Revue des études byzantines

The not-so-secret functions of the mystikos

Paul Magdalino

Abstract
REB 42 1984 France p. 229-240
P. Magdalino, The not-so-secret functions of the mystikos. — Attention is drawn to hitherto neglected twelfth-century sources
which indicate that at this time the imperial official known as the mystikos was a key figure in the administration of the imperial
household and treasury, responsible for the payment of government salaries and for imperial patronage of the church. It is
suggested that while this role may have been inherent in the office from the beginning, its full development took place under the
Comneni, especially Manuel I.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Magdalino Paul. The not-so-secret functions of the mystikos. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 42, 1984. pp. 229-240;

doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1984.2158

http://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_0766-5598_1984_num_42_1_2158

Document généré le 28/08/2017

 THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS
OF THE MYSTIKOS*

Paul MAGDALINO

« The service of the mystikos is obvious from the very name »1. Pseudo-
Kodinos' 'somewhat Sibylline' remark2 well illustrates the difficulties
involved in attempting to define the administrative role of the Byzantine
imperial official who was literally 'the secret one', and whose work, by
definition confidential, has not surprisingly left little trace in narrative
histories and imperial charters. However, the evidence for the functions
exercised by the mystikos since the creation of the office in the ninth century
is more considerable than Pseudo-Kodinos might lead one to expect.
Whether or not the mystikos acted as the emperor's private secretary, there
is some indication that by the eleventh century he performed judicial
functions and presided over a sekreton3. By the mid twelfth century he had

* Most of the research for this paper was carried out during my tenure of a fellowship
granted by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung.
1. J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos. Traité des Offices (Paris 1966, p. 179) : ή του
μυστικού υπηρεσία νοείται και άπ' αύτοϋ τοϋ ονόματος.
2. J. Verpeaux, Nicéphore Choumnos, Paris 1959, p. 38 n. 5.
3. See R. Guilland, Études sur l'histoire administrative de l'empire byzantin : Le
mystique, δ μυστικός, REB 26, 1968, p. 279-86 ; N. Oikonomidès, Z,es listes de préséance
byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris 1972, p. 324 ; Idem, L'évolution de l'organisation
administrative de l'empire byzantin au xic siècle (1025-1118), TM 6, 1976, p. 134 and
n. 54 ; V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de Vempire byzantin, Π : U administration
centrale, Paris 1981, p. 50-59. To the names of mystikoi listed by Guilland and Laurent
may now be added that of Constantine Leichoudes : N. Oikonomides, St. George of
Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the « Malyj Sion » of Novgorod, DOP 34-35, 1980-
1981, p. 243ff.
230 P. MAGDALINO

acquired other specific functions, which it is the purpose of this article

to explore.
The evidence is as follows :
(1-3) Three imperial acts issued for the purpose of protecting certain
ecclesiastical institutions from agents of the fisc4.
1. A prostaxis of the emperor Manuel I, datable to September 1150,
forbidding fiscal officials to lay hands on the goods of deceased bishops.
Offenders, besides being subject to severe penalties, had to make restitution
of any property seized, and to pay a fine of double the value to the fisc,
« exact notification of this being given by the bishop to the mystikos of
the day, who is to settle both matters» (i.e. the restitution and the fine)5.
2. A lysis of Alexios II, dated July 1181, for the monasteries of the region
of Constantinople6, confirming Manuel's three chrysobulls in their favour,
annulling his subsequent modifications to these, and proclaiming exemption
from certain supplementary fiscal charges. Any fiscal agent reported to
have contravened this legislation is to be forced to make amends « by the
megalepiphanestatos mystikos of the day»7.
3. A prostagma of Isaac II, issued in April 1192, forbidding fiscal officials
to seize the property of deceased bishops. Offenders are to make twofold
restitution to the injured party, and to pay fourfold to the fisc. The matter
is to be reported by the patriarch and by the bishop affected, to Isaac's
son and co-emperor Alexios, through the mystikos of the day, who is to
deduct « from the tax-receipts brought into the God-guarded chamber
of my majesty» the amount due from the offending officials8. If Alexios

