Morossi (Daniele)_The Governors of Byzantine Spain (Bizantinistica 15, Spolète, 2013, 131-156)

8/20/2019 Morossi (Daniele)_The Governors of Byzantine Spain (Bizantinistica 15, Spolète, 2013, 131-156)

1/29

BizantinisticaRivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi

SERIE SECONDA

Anno XV - 2013

FONDAZIONE

CENTRO ITALIANO DI STUDI SULL’ALTO MEDIOEVO

SPOLETO


2/29

INDICE

ANTONELLA CONTE, Libertà di parola e a’timía negli scrittidi Gregorio Nazianzeno ........................................... pag. 1

MAR MARCOS, Falsificación literaria y propaganda duran-te la Gran Persecución: las Acta Pilati entre paga-nos, judíos y cristianos ............................................ » 15

JUANA TORRES, The Power of Rethoric in Conflict Resolution.Theodoret of Cyrus and « a Cure for Pagan Maladies » » 33

EUGENIO RUSSO, L’intervento di Isidoro il Giovane nellasemicupola ovest di S. Sofia di Costantinopoli .......... » 51

PABLO FUENTES HINOJO Y MANUEL PARADA LÓPEZ DE CORSE-LAS, « El trono del Señor »: poder y simbología en el

Mediterráneo Tardoantiguo ..................................... » 65

EZIO ALBRILE, Le soglie della percezione Anime e visionitra gnosticismo e Iran ............................................. » 103

DANIELE MOROSSI, The governors of Byzantine Spain ........

» 131

CARMELO CRIMI, Parola e scrittura nel bios di S. Nilo da Rossano .................................................................. » 157

ENRIQUE SANTOS MARINAS, Messianism and invading peoplesin Iberian and Slavonic Apocalypotic Literature ....... » 175

M. MARCELLA FERRACCIOLI - GIANFRANCO GIRAUDO, Venezia,Costantinopoli e l’idea dell’Impero cristiano ............ » 189


3/29

INDICE VI

RECENSIONI

ALESSANDRA MALQUORI, Il giardino dell’anima. Ascesi e propaganda nelle Tebaidi fiorentinedel Quattrocento (Massimo Bernabò), p. 199; Corpus della pittura monumentale bizantinain Italia. I. Umbria (Massimo Bernabò), p. 201; Byzantine Art and Renaissance Europe(Massimo Bernabò), p. 204; ALESSIO MONCIATTI, L’arte nel Duecento (Massimo Bernabò), p.207; KATHLEEN MAXWELL, An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris. Gr. 54) and theUnion of Churches (Massimo Bernabò), p. 211


4/29

DANIELE MOROSSI

The governors of Byzantine Spain

E.A. Thompson rightfully states that the conquest of Spain was « the lastand most obscure stage in his [Justinian’s] grandiose effort to restore the oldRoman Empire » 1, as the only undisputed fact is that the Byzantines heldpart of the Iberian Peninsula for about seventy years. Its conquest can bedated between 551 and 554, while the Visigoths occupied the last imperialcities either in 624 or in 625 2.

There are no other certainties about these seventy years of Byzantine

administration.Even the extent of this region is not clear, as some researchers think that

Constantinople only controlled the south-eastern coast of the peninsula(roughly from Jerez de la Frontera to Cartagena) 3, while others believe that

This article is the result of some of the research carried out whilst writing my MA thesisabout Byzantine Spain. I would like to thank Professor Paolo Cammarosano and Professor Ro-berta Cervani for supervising and co-supervising my thesis, and I am extremely grateful to Dr.Peter Brown, Director of the British School of Trieste, who kindly spent time on a language re-view of this article.

1 E. A. THOMPSON, The Goths in Spain, Oxford, 1969, p. 320.2 Cfr. notes 49 and 147 below.3 J. W. BARKER, Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, Madison, 1966, p. 138; F. J. SALVADOR

VENTURA, Reflexiones sobre las causas de la intervención bizantina en la Península, in Antigüedad yCristianismo, III (1986), pp. 69-73; THOMPSON, The Goths in Spain cit. (note 1), pp. 320-323; W. POHL,

Justinian and the Barbarian Kingdoms, in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. by M.MAAS, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 448-476 (in particular p. 465); A. BARBERO, M. I. LORING, The Formation of the Sueve and Visigothic Kingdoms in Spain, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, I, c.500-c.700,ed. by P. FOURACRE, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 162-192 (in particular pp. 182-183); and J. VIZCAÍNO SÁNCHEZ,

La presencia bizantina en « Hispania » (Siglos VI-VII). La documentación arqueológica, in Antigüedad y


5/29

DANIELE MOROSSI132

Cordova and the land south of the Guadalquivir River also belonged to theempire 4.

In recent decades, scholars have also discussed the possibility of theexistence of a fortified border (limes) between the Byzantine and Visigothicterritories in Spain 5.

In addition to this, most historians have given great importance to theconversion of the Visigoths to Orthodoxy (in 589) as a key event whichcaused a fracture between a period of Byzantine superiority and thefollowing Visigothic predominance 6. E.A. Thompson, though, had a

Cristianismo, XXIV (2009), pp. 33-60, all share this view. R. COLLINS, Visigothic Spain 409-711, Malden

(MA), 2004, pp. 48-49 and M. VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Hispania y Bizancio. Una relación desconocida, Madrid,2012, also seem to agree with this opinion, though Collins does not exclude the possibility that theByzantines might have also held Cordoba.

4 This view can be found, among the other works cited, in Ch. D IEHL, Justinien et la civilisationbyzantine au VI e siècle, Paris, 1901 (republished New York, 1969); F. GÖRRES, Die byzantinischen

Besitzungen an den Küsten des spanisch-westgotischen Reiches (554-624), in Byzantinische Zeitschrift ,XVI (1907), pp. 515-538 (in particular p. 516); E. S. BOUCHIER, Spain under the Roman Empire, Oxford,1914, pp. 54-55; J. B. BURY, History of the Later Roman Empire. From the Death of Theodosius I. to the

Death of Justinian, II, London, 1923 (republished New York, 1958), p. 287; P. GOUBERT, Byzance et l’Espagne wisigothique (554-711), in Études Byzantines, II (1944), pp. 5-78; ID., Le Portugal Byzantin, in

Bulletin des Études Portugaises et de l’Institut Français au Portugal, XIV (1950), pp. 273-282; E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, III. De la disparition de l’Empire d’Occident a la mort de Justinian (476-565),Paris-Bruxelles-Amsterdam, 1949 (republished Amsterdam, 1968), p. 563; G. OSTROGORSKY, Storiadell’impero bizantino, 2nd edn., Torino, 1993, p. 68; K. F. STROHEKER, Das spanische Westgotenreich und

Byzanz, in K. F. STROHEKER, Germanentum und Spätantike, Zürich-Stuttgart, 1965, pp. 207-245 (inparticular p. 214); and in F. J. PRESEDO VELO, La España bizantina, Sevilla, 2003, pp. 35-43.

5 Some of the most important articles dealing with this problem are L. A. G ARCÍA MORENO,Organización militar de Bizancio en la Península Ibérica (ss. VI-VII) , in Hispania, XXXIII (1973), pp.5-22; G. RIPOLL LOPEZ, Acerca de la supuesta frontera entre el « Regnum Visigothorum » y la« Hispania » bizantina, in Pyrenae, XXVII (1973), pp. 251-267; P. FUENTES HINOJO, Sociedad, ejército yadministración fiscal en la provincia bizantina de « Spania », in Studia Historica. Historia antigua, XVI(1998), pp. 301-330; P. C. DÍAZ, En tierra de nadie: Visigodos frente a Bizantinos. Reflexiones sobre la

frontera, in Bizancio y la Península Ibérica. De la Antigüedad Tardía a la Edad Moderna, eds. I. PÉREZ

MARTÍN & P. BÁDENAS DE LA PEÑA, Madrid, 2004, pp. 37-60; D. MONTANERO VICO, La problemática sobre ellimes bizantino en la Península Ibérica: ¿Realidad histórica o construcción historiografica?, in Ex Novo:

Revista d’Història i Humanitats, II (2005), pp. 45-63; and J. WOOD, Defending Byzantine Spain: Frontiersand Diplomacy, in Early Medieval Europe, XVIII (2010), pp. 292-319.

6 GÖRRES, Die byzantinischen Besitzungen cit. (note 4), pp. 526-527; BOUCHIER, Spain under the Roman Empire cit. (note 4), p. 58; M. TORRES, Las invasiones y los reinos germánicos de España (Años409-711), in Historia de España, III. España visigoda (414-711 de J.C.), ed. R MENÉNDEZ PIDAL, Madrid,1940, pp. 3-140 (in particular p. 110); P. GOUBERT, Byzance avant l’Islam, II, Byzance et l’Occident sousles successeurs de Justinien. I. Byzance et les Francs, Paris, 1955, pp. 13-14, 72; STROHEKER, Dasspanische Westgotenreich cit. (note 4), pp. 219-221; A. N. STRATOS, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, I,


6/29

THE GOVERNORS OF BYZANTINE SPAIN 133

completely different opinion regarding this aspect which I find quiteconvincing: according to him, the conversion of the Visigoths was not a key

factor as the Orthodox “are not known to have co-operated politically ormilitarily with the Byzantines” 7 before 589, and since the Spanish Arianrulers rarely actively persecuted the Orthodox population 8.

