The not-so-secret functions of the mystikos
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 42, 1984. pp. 229-240.Abstract
REB 42 1984 France p. 229-240
P. Magdalino, The not-so-secret functions of the mystikos. — Attention is drawn to hitherto neglected twelfth-century sources which indicate that at this time the imperial official known as the mystikos was a key figure in the administration of the imperial household and treasury, responsible for the payment of government salaries and for imperial patronage of the church. It is suggested that while this role may have been inherent in the office from the beginning, its full development took place under the Comneni, especially Manuel I.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Magdalino Paul. The not-so-secret functions of the mystikos. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 42, 1984. pp. 229-240.
OF THE MYSTIKOS*
Paul MAGDALINO
« The service of the mystikos is obvious from the very name »1. Pseudo- Kodinos' 'somewhat Sibylline' remark2 well illustrates the difficulties involved in attempting to define the administrative role of the Byzantine imperial official who was literally 'the secret one', and whose work, by definition confidential, has not surprisingly left little trace in narrative histories and imperial charters. However, the evidence for the functions exercised by the mystikos since the creation of the office in the ninth century is more considerable than Pseudo-Kodinos might lead one to expect. Whether or not the mystikos acted as the emperor's private secretary, there is some indication that by the eleventh century he performed judicial functions and presided over a sekreton3. By the mid twelfth century he had * Most of the research for this paper was carried out during my tenure of a fellowship granted by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung.
1. J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos. Traité des Offices (Paris 1966, p. 179) : ή του μυστικού υπηρεσία νοείται και άπ' αύτοϋ τοϋ ονόματος.
2. J. Verpeaux, Nicéphore Choumnos, Paris 1959, p. 38 n. 5.
3. See R. Guilland, Études sur l'histoire administrative de l'empire byzantin : Le mystique, δ μυστικός, REB 26, 1968, p. 279-86 ; N. Oikonomidès, Z,es listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris 1972, p. 324 ; Idem, L'évolution de l'organisation administrative de l'empire byzantin au xic siècle (1025-1118), TM 6, 1976, p. 134 and n. 54 ; V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de Vempire byzantin, Π : U administration centrale, Paris 1981, p. 50-59. To the names of mystikoi listed by Guilland and Laurent may now be added that of Constantine Leichoudes : N. Oikonomides, St. George of Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the « Malyj Sion » of Novgorod, DOP 34-35, 1980- 1981, p. 243ff.
acquired other specific functions, which it is the purpose of this article to explore.
The evidence is as follows :
(1-3) Three imperial acts issued for the purpose of protecting certain ecclesiastical institutions from agents of the fisc4.
1. A prostaxis of the emperor Manuel I, datable to September 1150, forbidding fiscal officials to lay hands on the goods of deceased bishops. Offenders, besides being subject to severe penalties, had to make restitution of any property seized, and to pay a fine of double the value to the fisc, « exact notification of this being given by the bishop to the mystikos of the day, who is to settle both matters» (i.e. the restitution and the fine)5. 2. A lysis of Alexios II, dated July 1181, for the monasteries of the region of Constantinople6, confirming Manuel's three chrysobulls in their favour, annulling his subsequent modifications to these, and proclaiming exemption from certain supplementary fiscal charges. Any fiscal agent reported to have contravened this legislation is to be forced to make amends « by the megalepiphanestatos mystikos of the day»7.
3. A prostagma of Isaac II, issued in April 1192, forbidding fiscal officials to seize the property of deceased bishops. Offenders are to make twofold restitution to the injured party, and to pay fourfold to the fisc. The matter is to be reported by the patriarch and by the bishop affected, to Isaac's son and co-emperor Alexios, through the mystikos of the day, who is to deduct « from the tax-receipts brought into the God-guarded chamber of my majesty» the amount due from the offending officials8. If Alexios 4. The texts of 1 and 2 are reproduced in Zepos, JGR, I, p. 387-389, 427-428. For the prostagma of Isaac II (3), see now the edition by J. Darrouzès, Un décret d 'Isaac II Angélos, REB 40, 1982, p. 134-155.
