paul magdalino. the not-so-secret functions of the mystikos. revue des études byzantines, tome 42,...

8/3/2019 Paul Magdalino. The not-so-secret functions of the mystikos. Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 42, 1984. pp. 229-240.

1/13

Paul Magdalino

The not-so-secret functions of the mystikosIn: Revue des tudes 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 tudes byzantines, tome 42, 1984. pp. 229-240.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1984_num_42_1_2158
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_255http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1984_num_42_1_2158http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1984_num_42_1_2158http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_255


2/13

THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONSOF THE MYSTIKOS*

Paul MAGDALINO

The service of the mystikos is obvious from the very name 1. Pseudo-Kodinos' 'somewhat Sibylline' remark2 well illustrates the difficultiesinvolved in attempting to define the administrative role of the Byzantineimperial official who was literally 'the secret one', and whose work, bydefinition confidential, has not surprisingly left little trace in narrativehistories and imperial charters. However, the evidence for the functionsexercised by the mystikos since the creation of the office in the ninth centuryis more considerable than Pseudo-Kodinos might lead one to expect.Whether or not the mystikos acted as the emperor's private secretary, thereis some indication that by the eleventh century he performed judicialfunctions 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 fellowshipgranted by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung.1. J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos. Trait des Offices (Paris 1966, p. 179) : ' .2. J. Verpeaux, Nicphore Choumnos, Paris 1959, p. 38 n. 5.3. See R. Guilland, tudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'empire byzantin : Lemystique, , REB 26, 1968, p. 279-86 ; N. Oikonomids, Z,es listes de prsancebyzantines des IXe et Xe sicles, Paris 1972, p. 324 ; Idem, L'volution de l'organisationadministrative de l'empire byzantin au xic sicle (1025-1118), TM 6, 1976, p. 134 andn. 54 ; V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de Vempire byzantin, : U administrationcentrale, Paris 1981, p. 50-59. To the names of mystikoi listed by Guilland and Laurentmay now be added that of Constantine Leichoudes : N. Oikonomides, St. George ofMangana, Maria Skleraina, and the Malyj Sion of Novgorod, DOP 34-35, 1980-1981, p. 243ff.


3/13

230 P. MAGDALINOacquired other specific functions, which it is the purpose of this articleto explore.

The evidence is as follows :(1-3) Three imperial acts issued for the purpose of protecting certainecclesiastical 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 restitutionof 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 ofthe 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 regionof Constantinople6, confirming Manuel's three chrysobulls in their favour,annulling his subsequent modifications to these, and proclaiming exemptionfrom certain supplementary fiscal charges. Any fiscal agent reported tohave contravened this legislation is to be forced to make amends by themegalepiphanestatos mystikos of the day7.3. A prostagma of Isaac II, issued in April 1192, forbidding fiscal officialsto seize the property of deceased bishops. Offenders are to make twofoldrestitution to the injured party, and to pay fourfold to the fisc. The matteris to be reported by the patriarch and by the bishop affected, to Isaac'sson and co-emperor Alexios, through the mystikos of the day, who is todeduct from the tax-receipts brought into the God-guarded chamberof 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. Forthe prostagma of Isaac II (3), see now the edition by J. Darrouzs, Un dcret d 'Isaac IIAnglos, REB 40, 1982, p. 134-155.5. Zepos, JGR, I, p. 389 : , .On the date, see N. Svoronos, Les privilges de l'glise l'poque des Comnnes :un rescrit indit de Manuel Ier Comnne, 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 thatthe three known chrysobulls of Manuel in favour of a number of monasteries specifythose 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. Oikonomids,REB 22, 1964, p. 163-167.8. Ed. Darrouzs, p. 153. Discussion of the imperial Bedchamber () as afinancial institution in the middle Byzantine period seems to be limited to a footnoteby F. Dlger, Beitrge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besondersdes 10. un d 11. Jahrhunderts, Munich 1927, p. 25 n. 3. However, there is abundant evidencethat the term officially designated the state treasury, to which all tax-receipts were brought.


4/13

THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 231happens to be away on campaign, the megalepiphanestatos mystikos is toact 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, drawnup in 1159 by the abbot Athanasios Philanthropenos after the death ofthe mystikos George Kappadokes who had received the monastery fromthe patriarchate and restored it at his own expense, obtaining imperialand patriarchal charters to guarantee its 'liberty'. In the preface to thetypikon, Athanasios gives some biographical details : the emperor John IIhad 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 hadsupervision of the imperial residences, becoming at the same time custodianas well as manager of the public treasures10.Chapter 3 of the typikon11 defines the position of the layman who is toact as the monastery's patron (, elsewhere and )12. In the first instance, this is to be Theocharistos Kappadokes,George's brother. After his death, the responsibility is to pass to themegalepiphanestatos mystikos of the day, whoever he may be ; he shouldexpect no recompense beyond commemoration in the monastery's prayers.