Historians have also dealt with the problem of the administrativeposition of Byzantine Spain: according to some, these lands formed anautonomous province 9, while according to others they were a part of awider province including some African lands as well 10. These differentviews depend on the interpretation authors give to some lines of George of Cyprus’ Descriptio orbis romani, a list of the imperial possessions during thereign of Maurice 11, and to the credit they give to this Byzantine geographer.

However, in this article I am not going to deal with these problems, as Ithink there is one more aspect of the Byzantine occupation of southern Spainwhich is really intriguing: the role of the imperial governors.

602-634, engl. trans. Amsterdam, 1968, p. 122; J. N. HILLGARTH, Coins and Chronicles: Propaganda inSixth-Century Spain and the Byzantine Background , in Historia, XV (1966), pp. 483-508 (in particularpp. 499-500); J. VILELLA MASANA, Hispania durante la época del III Concilio de Toledo según Gregorio

Magno, in Concilio III de Toledo. XIV Centenario 589-1989, Toledo, 1991, pp. 485-494 (in particular p.487); L. A. GARCÍA MORENO, The Creation of Byzantium’s Spanish Province. Causes and Propaganda, in

Byzantion, LXVI,1 (1996), pp. 101-119 (in particular pp.116-119); A. BARBERO, M. I. LORING, The

Catholic Visigothic Kingdom, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, I, c.500-c.700, by P. FOURACRE,Cambridge, 2005, pp. 346-370 (in particular pp. 346-347).

7 THOMPSON, The Goths in Spain cit. (note 1), p. 27.8 Ibid., pp. 28-37, 78-87.9 Ibid., p. 329; according to FUENTES HINOJO, Sociedad, ejército y administración fiscal cit. (note 4), p.

307, Spain was a « circunscripción distinta a la provincia de Mauretania Secunda ». García Moreno alsoseems to agree with Thompson, as in GARCÍA MORENO, The Creation cit. (note 6), pp. 114,117,119 healways writes about « the Byzantine province of Spania ». Finally, according to BARBERO, LORING, TheCatholic Visigothic Kingdom cit. (note 6), p. 183, even though Spain was a province, it was part of theAfrican prefecture.

10 BOUCHIER, Spain under the Roman Empire cit. (note 4), p. 55; H. SCHLUNK, Relaciones entre la

Península Ibérica y Bizancio durante la época visigoda, in Archivo Español de Arqueología, XVIII(1945), pp. 177-204 (in particular p. 183); P. GOUBERT, Administration de l’Espagne Byzantine (suite), in

Revue des Études Byzantines, IV (1946), pp. 71-134 (in particular pp. 76-77); ID., Byzance avant l’Islam,II, Byzance et l’Occident sous les successeurs de Justinien. II. Rome, Byzance et Carthage, Paris, 1965,pp. 192, 195; M. VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Bizancio y la España tardoantigua (SS. V-VIII): un capítulo de historiamediterránea, Alcalá de Henares, 1993, pp. 358, 363-365; EAD., Byzantine Spain and the AfricanExarchate: an Administrative Perspective, in Jahrbuch der Österreischischen Byzantinistik , XLIX(1999), pp.13-23 (in particular pp. 19-20); EAD., Hispania y Bizancio cit. (note 3), pp. 165-169, 288-294.

11 Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani, ed. H. GELZER, Teubner, Lipsiae, 1890, pp. 34-36, ll.670-674.


7/29

DANIELE MOROSSI134

Even if, according to the literary and epigraphic sources, it appears as if five known officials and three anonymous ones might have been sent to

govern that region, in most cases we lack the information to be certainwhether they were actually present.

Despite these problems, I will give my view on the authenticity of theirappointments.

LIBERIUS

According to Jordanes, Liberius was the commander of the Byzantinearmy which was sent to Spain during the early 550s, though we shall see that

this information should not be taken for granted.Another troublesome aspect about Petrus Marcellinus Felix Liberius 12

regards his birth. While he probably came from Liguria, where his relative Avienus 13 grew up 14, we have no detailed information about when he was

born, though J.J. O’Donnell’s opinion 15 seems not to have been disputedthus far. His estimate was calculated considering that Liberius was still alivein 554, when he is last mentioned in one of Justinian’s Novellae 16, and that

he probably died soon after, either in 554 or one year later. The officer wasprobably buried in Ariminum, as his tombstone was found in that area. Thegravestone had one inscription carved on it, which attested to the fact that hehad died just short of his ninetieth birthday 17.

O’Donnell gives credit to this information and, since he assumes thatLiberius was appointed praetorian prefect by Theoderic just after theOstrogothic conquest of Italy (493), he states that the officer’s birth probably

dated back to 465, as it was highly unlikely to be appointed to serve thatoffice before his late twenties 18.

My opinion is that the information on the tombstone should be takenwith a pinch of salt, as it is renowned that in Late Antiquity and in the Early

12 The full name of the patrician can be found in Concilium Arausicanum A. 529 in Concilia Galliae

A. 511- A. 695, ed. C. DE CLERCQ, Brepols, Turnholti, 1963, p. 65.13 Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera, ed. F. VOGEL, Berolini, 1885 ( M.G.H. Auct. Ant. VII ), Ep. 9.7, p. 296.14 Ibid., Ep. 9.32, p. 320.15 J. J. O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician, in Traditio, XXXVII (1981), pp. 31-72.16 Corpus Iuris Civilis, III, Novellae, eds. R. SCHOELL and W. KROLL, Apud Weidmannos, Berolini,

1954, II. Appendix constitutionum dispersarum, VII, pp. 799-802.17 Inscriptionum Aemiliae Etruriae Umbriae latinae, in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, XI, Pars

prior , ed. E. BORMANN, Apud Georgium Reimerum, Berolini, 1888, Regio VIII, Ariminum, nr. 382, p. 85.18 O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), pp. 34, 70.


8/29


Middle Ages any information about people’s ages was generally unreliable.Therefore, even though I do not dispute that Liberius was extremely old

when he died, I doubt that he was almost ninety years old.In addition to this, O’Donnell’s observation that he was appointedpraetorian prefect either in 493 or in 494 19 is only supported by a word inone of Theoderic’s letters to the Roman Senate. The king, in fact, wrote thatLiberius had joined him after Odoacer’s death (493) and that mox 20 he wasgiven the praetorian prefecture dignity 21. Yet, since this letter was written in509 22, I think that the word mox could be used even to refer to an eventwhich had taken place in the late 490s.

My hypothesis is that Liberius first entered the army under Odoacerwhile in his late teens 23 and at the time of his master’s death he would have

been in his early twenties. At this time, he already held an important role inthe army, probably serving as a tribune 24. Some years later, when he wasabout twenty-five years old, he was appointed praetorian prefect of Italy.

If my assumption is correct then Liberius was probably born in the early470s; therefore, he died when he was in his early eighties.

Liberius held extremely high offices under the Ostrogoths, as he firstserved as the praetorian prefect of Italy and then he held the same office inGaul. During both of these tenures, contemporary intellectuals praised himfor how he handled his task.

As I have already mentioned, Cassiodorus informs us in one of his

Variae, a letter Theoderic addressed to the Senate of Rome (probably in509), that patricius Liberius started his military career under Odoacer.According to this epistle, Liberius remained loyal towards the King of Italy

19 Ibid., p. 37.20 Latin; “soon”.21 Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, ed. Th. MOMMSEN, Berolini, 1894 ( M.G.H. Auct. Ant. XII ), II, Ep. 16,

pp. 55-56.22 The Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator , ed. S. J. B. BARNISH, Liverpool, 1992, II.16,

pp. 28-30.

23 In 353 a law by Emperor Constantius II set eighteen years as the minimum age of recruits:Codex Theodosianus, II, ed. I. GOTHOFREDI, Lipsiae, 1737 (republished Hildesheim-New York, 1975), VII.13.1,

p. 371; A. H. M. JONES, The Later Roman Empire. 284-602, III, Oxford, 1964, p. 185 n. 19 (according to

whom, « decurions were not enrolled under 18 or recruits under 19 »); P. SOUTHERN, K. R. DIXON, The Late

Roman Army, London, 1996, p. 73 (who state that the minimum recruitment age of veterans’ sons was 20

in 326, and that it was later reduced to 18). It is possible that some recruits were even younger, as,

according to Vegetius, it was preferable for men to join the armyincipientem pubertatem (cfr. Vegetius,

Epitoma Rei Militaris, ed. A. ÖNNERFORS, Teubner, Stutgardiae et Lipsiae, 1995, I.4, pp. 13-14).24 JONES, The Later Roman Empire cit. (note 23), II, pp. 638-642 states that progress in military

careers after few years of service was already possible in the fourth century.