5. Zepos, JGR, I, p. 389 : εΐδήσεως ακριβέστατης διδομένης περί τούτου παρά του τηνικαυτα άρχιερέως τφ κατά την ήμέραν μυστικφ, δς καί οφείλει και όίμφω οίκονομεΐν. On the date, see N. Svoronos, Les privilèges de l'Église à l'époque des Comnènes : un rescrit inédit de Manuel Ier Comnène, TM 1, 1965, p. 360 n. 169.
6. Although this is not stated in the text, it would seem to be implied by the fact that the three known chrysobulls of Manuel in favour of a number of monasteries specify those in the region of Constantinople : Zepos, JGR, I, p. 366, 381-385 ; Svoronos, art. cit., p. 328, 330-334.
7. On the titles of megalodoxotatos and megalepiphanestatos, see N. Oikonomidès, REB 22, 1964, p. 163-167.
8. Ed. Darrouzès, p. 153. Discussion of the imperial Bedchamber (κοιτών) as a financial institution in the middle Byzantine period seems to be limited to a footnote by F. Dölger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, Munich 1927, p. 25 n. 3. However, there is abundant evidence that the term officially designated the state treasury, to which all tax-receipts were brought.
happens to be away on campaign, the megalepiphanestatos mystikos is to act on his own initiative as soon as the matter is reported.
(4-5) Two typika of monasteries restored by mystikoi under Manuel I. 4. Typikon of the monastery of Saint Mamas in Constantinople9, drawn up in 1159 by the abbot Athanasios Philanthropenos after the death of the mystikos George Kappadokes who had received the monastery from the patriarchate and restored it at his own expense, obtaining imperial and patriarchal charters to guarantee its 'liberty'. In the preface to the typikon, Athanasios gives some biographical details : the emperor John II had assigned George to Manuel's service while the latter was still a youth. After John's death and Manuel's accession to the throne, George «had supervision of the imperial residences, becoming at the same time custodian as well as manager of the public treasures»10.
Chapter 3 of the typikon11 defines the position of the layman who is to act as the monastery's patron (αντιλαμβανόμενος, elsewhere χαριστικάριος and έφορος)12. In the first instance, this is to be Theocharistos Kappadokes, George's brother. After his death, the responsibility is to pass to the megalepiphanestatos mystikos of the day, whoever he may be ; he should expect no recompense beyond commemoration in the monastery's prayers. Appended to the typikon proper are some confirmatory acts which provide further information. Of interest here is the mention, in a document See, in addition to the sources quoted by Dölger, the following : Anna Komnena, Alexiad, ed. B. Leib, I, Paris 1937, p. 82, 83 ; J.L. Van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae orationes et epistulae, Berlin/New York 1972, p. 13 ; Idem, Niketas Choniates. Erläuterungen zu den Reden und Briefen nebst einer Biographie, Berlin/New York 1971, p. 27 n. 29. Isaac's prostagma was to be registered in the koiton as well as in the fiscal bureaux (δημοσιακοΐς σεκρέτοις) : ed. Darrouzes, p. 155.
9. S. EuStratiadès, Τυπικον της Μονής του 'Αγίου Μεγαλομάρτυρος Μάμαντος, 'Ελληνικά 1, 1928, ρ. 245-314. On the monastery, see R. Janin, Lagéographie ecclésiastique de V empire byzantin. I. Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique. III. Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1969, p. 314-319. For the social position of the Kappadokes family in this period, see the references in A. P. Kazhdan, Sotsialnyj sostav gospodsvujushchego klassa Vizantii XI-X1I v., Moscow 1974. Apart from George, the most important bearer of the name under the Komnenoi appears to have been the megas logariastes Andronikos Kappadokas recorded in 1170 : Stergios Sakkos, Ή έν Κωνσταν- τινουπόλει Σύνοδος τοϋ 1170, θεολογικαν Σνμπόσιον. Χαριστήριον εις τον κα&ηγητήν Παναγιώτψ Κ. Χρήστου, Thessaloniki 1967, ρ. 332.