4. The texts of 1 and 2 are reproduced in Zepos, JGR, I, p. 387-389, 427-428. For
the prostagma of Isaac II (3), see now the edition by J. Darrouzès, Un décret d 'Isaac II
Angélos, REB 40, 1982, p. 134-155.
5. Zepos, JGR, I, p. 389 : εΐδήσεως ακριβέστατης διδομένης περί τούτου παρά του
τηνικαυτα άρχιερέως τφ κατά την ήμέραν μυστικφ, δς καί οφείλει και όίμφω οίκονομεΐν.
On the date, see N. Svoronos, Les privilèges de l'Église à l'époque des Comnènes :
un rescrit inédit de Manuel Ier Comnène, TM 1, 1965, p. 360 n. 169.
6. Although this is not stated in the text, it would seem to be implied by the fact that
the three known chrysobulls of Manuel in favour of a number of monasteries specify
those in the region of Constantinople : Zepos, JGR, I, p. 366, 381-385 ; Svoronos,
art. cit., p. 328, 330-334.
7. On the titles of megalodoxotatos and megalepiphanestatos, see N. Oikonomidès,
REB 22, 1964, p. 163-167.
8. Ed. Darrouzès, p. 153. Discussion of the imperial Bedchamber (κοιτών) as a
financial institution in the middle Byzantine period seems to be limited to a footnote
by F. Dölger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders
des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, Munich 1927, p. 25 n. 3. However, there is abundant evidence
that the term officially designated the state treasury, to which all tax-receipts were brought.
 THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 231

happens to be away on campaign, the megalepiphanestatos mystikos is to

act on his own initiative as soon as the matter is reported.
(4-5) Two typika of monasteries restored by mystikoi under Manuel I.
4. Typikon of the monastery of Saint Mamas in Constantinople9, drawn
up in 1159 by the abbot Athanasios Philanthropenos after the death of
the mystikos George Kappadokes who had received the monastery from
the patriarchate and restored it at his own expense, obtaining imperial
and patriarchal charters to guarantee its 'liberty'. In the preface to the
typikon, Athanasios gives some biographical details : the emperor John II
had assigned George to Manuel's service while the latter was still a youth.
After John's death and Manuel's accession to the throne, George «had
supervision of the imperial residences, becoming at the same time custodian
as well as manager of the public treasures»10.
Chapter 3 of the typikon11 defines the position of the layman who is to
act as the monastery's patron (αντιλαμβανόμενος, elsewhere χαριστικάριος
and έφορος)12. In the first instance, this is to be Theocharistos Kappadokes,
George's brother. After his death, the responsibility is to pass to the
megalepiphanestatos mystikos of the day, whoever he may be ; he should
expect no recompense beyond commemoration in the monastery's prayers.
Appended to the typikon proper are some confirmatory acts which
provide further information. Of interest here is the mention, in a document

See, in addition to the sources quoted by Dölger, the following : Anna Komnena, Alexiad,
ed. B. Leib, I, Paris 1937, p. 82, 83 ; J.L. Van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae orationes et
epistulae, Berlin/New York 1972, p. 13 ; Idem, Niketas Choniates. Erläuterungen zu
den Reden und Briefen nebst einer Biographie, Berlin/New York 1971, p. 27 n. 29. Isaac's
prostagma was to be registered in the koiton as well as in the fiscal bureaux (δημοσιακοΐς
σεκρέτοις) : ed. Darrouzes, p. 155.
9. S. EuStratiadès, Τυπικον της Μονής του 'Αγίου Μεγαλομάρτυρος Μάμαντος,
'Ελληνικά 1, 1928, ρ. 245-314. On the monastery, see R. Janin, Lagéographie ecclésiastique
de V empire byzantin. I. Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique. III. Les
églises et les monastères, Paris 1969, p. 314-319. For the social position of the Kappadokes
family in this period, see the references in A. P. Kazhdan, Sotsialnyj sostav
gospodsvujushchego klassa Vizantii XI-X1I v., Moscow 1974. Apart from George, the
most important bearer of the name under the Komnenoi appears to have been the megas
logariastes Andronikos Kappadokas recorded in 1170 : Stergios Sakkos, Ή έν Κωνσταν-
τινουπόλει Σύνοδος τοϋ 1170, θεολογικαν Σνμπόσιον. Χαριστήριον εις τον κα&ηγητήν
Παναγιώτψ Κ. Χρήστου, Thessaloniki 1967, ρ. 332.
10. Eustratiadès, p. 256 : τήν έν τοις βασιλείοις οϊκοις έΌχε περιωπήν αύτο δή
τοϋτο των δημοσίων θησαυρών φύλαξ όμοϋ και οικονόμος γενόμενος.
11. Ibidem, p. 265-266.
12. On the lay patronage of monasteries, see now I. Konidaris, To δίκαιον της
μοναστηριακής περιουσίας άπα τοϋ 9ου μέχρι και τοϋ 12ου αιώνος, Athens 1979, ρ.
170-179, 258-263 (with full reference to earlier discussions).
232 P. MAGDALINO