Appended to the typikon proper are some confirmatory acts whichprovide further information. Of interest here is the mention, in a documentSee, in addition to the sources quoted by Dlger, the following : Anna Komnena, Alexiad,ed. B. Leib, I, Paris 1937, p. 82 , 83 ; J.L. Van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae orationes etepistulae, Berlin/New York 1972, p. 13 ; Idem, Niketas Choniates. Erluterungen zuden Reden un d Briefen nebst einer Biographie, Berlin/New York 1971, p. 27 n. 29. Isaac'sprostagma was to be registered in the koiton as well as in the fiscal bureaux () : ed. Darrouzes, p. 155.9. S. EuStratiads, ' ,' 1, 1928, . 245-314. On the monastery, see R. Janin, Lagographie ecclsiastiquede V empire byzantin. I. Le sige de Constantinople et le patriarcat cumnique. III. Lesglises et les monastres, Paris 1969, p. 314-319. For the social position of the Kappadokesfamily in this period, see the references in A. P. Kazhdan, Sotsialnyj sostavgospodsvujushchego klassa Vizantii XI-X1I v., Moscow 1974. Apart from George, themost important bearer of the name under the Komnenoi appears to have been the megaslogariastes Andronikos Kappadokas recorded in 1170 : Stergios Sakkos, - 1170, . & . , Thessaloniki 1967, . 332.10 . Eustratiads, p. 256 : .11 . Ibidem, p. 265-266.12. On the lay patronage of monasteries, see now I. Konidaris, To 9 12 , Athens 1979, .170-179, 258-263 (with full reference to earlier discussions).


5/13

232 P. MAGDALINOof 1172, that it was drawn up at a meeting attended by, among others, thedeacon of the Great Church Constantine Ophrydas who was there torepresent the mystikos1*.5. Typikon of the monastery ' , inBithynia, drawn up in 1162 by the man who had 'liberated' and restoredit, the mystikos Nikephoros14. In Chapter 3 a section which in wordingand in content corresponds closely to Chapter 3 of the typikon of SaintMamas Nikephoros stipulates that after his death the patronage of themonastery is to pass to the megalodoxotatos mystikos15.6. Anonymous verses, dating from 1 131-2 or later, commemorating picturesof an unnamed emperor and a mystikos Nikephoros in the monastery ofthe Holy Trinity on the Bosphoros. The verses, possibly an accompanyinginscription, state that the pictures were put up in gratitude for benefactionswhich the emperor had bestowed on the monastery by chrysobull, andwhich 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 Tzetzescomplains of the living conditions in his three-storey tenement. The ground-floor dwelling, directly beneath him, is used for storing hay and is thereforea fire-risk ; the flat above is occupied by a priest who has a large familyand also keeps piglets, which makes impossible demands on the faultydrainage, especially when it rains. Tzetzes asks the mystikos to see thatsomething is done about both these problems17.

13. Eustratiads, p. 310.14. A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgicheskih rukopisej, I, Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim1965), p. 715ff ; on the monastery, see R. Janin-J. Darrouzs, Les glises et les monastresdes grands centres byzantins, Paris 1975, p. 142-148. Nikephoros is probably to be identifiedwith the mystikos Nikephoros Borbenos who figures in the protocol list of the synod of1157 : I. Sakkelion, , Athens 1890, p. 316.15. Dmitrievskij, p. 722-724 ; cf. also pp. xcv-xcviii. The Saint Mamas typikonmay have served as the model, or both typika may have been drawn up according toa formula used in the mystikos' office.16. Ed. Sp. Lampros, 524, NE 8, 1911, p. 164. The terminuspost quern is given by the next poem in the collection, recording the monastery's establishmentn the year 6639 ( = 1131/2). The mystikos, who is mentioned in another poem ofthe same collection, could be either Nikephoros Borbenos or Nikephoros Servlias,zetzes' addressee in our text no. 7.17. Letter 18 in the edition by P. A. M. Leone, Leipzig 1972, p. 31-34. The letteroccurs 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 from1143 to 1146. At a later stage, if not at this time, Tzetzes appears to have been attachedto the Pantokrator monastery : see letters 54, 79, 98-99.