9/29

DANIELE MOROSSI136

until his death (493); only after this event, did he join Theoderic. As a reward

for his utter loyalty to his former master, the King of the Ostrogoths had

decided to appoint Liberius praetorian prefect of Italy25

, an office that,according to Ennodius, he served brilliantly 26.

According to the Anonymus Valesianus, Liberius was appointed

patrician during Theoderic’s decennalia in 500 27, and a Theodorus was

appointed to succeed him as prefect of Italy. Liberius, though, probably

stayed on in Italy, since some years later (supposedly in 506) he oversaw the

election of a new bishop in Aquileia 28.

After starting his career in Italy, the patrician became praetorian prefect

of Gaul in late 511 or early 512 29 and his tenure lasted two decades, stretching

from the final fifteen years of Theoderic’s life to most of Athalaric’s reign.Avitus of Vienne testifies that he served his office with integrity 30.

During his stay there, between 517 and 520 Liberius received Apollinaris

of Valence grandly during the latter’s visit to Arles 31, while other sources

inform us that the patrician was seriously wounded while fighting against the

Visigoths - but Caesarius of Arles miraculously healed him 32- and that he

subscribed the canons of the Second Council of Orange (529) 33.

By 533 Liberius had come back to Italy and had received the praesentanea

dignitas from Athalaric 34.

Even though exactly when this happened is unknown, Liberius also builta monastery dedicated to Saint Martin in some of the land he owned in

25 Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, II, Ep. 16, pp. 55-56. The dating is provided by BARNISH, in The

Variae cit. (note 22), II.16, pp. 28-30.26 Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera, Ep. 9.23, pp. 307-308.27 Excerpta Valesiana, in Ammianus Marcellinus, with an English translation by John C. Rolfe, III,

ed. by J. C. ROLFE, London-Cambridge (MA), 1952, 12.67-12.68, pp. 550-551.28 Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera, Ep. 5.1, pp. 153-154; O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note

15), p. 41.29

Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera, Ep. 9.23, pp. 307-308; ibid., Ep. 9.32, p. 320; O’DONNELL, Liberiusthe Patrician cit. (note 15), pp. 44-46.

30 Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti Viennensis episcopi Epistulae Homiliae Carmina, ed. R. PEIPER, Berolini, 1883

( M.G.H., Auct. Ant. VI Pars Posterior ), ep. 35, p. 65.31 Vita Apollinaris episcopi Valentinensis, ed. B. KRUSCH, Hannoverae, 1896 ( M.G.H., SS rer. Merov.

III ), chap. 10, p. 201; O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), p. 47.32 Vitae Caesarii Episcopi Arelatensis Libri Duo, ed. B. KRUSCH, Hannoverae, 1896 ( M.G.H., SS rer.

Merov. III ), II, 10-12, pp. 487-488.33 Concilium Arausicanum A. 529, pp. 55, 65.34 Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, XI, Ep. 1, pp. 327-330.


10/29


Campania. This religious foundation is mentioned by Gregory the Great in

some of his letters 35 and in his Vita Sancti Benedicti 36.

In the Spring of 534 Liberius was one of the addressees of a letter sent byPope John II: the patrician was to avoid any contact with Acoemetae

monks 37.

This appears to be the last information regarding Liberius as an Ostrogothic

officer, as some months later he went over to the Byzantines after deciding

not to accomplish a mission he had been given by the new King Theodahad,

who had succeeded Athalaric.

Soon after his predecessor’s death, in fact, Theodahad had imprisoned

Amalasuntha and sent Liberius and senator Opilius to Constantinople to

justify his actions and to deceive Justinian, trying to convince him that the

queen had actually suffered no harm. Despite his task, Liberius decided not

to lie to the emperor 38 and did not go back to Italy, where he would have

been considered a traitor. He stayed in Constantinople and became a

Byzantine dignitary.

Liberius spent his final two decades as an Eastern Roman officer, but his

later life is not covered in detail. He probably spent most of his final years in

Constantinople.

He supposedly stayed there for some years, until 538 or 539, when he

was appointed prefect of Alexandria 39. While in Egypt, Liberius followed

Empress Theodora’s advice and impaled or crucified Arsenius, a Samaritanwho had converted to Christianity and had been a favourite of Justinian’s

wife’s but by that time had fallen out of favour 40.

35 Gregorio Magno, Lettere, I, ed. V. RECCHIA, Roma, 1996, II, ep. 23, pp. 414-415; ID., Lettere, II, ed.

V. ECCHIA, Roma, 1996, ep. 33, pp. 166-169; ibid., V, ep. 50, pp. 234-235; ibid., III, IX, ep. 163, pp.

364-367; ID., Lettere, III, ed. V. RECCHIA, Roma, 1998, IX, ep. 165, pp. 368-369; O’DONNELL, Liberius the

Patrician cit. (note 15), p. 52; J. R. MARTINDALE, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, A.D.

395-527 , Cambridge-London-New York-New Rochelle-Melbourne-Sydney, 1980, Liberius 3, p. 681.36 Vita Sancti Benedicti (ex Libro II Dialogorum S. Gregorii Excerpta), in P.L., LXVI, XXXV, cols.

195-200.37 III. Ad senatores, in Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, VIII, ed. J. D. MANSI,

Florentiae, 1762 (republished Graz, 1960), cols. 803-806; O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note

15), p. 47.38 Procopio di Cesarea, La Guerra Gotica, I, ed. D. COMPARETTI, Roma, 1895, I.4, pp. 27-34.39 O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), pp. 63-64.40 According to Procopius (Procopio, Storie segrete, ed. F. CONCA, Milano, 2010, chaps. 27.3-27.20,

pp. 328-335), Arsenius was impaled; whilst according to Liberatus of Carthage ( Liberati archidiaconi

ecclesiæ Carthaginensis Breviarium causæ Nestorianum et Eutychianorum, ed. J. GARNIER, Parisiis, 1675,

chap. XXIII, pp. 160-161, 164), he was crucified.


11/29

DANIELE MOROSSI138

After an undisclosed amount of time, Justinian decided he was going to

depose Liberius and give his office to John Laxarion; Pelagius, who became

pope after Vigilius’ death and was a friend of Liberius, heard about theserumours and asked the emperor if they were true. Justinian said they were

not and gave Pelagius some letters which he then sent to Liberius: the

patrician was to keep his position and was not allowed to let anybody take

his place.

Unfortunately, John Laxarion received similar letters from the emperor

and went to Alexandria to serve as the imperial prefect of the city. He asked

Liberius to leave him the office, but the patrician refused; a fight took place

between the retinues and John was killed. The former Ostrogothic dignitary

was summoned to Constantinople to be tried before the Senate, but he was

acquitted 41.There is no surviving information about the patrician for the following

decade.

Soon after that, though, he was sent to Italy to take part in the Gothic

War. However, Procopius and Jordanes, the only surviving sources, give us

different information about his role during this conflict.

According to Procopius, after Belisarius had moved from Italy back to

Constantinople in 549, Justinian chose Liberius as his replacement but in the

end did not send him to fight against the Ostrogoths 42. The patrician was

later chosen to replace Germanus, Justinian’s nephew, who had been sent toItaly to command the army. The emperor, though, changed his mind once

again, so Liberius remained in Constantinople 43.

In early 550 he was finally sent to Sicily in order to try to stop the

Ostrogoths from reconquering the island, but Justinian very soon regretted

his decision and sent Artabanes to Sicily as the replacement for the patrician.

According to Procopius, Liberius was too old and lacked military experience 44.

Artabanes was hindered by a storm and Liberius had to remain in Sicily;

he led his fleet into the port of Syracuse (the city was being besieged by the

Ostrogoths), but after he realized that his army was not strong enough either

to defeat the enemies or to relieve the Syracusans, he moved to Palermo 45.

41 Procopio, Storie segrete, ed. CONCA, cit., chaps. 29.1-29.11, pp. 342-345.42 Procopio di Cesarea, La Guerra Gotica, II, ed. COMPARETTI, Roma, 1896, III.36, pp. 433-434;

O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), p. 66.43 Procopio di Cesarea, Storie segrete, ed. CONCA, cit., III.37, pp. 444-445.44 Ibid., III.39, pp. 452; O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), p. 66.45 Procopio di Cesarea, Storie segrete, ed. CONCA, cit., III.40, pp. 461-462; O’DONNELL, Liberius the

Patrician cit. (note 15), pp. 66-67.


12/29


Artabanes was able to reach Sicily only in 551; according to Procopius,after his arrival Liberius went back to Constantinople 46.

Jordanes, on the other hand, writes very little about Liberius’ role in thewar against the Ostrogoths and his information is in contrast withProcopius’: according to a passage in Romana, Liberius went to Sicilytogether with Artabanes 47.

Despite the sparseness of Jordanes’ information in this work, the writerdoes give some key information about Liberius in his Getica. Even thoughthis passage is not extremely detailed, it owes its importance to its being theonly source according to which Liberius ever went to Spain as thecommander of the invading Byzantine army.