of 1172, that it was drawn up at a meeting attended by, among others, the
deacon of the Great Church Constantine Ophrydas who was there to
represent the mystikos1*.
5. Typikon of the monastery των 'Ηλίου Βωμών, ήτοι των Έλεγμών in
Bithynia, drawn up in 1162 by the man who had 'liberated' and restored
it, the mystikos Nikephoros14. In Chapter 3 — a section which in wording
and in content corresponds closely to Chapter 3 of the typikon of Saint
Mamas — Nikephoros stipulates that after his death the patronage of the
monastery is to pass to the megalodoxotatos mystikos15.
6. Anonymous verses, dating from 1 131-2 or later, commemorating pictures
of an unnamed emperor and a mystikos Nikephoros in the monastery of
the Holy Trinity on the Bosphoros. The verses, possibly an accompanying
inscription, state that the pictures were put up in gratitude for benefactions
which the emperor had bestowed on the monastery by chrysobull, and
which the mystikos had been instrumental in procuring16.
(7-8) Two letters of John Tzetzes :
7. A letter addressed to the mystikos Nikephoros Servlias, in which Tzetzes
complains of the living conditions in his three-storey tenement. The ground-
floor dwelling, directly beneath him, is used for storing hay and is therefore
a fire-risk ; the flat above is occupied by a priest who has a large family
and also keeps piglets, which makes impossible demands on the faulty
drainage, especially when it rains. Tzetzes asks the mystikos to see that
something is done about both these problems17.

13. Eustratiadès, p. 310.

14. A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgicheskih rukopisej, I, Kiev 1895 (repr. Hildesheim
1965), p. 715ff ; on the monastery, see R. Janin-J. Darrouzès, Les églises et les monastères
des grands centres byzantins, Paris 1975, p. 142-148. Nikephoros is probably to be identified
with the mystikos Nikephoros Borbenos who figures in the protocol list of the synod of
1157 : I. Sakkelion, Πατμιακή Βιβλιοθήκη, Athens 1890, p. 316.
15. Dmitrievskij, p. 722-724 ; cf. also pp. xcv-xcviii. The Saint Mamas typikon
may have served as the model, or both typika may have been drawn up according to
a formula used in the mystikos' office.
16. Ed. Sp. Lampros, Ό Μαρκιανός Κώδιξ 524, NE 8, 1911, p. 164. The terminus
post quern is given by the next poem in the collection, recording the monastery's
establishment in the year 6639 ( = 1131/2). The mystikos, who is mentioned in another poem of
the sameaddressee
Tzetzes' collection,
in our
could
textbe
no.either
7. Nikephoros Borbenos or Nikephoros Servlias,
17. Letter 18 in the edition by P. A. M. Leone, Leipzig 1972, p. 31-34. The letter
occurs in the series after one referring to John II's Syrian expedition of 1137-8 (no. 15),
and before one addressed to the Patriarch Michael Oxeites (no. 30), who held office from
1143 to 1146. At a later stage, if not at this time, Tzetzes appears to have been attached
to the Pantokrator monastery : see letters 54, 79, 98-99.
 THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 233

