The Administration of the Privy Purse

Abstract

IT is generally conceded by historians that internal factors had a good deal more to do than external violence of barbarians in bringing about disintegration of Roman Empire and ignominious collapse of its western half in fifth century. The possible role of corruption of bureaucracy in bringing about collapse of its administrative machinery merits detailed attention.' One must proceed with caution, however, in evaluating extent to which this factor may or may not have been operative. Corruption on a considerable scale, both of public and officials, one supplementary to other, there undoubtedly was, as codes and literary sources abundantly indicate. But, on other hand, there seems little room to doubt that an efficient bureaucracy one of main factors in perennial strength of fragment of Empire that survived in East after collapse of West and continued to be a major power in Levant until Fourth Crusade. Jones speaks of the usual abuses of an overripe bureaucracy2 flourishing in Late Empire, further qualifying Byzantine bureaucracy as cumbersome and corrupt:' on other hand, he concludes that bureaucracy a source of strength as well as weakness, especially in eastern half of Empire, which survived, among other reasons, due to more effective administrative control exercised by East, which enabled it to mobilize for defence of Empire a larger proportion of wealth and manpower available. And principal reason for this, he continues, was that in West great offices of state were perquisite of wealthy landowning class who used their powers to protect their own interests, but in East powers of State were, from fifth century at any rate, wielded by bureaucrats, men like Marinus Syrian and John Cappadocian, who, it is true, lined their own pockets liberally, but did also fill treasury.4