Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

administrative change 201
become too powerful – for example, Valentinian III and Aetius or Leo and
the family of Aspar – but the balance was probably more accidental than
planned. Prominence of a particular individual in one post was often followed
by the pre-eminence of someone in a different position, as if emperors
spontaneously reacted against the dominance of one office: thus, after
Anthemius held the praetorian prefecture for nine years (405–14), Helion
emerged as the most prominent individual in the east, as master of offices
for thirteen years (414–27); Cyrus of Panopolis, who occupied both urban
and praetorian prefectures for two years (439–41) and had probably held the
urban prefecture for longer (as well as a previous stint as praetorian prefect),
was followed as the power at court by the eunuch Chrysaphius, the sacellarius,
and Nomus, master of offices 443–6 and subsequently an influential
patrician; when Chrysaphius was executed after the death of his patron,
Theodosius II, in 450, Palladius occupied the praetorian prefecture for five
years (450–5). 169 Although the prefecture was gaining power during the fifth
and sixth centuries, it would not appear that emperors had a policy of relying
on this or any other particular office, at least until the long tenures of the prefecture
by John the Cappadocian (531–2, 532–41) and Peter Barsymes
(543–6, 555–62) under Justinian – and even this development was followed
by a reaction under his successors, when the posts of curopalatus and count
of the excubitors became the most important at court. Normally, emperors
will have been surrounded by a variety of influential individuals, as suggested
by the schedule of bribes deployed by the patriarch Cyril of Alexandria to
ensure the acceptance of his Christological views at Theodosius II’s court in
the 430s: the master of offices, the quaestor, the wife and assessor of the praetorian
prefect and numerous eunuchs from the bedchambers of both
Theodosius and his sister Pulcheria, as well as two of Pulcheria’s ladies of the
bedchamber, received gifts of varying size. 170 Powerful offices were usually
held for short terms, to avoid the development of local power bases; 171 much
of the jockeying for power may have been played out through ceremonies
and individual precedence, privileges and immunities, rather than the transfer
of departmental functions, although competition is not unknown. 172
Overlapping structures probably enhanced imperial control, but emperors
did not favour disruptive competition: the existence of diversity in the
provinces could cause confusion, and an exasperated Justinian terminated
169 References in PLRE ii. Note that Nomus as master of offices was given joint management with
the praetorian prefect of the East of civic lands, and took over from the praetorian prefect of the East
management of agri limitanei: Nov. Theod. 23–4. 170 ACO i.4.2, 224–5.
171 An exception is the Lycian Tatianus: after his fall from power in 392, his fellow provincials were
banned from the administration for some years (C.Th. ix.38.9). John the Cappadocian counteracted his
unpopularity in the prefecture by relying on his own household.
172 Lendon (1997) 135–6, 153; CJ xii.8.2; C.Th. vi.6–19, 21–3, 27. Competition: Nov. Val. 8.1–2 for
rivalry over tax collection in the western empire between the praetorian prefect of Italy and the comes
sacrarum largitionum and the comes rerum privatarum; Lendon (1997) 177–85.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008