While writing his list of the Visigothic kings, in fact, the author informs

us that, during Agila I’s reign (549-554), Athanagild rebelled against themonarch and asked for Roman support. According to Jordanes, the emperoreither appointed Liberius to lead an army to Spain or sent him there 48 inorder to help Athanagild 49.

After this involvement in Justinian’s western wars, Liberius went back toByzantium, where he was given a delicate task. In May 553, in fact, theemperor summoned an ecumenical synod in Constantinople in order tocondemn the Three Chapters, some writings by Theodore of Mopsuestia,Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa which Justinian considered to beNestorian and, therefore, heretical.

The emperor’s decision had not been accepted in Western Europe (inparticular in Italy), and when the council was summoned even Pope Vigilius,who was living in Constantinople, was against their condemnation and wasnot willing to attend the synod.

46 Procopio di Cesarea, La Guerra Gotica, III, ed. COMPARETTI, Roma, 1898, IV.24, p. 183;

O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), p. 67.47 Iordanis, De summa temporum vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum, ed. Th. MOMMSEN,

Berolini, 1882 ( M.G.H., Auct. Ant. V pars prior ), chap. 385, p. 51.48 J. FOSSELLA, « Waiting for a Pretext »: a New Chronology for the Sixth-Century Byzantine Invasion

of Spain, in Estudios Bizantinos, I (2013), pp. 30-38 (in particular pp. 36-37) rightfully underlines the fact

that destinatur might have two different meanings in this context.49 Iordanis, De origine actibusque Getarum, ed. Th. MOMMSEN, Berolini, 1882 ( M.G.H., Auct. Ant. V

pars prior ), chap. 303, p. 136. According to the first draft of Isidore of Seville’s History of the Goths

( I sidori Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis Historia Gothorum, ed. Th. MOMMSEN, Berolini, 1894, M.G.H., Auct.

Ant. XI , chap. 46, pp. 285-286), the rebellion took place during Agila’s third year of reign, i.e. 551,

therefore the Byzantine intervention could not have been earlier than during that year. FOSSELLA, « Walting

for a Pretext » cit. (note 48) states that it is likelier that the imperial expedition took place in 554, since,

according to the aforementioned passage by Isidore, the Byzantines had not invaded Spain yet when

Athanagild had Agila killed during that year.


13/29

DANIELE MOROSSI140

Therefore, Liberius was given the task of trying to convince PopeVigilius to take part in the Second Council of Constantinople and to

condemn publicly the Three Chapters. Despite the patrician’s efforts, thepontiff did not attend the synod 50.

The patrician was still alive in 554, when one of Justinian’s Novellae wasissued. This law attests that the emperor had previously awarded to Liberiushalf of a donation Theodahad had given to a certain Maximus 51.

Petrus Marcellinus Felix Liberius probably died near Ariminum later in554 or shortly afterwards 52.

Despite Jordanes’ passage in Getica, Liberius’ status as the first Byzantinegovernor of Spain is disputed, and so is his actual presence in the Iberian

Peninsula. While until some decades ago most scholars used to trust Jordanes’testimony 53, many historians have recently questioned that passage.J.J. O’Donnell, considering the differences between what Jordanes’ and

Procopius’ information and the latter’s much more detailed account, doesnot believe Jordanes was accurate when writing about Liberius’ role in theGothic War and thinks that even the monk’s testimony about the patricianleading the Byzantine army in Spain is unreliable. In fact, according to theAmerican scholar, it is very unlikely that Liberius was sent to fight the

50 Quinta Synodus generalis, Constantinopolitana II , in Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissimacollectio, IX, ed. J. D. MANSI, Florentiae, 1763 (republished Graz, 1960), Collatio secunda, cols. 197-199;

O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), pp. 68-69; G. FEDALTO, Le Chiese d’Oriente, I, Da

Giustiniano alla caduta di Costantinopoli, 3rd edn., Milano, 2010, pp. 26-27.51 Novellae, Corpus Iuris Civilis, III, II. Appendix constitutionum dispersarum, VII, pp. 799-802.52 Inscriptionum Aemiliae cit. (note 17), Regio VIII, Ariminum, nr. 382, p. 85. According to

O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patrician cit. (note 15), pp. 70-71, he probably died in 555 or 556.53 Among the others, Diehl (DIEHL, Justinien cit. note 4, pp. 204-206), Pauly (A. F. PAULY, ed.,Paulys

Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft , XXV, Stuttgart, 1926, Liberius 2, col. 97) –

who thinks that Liberius, after leading the Byzantine forces in Spain, probably became the governor of

that region –, Görres (GÖRRES, Die byzantinischen Besitzungen cit. note 4, p. 518) – who trusts Jordanes

and, even though he states there is no actual proof that Liberius was proclaimed imperial governor of Spain, thinks that the patrician was actually appointed to this office –, Sundwall (J. SUNDWALL, Petrus

Marcellinus Felix Liberius, in Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Römertums, 2nd edn., New

York, 1975, p. 135) – who just mentions that Liberius led the imperial expedition to support Athanagild –,

Goubert (GOUBERT, Byzance et l’Espagne wisigothique cit. note 4, pp.7-11; P. GOUBERT, L’Administration

de l’Espagne Byzantine. I. Les Gouverneurs de l’Espagne byzantine, in Études Byzantines, III, 1945, pp.

127-142, in particular pp.127-129) and Stroheker (STROHEKER, Germanentum und Spätantike cit. note 4,

pp. 210-212). According to Martindale (The Prosopography cit. note 35, p. 680), Liberius was only sent

to Spain to command the army. He does not mention the possibility of the patrician serving as a governor

there.


14/29


Visigoths after Justinian had removed him from command in Sicily becauseof his old age and lack of military experience 54.

M. Vallejo Girvés also thinks that it is unlikely that Justinian gave himsuch a task after the patrician had been sent back to Constantinople for thereasons mentioned by Procopius 55. In addition to this, the Spanish historianthinks that sixth-century navigation conditions did not allow Liberius tomove from Sicily to Constantinople, from Byzantium to Spain - where theByzantine conquest of part of the coast took at least some months - andfinally back to Constantinople in just two years 56.

Finally, according to J. Fossella, Liberius was probably appointed “ascommander of the invasion force”, but never actually sent to Spain 57.

Personally, I agree with M. Vallejo Girvés’ views; I do not think, despite

his frequent changes of mind, that Justinian could have sent a general toSpain whom he had previously dismissed, and I also consider it unlikely thatan octogenarian could travel so much and in such a short time. Were J.Fossella’s hypothesis correct it would give further credence to such a theory.

To sum up, I think it is highly unlikely that Liberius ever governed Spain,since he probably never went there.

NARSES

According to one source, the Historia Langobardorum Codicis Gothani,

Narses, the eunuch general who destroyed the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy,went to Spain between 569 and 570 58.

I think this information is not trustworthy at all. First of all, the onlysource which briefly mentions this event is a late one (early ninth century);secondly, many authors wrote about Narses’ career but according to no othersource did he ever leave Italy after the 550s.

To recapitulate, I agree with J.R. Martindale, who writes that theinformation on the Codex Gothanus is certainly wrong 59: I think that Narsesnever actually travelled to Spain.

54 O’DONNELL, Liberius the Patriciancit. (note 15), pp. 67-68.55 VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Bizancio y la España tardoantigua cit. (note 10), pp. 103-105.56 VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Hispania y Bizancio cit. (note 3), pp. 141-145.57 FOSSELLA, « Waiting for a Pretext » cit. (note 48), pp. 33, 37.58 Historia Langobardorum Codicis Gothani, ed. G. WAITZ, Hannoverae, 1879 ( M.G.H., SS rer.

Lang.), p. 9. According to this work, the event took place after the Longobard invasion, more precisely inthe third indiction, i.e. between September 569 and August 570 (J. R. MARTINDALE, (ed.), TheProsopography of the Later Roman Empire, IIIb, A.D. 527-641, Cambridge, 1992, Narses 1, p. 925).

59 Ibid., Narses 1, p. 925.


15/29

DANIELE MOROSSI142

THE ANONYMOUS PREFECT

There is no further news about the presence of another Byzantine officerin Spain for about a decade. The author who provides information about the

next Eastern Roman dignitary in the Iberian Peninsula is Gregory of Tours,

according to whom one praefectus imperatoris resided in Spain around 580.

Before writing about this prefect, though, some events about the

Visigothic kingdom need to be mentioned. From 579 to 584, in fact, almost

three decades after Athanagild’s rebellion, another revolt took place in

Visigothic Spain. This time, it was led by Hermenegild, King Leovigild’s

elder son 60.

According to Gregory of Tours, the prince asked for help from theByzantines, but Leovigild bought the neutrality of the praefectus imperatoris

with a gift of 30,000 solidi. The king went on to repress the rebellion and his

son was imprisoned 61 and killed 62.

It is possible that some Byzantine soldiers had supported Hermenegild,

though it is not clear if this only happened before or after Leovigild’s

payment. That would be extremely important information, as it would

determine whether the Visigothic king’s investment was a good or bad one.