8. A letter to Thessalos, oikoumenikos didaskalos and ekprosôpos of the

patriarch, complaining of the activities of a certain deacon from the
monastery του Παπιού18 ; among other things he had scattered libellous
pamphlets in the church of the Holy Apostles, and, with certain accomplices
on the staff of the church, had pronounced barbaric curses against a number
of people, including the senior priest there. The megalodoxotatos mystikos
had barely been able to restrain himself from dismissing the accomplices
from their offikia, and had banned the deacon from his monastery19.
9. Two letters to an unnamed mystikos, probably written by the protasekretis
Christopher Zonaras in the mid-to-late twelfth century20. The author
complains of delay in the full payment (δόσις) of his salary (του προσοδίου
μου), which has been due since his appointment to office well over a year
ago (εξ δτου προβέβλημαι... ένιαυτοΰ παρωχηκότος ήδη επί μησί). The
mystikos is clearly neglecting his duty (επί σοι κείται τό έργον και
των λόγων ή εκβασις), unless payment is being witheld for some
official reason (εί δ5 αιτία τίς έστι τήν δόσιν κωλύουσα, καν άπαγόρευσον).

***

AH these texts date from the mid-to-late twelfth century, with the possible
exception of no. 9, and all show the mystikos dispensing and regulating
government financial patronage, largely, though not exclusively, with
fegard to the church. He was the official responsible for ensuring that fiscal
agents who contravened imperial acts in favour of bishoprics and
monasteries made amends to the injured party and paid the stipulated fine
to the treasury (nos. 1-3). He had the power to dismiss clerics holding
offikia in the church of the Holy Apostles (no. 8), and could designate a
deacon of the Great Church as his representative (no. 4). He could be

18. Leone, no. 106, p. 153-155.

19. P. 154 ; the designation of the mystikos as megalodoxotatos suggests that this
might be Nikephoros Borbenos.
20. E. T. TSOLAKIS, Χριστόφορου Ζωναρά. Ι. Λόγος παραινετικός εις τόν υίδν αύτοϋ
κυρόν Δημήτριον. Π. Επιστολές, Επιστημονική Έπετηρις της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής
τον 'Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 20 (Thessaloniki 1981), ρ. 387-407 ;
texts on p. 403. With reference to Professor Tsolakis' edition, the following points may
be noted in passing. 1. The Λόγος παραινετικός also occurs in Ambrosianus gr. 886
(C. 222. Inf.), f. 335ff. 2. The second of the two letters to the mystikos is also transmitted
in another manuscript : Baroccianusgr. 131, f. 75V. 3. The editor's conjecture of λιπόμηνον
(letter 1, line 15) is unnecessary : for ή λιτόμηνον read ήλιτόμηνον.
234 P. MAGDALINO

approached to authorise repairs to a dwelling occupied by an intellectual

dependent on imperial benefaction (no. 7). He was responsible for paying
the salary which went with the important 'senatorial' office of protasekretis
(no. 9)21. At least two mystikoi took an interest in reviving the fortunes
of monasteries which had fallen on hard times (nos. 4-6), and put at least
two monasteries in the region of Constantinople under the permanent
protection of their successors in office (nos. 4-5).
In addition, it is stated that one of these mystikoi, George Kappadokes,
was « overseer of the imperial dwellings and custodian and manager of
the public treasury ». Unfortunately, this phrase is not a technical description
of Kappadokes' position, and does not make it clear whether he performed
these duties as mystikos, or in some other previously or jointly held official
capacity. However, other items in our dossier show that the mystikos had
ex officio power to authorise payments from the public treasury. Further
confirmation is to be found in an unexpected quarter: the History of
William of Tyre. Narrating the events which followed John II's death
in Cilicia and Manuel's proclamation by the army (1143), William writes :
«As the year drew to a close, the lord emperor led his armies back to
Constantinople. Here his elder brother, upon hearing of his father's death,
had seized the palace. But Manuel, through the agency of his mystikos, who
was in charge of the palace and the entire treasury (per misticonem suum
qui palatio et thesauris praeerat universis) — letters having been sent in
secret — captured his brother unaware and fearing nothing of the kind,
and put him in chains »22. William wrote as close in time to these events
as did the Greek historians Kinnamos and Choniates, so his account
deserves to be taken no less seriously than theirs23. It is just possible, of
course, that he was reproducing a garbled version of the story recorded by
Choniates, according to which it was the megas domestikos John Axouch