6/13


7/13

234 P. MAGDALINOapproached to authorise repairs to a dwelling occupied by an intellectualdependent on imperial benefaction (no. 7). He was responsible for payingthe salary which went with the important 'senatorial' office of protasekretis(no. 9)21. At least two mystikoi took an interest in reviving the fortunesof monasteries which had fallen on hard times (nos. 4-6), and put at leasttwo monasteries in the region of Constantinople under the permanentprotection 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 ofthe public treasury . Unfortunately, this phrase is not a technical descriptionof Kappadokes' position, and does not make it clear whether he performedthese duties as mystikos, or in some other previously or jointly held officialcapacity. However, other items in our dossier show that the mystikos hadex officio power to authorise payments from the public treasury. Furtherconfirmation is to be found in an unexpected quarter: the History ofWilliam of Tyre. Narrating the events which followed John II's deathin 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 toConstantinople. Here his elder brother, upon hearing of his father's death,had seized the palace. But Manuel, through the agency of his mystikos, whowas in charge of the palace and the entire treasury (per misticonem suumqu i palatio et thesauris praeerat universis) letters having been sent insecret captured his brother unaware and fearing nothing of the kind,and put him in chains 22. William wrote as close in time to these eventsas did the Greek historians Kinnamos and Choniates, so his accountdeserves to be taken no less seriously than theirs23. It is just possible, ofcourse, that he was reproducing a garbled version of the story recorded byChoniates, according to which it was the megas domestikos John Axouch

21. Nicholas Mesarites says of his father : -9- ; ed.. Heisenberg, Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes,Sitzungsberichte de r Bayerischen Akademie de r Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologischeun d historische Klasse, 1922, 5, p. 20. By this period the protasekretis was a professionaljurist and headed a judicial tribunal : Oikonomids, L'volution (see above, n. 3), p. 131 ;Laurent, Corpus des sceaux, , . 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 Michle Italico (Codice 2412 della BibliotecaUniversitaria di Bologna), Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini, Palermo1951, I, p. 397-408 = Oriente e occidente nelValto medioevo, Padua 1968, p. 369-382.See also F. Chalandon, Les Comnnes, II, Paris 1912, p. 195-196.


8/13

THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 235who secured Manuel's recognition in the capital and engineered theimprisonment of his brother Isaac. However, William had enough experienceof Manuel's court to know the difference between a mystikos and adomestikos24 , whose title was, in any case, more easily latinised ordehellenised as domesticus. The functions he ascribes to the misticonemare exactly those performed by George Kappadokes, and his informationis consistent with the evidence of Isaac II's prostagma, which shows thatthe mystikos remained in the palace while emperor and co-emperor wereon campaign.From what has been said, it may be concluded that the mystikos in themid twelfth century held a high degree of responsibility for the palaceand the public treasury, especially during the emperor's absence fromConstantinople. In this capacity, he controlled both regular and extraordinary payments to clerics and government officials. His position alsomade him an important ecclesiastical patron, with control over certainmonasteries and minor clerical appointments.When, and why, did the mystikos acquire these functions ? It is notimpossible that they had always pertained to the office. Its holders hadoften been eunuchs, which suggests a traditional association with the imperialhousehold, and three had held the title of epi tou koitnos, which suggestsa natural relationship with the Chamber, both as a domestic and as afinancial institution25. Some tenth and eleventh-century references tomystikoi seem to indicate a special competence in ecclesiastical matters26.The practice of attaching the patronage of monasteries to a particularimperial office was not new in the mid twelfth century, and the mystikoswas not the only official involved. In 1052 Constantine IX Monomachos

24. He twice visited the court, on the second occasion for several months (Williamof Tyre, XX, 4 ; XXII, 4), and Manuel's reign was, of course, a period of close contactbetween 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 12 1 ; P. Gautier, La Diataxis de MichelAttaliate, REB 39 , 1981, p. 129 ; Idem, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantokrator,REB 32, 1974, p. 45 ; Oikonomids, DOP 34-35, 1980-1981, p. 244 & n. 52. At one ofthe receptions described in the De Cerimoniis, the mystikos stood with the koitnitai :Bonn, I, p. 587. On the titles epi tou koitnos and koitnites, see Oikonomids, Listesde prsance, p. 301, 305.26. J. Darrouzs, pistoliers byzantins du Xe sicle, Paris 1960, p. 69 (the mystikospresent at the departure of an exiled metropolitan) ; L. G. Westerink, Nictas Magistros.Lettres d'un exil, Paris 1973, p. 87 (the mystikos providing financial aid when others,including [ = abbots ?], prove ineffectual) ; Akty russkago na Sv. Athonemonastyria Sv... Panteleimona, Kiev 1873, p. 31 (disputes between Athonite monasteriesbrought before the sekreton of the protomystikos).