10. Eustratiadès, p. 256 : τήν έν τοις βασιλείοις οϊκοις έΌχε περιωπήν αύτο δή τοϋτο των δημοσίων θησαυρών φύλαξ όμοϋ και οικονόμος γενόμενος.
11. Ibidem, p. 265-266.
12. On the lay patronage of monasteries, see now I. Konidaris, To δίκαιον της μοναστηριακής περιουσίας άπα τοϋ 9ου μέχρι και τοϋ 12ου αιώνος, Athens 1979, ρ.
of 1172, that it was drawn up at a meeting attended by, among others, the deacon of the Great Church Constantine Ophrydas who was there to represent the mystikos1*.
5. Typikon of the monastery των 'Ηλίου Βωμών, ήτοι των Έλεγμών in Bithynia, drawn up in 1162 by the man who had 'liberated' and restored it, the mystikos Nikephoros14. In Chapter 3 — a section which in wording and in content corresponds closely to Chapter 3 of the typikon of Saint Mamas — Nikephoros stipulates that after his death the patronage of the monastery is to pass to the megalodoxotatos mystikos15.
6. Anonymous verses, dating from 1 131-2 or later, commemorating pictures of an unnamed emperor and a mystikos Nikephoros in the monastery of the Holy Trinity on the Bosphoros. The verses, possibly an accompanying inscription, state that the pictures were put up in gratitude for benefactions which the emperor had bestowed on the monastery by chrysobull, and which the mystikos had been instrumental in procuring16.
(7-8) Two letters of John Tzetzes :
7. A letter addressed to the mystikos Nikephoros Servlias, in which Tzetzes complains of the living conditions in his three-storey tenement. The ground- floor dwelling, directly beneath him, is used for storing hay and is therefore a fire-risk ; the flat above is occupied by a priest who has a large family and also keeps piglets, which makes impossible demands on the faulty drainage, especially when it rains. Tzetzes asks the mystikos to see that something is done about both these problems17.
13. Eustratiadès, p. 310.
14. A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgicheskih rukopisej, I, Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim 1965), p. 715ff ; on the monastery, see R. Janin-J. Darrouzès, Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins, Paris 1975, p. 142-148. Nikephoros is probably to be identified with the mystikos Nikephoros Borbenos who figures in the protocol list of the synod of 1157 : I. Sakkelion, Πατμιακή Βιβλιοθήκη, Athens 1890, p. 316.
15. Dmitrievskij, p. 722-724 ; cf. also pp. xcv-xcviii. The Saint Mamas typikon may have served as the model, or both typika may have been drawn up according to a formula used in the mystikos' office.
16. Ed. Sp. Lampros, Ό Μαρκιανός Κώδιξ 524, NE 8, 1911, p. 164. The terminus post quern is given by the next poem in the collection, recording the monastery's establis hment in the year 6639 ( = 1131/2). The mystikos, who is mentioned in another poem of the same collection, could be either Nikephoros Borbenos or Nikephoros Servlias, Tzetzes' addressee in our text no. 7.
17. Letter 18 in the edition by P. A. M. Leone, Leipzig 1972, p. 31-34. The letter occurs in the series after one referring to John II's Syrian expedition of 1137-8 (no. 15), and before one addressed to the Patriarch Michael Oxeites (no. 30), who held office from 1143 to 1146. At a later stage, if not at this time, Tzetzes appears to have been attached to the Pantokrator monastery : see letters 54, 79, 98-99.