Gregory of Tours, in fact, only mentions, during the prince’s rebellion,

that he had joined the duces imperatoris Tiberii 63, but does not write

anything which would make it possible to relate this event with the previous

one chronologically.

Despite this inaccuracy, we can affirm that according to Gregory’s

testimony, in the late 570s or in the early 580s (Tiberius II died in 582) a

Byzantine prefect lived in Spain and that he had some duces as his

subordinates.

Unfortunately, the historian does not name the officer; therefore it is not

possible to identify him.

It is unthinkable that the prefect could be either Liberius (who probably

never went to Spain and, even if he did, had died decades earlier) or Narses(who had died as well). In addition to this, there is no possibility that the first

60 Iohannis abbatis Biclarensis Chronica, ed. Th. MOMMSEN, Berolini, 1894 ( M.G.H., SS Auct. Ant.

XI ), aa. 579-584, pp. 215-217; COLLINS, Visigothic Spain cit. (note 3), pp. 56-59.61 Gregorio di Tours, La Storia dei Franchi, I, ed. M. OLDONI, Milano, 1981, V, chap. 38, pp. 510-515.62 Ibid., II, VII, chap. 28, pp. 288-289. Hermenegild was actually killed in 585: cfr. Iohannis abbatis

Biclarensis Chronica, a. 585, p. 217.63 Gregorio di Tours, La Storia dei Franchi cit. (note 61), II, VI, chap. 18, pp. 58-59.


16/29


known magister militum who was sent to Spain, Comentiolus, could have

been there before 587.

Since no name is given to the prefect, it is even harder to be certain of hispresence in Spain, but I think that Gregory of Tours’ testimony should be

given credit.

The Byzantines have always been renowned for their ability of taking

advantage of their enemies’ misfortunes. Therefore, I would not exclude

that, unless an imperial prefect was already in the Iberian Peninsula before

the beginning of Hermenegild’s rebellion, Tiberius might have sent one of

his generals to Spain as soon as he heard about the problems the Visigoths

were facing, in order to try to exploit the situation.

In any of these circumstances, the presence of an imperial prefect in that

region during Hermenegild’s rebellion means that the Byzantines did care a

lot about these lands even during Tiberius II’s reign, when the Byzantines

were facing bigger problems, such as a renewed war against the Persian

Empire and conflicts against the Longobards in Italy 64.

C OMENCIOLUS /C OMITIOLUS

The following information regarding the presence of Byzantine officers

in Spain is from the turn of the sixth to the seventh century.According to separate sources 65, two Byzantine officials with similar

names (Comenciolus and Comitiolus) appear to have resided in the Iberian

Peninsula, the former in 589 or 590 and the latter before 603.

Comenciolus’ presence in Spain is only attested in one inscription,

carved to commemorate the rebuilding of the fortifications of Cartagena.

According to this epigraph, which was produced between September 589

and August 590, Spain would always be glad to have Comenciolus as her

governor 66.

Comitiolus is known to us thanks to a letter from Gregory the Great. Thepope sent defensor Iohannes to Spain in August 603, where he was given the

task of reinstating former bishops Ianuarius and Stephanus to the head of

64 OSTROGORSKY Storia dell’impero bizantino cit. (note 4), pp. 68-69.65 Pars tertia. Tarraconensis, XXII Carthago Nova, in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, II, ed. E.

BORMANN, Berolini, 1869, nr. 3420, p. 466; Gregorio Magno, Lettere (XI-XIV, Appendici), ed. V. RECCHIA,

Roma, 1999, epp. XIII, 46, 48-49, pp. 296-311.66 Pars tertia. Tarraconensis, XXII Carthago Nova, nr. 3420, p. 466.


17/29

DANIELE MOROSSI144

their own dioceses. They had been deposed by gloriosus Comitiolus. If hisguilt were to have been confirmed, Comitiolus would have been sentenced to

compensate Ianuarius (former bishop of Malaga) for his expenses, and topay damages and to give back the goods he had wrongfully taken fromStephanus and his church. Had the rumours according to which Comitiolushad died been true, his heir would have owed the bishops compensation forthose wrongdoings 67.

Further investigations show that, according to eastern sources (inparticular, Theophylact Simocatta), there was another Byzantine figure whowas a contemporary of both Comenciolus and Comitiolus and whose namewas extremely close to theirs, Komentíolov.

Komentíolov (whom from now on I will call Komentiolos) was a Thra-cian 68 general, whose career stretched from 583 to 602, covering most of Maurice’s reign. In that year, the commander was killed by Phocas, ausurper who had overthrown Maurice after a successful rebellion. SinceKomentiolos had supported the deposed emperor, Phocas had him killed.

Komentiolos had previously fought against the Slavs in Thrace, againstthe Avars on the Danube border of the Byzantine Empire, and against thePersians in present-day south-eastern Turkey, northern Syria and northernIraq.

Komentiolos’ career started in 583 when he acted as a diplomat duringpeace talks between the Byzantines and the Avars.

At that time, when he was an imperial bodyguard, he was sent to Anchialus 69 to negotiate a peace treaty with the Avar Chagan. After a veryarrogant speech by the nomadic leader, Komentiolos replied in an equallyarrogant way and barely avoided being imprisoned by the Chagan 70.

67 Gregorio Magno, Lettere (XI-XIV, Appendici), ep. XIII, 46, pp. 296-301. Gregory did not write thename of the diocese Stephanus had been appointed to, but M. Vallejo Girvés supposes the diocese mighthave been Medina-Sidonia in M. VALLEJO GIRVÉS, El exilio bizantino: Hispania y el Mediterráneo

occidental (siglos V-VII), in Bizancio y la Península ibérica. De la Antigüedad Tardía a la Edad Moderna, eds. I. PÉREZ MARTÍN & P. BÁDENAS DE LA PEÑA, Madrid, 2004, pp. 117-154 (in particular p. 119).

68 According to Evagrius Scholasticus ( Evagrii Scholastici Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri VI , in P.G.,LXXXVI, pars posterior , VI, chap. 15, cols. 2867-2868) and Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos( Nicephori Callisti Xanthopuli Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri XVIII , in P.G., CXLVII, XVIII, chap. 18,cols. 363-364).

69 Present-day Pomorie, in south-eastern Bulgaria.70 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, I, chaps. 4-6, pp. 41-45; Theophanis Chronographia,

I, ed. I. CLASSEN, Bonnae, 1839, A.C. 575, pp. 389-390; J. R. MARTINDALE (ed.), The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, IIIa, A.D. 527-641, Cambridge, 1992, Comentiolus 1, p. 321.


18/29


In the following two years, Komentiolos defeated the Slavs twice and

received his first promotion.

In 584 the bodyguard was given the command of an army which defeatedthe Slavs near the Erginia River. After this victory, he was appointed magister militum praesentalis. Then, probably in 585, he moved to Adrianople where

he faced an enemy army led by Ardagast, which fled 71.

Later, Maurice gave Komentiolos the command of the war against theAvars 72, but this time he was not as successful as he had been against the

Slavs. In 587 he tried to attack the Avars near Marcianopolis 73, but no major

battle was fought as the Chagan’s troops managed to flee 74.Two years later, Komentiolos was sent to the eastern front, where he

remained for about two years, first fighting against the Persians, later helping

King Khosrau II to recover the throne his general Bahram had usurped. TheByzantine commander was removed from the command of his army after

Khosrau complained to Maurice about Komentiolos’ behaviour.According to Theophylact Simocatta, Evagrius Scholasticus and Theopha-

nes the Confessor, the Thracian commander was sent to fight the Persiansnear Nisibis 75 in late 589; a battle was fought at Sisarbanon: the Roman

army prevailed, but Komentiolos either fell off his horse (according to Evagrius

Scholasticus 76) or fled until he reached Theodosiopolis 77 (according toTheophylact Simocatta 78). Despite this, the Thracian commander was later

able to conquer Martyropolis 79 and Okbas / Akbas 80.

71 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, I, chap. 7, pp. 46-447; The History of

Theophylact Simocatta, eds. Mi. WHITBY & Ma. WHITBY, Oxford, 1986 (republished New York, 1988), I,

chap. 7, p. 29; Theophanis Chronographia, A.C. 576, p. 391; MARTINDALE, The Prosopography cit.,

Comentiolus 1, pp. 321-322.72 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, I, chap. 8, p. 49.73 Present-day Devnya, near Varna.74 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, II, chaps. 10-15, pp. 87-100; Theophanis

Chronographia, A.C. 579, pp. 396-397. See The History of Theophylact Simocatta cit. (note 71), p. 57, n.

28 for the dating of the events.

75 Present-day Nusaybin, in south-eastern Turkey, close to the Syrian border.76 Evagrii Scholastici Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri VI , VI, chap. 15, cols. 2867-2868.77 Present-day Ras al-Ayn, in north-eastern Syria, close to the Turkish border and about 120

kilometres from Nusaybin.78 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, III, chap. 6, p. 123.79 Evagrii Scholastici Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri VI , VI, chap. 15, cols. 2867-2868. Martyropolis

is present-day Silvan, a town by the Batman River, in the Turkish province of Diyarbakir.80 Ibid., VI, chap. 15, cols. 2869-2870 (according to whom Okbas was a fortress located on the

Batman River, on the opposite bank of Martyropolis); Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo,

IV, chap. 2, p. 159.