21. Nicholas Mesarites says of his father : έξ ανακτορικής έπικρίσεως της

συγκλήτου πάσης προκά-9-ητοα καΐ τό πρωτασηκρητικον οφφίκιον άναζώννυτοα ; ed.
Α. Heisenberg, Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes,
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologische
und historische Klasse, 1922, 5, p. 20. By this period the protasekretis was a professional
jurist and headed a judicial tribunal : Oikonomidès, L'évolution (see above, n. 3), p. 131 ;
Laurent, Corpus des sceaux, Π, ρ. 5.
22. William of Tyre, XV, 23 : RHC Occ, I, Paris 1844, p. 696.
23. The best discussion of the major sources for Manuel's accession is P. Lamma,
Manuele Comneno nel panegirico di Michèle Italico (Codice 2412 della Biblioteca
Universitaria di Bologna), Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini, Palermo
1951, I, p. 397-408 = Oriente e occidente nelValto medioevo, Padua 1968, p. 369-382.
See also F. Chalandon, Les Comnènes, II, Paris 1912, p. 195-196.
 THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 235

who secured Manuel's recognition in the capital and engineered the

imprisonment of his brother Isaac. However, William had enough experience
of Manuel's court to know the difference between a mystikos and a
domestikos24', whose title was, in any case, more easily latinised — or
dehellenised — as domesticus. The functions he ascribes to the misticonem
are exactly those performed by George Kappadokes, and his information
is consistent with the evidence of Isaac II's prostagma, which shows that
the mystikos remained in the palace while emperor and co-emperor were
on campaign.
From what has been said, it may be concluded that the mystikos in the
mid twelfth century held a high degree of responsibility for the palace
and the public treasury, especially during the emperor's absence from
Constantinople. In this capacity, he controlled both regular and
extraordinary payments to clerics and government officials. His position also
made him an important ecclesiastical patron, with control over certain
monasteries and minor clerical appointments.
When, and why, did the mystikos acquire these functions ? It is not
impossible that they had always pertained to the office. Its holders had
often been eunuchs, which suggests a traditional association with the imperial
household, and three had held the title of epi tou koitônos, which suggests
a natural relationship with the Chamber, both as a domestic and as a
financial institution25. Some tenth and eleventh-century references to
mystikoi seem to indicate a special competence in ecclesiastical matters26.
The practice of attaching the patronage of monasteries to a particular
imperial office was not new in the mid twelfth century, and the mystikos
was not the only official involved. In 1052 Constantine IX Monomachos

24. He twice visited the court, on the second occasion for several months (William
of Tyre, XX, 4 ; XXII, 4), and Manuel's reign was, of course, a period of close contact
between Byzantium and the crusader states.
25. G. Ficker, Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Alexios Studites, Kiel 1911,
p. 20 ; Laurent, Corpus des sceaux, II, n° 121 ; P. Gautier, La Diataxis de Michel
Attaliate, REB 39, 1981, p. 129 ; Idem, Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantokrator,
REB 32, 1974, p. 45 ; Oikonomidès, DOP 34-35, 1980-1981, p. 244 & n. 52. At one of
the receptions described in the De Cerimoniis, the mystikos stood with the koitônitai :
Bonn, I, p. 587. On the titles epi tou koitônos and koitônites, see Oikonomidès, Listes
de préséance, p. 301, 305.
26. J. Darrouzès, Épistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle, Paris 1960, p. 69 (the mystikos
present at the departure of an exiled metropolitan) ; L. G. Westerink, Nicétas Magistros.
Lettres d'un exilé, Paris 1973, p. 87 (the mystikos providing financial aid when others,
including καθηγούμενοι [ = abbots ?], prove ineffectual) ; Akty russkago na Sv. Athone
monastyria Sv... Panteleimona, Kiev 1873, p. 31 (disputes between Athonite monasteries
brought before the sekreton of the protomystikos).
236 P. MAGDALINO