8. A letter to Thessalos, oikoumenikos didaskalos and ekprosôpos of the patriarch, complaining of the activities of a certain deacon from the monastery του Παπιού18 ; among other things he had scattered libellous pamphlets in the church of the Holy Apostles, and, with certain accomplices on the staff of the church, had pronounced barbaric curses against a number of people, including the senior priest there. The megalodoxotatos mystikos had barely been able to restrain himself from dismissing the accomplices from their offikia, and had banned the deacon from his monastery19. 9. Two letters to an unnamed mystikos, probably written by the protasekretis Christopher Zonaras in the mid-to-late twelfth century20. The author complains of delay in the full payment (δόσις) of his salary (του προσοδίου μου), which has been due since his appointment to office well over a year ago (εξ δτου προβέβλημαι... ένιαυτοΰ παρωχηκότος ήδη επί μησί). The mystikos is clearly neglecting his duty (επί σοι κείται τό έργον και των λόγων ή εκβασις), unless payment is being witheld for some offi cial reason (εί δ5 αιτία τίς έστι τήν δόσιν κωλύουσα, καν άπαγόρευσον).
* * *
AH these texts date from the mid-to-late twelfth century, with the possible exception of no. 9, and all show the mystikos dispensing and regulating government financial patronage, largely, though not exclusively, with fegard to the church. He was the official responsible for ensuring that fiscal agents who contravened imperial acts in favour of bishoprics and monasteries made amends to the injured party and paid the stipulated fine to the treasury (nos. 1-3). He had the power to dismiss clerics holding offikia in the church of the Holy Apostles (no. 8), and could designate a deacon of the Great Church as his representative (no. 4). He could be
18. Leone, no. 106, p. 153-155.
19. P. 154 ; the designation of the mystikos as megalodoxotatos suggests that this might be Nikephoros Borbenos.
20. E. T. TSOLAKIS, Χριστόφορου Ζωναρά. Ι. Λόγος παραινετικός εις τόν υίδν αύτοϋ κυρόν Δημήτριον. Π. Επιστολές, Επιστημονική Έπετηρις της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής τον 'Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 20 (Thessaloniki 1981), ρ. 387-407 ; texts on p. 403. With reference to Professor Tsolakis' edition, the following points may be noted in passing. 1. The Λόγος παραινετικός also occurs in Ambrosianus gr. 886 (C. 222. Inf.), f. 335ff. 2. The second of the two letters to the mystikos is also transmitted in another manuscript : Baroccianusgr. 131, f. 75V. 3. The editor's conjecture of λιπόμηνον (letter 1, line 15) is unnecessary : for ή λιτόμηνον read ήλιτόμηνον.
approached to authorise repairs to a dwelling occupied by an intellectual dependent on imperial benefaction (no. 7). He was responsible for paying the salary which went with the important 'senatorial' office of protasekretis (no. 9)21. At least two mystikoi took an interest in reviving the fortunes of monasteries which had fallen on hard times (nos. 4-6), and put at least two monasteries in the region of Constantinople under the permanent protection of their successors in office (nos. 4-5).
In addition, it is stated that one of these mystikoi, George Kappadokes, was « overseer of the imperial dwellings and custodian and manager of the public treasury ». Unfortunately, this phrase is not a technical description of Kappadokes' position, and does not make it clear whether he performed these duties as mystikos, or in some other previously or jointly held official capacity. However, other items in our dossier show that the mystikos had ex officio power to authorise payments from the public treasury. Further confirmation is to be found in an unexpected quarter: the History of William of Tyre. Narrating the events which followed John II's death
in Cilicia and Manuel's proclamation by the army (1143), William writes : «As the year drew to a close, the lord emperor led his armies back to Constantinople. Here his elder brother, upon hearing of his father's death, had seized the palace. But Manuel, through the agency of his mystikos, who was in charge of the palace and the entire treasury (per misticonem suum qui palatio et thesauris praeerat universis) — letters having been sent in secret — captured his brother unaware and fearing nothing of the kind, and put him in chains »22. William wrote as close in time to these events as did the Greek historians Kinnamos and Choniates, so his account deserves to be taken no less seriously than theirs23. It is just possible, of course, that he was reproducing a garbled version of the story recorded by Choniates, according to which it was the megas domestikos John Axouch
21. Nicholas Mesarites says of his father : έξ ανακτορικής έπικρίσεως της συγκλήτου πάσης προκά-9-ητοα καΐ τό πρωτασηκρητικον οφφίκιον άναζώννυτοα ; ed. Α. Heisenberg, Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, 1922, 5, p. 20. By this period the protasekretis was a professional jurist and headed a judicial tribunal : Oikonomidès, L'évolution (see above, n. 3), p. 131 ;
Laurent, Corpus des sceaux, Π, ρ. 5.