19/29

DANIELE MOROSSI146

Meanwhile, in Persia, King Hormidz IV had been killed and his son and

successor, Khosrau II, had been deposed by general Bahram 81. The

overthrown king of kings asked for Byzantine help to be restored on thePersian throne. He was hosted in Circesium 82 by Probus, the Roman

commander of the fort. There, the deposed king wrote a letter to the Byzan-

tine Caesar; Probus sent it to Komentiolos, who was in Hierapolis 83. When

Emperor Maurice received Khosrau II’s letter, he agreed to help him get

back his throne 84; consequently, the Persian king joined Komentiolos in

Hierapolis 85 and they reached Constantina 86 together 87. There, Komentiolos

executed Sittas and other Romans who had previously handed over the city

of Martyropolis to Hormidz 88.

After Khosrau sent an ambassador to Maurice accusing Komentiolos of insulting him and of delaying the arrival of auxiliary troops, the Thracian

general wasprobably in January 591- demoted from the command of the

army and replaced by Narses, previously one of his bodyguards 89.

Komentiolos remained in the area for a while, as he commanded the right

wing of Narses’ army during the crossing of the Little Zab River between

present-day Arbil and Koi Sanjab, both located in present-day northern

Iraq 90.

After the events near the border with Persia, eastern sources 91 write

nothing about Komentiolos until 598, the first of three consecutive years hespent fighting against the Avars. During these military operations, according

to Theophylact Simocatta, he displayed little courage, and he even faced the

humiliation of being wrongly accused of treason.

81 Evagrii Scholastici Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri VI , VI, chaps. 16-17, cols. 2869-2870.82 Present-day Al-Busayrah, in eastern Syria.83 Present-day Manbij, in north-western Syria.84 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, IV, chap. 10, pp. 179-180.85

Ibid., IV, chap. 12, pp. 183-184; Theophanis Chronographia, A.C. 580, p. 409.86 Present-day Viranşehir, in south-eastern Turkey.87 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, IV, chap. 14, pp. 190-191.88 Ibid., IV, chap. 15, pp. 195-196.89 Ibid., V, chap. 2, p. 208; MARTINDALE, The Prosopography cit. (note 70), Comentiolus 1, p. 324.90 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, V, chap. 8, p. 219; The History of Theophylact

Simocatta cit. (note 71), p. 142, ns. 31-33.91 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, p. 196, n. 60, p. 197; Theophanis

Chronographia, A.C. 592, p. 429; Nicephori Callisti Xanthopuli Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri XVIII ,

XVIII, chap. 28, pp. 383-384.


20/29


According to Theophylact Simocatta, in early April 598 92, the Thracian

general was sent to fight the Avars. He advanced from Nicopolis 93 to

Zikidiba94

, then retreated to Iatrus95

. The enemies were very close to theRoman army, but Komentiolos’ soldiers were taken by surprise and retreated.

The general’s flight did not stop until he reached Drizipera 96, more than 300

kilometres south-east of Iatrus. The inhabitants of Driziperadid not open the

gates of the city to Komentiolos, so he was forced to continue his retreat until

he reached the Long Walls of Constantinople, while the Avars sacked Drizipera.

After the general’s entry in Constantinople, panic spread throughout the city,

as many inhabitants were afraid that the Avars might even conquer the

capital of the empire, but this threat soon came to an end as the Chagan

accepted the Byzantine peace offer

97

.Later, Komentiolos was accused of treachery by some of the Thracian

soldiers, but Maurice acquitted him and reappointed him general 98.

According to John of Antioch and to Theophanes, one of the ambassadors

the Thracian army sent to the emperor was Phocas, who would later depose

Maurice himself. John of Antioch also states that Komentiolos was replaced

by Philippicus 99.

After the trial and Maurice’s decision to break the peace treaty with the

Avars, Komentiolos went to Singidunum 100, where he joined Priscus. The

Roman generals then followed the course of the Danube until they reached

the “island” of Viminacium 101, where Komentiolos fell sick. After the Avars

had failed to block the Byzantines on the island, the Thracian general was

afraid of facing the Chagan, so, in order to make his reluctance to fight seem

more respectable, he inflicted a slight wound on himself on purpose. Since

the Avar threat was getting even more serious, Priscus took the command of

92 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VII, chap. 13, pp. 293-294; The History of

Theophylact Simocatta cit. (note 71), p. 196, n. 60, p. 197.93 Present-day Nikyup, in northern Bulgaria.

94 Present-day Medgidia, in south-eastern Romania.95 Present-day Yantra, less than fifteen kilometres north-west of Nicopolis.96 Present-day Büyük Karistiran, almost halfway between Edirne/Adrianople and Istanbul.97 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VII, chaps. 13-15, pp. 293-299; Theophanis

Chronographia, A.C. 592, pp. 429-432.98 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VIII, chap. 1, pp. 314-315.99 Iohannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia Chronica, ed. U. ROBERTO, Berlin, 2005, frag. 316, pp.

546-547; Theophanis Chronographia, A.C. 592, pp. 432-433.100 Present-day Belgrade.101 Near present-day Stari Kostolac, ninety kilometres south-east of Belgrade.


21/29

DANIELE MOROSSI148

the Roman army and finally persuaded Komentiolos to leave Viminacium 102.

Priscus would go on to defeat the Chagan’s army 103.

After recovering from the illness he had contracted on the Danube,Komentiolos reached Novae 104 in Autumn 599. Then, in order to spend the

winter in Constantinople, he set off for and managed to pass through the

Gate of Trajan 105 despite the freezing weather which caused the death of

many of his men and baggage animals, and then to reach Philippopolis 106

where he spent the remainder of winter. At the beginning of spring (year

600), he finally arrived at Constantinople, where, during that summer, he

was again proclaimed general by the emperor 107.

Komentiolos’ death in late 602 is documented in many Byzantine chronicles

and histories.After the outbreak of Phocas’ rebellion, Maurice appointed the Thracian

general to command the guards of Constantinople’s walls 108. Phocas was

nonetheless able to enter the imperial capital and to be crowned emperor.

Maurice, his family and many of his lieges, including Komentiolos, were

executed 109.

POSSIBLE COMMON IDENTITY OF C OMENCIOLUS , C OMITIOLUS AND K OMENTIOLOS

Because of the extremely close periods of activity and due to the

similarity of their names, some historians have proposed that at least two of

these individuals could be the same person.

102 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VIII, chaps. 1-2, pp. 315-316; Theophanis

Chronographia, A.C. 593, pp. 434-435.103 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VIII, chaps. 2-3, pp. 316-319.104 Near present-day Svishtov, in northern Bulgaria.105

Mountain pass located fifty-five kilometres south-east of present-day Sofia.106 Present-day Plovdiv, in south-central Bulgaria.107 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VIII, chap. 4, pp. 320-321; The History of

Theophylact Simocatta cit. (note 71), p. 214, n. 15; Theophanis Chronographia, A.C. 593, p. 436.108 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VIII, chap. 8, p. 328; Theophanis

Chronographia, A.C. 594, p. 444.109 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VIII, chaps. 10-13, pp. 334-341; Theophanis

Chronographia, A.C. 594-595, pp. 446-449; ibid., A.C. 600, p. 456; Chronicon Paschale, in P.G., XCII,

year 602, cols. 971-972 (according to which, Komentiolos’ corpse was devoured by dogs); Nicephori

Callisti Xanthopuli Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri XVIII , XVIII, chap. XLI, cols. 409-412.


22/29


For example, F. Görres thinks that Comenciolus and Komentiolos can beidentified with one only person, different from Comitiolus 110.

P. Goubert, in one of his articles, writes that the three officials wereprobably the same person, but he does not exclude either the possibility thatonly Comenciolus and Komentiolos might be the same person or that allthree could be different men 111.

J. Orlandis shares Goubert’s opinion: the Spanish scholar wrote that,even though it is impossible to prove it, Komentiolos, Comenciolus andComitiolus were probably the same person 112.

In his Prosopography J.R. Martindale uses the same entry for Komentiolosand Comenciolus (as Comentiolus 1) 113 and a different one for Comitiolus,

but his explanation for doing so is somewhat confused. According to thistext, the gloriosus cannot be identified with Komentiolos (the author statesthat, according to the “tone” of Gregory’s letter, Comitiolus was still alive in603, while Komentiolos had died one year earlier), but he and Comenciolus“could be the same man” 114. In this case, since, according to Martindale,Comenciolus and Komentiolos are the same person, they would be identifiedwith Comitiolus as well, but, as previously reported, Martindale states thatComitiolus and Komentiolos cannot be the same man.

F.J. Presedo Velo’s theory is similar to Martindale’s. The Spanish historian

is sure that Comenciolus and Comitiolus are the same person, but finds itmore difficult to identify Komentiolos with the other two figures 115.Finally, M. Vallejo Girvés is sure that the three men were the same

person 116.Historians have also discussed the dating of his/their presence in Spain.

