Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

144 6. emperor and court
conveyed it to one of the two main factions, representative Monophysites
who had been confined in the patriarch’s palace. The doctor invited them
to propose amendments. Their list of revisions went to the other faction,
which immediately began to lobby prominent court figures, and especially
the quaestor, against the proposed changes. Both factions were convened in
an imperial audience. Justin listened, approved the changes and commanded
that they be entered into the edict’s final text. The opposing faction
of Dyophysite clergy and senators exploded in a raucous outcry, protesting
against the political consequences of accepting the revisions. Justin II
made a show of his wrath, threatened the protesters and commanded
silence. He then ordered the quaestor to produce twenty fair copies of the
revised edict by nightfall or lose his head. The Dyophysites began buzzing
like angry bees. They entreated the emperor, despite his command for
silence, to consider the disruptive consequences they foresaw. Finally Justin
relented and left the protesters to draw up a compromise formula. The
result was twenty official copies of an edict which, despite pressure and
persecution, failed to achieve the desired union. 53
The give and take, the efforts to persuade, apply pressure and terrorize, the
emperor’s limited success in imposing his will, the sheer noise – these surprise
us after the choreographed silence of more formal ritual appearances.
But even emperors had sometimes to persuade as they arbitrated among
powerful subordinates and subjects. Thus, at a critical juncture which surely
required a consensus among the ruling élite, Leo I presented incriminating
evidence of treachery to the senate and elicited the response he wished for
by skilful questioning. 54 Though we cannot distinguish their voices, we can
hear the dissonance among the emperor’s advisers in the dramatic scene
when Theodora spoke up as the Nika riot engulfed the capital, urging death
rather than escape by sea. 55 Though doubtless atypical, these incidents hint
at how, in concrete terms, emperors made decisions and ruled their subjects.
Loyalty to the emperor was constantly forced on subjects’ minds in
capital cities and provinces alike. Across the empire’s cities, his portraits
enjoyed the sacred status accorded to his person, Roman citizens prayed
publicly for his health and success, and they acclaimed his name when messengers
read communiqués announcing his victories or new laws. 56
Holidays commemorating imperial accessions, victories or adventus had
long punctuated the Roman months, but now, as regnal years increasingly
organized public time, the emperor even began to supplant the old consular
years and compete with the indictional system of dating documents. 57
Though similar public gestures of loyalty persisted in both parts of the
empire, broad regnal patterns point to a separation even before Odoacer
53 John Eph. HE iii.1.19–29. Text of Edict: Evagr. HE v.4. 54 V. Dan. Styl. lv.
55 Procop. Wars i.24.32–9. 56 McCormick, Eternal Victory 232–44.
57 C.Th. vi.30.21; Justinian, Nov. 47. McCormick, Eternal Victory 73–4; cf.2nd edn xiii–xiv.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008