22. William of Tyre, XV, 23 : RHC Occ, I, Paris 1844, p. 696.
23. The best discussion of the major sources for Manuel's accession is P. Lamma, Manuele Comneno nel panegirico di Michèle Italico (Codice 2412 della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna), Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini, Palermo 1951, I, p. 397-408 = Oriente e occidente nelValto medioevo, Padua 1968, p. 369-382. See also F. Chalandon, Les Comnènes, II, Paris 1912, p. 195-196.
who secured Manuel's recognition in the capital and engineered the imprisonment of his brother Isaac. However, William had enough experience of Manuel's court to know the difference between a mystikos and a domestikos24 ', whose title was, in any case, more easily latinised — or dehellenised — as domesticus. The functions he ascribes to the misticonem are exactly those performed by George Kappadokes, and his information is consistent with the evidence of Isaac II's prostagma, which shows that the mystikos remained in the palace while emperor and co-emperor were on campaign.
From what has been said, it may be concluded that the mystikos in the mid twelfth century held a high degree of responsibility for the palace and the public treasury, especially during the emperor's absence from Constantinople. In this capacity, he controlled both regular and extra ordinary payments to clerics and government officials. His position also made him an important ecclesiastical patron, with control over certain monasteries and minor clerical appointments.
When, and why, did the mystikos acquire these functions ? It is not impossible that they had always pertained to the office. Its holders had often been eunuchs, which suggests a traditional association with the imperial household, and three had held the title of epi tou koitônos, which suggests a natural relationship with the Chamber, both as a domestic and as a financial institution25. Some tenth and eleventh-century references to mystikoi seem to indicate a special competence in ecclesiastical matters26. The practice of attaching the patronage of monasteries to a particular imperial office was not new in the mid twelfth century, and the mystikos was not the only official involved. In 1052 Constantine IX Monomachos 24. He twice visited the court, on the second occasion for several months (William of Tyre, XX, 4 ; XXII, 4), and Manuel's reign was, of course, a period of close contact between Byzantium and the crusader states.
25. G. Ficker, Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Alexios Studites, Kiel 1911, p. 20 ; Laurent, Corpus des sceaux, II, n° 121 ; P. Gautier, La Diataxis de Michel Attaliate, REB 39, 1981, p. 129 ; Idem, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantokrator, REB 32, 1974, p. 45 ; Oikonomidès, DOP 34-35, 1980-1981, p. 244 & n. 52. At one of the receptions described in the De Cerimoniis, the mystikos stood with the koitônitai : Bonn, I, p. 587. On the titles epi tou koitônos and koitônites, see Oikonomidès, Listes de préséance, p. 301, 305.