According to F. Görres, Comenciolus (sic) did not arrive in Spain before the

110 GÖRRES, Die byzantinischen Besitzungen cit. (note 3), pp. 534-535.111 GOUBERT, L’Administration de l’Espagne Byzantine cit. (note 53), pp. 129-134.112

J. ORLANDIS, Gregorio Magno y la España visigodo-bizantina, in J. ORLANDIS, Hispania y Zaragozaen la Antigüedad Tardía. Estudios varios, Zaragoza, 1984, pp. 87-103 (in particular pp. 98-99).

113 MARTINDALE, The Prosopography cit. (note 70), Comentiolus 1.114 Ibid., Comitiolus 2, p. 329.115 PRESEDO VELO, La España bizantina cit. (note 4), pp. 74-77.116 VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Bizancio y la España tardoantigua cit. (note 10), p. 234, n. 88; EAD.,

« Commentiolus, Magister Militum Spaniae missus a Mauricio Augusto contra hostes barbaros ». The

Byzantine perspective of the Visigothic Conversion to Catholicism, in Romanobarbarica, XIV

(1996-1997), pp. 289-306 (in particular pp. 291-292, n. 5); EAD., Hispania y Bizancio cit. (note 3), pp.

294-295.


23/29

DANIELE MOROSSI150

second half of 582 and left the Iberian Peninsula in 589/590 117. P. Goubert,on the other hand, thinks that “Comentiolus” left Persia for Spain during the

seventh indiction (588/89) and that, after repairing the walls of Cartagena in589/90, he kept governing the Byzantine possessions for quite a long time (atleast until 598) and deposed the Bishop of Malaga between 595 and 599 118.Martindale writes that Comentiolus (sic) was in Spain only during the year589 119, but he does not give any possible date for Comitiolus’ presence inthat area 120. According to F.J. Presedo Velo, the Byzantine official initiallystayed in Spain until 589, but if he actually came back later then he deposedthe bishops in his second term as governor 121. Vallejo Girvés thinks that“Comentiolus-Comitiolus” only stayed in the Iberian Peninsula for a brief

period, between 587 and 589122

.Personally, I think that Komentiolos, Comenciolus and Comitiolus canbe identified with only one person; so I agree with Goubert, Orlandis andVallejo Girvés.

This theory is given credit by the news that Comitiolus had deposed abishop from the Byzantine territories in Spain and that he was probably deadby August 603. It is, therefore, extremely likely that Comitiolus was animperial officer and it is possible to identify him with Komentiolos, as thelatter had been killed one year earlier, in 602, during Phocas’ coup d’état .

Other elements give credit to the theory that Comenciolus and Komentioloscould be the same person. Since Byzantine sources provide no informationabout Komentiolos between 587 and late 589, nor from early 591 to lateMarch 598, nor between the summer of 600 and late 602, it is likely that hewas actually sent to Spain during one of these intervals. Such a theory iscorroborated by the fact that the inscription which attests the rebuilding of the fortifications in Cartagena was carved between September 589 andAugust 590. It is, therefore, highly likely that Comenciolus commissionedthis construction at the end of his mandate in Spain, i.e. during the spring orsummer of 589. Since during these months Komentiolos’ presence in other

117 GÖRRES, Die byzantinischen Besitzungen cit. (note 3), p. 537.118 GOUBERT, L’Administration de l’Espagne Byzantine cit. (note 53), pp. 135-138; GOUBERT,

Administration de l’Espagne Byzantine cit. (note 10), p. 77. In the latter article, though, Goubert writesthat Comentiolus was called back to the East around 598.

119 MARTINDALE, The Prosopography cit. (note 70), Comentiolus 1, p. 323.120 Ibid., Comitiolus 2, p. 329.121 PRESEDO VELO, La España bizantina cit. (note 4), pp. 76-77.122 Stated in her latest work, VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Hispania y Bizancio cit. (note 3), p. 296.


24/29


areas of the empire is not attested by any Greek sources, it is highly probable

that actually he and Comenciolus were the same person.

If both of these assumptions are true then by the same token we canequally assume that Comenciolus and Comitiolus were also the same man,

whom I will call Comentiolus.

Were this hypothesis true then Comentiolus governed Spain between no

earlier than 587 and 589 (when he commissioned the rebuilding of the

fortifications of Cartagena), and when he deposed the two bishops.

However, it is difficult to find out when these depositions took place, as

Gregory’s letters to Iohannes, the only source which testifies these events,

provide no information about it other than setting year 603 as ante quem.

M. Vallejo Girvés assumes that this act (such as the rebuilding of thefortifications) took place no later than 589. She also states that probably

Pope Gregory had already sent a legate to Malaga in 592 or a few years later

with the task of managing the delicate situation the city was facing after the

deposition of its bishop 123. King Reccared, in fact, mentions a priest the

pontiff had sent to Malaga in a letter he sent to Gregory the Great between

596 and 599 124.

However, I think that this dating should not be taken for granted,

especially considering that, according to Vallejo Girvés’ theory, Gregory’s

letter to Iohannes would have been written at least fourteen years after the

deposition of the bishops. My opinion is that it is highly unlikely that such a

great span occurred between these events.

In 1991 M. Vallejo Girvés herself stated that Comitiolus had probably

sentenced the deposition of Ianuarius and Stephanus later. The historian

noted that Iohannes was sent to Spain after Ianuarius appealed to the pope

with a procedure which was to be followed if the metropolitan of that See

was absent. Since Licinian, bishop of Cartagena and probably the metropolitan

of that region, died in Constantinople in exile and his final letter was written

in 595 (when he was still in Spain), the two bishops were deposed later than

595. In addition to this, since the scholar identified Comitiolus with Komentiolos

123 Ibid., pp. 296-298.124 Gregorii I Papae Registrum Epistolarum. Libri VIII-XIV , ed. L. M. HARTMANN, Berolini, 1899

( M.G.H., Epp. 2), Ep. IX.227a, p. 221. However, I think it is possible that the priest mentioned by

Reccared was Probinus, a presbyter who acted as Pope Gregory’s intermediary in Spain in 595 and in

599 (cfr. Gregorio Magno, Lettere, II cit. note 35, Ep. V.53, pp. 240-241; Gregorio Magno, Lettere

(XI-XIV, Appendici), IX.229, pp. 494-495), and who probably had the same role at the time the letter was

written.


25/29

DANIELE MOROSSI152

and the latter was fighting the Avars in the year 600, then the depositionstook place between 595 and 600 125.

Unfortunately, I think this hypothesis has a flaw, as Vallejo Girvésassumes that the Bishop of Malaga’s appeal took place immediately after hisdeposition, while it is possible that Ianuarius had already previously askedfor help from his metropolitan in order to be restored and only later appealed,as his last resort, to the pope. In addition to this, I have already mentioned thefact that Comentiolus started his second military campaign against the Avarsin 598, and not in 600, as the Spanish historian wrote in her article.

This problem could be solved if the year of Ianuarius’ anointment as theBishop of Malaga were known. Since Gregory’s letters are the only sourcesabout this prelate, it is not possible to identify this date.

Finding out when his predecessor Severus died, though, would give a post quem of Ianuarius’ deposition. Contemporary sources do not provide muchhelp, though, as the only author providing some information about Severus’life is Isidore of Seville. One of the chapters of his De viris illustribus is a brief biography of this bishop of Malaga, who floruit under Emperor Maurice’sreign (582-602) and quo etiam regnante vitam finivit 126. Therefore, thissource is not extremely useful, since it only excludes the possibility thatSeverus might have died before the second half of the 580s.

It appears as if modern works provide more information about Severus.According to both P.B. Gams and the Biographical Index of the Middle AgesSeverus died in 601 127. However, I think that in both of these works the year of Severus’ death is taken from a statement by Enrique Florez, who wrote that,according to what Isidore wrote about Severus, the latter probably died in 601 128.Unfortunately, this is a mere assumption and it cannot be considered a reliablepiece of information.

It is, therefore, possible to date Severus’ death (and, consequently, the begin-ning of Ianuarius’ bishopric) only not earlier than 585 and certainly not laterthan 602.

125 M. VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Bizancio ante la conversión de los visigodos: Los obispos Jenaro y Esteban, inConcilio III de Toledo. XIV Centenario 589-1989, Toledo, 1991, pp. 477-483 (in particular pp. 478-480).

126 Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi De viris illustribus liber , in P.L., LXXXIII, chap. 43, col. 1105.127 P. B. GAMS, Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, II.1, Regensburg, 1864, p. 419; ID., Series

Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae, Regensburg, 1873 (republished Graz, 1957), p. 49; B. WISPELWEY(ed.), Biographical Index of the Middle Ages, II, München, 2008, p. 1013. On the other hand, theintroduction of Severi Episcopi in Evangelia Libri XII , ed. O. ZWIERLEIN, München,1994, pp. 7-37 gives no dating of Severus’ death.

