222 The Imperial Government
beyondthewritingoftheletteritself.Butsupposenoforeignembassywere
tohand,anditwasnecessarytocommunicatespontaneouslywithaforeign
power,ortoconductnegotiationsbeyondthefrontier?Inthecaseofaking
whoseloyaltytotheEmpirewasbeyondquestion,itmighthavebeenfea-
sibleforameremessengertocarryaletter,thecounterpartofthetabellarius
ofSauromatesIonhiswaytodeliveralettertoTrajan(Pliny,Ep.10,63,64,
67).Suchaprocedureseems,however,nottobeconcretelyattested,though
itmayhavebeenemployed.Foranydelicatesituation,itismuchmoreprob-
ablethatahigh-statusemissarywillhavegone.Butheretootheevidence
is remarkably sparse. A modest Greek historian of the mid-third century,
Herodian, does however record something of the sort, in typically vague
terms.IndescribingtheexchangesaftertheriseofthenewPersianEmpire
in the 220s, he relates that Severus Alexander sent Artaxerxes/Ardashiran
embassy(presbeia)withaletterwarninghimofthedangersofseriouscon-
flictwithRome(6,2,3–4).Buthesaysnothingoftherankorfunctionof
the person,or persons,who constituted the embassy.Then,when Alexan-
derhadreachedAntiochonhiswaytotheeasternfrontier,hesentanother
presbeia.Artaxerxessenttheambassadorsbackempty-handed,soonfollowed
by400Persiancavalryasadiplomaticallyveiledthreat;theywerehowever
promptlydisarmedandsettledinAsiaMinor(6,4,4–6).HowfarHerodian’s
representation of these events is more than fanciful is in anycase an open
question.
Whatseemstobetheonlyevidencefromthewholeofthisperiodforan
emissaryof highrankconductingnegotiationsbeyondthefrontieriscon-
tained in a report by Cassius Dio of how in about 170 the Cotini, living
somewherenorthofthemiddleDanube,wereabletocaptureandmaltreat
TaruttienusPaternus,theabepistulisLatinisofMarcusAurelius,onthepretext
thattheyweregoingtojoinincombinedoperationsagainsttheMarcomani
(71,12,3).ItseemsevidentfromthisbriefreportthatPaternushadbeensent
to them to negotiate and was thus exposed to capture. If so, it is another
clearindicationoftheuseforexternalpurposesofacourtfunctionarywhose
role,atleastasfaraswecangraspit,wasnormallyrelatedtointernalcor-
respondence(withofficialsorLatin-speakingcommunitiesintheEmpire).
Itisfurthermorenotunlikelythat,likehisGreekequivalent(above),theab
epistulis Latinismaynormallyhavehadsomeroleinthereceptionofembas-
siesfromLatin-speakingcommunities.Byextension,therefore,hemayhave
beenanaturalchoicetonegotiatebeyondthefrontier.
That serves, however, merely to raise a further problem: in what lan-
guagedidoneconductnegotiationswiththeCotini,orwithanyotherun-
subdued people beyond the frontier? The notion that high-status Romans