26. J. Darrouzès, Épistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle, Paris 1960, p. 69 (the mystikos present at the departure of an exiled metropolitan) ; L. G. Westerink, Nicétas Magistros. Lettres d'un exilé, Paris 1973, p. 87 (the mystikos providing financial aid when others, including καθηγούμενοι [ = abbots ?], prove ineffectual) ; Akty russkago na Sv. Athone monastyria Sv... Panteleimona, Kiev 1873, p. 31 (disputes between Athonite monasteries brought before the sekreton of the protomystikos).
had made it the special privilege of the epi tou kanikleiou to look after the interests of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos27, and in 1079 Nikephoros III Botaneiates appointed, or reappointed, the logothete of the drome and protonotarios to a similar function in relation to the neighbouring monastery of Iviron28. In the reign of Manuel I, the epi ton deeseôn Nikephoros Komnenos had monasteries under his protection29 and the meg as droungarios Andronikos Kamateros acted as the intermediary between the
emperor and the monastery of St. John the Theologian on Patmos30. In the thirteenth century, we find the epi tou kanikleiou acting on behalf of the same monastery in a capacity which was clearly that of ephoros31. It may be that responsibility for defending the interests of religious foundat ions was always shared among all officials of whom it could be said, as Constantine IX said of the epi tou kanikleiou, « the office is one of the innermost, and the man appointed to it has never been removed from intimacy with the emperor»32.
However, we concluded earlier that the mystikos'' importance as an ecclesiastical patron stemmed from his role as a treasurer and palace administrator. Since this role is not attested before the twelfth century, and since it combined functions which, in the 'classic' imperial administrative system of the ninth and tenth-century taktika, had been shared among other officials, its origins must be sought in the administrative changes of the eleventh century, which created new offices, caused old ones to disappear, and redistributed business among those that remained33. Two changes in particular are worth noting in this context. One is the decline of the eidikon as a separate treasury department specialising in the payment of senatorial stipends (ρόγαι)34. The other is the process by which the title 27. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra, I, Paris 1970, n° 31. John, the official in question, seems recently to have been mystikos : Laurent, Corpus, he. cit.
28. F. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges, Munich 1948, n° 35, p. 101-102.
29. Lament by Eustathios of Thessalonica, ed. E. Kurtz, W 17, 1910, p. 300. 30. Era Vranouse, Πατμιακα (Β'). Πρόσταξις τοϋ αύτοκράτορος Μανουήλ Α' Κομνηνού υπέρ της έν Πάτμω Μονής Ιωάννου του Θεολόγου, Χαριστήριον εις Ά. Κ. Όρλάνδον, II, Athens 1966, ρ. 78-97. 31. Maria Nystazopoulou, Ό επί τοϋ κανικλείου και ή εφορεία της έν Πάτμω Μονής, Σύμμεικτα 1, 1966, ρ. 76-94. 32. Actes de Lavra, I, p. 192 : τ6 γαρ όφφίκιον των οίκειοτάτων, καΐ ό έπί τούτω τεταγμένος της τοϋ κρατούντος ουδέποτε άφέστηκεν οίκειότητος.
33. Oikonomidès, L'évolution, passim. 34. Ibidem, p. 137 n. 72.
of protovestiarios, having in the first half of the eleventh century come to designate 'une sorte de chef de la maison civile de l'empereur', was then increasingly granted to military commanders and imperial relatives who are unlikely to have been closely involved in the day-to-day running of the imperial household35. Both developments were obviously in some way connected with the rise of the mystikos.
Unfortunately, this rise cannot be charted with any precision, since the mystikos and his sekreton were not regularly involved in the issue and registration of imperial acts36. It is possible that the office slowly accumulated responsibilities in a piecemeal way. It is equally possible that its powers were suddenly increased by a single stroke of imperial policy. The early years of Alexios I may well have been decisive; this was a time of acute financial crisis, in which the fiscal administration was thoroughly overhauled, and government patronage was thoroughly reviewed, as imperial relatives, military commanders, senatorial officials, refugee bishops, and patriarchal bureaucrats made heavy and conflicting demands on a grossly inflated system of rewards and honours. The inflation had reached a peak under Nikephoros III Botaneiates, and Alexios, who reacted strongly against his predecessor's policy, cannot have failed to cut back the powers of the treasury of the megas sakellarios which had, by Nikephoros' reign, taken over the distribution of senatorial roga payments from the eidikon31. These payments ranked notoriously low on Alexios' list of financial priorities38, and it is unlikely that he required a separate fund for them. On the other hand, he did require greater coordina tion of imperial finances, and to this end created the bureaux of the two megaloi logariastai39. It is possible that he appointed the mystikos, as part of the same reform, to coordinate expenditure from all the different treasuries, in the way that these offices coordinated the work of exploiting fiscal and domain resources.