had made it the special privilege of the epi tou kanikleiou to look after
the interests of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos27, and in 1079 Nikephoros
III Botaneiates appointed, or reappointed, the logothete of the drome and
protonotarios to a similar function in relation to the neighbouring monastery
of Iviron28. In the reign of Manuel I, the epi ton deeseôn Nikephoros
Komnenos had monasteries under his protection29 and the meg as
droungarios Andronikos Kamateros acted as the intermediary between the
emperor and the monastery of St. John the Theologian on Patmos30. In
the thirteenth century, we find the epi tou kanikleiou acting on behalf of
the same monastery in a capacity which was clearly that of ephoros31.
It may be that responsibility for defending the interests of religious
foundations was always shared among all officials of whom it could be said, as
Constantine IX said of the epi tou kanikleiou, « the office is one of the
innermost, and the man appointed to it has never been removed from
intimacy with the emperor»32.
However, we concluded earlier that the mystikos'' importance as an
ecclesiastical patron stemmed from his role as a treasurer and palace
administrator. Since this role is not attested before the twelfth century,
and since it combined functions which, in the 'classic' imperial administrative
system of the ninth and tenth-century taktika, had been shared among
other officials, its origins must be sought in the administrative changes of
the eleventh century, which created new offices, caused old ones to disappear,
and redistributed business among those that remained33. Two changes
in particular are worth noting in this context. One is the decline of the
eidikon as a separate treasury department specialising in the payment of
senatorial stipends (ρόγαι)34. The other is the process by which the title

27. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra,

I, Paris 1970, n° 31. John, the official in question, seems recently to have been mystikos :
Laurent, Corpus, he. cit.
28. F. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges, Munich 1948, n° 35,
p. 101-102.
29. Lament by Eustathios of Thessalonica, ed. E. Kurtz, W 17, 1910, p. 300.
30. Era Vranouse, Πατμιακα (Β'). Πρόσταξις τοϋ αύτοκράτορος Μανουήλ Α'
Κομνηνού υπέρ της έν Πάτμω Μονής Ιωάννου του Θεολόγου, Χαριστήριον εις
Ά. Κ. Όρλάνδον, II, Athens 1966, ρ. 78-97.
31. Maria Nystazopoulou, Ό επί τοϋ κανικλείου και ή εφορεία της έν Πάτμω
Μονής, Σύμμεικτα 1, 1966, ρ. 76-94.
32. Actes de Lavra, I, p. 192 : τ6 γαρ όφφίκιον των οίκειοτάτων, καΐ ό έπί τούτω
τεταγμένος της τοϋ κρατούντος ουδέποτε άφέστηκεν οίκειότητος.
33. Oikonomidès, L'évolution, passim.
34. Ibidem, p. 137 n. 72.
 THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 237

of protovestiarios, having in the first half of the eleventh century come to

designate 'une sorte de chef de la maison civile de l'empereur', was then
increasingly granted to military commanders and imperial relatives who
are unlikely to have been closely involved in the day-to-day running of the
imperial household35. Both developments were obviously in some way
connected with the rise of the mystikos.
Unfortunately, this rise cannot be charted with any precision, since
the mystikos and his sekreton were not regularly involved in the issue and
registration of imperial acts36. It is possible that the office slowly
accumulated responsibilities in a piecemeal way. It is equally possible
that its powers were suddenly increased by a single stroke of imperial
policy. The early years of Alexios I may well have been decisive; this was
a time of acute financial crisis, in which the fiscal administration was
thoroughly overhauled, and government patronage was thoroughly
reviewed, as imperial relatives, military commanders, senatorial officials,
refugee bishops, and patriarchal bureaucrats made heavy and conflicting
demands on a grossly inflated system of rewards and honours. The inflation
had reached a peak under Nikephoros III Botaneiates, and Alexios, who
reacted strongly against his predecessor's policy, cannot have failed to
cut back the powers of the treasury of the megas sakellarios which had,
by Nikephoros' reign, taken over the distribution of senatorial roga
payments from the eidikon31. These payments ranked notoriously low on
Alexios' list of financial priorities38, and it is unlikely that he required a
separate fund for them. On the other hand, he did require greater
coordination of imperial finances, and to this end created the bureaux of the two
megaloi logariastai39. It is possible that he appointed the mystikos, as part
of the same reform, to coordinate expenditure from all the different
treasuries, in the way that these offices coordinated the work of exploiting
fiscal and domain resources.

