and 500 n. 4. There is also the comes Rhodanus, who carried mail for Pope Leo (ep. 125) in PL 54.1069, in A. D. 453, described by Leo as a ‘subadiuva et domesticus filii nostri viri illustrissimi Asparacii.’ Asparacius is identified by Sundwall, Weströmische Studien (Berlin 1915) 51 (no. 42) as an otherwise unknown magister officiorum and is followed in this view by E. Stein, Officium 30. But undoubtedly Aspar, the important Master of the Soldiers in the East, is meant.Google Scholar

³² On the comitiva magistri militum see Ensslin, Klio 23 (1929–30) 322f.Google Scholar

³³ ‘Untersuchungen zur spätrömischen Verwaltungsgeschichte,’ Rhein. Mus. 74 (1925) 390f. and Histoire 2. 122f. followed by Ensslin, Theoderich 165ff. 199f. Even Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 6. 408 n. 4, had to admit that in certain cases the staff called officium nostrum referred to the ministry of the comes et magister utriusque militiae. In defense of the above scholars it must be admitted that Cassiodorus could conceivably have used the term officium nostrum to mean two very different things. Such imprecision is perhaps unlikely in modern bureaucratic parlance, but homonymous offices having very different areas of competence were not unusual in late Roman government, and such confused and confusing terminology survives in the sources with sufficient frequency to complicate their identification. For example, there is confusion between usage of terms like adiutor and primiscrinius, which can either be synonymous or can denote different officials on the same staff, on whom see A. H. M. Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford 1960) 215f.Google Scholar

³⁴ Histoire 2.123 n. 1. But Stein's objections disappear if comitiaci and agentes in rebus co-existed and competed, as will appear below.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cassiod. Var. 2.28 and 6.13, with Stein's comments, Zeit. der Sav. Stift., Rom. Abt. 41 (1920) 224ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cassiod. Var. 2. 28. 4.Google Scholar

³⁷ Stein, Zeit. der Sav. Stift., 224.Google Scholar

³⁸ See n. 20, supra. Google Scholar

³⁹ Jones, JRS 52 (1962) 128f. and his Later Empire 254 f. with n. 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Stein, Zeit. der Sav. Stift., 226.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. 224ff.Google Scholar

⁴² Jones, Later Empire 599 notes the parity of rank enjoyed by comitiaci with another important ministry, that of the praefectiani. Google Scholar

⁴³ Cod. Iust. 12. 54. 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cod. Theod. 6. 13. un. See also Jones, Later Empire 694.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ But not exactly comparable, since the retiring principes in the West, while receiving the comitiva primi ordinis, were assimilated not to military tribuni praetoriani but to civilian magistri scriniorum. See Cassiod. Var. 6. 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Jones, Later Empire 597ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Stein, Officium der Prätorianerpräfektur 31ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The Notitia Dignitatum does not state that the principes magistri militum were promoted de eodem officio, as is the case with many other officials. But the control exercised over other military officia by the magister utriusque militiae (See Jones, Later Empire 174f. commenting on Cod. Theod. 1. 7. 3) suggests that such masters controlled their own chiefs of staff and that they were promoted from within their own ministries.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ This is implied by terminology used by Cassiodorus in Var. 11. 26, where there appears a sextus scholarius (i. e. the sixth-ranking man of a schola). This suggests that officiales could be named not only according to their function but also in relation to their position n the schola where they were enrolled. See Stein, Officium der Prätorianerpräfektur 33f.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Var. 5.54: ‘quam summam protinus exactam, sicut iam anterioribus edictis constitutum est, per officium magisteriae dignitatis cursui proficere debere censemus.’Google Scholar

⁵² Var. 4.47.2: (Instructions to a Saio): ‘Atque ideo in urbe Roma ordinatione praefecti praetorio et magistri officiorum, quousque utilitas publica suaserit, te residere censemus, ut nullum Gothorum vel Romanorum exinde egredi patiaris, nisi quos praedictarum dignitatum vicis agentes forte dimiserunt … § 6: His autem, qui supra scriptarum dignitatum vicibus in urbe praesunt, te observare praecipimus, quatenus excessus, qui ab illis detectus fuerit exsecutione tua supra dicta condemnatione puniatur. Si quos autem intemperans culpa perculerit, collectam quantitatem per vices agentes mancipibus mutationum volumus applicari, ut cursualis tractus inde habeat remedium, unde hactenus sumpsit. Var. 5. 5. 2: Atque praefecti praetorio et magistri officiorum ubi pro publica utilitate delegerint ordinatione locatos, excedentium improbam praesumptionem tali te praecipimus districtione resecare.’ This last phrase undoubtedly refers to praefectiani and magistriani supervising the public post. The connection between Var. 4. 47 and 5. 5 was correctly surmised by Hodgkin, Letters of Cassiodorus 268. It might be noted that there is no evidence in these or other variae for a vicarius or representative of the Master of the Offices in Rome such as the Praetorian Prefect had, although Var. 5. 5 is sometimes cited to support such a belief. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 6. 400 and 408 conceived of the vicarius principis cardinalis comitiaci officii as such and was followed in that belief by Boak, op. cit. 43, and by Ensslin, ‘Vicarius,’ RE 16A (1956) 2017. 30f. The evidence for this view disappears if the officium comitiacum had nothing to do with the Master of the Offices.Google Scholar

⁵³ Stein, Histoire 2, 123, n. 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ So, rightly, Ensslin, Theoderich 167.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ensslin, ‘Praefectus Praetorio,’ RE 22 1954, 2469. 21ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ibid. 2477. 55ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Stein, Zeit. der Sav. Stift. 41, 238f. where, however, his reference to Boethius, De consol. phil. 3.4 (239, n. 2), involves not the Urban Prefecture, but the Praetorship. See Jones, Later Empire 532, n. 24.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cassiod. Var. 7. 20ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Jones, JRS 52 (1962) 129 and his Later Empire 253f. and 292, on the disappearance of the offices of the comitatus like the magister officiorum. Google Scholar