35. Ibidem, p. 129.
36. The one surviving document which appears to bear the registration mark of a mystikos is a copy of John IPs chrysoboullon sigillion for Patmos : see Era L. Vranouse, Βυζαντινά έγγραφα της Μονής Πάτμου. Α'. Αυτοκρατορικά, Athens 1970, ρ. 79.
37. Ibidem, p. 135. On Botaneiates' largesse, see the conflicting but consistent appraisals by Attaleiates (Bonn, p. 273-276) and Bryennios (éd. P. Gautier, Brussels 1975, p. 257). Attaleiates mentions, interestingly, that the protovestiarios was responsible for reading out the honours list — an indication of the extent to which the imperial household had become involved in the distribution of public offices.
38. Zonaras : Bonn, III, p. 733.
However, it is interesting and perhaps significant that none of the evidence for the mystikos' new importance can be securely dated earlier than the reign of Manuel I. There are some indications that Manuel's accession may have been an important point in the expansion of the office. Firstly, it is to be noted that the Novel which John II issued, probably in 1124, to protect bishoprics from the depredations of fiscal officials does not name the mystikos as being responsible for enforcing compensation and punish ment40. Secondly, it is not certain that the protovestiarios lost effective — as opposed to nominal — control of the imperial household before Manuel I conferred the title on his nephew John Komnenos41. Thirdly, the old treasury of the sakelle did not disappear until after 114542. Finally, Manuel came to the throne in unusual circumstances, which may well have called for special administrative arrangements. Before his father's fatal accident in Cilicia, he was merely a young sebastokrator with no experience as co-emperor and no prospect that he would succeed to the throne43. He had to assert control of the government in the face of influential and scheming relatives — his surviving brother, his uncle, and his brother- in-law44. This insecurity undoubtedly had much to do with the indiscriminate generosity of his early years as emperor. Choniates says that the guardians of the public treasury could hardly control the crowds of people swarming in and out, and it seems that until 1160 Manuel made sure that the bishoprics of the empire and the monasteries in the region of Constantinople had the best of their disputes with the fisc, even when they were legally in the wrong45. Manuel's financial policy marked a break with that of his father, and more especially of John's finance minister, the megas logariastes John of Poutza, whose tight-fisted fiscal management had made it possible for Manuel to inherit an overflowing treasury46.
40. Zepos, JGR, I, p. 363-364.
41. Several of Tzetzes' letters are addressed to Alexios, nephew of the protovestiarios Psyllos (Leone, nos 24-29, 31, 34, 36, 40), who was clearly not a member of the Comnenian military aristocracy. On John Komnenos, protovestiarios and protosebastos, see Kinna- mos : Bonn, p. 126ff ; Chômâtes, ed. J. L. Van Dieten, Berlin/New York 1975, p. 103- 104 ; P. Gautier, Michel Italikos, Lettres et discours, Paris 1972, p. 281-282. According to Kinnamos, John received his titles after he was wounded in a tournament in the winter of 1149-50.
42. OiKONOMiDÈs, L'évolution, p. 137.
43. The significance of this fact for Manuel's policies is well brought out by P. Lamma, Comneni e Staufer, I, Rome 1955, p. 43ff.