128 E. FLOREZ, España Sagrada. Theatro geographico-historico de la Iglesia de España, XII, Madrid,1754, p. 307.


26/29


Even though I am not able to solve this chronological problem, I believethat Comentiolus probably served as a governor in Spain for two different

terms: first between 587 and 589 (when he commissioned the rebuilding of the fortifications of Cartagena), then- when he deposed Ianuarius andStephanus- either sometime between 591 and 598 or sometime between 600and 602.

In addition to the point M. Vallejo Girvés mentioned in her article aboutthe deposition of the bishops 129, I think there might be another reason whichmakes it seem likelier that he returned to Spain between 591 and 598.Comentiolus, in fact, might have been sent there after falling out of favourwith Khosrau II (and, consequently, with Maurice). As M. Vallejo Girvés

wrote in another work, Spain had more than once been a destination of exiled Byzantines due to its remoteness from the centre of the empire 130. Inthis case, Comentiolus, though not an exile, might have been sent there inorder to keep him as far as possible from the Persian border.

In any case, I would not exclude that Comentiolus might have been toSpain between 600 and 602. In fact, his first tenure in the West did not lastvery long either (less than three years). In addition to this, TheophylactSimocatta writes that in 600 Comentiolus was proclaimed a strathgóv 131.However, since it looks as though the Thracian commander did not fight

again in the East until late 602, his office might have actually been the one asmagister militum Spaniae.If this theory is correct then the Thracian commander was sent to the

West in 600 or slightly later and then called back to Constantinople soonafter Phocas’ rebellion in order to help Maurice try to crush it.

CAESARIUS

After a gap of about fifteen years in the documentation about thepresence of any imperial officer in the Iberian Peninsula, a series of lettersinforms us that a Byzantine patrician named Caesarius was active in Spainaround 615 and that he was able to negotiate peace successfully withSisebut, King of the Visigoths.

129 VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Bizancio ante la conversión cit. (note 125), pp. 478-480.130 VALLEJO GIRVÉS, El exilio bizantino cit. (note 67).131 Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri Octo, VIII, chap. 4, pp. 320-321.


27/29

DANIELE MOROSSI154

Caesarius was the one who started the talks through a very pompousletter he wrote to the Gothic monarch. He promised Sisebut to intercede on

his behalf with the emperor, Heraclius, if only the king would agree to sign apeace treaty with the Byzantines. The patrician also reminded Sisebut he hadalready shown his own good will to help end the conflict by releasingCicilius, a Visigothic bishop who had been captured by the imperial army 132.

Sisebut commissioned a certain Ansemund to act as an intermediarybetween the armies and thanked Caesarius for sending him a bow as a gift 133.

The patrician sent a legation to the emperor in Constantinople and, afterthe emissaries came back, he wrote another letter to the king 134. Caesariussent two legati to Sisebut to give him first-hand information about theagreements that had been reached in Constantinople 135.

Even though Caesarius was undoubtedly in Spain, where he had animportant role within the Byzantine administration, it is not clear whichoffice he actually held: was he just a magister militum Spaniae or one of theexarchs of Africa?

H. Gelzer first raised this problem 136; later, F. Görres 137, J.R. Martindale 138

and M. Vallejo Girvés 139 wrote that Caesarius only governed Spain, while P.Goubert 140, K.F. Stroheker 141, D. Claude 142and F.J. Presedo Velo 143did nottake any position over this dispute. Even Ch. Diehl, who put Caesarius in hislist of the African exarchs, expressed his doubts by having the patrician’s

name followed by a question mark 144.As these letters provide the only surviving data about Caesarius, it is

difficult to find a solution to his role within the Byzantine administration.

132 Epistolae Wisigoticae, ed. W. GUNDLACH, Berolini, 1892 ( M.G.H., Epp. 3), ep. 3, pp. 663-664.133 Ibid., ep. 4, pp. 664-666.134 Ibid., ep. 5, pp. 666-667.135 Ibid., ep. 6, pp. 667-668.136 Georgii Cyprii Descriptio orbis romani, p. XLII.137 GÖRRES, Die byzantinischen Besitzungen cit. (note 3), pp. 535-536.138 MARTINDALE, The Prosopography cit. (note 70), Caesarius 2, pp. 258-259.139 VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Hispania y Bizancio cit. (note 3), pp. 351-354.140 GOUBERT, L’Administration de l’Espagne Byzantinecit. (note 53), pp. 141-143.141 Who just writes that Caesarius was a Statthalter ; cfr. Stroheker 1965, p. 222.142 D. CLAUDE, Die diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen dem Westgotenreich und Ostrom (475-615),

in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, CIV (1996), pp. 13-25 (inparticular pp. 21-22).

143 PRESEDO VELO, La España bizantina cit. (note 4), p. 82.144 Ch. DIEHL, L’Afrique byzantine. Histoire de la domination byzantine en Afrique (533-709), Paris,

1896 (republished New York, 1959), p. 597.


28/29


Even though the most interesting study on this topic, M. Vallejo Girvés’linguistic analysis of the titles Sisebut attributes to the patrician, has not led

to significant results145

, I think that logic can help solve this problem. I feelthat the lack of other documents referring to Caesarius seems easier toexplain if the office he actually held was not as high as the exarchate. It ismuch likelier that the patrician only governed Spain. Despite the soundnessof the counterargument that in normal circumstances a simple magister militum would not normally start peace talks with an enemy king, I think thatexceptionally Caesarius could have done that not only because of theremoteness of the Spanish province within the empire, but also consideringthe difficulties Heraclius was facing in the East against the Sasanians 146.

THE ANONYMOUS PATRICIANS

Caesarius is the last named Byzantine official who stayed in continentalSpain, but probably not the last one overall. According to a late source, infact, when the Visigothic king Suintila conquered the last remaining imperialpossessions in Spain, he also captured two patricians.

Suintila took the last remaining Byzantine possessions in 624 or 625 147.While Isidore of Seville, who was an exact contemporary, writes nothingabout any Roman governor the king might have faced, according to a lateninth century source, the Crónica Albeldense, Suintila did capture duos

patricios romanos 148.I am rather sceptical that Heraclius could actually manage to keep two

generals and/or governors (the title of “patrician” was exclusively given topeople of high social rank who could only hold such offices in an extremelyperipheral province) in Spain simultaneously with the beginning of hiscounter-offensive against the Persians 149. However, since the emperor could

145 VALLEJO GIRVÉS, Hispania y Bizancio cit. (note 3), pp. 352-353.146 Cfr.Ostrogorsky, Storia dell’impero bizantino cit. (note 4), p. 87.147 Both of Isidore of Seville’s historiographical works end in 625, when Suinthila had just conquered

the whole Spain (cfr. Isidori Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis Historia Gothorum, chap. 62, p. 292; Isidori

Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis Chronica Maiora, ed. Th. MOMMSEN, Berolini, 1894 ( M.G.H., Auct. Ant. XI ),chap. 416b, p. 480).

148 Crónica Albeldense, in Crónicas Asturianas, eds. J. G. FERNÁ, J. L. MORALEJO & J. I. RUIZ DE LA

PEÑA, Oviedo, 1985, chap. 25, p. 170.149 Cfr.Ostrogorsky, Storia dell’impero bizantino cit. (note 4), pp. 91-92.


29/29

DANIELE MOROSSI156

afford to keep one governor (Caesarius) in that area during the Sasanian

advance, I think there is a slight possibility that two Byzantine patricians

could have actually been in Spain in 624/625. Yet, even if we give credit tothe Crónica Albeldense, we cannot be sure about their identity, as the

chronicle does not mention the name of either patrician. While one of them

might be Caesarius, who was in Spain only ten years earlier, it is quite

impossible to guess the name of the other patrician.

CONCLUSIONS

At the end of this analysis, I can assert that there is a high degree of

probability that only three Byzantine officials (the “unknown prefect”,

Comentiolus, and Caesarius) actually governed Spain, since Liberius and

Narses probably never travelled there, Comitiolus and Comenciolus could be

identified as being the same person and it is not certain that two Byzantine

patricians were really captured by Suintila.

However, I think that the presence of (at least) three governors nevertheless

shows that Justinian’s successors were keenly interested in keeping the

Spanish possessions of the empire strictly under direct control.

The main reason they cared so much about these lands seems to be that

the coasts were strategically necessary so that the empire could successfullycontrol the Western Mediterranean. In addition to this, as the Vandals had

proven in the first half of the fifth century, Spain was the ideal point of

departure for navies which meant to attack Africa from Europe. Therefore,

even though I think the Visigoths were not strong enough to initiate a successful

expedition across the Straits of Gibraltar 150, controlling the Mediterranean

coasts of the Iberian Peninsula would have been seen as the key to preventing

attacks against the prefecture (later the exarchate) centred around Carthage.

150 Even though they had conquered Septem (present-day Ceuta) during Theudis’ reign, the city was

nonetheless soon retaken by the Byzantines; cfr. Isidori Iunioris episcopi Hispalensis Historia Gothorum,

chap. 42, p. 284.

Documents

Morossi (Daniele)_The Governors of Byzantine Spain (Bizantinistica 15, Spolète, 2013, 131-156)