9/13

236 P. MAGDALINOhad made it the special privilege of the epi tou kanikleiou to look afterthe interests of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos27, and in 1079 NikephorosIII Botaneiates appointed, or reappointed, the logothete of the drome andprotonotarios to a similar function in relation to the neighbouring monasteryof Iviron28. In the reign of Manuel I, the epi ton deesen NikephorosKomnenos had monasteries under his protection29 and the meg asdroungarios Andronikos Kamateros acted as the intermediary between theemperor and the monastery of St. John the Theologian on Patmos30. Inthe thirteenth century, we find the epi tou kanikleiou acting on behalf ofthe same monastery in a capacity which was clearly that of ephoros31.It may be that responsibility for defending the interests of religious foundations as always shared among all officials of whom it could be said, asConstantine IX said of the epi tou kanikleiou, the office is one of theinnermost, and the man appointed to it has never been removed fromintimacy with the emperor32.

However, we concluded earlier that the mystikos'' importance as anecclesiastical patron stemmed from his role as a treasurer and palaceadministrator. Since this role is not attested before the twelfth century,and since it combined functions which, in the 'classic' imperial administrativesystem of the ninth and tenth-century taktika, had been shared amongother officials, its origins must be sought in the administrative changes ofthe eleventh century, which created new offices, caused old ones to disappear,and redistributed business among those that remained33. Two changesin particular are worth noting in this context. One is the decline of theeidikon as a separate treasury department specialising in the payment ofsenatorial stipends ()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. Dlger, 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, ('). ' , . . , II, Athens 1966, . 78-97.31. Maria Nystazopoulou, , 1, 1966, . 76-94.32. Actes de Lavra, I, p. 192 : 6 , .33. Oikonomids, L'volution, passim.34. Ibidem, p. 137 n. 72.


10/13

THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 237of protovestiarios, having in the first half of the eleventh century come todesignate 'une sorte de chef de la maison civile de l'empereur', was thenincreasingly granted to military commanders and imperial relatives whoare unlikely to have been closely involved in the day-to-day running of theimperial household35. Both developments were obviously in some wayconnected with the rise of the mystikos.Unfortunately, this rise cannot be charted with any precision, sincethe mystikos and his sekreton were not regularly involved in the issue andregistration of imperial acts36. It is possible that the office slowlyaccumulated responsibilities in a piecemeal way. It is equally possiblethat its powers were suddenly increased by a single stroke of imperialpolicy. The early years of Alexios I may well have been decisive; this wasa time of acute financial crisis, in which the fiscal administration wasthoroughly overhauled, and government patronage was thoroughlyreviewed, as imperial relatives, military commanders, senatorial officials,refugee bishops, and patriarchal bureaucrats made heavy and conflictingdemands on a grossly inflated system of rewards and honours. The inflationhad reached a peak under Nikephoros III Botaneiates, and Alexios, whoreacted strongly against his predecessor's policy, cannot have failed tocut back the powers of the treasury of the megas sakellarios which had,by Nikephoros' reign, taken over the distribution of senatorial rogapayments from the eidikon31. These payments ranked notoriously low onAlexios' list of financial priorities38, and it is unlikely that he required aseparate fund for them. On the other hand, he did require greater coordinationf imperial finances, and to this end created the bureaux of the twomegaloi logariastai39. It is possible that he appointed the mystikos, as partof the same reform, to coordinate expenditure from all the differenttreasuries, in the way that these offices coordinated the work of exploitingfiscal and domain resources.

35. Ibidem, p. 129.36. The one surviving document which appears to bear the registration mark of amystikos is a copy of John IPs chrysoboullon sigillion for Patmos : see Era L. Vranouse, . '. , Athens 1970, . 79.37. Ibidem, p. 135. On Botaneiates' largesse, see the conflicting but consistent appraisalsby Attaleiates (Bonn, p. 273-276) and Bryennios (d. P. Gautier, Brussels 1975, p. 257).Attaleiates mentions, interestingly, that the protovestiarios was responsible fo r readingout the honours list an indication of the extent to which the imperial household hadbecome involved in the distribution of public offices.38. Zonaras : Bonn, III, p. 733.39. Oikonomides, L'volution, p. 140-141.