44. Kinnamos, p. 31-33, 37-38.
45. Chômâtes, ed. Van Dieten, p. 59-60 ; cf. Svoronos, Les privilèges de l'Église (see η. 5 above), p. 354ff.
John remained in office for years after Manuel's accession, eventually adapting to the new mood of corrupt extravagance, but he was clearly not the ideal instrument of a policy which stood to ruin all he had achieved, especially in view of his reputation for refusing to register imperial acts of which he did not approve47. In these circumstances, while Manuel had no reason to dismiss experienced and loyal ministers who had served his father to the best of their ability, he would also want to use the services of men who were more exclusively dependent on him, notably those who had served in his household while he had been sebastokrator48 ; George Kappadokes was not the only member of this familia to be promoted in imperial service when Manuel became emperor49. Above all, Manuel needed an official who could be trusted to dispense imperial patronage without being obstructive, and could authorise payments from the treasury without having to work through the fiscal bureaux. This is surely the essence of the part played by the mystikos in executing Manuel's legislation in favour of bishoprics : legislation which required the punishment of over- efficient tax-officials, and the automatic settlement of whatever bill of damages the injured clergy chose to present.
Whatever the precise circumstances of the rise of the mystikos, there can be no doubt that he became a key figure in the fully-developed Comnenian system of government, less conspicuous than the imperial relatives or the heads of the sekreta, but equally close to the emperor, and with far more immediate control over the corridors and strong-rooms of power. The sources we have examined remind us of another aspect of the power structure of the Comnenian court from that reflected in chancery documents and the protocol lists of synodal records : the private, inner world of the Chamber, where soft-spoken, self-effacing eunuchs enjoyed a confidence denied to the emperor's most prestigious delegates50.
47. Ibidem, p. 55. The terminus post quern for John's death is provided by his mention in the synodal record of 1157 : Sakkelion, op. cit. (above, n. 14).
48. The loyalty with which Comnenian princes were served by their household staff is illustrated in the typikon which Manuel's uncle, the sebastokrator Isaac, drew up for the Kosmosoteira monastery : ed. L. Petit, IRAIK 13, 1908, p. 36-37, 45-46, 53-54, 55- 56, 58.
49. The Chouroup who was appointed to military commands before and during the passage of the Second Crusade is another example : Kinnamos, p. 44, 87, 98, 105 — he is described as ές τους βασιλέως και πρό της άλουργίδος τελών (ρ. 44 : the Bonn text has προς, but this is clearly based on a misreading).
50. On the influence of eunuchs at Manuel's court, see Kinnamos, p. 269, 296-297 ; Choniates, p. 204 ; E. Miller, Poésies inédites de Théodore Prodrome, Annuaire de Γ Association pour Γ encouragement des études grecques 17, 1883, p. 29-30.
The evolution of the office of the mystikos after 1204 is another story, which needs further investigation. It is possible that the reorganisation of imperial government in the exile of Asia Minor brought new changes which associated the mystikos with the chancery51. However, there is one piece of evidence that in the restored empire of the Palaiologoi the mystikos again acted as a 'minister of ecclesiastical patronage'52. We may suppose that he continued to do so as long as the emperor had patronage to dispense. We may also, in consequence, safely conclude that Pseudo-Kodinos' « sybilline » remark which was quoted at the beginning of this article tells us rather more about the sorry state of imperial finances in the middle of the fourteenth century than it does about the real functions of the mystikos.
51. M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea, 1204-1261, Oxford 1975, p. 147-148, 161-162.
52. Vatican, gr. 1891, f. 35r (letter from a churchman, probably the metropolitan of Thessalonica, to an unnamed mystikos, probably Nikephoros Choumnos) : ό δ' αγαπητός μου υιός ό χαρτοφύλαξ άφικνούμενος εις προσκύνησιν του κραταιού και αγίου ημών αύθέντου καΐ βασιλέως, παρά τίνος μάλλον τεύξεται καΐ αναδοχής καΐ συστάσεως Ινθαδε, 'άτι μή παρά της σης αντιλήψεως ;