35. Ibidem, p. 129.

36. The one surviving document which appears to bear the registration mark of a
mystikos is a copy of John IPs chrysoboullon sigillion for Patmos : see Era L. Vranouse,
Βυζαντινά έγγραφα της Μονής Πάτμου. Α'. Αυτοκρατορικά, Athens 1970, ρ. 79.
37. Ibidem, p. 135. On Botaneiates' largesse, see the conflicting but consistent appraisals
by Attaleiates (Bonn, p. 273-276) and Bryennios (éd. P. Gautier, Brussels 1975, p. 257).
Attaleiates mentions, interestingly, that the protovestiarios was responsible for reading
out the honours list — an indication of the extent to which the imperial household had
become involved in the distribution of public offices.
38. Zonaras : Bonn, III, p. 733.
39. Oikonomides, L'évolution, p. 140-141.
238 P. MAGDALINO

However, it is interesting and perhaps significant that none of the evidence

for the mystikos' new importance can be securely dated earlier than the
reign of Manuel I. There are some indications that Manuel's accession
may have been an important point in the expansion of the office. Firstly,
it is to be noted that the Novel which John II issued, probably in 1124,
to protect bishoprics from the depredations of fiscal officials does not name
the mystikos as being responsible for enforcing compensation and
punishment40. Secondly, it is not certain that the protovestiarios lost effective
— as opposed to nominal — control of the imperial household before
Manuel I conferred the title on his nephew John Komnenos41. Thirdly,
the old treasury of the sakelle did not disappear until after 114542. Finally,
Manuel came to the throne in unusual circumstances, which may well
have called for special administrative arrangements. Before his father's
fatal accident in Cilicia, he was merely a young sebastokrator with no
experience as co-emperor and no prospect that he would succeed to the
throne43. He had to assert control of the government in the face of influential
and scheming relatives — his surviving brother, his uncle, and his brother-
in-law44. This insecurity undoubtedly had much to do with the
indiscriminate generosity of his early years as emperor. Choniates says
that the guardians of the public treasury could hardly control the crowds
of people swarming in and out, and it seems that until 1160 Manuel made
sure that the bishoprics of the empire and the monasteries in the region
of Constantinople had the best of their disputes with the fisc, even when
they were legally in the wrong45. Manuel's financial policy marked a break
with that of his father, and more especially of John's finance minister, the
megas logariastes John of Poutza, whose tight-fisted fiscal management
had made it possible for Manuel to inherit an overflowing treasury46.

40. Zepos, JGR, I, p. 363-364.

41. Several of Tzetzes' letters are addressed to Alexios, nephew of the protovestiarios
Psyllos (Leone, nos 24-29, 31, 34, 36, 40), who was clearly not a member of the Comnenian
military aristocracy. On John Komnenos, protovestiarios and protosebastos, see Kinna-
mos : Bonn, p. 126ff ; Chômâtes, ed. J. L. Van Dieten, Berlin/New York 1975, p. 103-
104 ; P. Gautier, Michel Italikos, Lettres et discours, Paris 1972, p. 281-282. According
to Kinnamos, John received his titles after he was wounded in a tournament in the winter
of 1149-50.
42. OiKONOMiDÈs, L'évolution, p. 137.
43. The significance of this fact for Manuel's policies is well brought out by P. Lamma,
Comneni e Staufer, I, Rome 1955, p. 43ff.
44. Kinnamos, p. 31-33, 37-38.
45. Chômâtes, ed. Van Dieten, p. 59-60 ; cf. Svoronos, Les privilèges de l'Église
(see η. 5 above), p. 354ff.
46. Choniates, p. 54.
 THE NOT-SO-SECRET FUNCTIONS OF THE MYSTIKOS 239