11/13

238 P. MAGDALINOHowever, it is interesting and perhaps significant that none of the evidencefor the mystikos' new importance can be securely dated earlier than thereign of Manuel I. There are some indications that Manuel's accessionmay 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 namethe mystikos as being responsible for enforcing compensation and punishment40. Secondly, it is not certain that the protovestiarios lost effective as opposed to nominal control of the imperial household beforeManuel 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 wellhave called for special administrative arrangements. Before his father's

fatal accident in Cilicia, he was merely a young sebastokrator with noexperience as co-emperor and no prospect that he would succeed to thethrone43. He had to assert control of the government in the face of influentialand scheming relatives his surviving brother, his uncle, and his brother-in-law44. This insecurity undoubtedly had much to do with theindiscriminate generosity of his early years as emperor. Choniates saysthat the guardians of the public treasury could hardly control the crowdsof people swarming in and out, and it seems that until 1160 Manuel madesure that the bishoprics of the empire and the monasteries in the regionof Constantinople had the best of their disputes with the fisc, even whenthey were legally in the wrong45. Manuel's financial policy marked a breakwith that of his father, and more especially of John's finance minister, themegas logariastes John of Poutza, whose tight-fisted fiscal managementhad 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 protovestiariosPsyllos (Leone, nos 24-29, 31, 34, 36, 40), who was clearly not a member of the Comnenianmilitary aristocracy. On John Komnenos, protovestiarios and protosebastos, see Kinna-mos : Bonn, p. 126ff ; Chmtes, ed. J. L. Van Dieten, Berlin/New York 1975, p. 103-104 ; P. Gautier, Michel Italikos, Lettres et discours, Paris 1972, p. 281-282. Accordingto Kinnamos, John received his titles after he was wounded in a tournament in the winterof 1149-50.42. OiKONOMiDs, L'volution, 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. Chmtes, ed. Van Dieten, p. 59-60 ; cf. Svoronos, Les privilges de l'glise(see . 5 above), p. 354ff.46. Choniates, p. 54.


12/13

THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 239John remained in office for years after Manuel's accession, eventuallyadapting to the new mood of corrupt extravagance, but he was clearlynot 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 actsof which he did not approve47. In these circumstances, while Manuel hadno reason to dismiss experienced and loyal ministers who had served hisfather to the best of their ability, he would also want to use the servicesof men who were more exclusively dependent on him, notably those whohad served in his household while he had been sebastokrator48 ; GeorgeKappadokes was not the only member of this familia to be promoted inimperial service when Manuel became emperor49. Above all, Manuelneeded an official who could be trusted to dispense imperial patronagewithout being obstructive, and could authorise payments from the treasurywithout having to work through the fiscal bureaux. This is surely theessence of the part played by the mystikos in executing Manuel's legislationin favour of bishoprics : legislation which required the punishment of over-efficient tax-officials, and the automatic settlement of whatever bill ofdamages the injured clergy chose to present.Whatever the precise circumstances of the rise of the mystikos, therecan be no doubt that he became a key figure in the fully-developedComnenian system of government, less conspicuous than the imperialrelatives or the heads of the sekreta, but equally close to the emperor,and with far more immediate control over the corridors and strong-roomsof power. The sources we have examined remind us of another aspect ofthe power structure of the Comnenian court from that reflected in chancerydocuments and the protocol lists of synodal records : the private, innerworld of the Chamber, where soft-spoken, self-effacing eunuchs enjoyeda 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 mentionin the synodal record of 1157 : Sakkelion, op . cit. (above, n. 14).48. The loyalty with which Comnenian princes were served by their household staffis illustrated in the typikon which Manuel's uncle, the sebastokrator Isaac, drew up forthe 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 thepassage of the Second Crusade is another example : Kinnamos, p. 44, 87 , 98, 105 heis described as (. 44 : the Bonn texthas , 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, Posies indites de Thodore Prodrome, Annuaire deAssociation pour encouragement des tudes grecques 17 , 1883, p. 29-30.


13/13

240 P. MAGDALINOThe evolution of the office of the mystikos after 1204 is another story,which needs further investigation. It is possible that the reorganisation ofimperial government in the exile of Asia Minor brought new changes

which associated the mystikos with the chancery51. However, there is onepiece of evidence that in the restored empire of the Palaiologoi the mystikosagain acted as a 'minister of ecclesiastical patronage'52. We may supposethat 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 tellsus rather more about the sorry state of imperial finances in the middleof the fourteenth century than it does about the real functions of themystikos.

51. M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society underthe 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 ofThessalonica, to an unnamed mystikos, probably Nikephoros Choumnos) : ' , , ' ;

paul magdalino. the not-so-secret functions of the mystikos. revue des études byzantines, tome 42,...

Documents