John remained in office for years after Manuel's accession, eventually

adapting to the new mood of corrupt extravagance, but he was clearly
not the ideal instrument of a policy which stood to ruin all he had achieved,
especially in view of his reputation for refusing to register imperial acts
of which he did not approve47. In these circumstances, while Manuel had
no reason to dismiss experienced and loyal ministers who had served his
father to the best of their ability, he would also want to use the services
of men who were more exclusively dependent on him, notably those who
had served in his household while he had been sebastokrator48 ; George
Kappadokes was not the only member of this familia to be promoted in
imperial service when Manuel became emperor49. Above all, Manuel
needed an official who could be trusted to dispense imperial patronage
without being obstructive, and could authorise payments from the treasury
without having to work through the fiscal bureaux. This is surely the
essence of the part played by the mystikos in executing Manuel's legislation
in favour of bishoprics : legislation which required the punishment of over-
efficient tax-officials, and the automatic settlement of whatever bill of
damages the injured clergy chose to present.
Whatever the precise circumstances of the rise of the mystikos, there
can be no doubt that he became a key figure in the fully-developed
Comnenian system of government, less conspicuous than the imperial
relatives or the heads of the sekreta, but equally close to the emperor,
and with far more immediate control over the corridors and strong-rooms
of power. The sources we have examined remind us of another aspect of
the power structure of the Comnenian court from that reflected in chancery
documents and the protocol lists of synodal records : the private, inner
world of the Chamber, where soft-spoken, self-effacing eunuchs enjoyed
a confidence denied to the emperor's most prestigious delegates50.

47. Ibidem, p. 55. The terminus post quern for John's death is provided by his mention
in the synodal record of 1157 : Sakkelion, op. cit. (above, n. 14).
48. The loyalty with which Comnenian princes were served by their household staff
is illustrated in the typikon which Manuel's uncle, the sebastokrator Isaac, drew up for
the Kosmosoteira monastery : ed. L. Petit, IRAIK 13, 1908, p. 36-37, 45-46, 53-54, 55-
56, 58.
49. The Chouroup who was appointed to military commands before and during the
passage of the Second Crusade is another example : Kinnamos, p. 44, 87, 98, 105 — he
is described as ές τους βασιλέως και πρό της άλουργίδος τελών (ρ. 44 : the Bonn text
has προς, but this is clearly based on a misreading).
50. On the influence of eunuchs at Manuel's court, see Kinnamos, p. 269, 296-297 ;
Choniates, p. 204 ; E. Miller, Poésies inédites de Théodore Prodrome, Annuaire de
Γ Association pour Γ encouragement des études grecques 17, 1883, p. 29-30.
240 P. MAGDALINO

The evolution of the office of the mystikos after 1204 is another story,
which needs further investigation. It is possible that the reorganisation of
imperial government in the exile of Asia Minor brought new changes
which associated the mystikos with the chancery51. However, there is one
piece of evidence that in the restored empire of the Palaiologoi the mystikos
again acted as a 'minister of ecclesiastical patronage'52. We may suppose
that he continued to do so as long as the emperor had patronage to dispense.
We may also, in consequence, safely conclude that Pseudo-Kodinos'
« sybilline » remark which was quoted at the beginning of this article tells
us rather more about the sorry state of imperial finances in the middle
of the fourteenth century than it does about the real functions of the
mystikos.

51. M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under

the Laskarids of Nicaea, 1204-1261, Oxford 1975, p. 147-148, 161-162.
52. Vatican, gr. 1891, f. 35r (letter from a churchman, probably the metropolitan of
Thessalonica, to an unnamed mystikos, probably Nikephoros Choumnos) : ό δ' αγαπητός
μου υιός ό χαρτοφύλαξ άφικνούμενος εις προσκύνησιν του κραταιού και αγίου ημών
αύθέντου καΐ βασιλέως, παρά τίνος μάλλον τεύξεται καΐ αναδοχής καΐ συστάσεως
Ινθαδε, 'άτι μή παρά της σης αντιλήψεως ;