No More Learning

The Byzantines
were forced back step by step. For all that, the war lasted over ten
years longer before the capture of Messina (probably 843) by the Aghlabid
prince, Abu-1-Aghlab Ibrahim. Byzantium could no longer help the
Sicilians, for all the troops were required in the East. They still
held out however at a few points. The apparently impregnable Castro-
giovanni, situated on a high sugar-loaf mountain, which even to the
present has maintained a remarkably sinister medieval character, did
not fall till the year 859, after a long defence, into the hands of
'Abbas ibn al-Fadl, who had succeeded Ibrahim. But the energy of
the undisciplined African soldiery did not last beyond this stage, and
even before the island was completely conquered the Arabs and Berbers
were at daggers drawn and the Saracenic advance appears to have


## p. 383 (#415) ############################################

814-1061] Invasion of Italy 383
come to a standstill here from the same reasons as in Southern France.
The last energetic prince of the house of the Aghlabids, Ibrahim II,
further succeeded (21 May 878) in capturing and destroying Syracuse.
Later on he came himself to Sicily and attacked with brutal cruelty the
only Christian communities who were still independent, in the Etnadistrict,
and he also destroyed Taormina (902). The conquest of Sicily was thus
completed. The re-conquest by the Normans did not begin till 1061.
Ibrahim II met his death in the same year before Cosenza, after
having carried the religious war across the straits into Calabria. He
was not the first Saracen on Italian ground, for immediately after the
conquest of Palermo the Aghlabid generals had interfered in the
internecine quarrels of the Lombard States in Southern Italy, and thus
these Aghlabids had soon become the terror of Southern and Central
Italy. Everyone who has travelled along the incomparable coast
between Naples and Palermo knows the numerous "Saracen towers,'" the
ruins of the coastguard towers, from which the approach of Sicilian or
African fleets had to be announced. Even to-day, in the time of a
peaceful, money-bringing invasion of foreigners, there still dwells in the
memories of the people occupying this favoured country the recollection
of that other invasion of quite other character, the Saracen calamity,
which for centuries restricted all healthy development. This forms the
final chapter in the spread of Islam into Central Europe. In depicting
it we must rely mostly on western sources, as the Arab-Berber robber-
States which sprang up in Southern Italy never attained civilisation
enough to have literary records, and Sicilian and Eastern writers tell us
little about Italy1.
As in Sicily so in Italy the Saracens did not come without an appeal.
For a long time past the Duchy of Benevento had endeavoured to annex
the free town of Naples, which was besieged at various times and was
compelled to agree to the payment of a tribute, which however was
at once suspended whenever any resistance appeared possible. After
having unsuccessfully requested Louis the Pious (814-840) to intervene,
and having also been unable to find any sufficiently powerful allies in
his own neighbourhood, Duke Andreas of Naples turned to the Saracens
in Sicily. These availed themselves eagerly of this opportunity to
interfere in Italy and in the year 837 they relieved Naples, at that time
besieged by Duke Sikard of Benevento. Sikard retired with indignation,
but the alliance thus formed by Naples lasted for many a long year to
the benefit of both parties. The Duchy of Benevento was a natural
enemy to both of them and it could not be otherwise than agreeable to
the Neapolitans when, shortly afterwards, Sikard's troops were defeated
by Saracens at Brindisi, and the town itself was burnt. In fact Naples
even returned the assistance rendered in 837 by helping the Saracens in
842-843 to conquer Messina.
1 The following account utilises the results of Aniari and Lokys.
f


## p. 384 (#416) ############################################

384 Dealings of Sikonolf [839-844
After SikarcTs death the Duchy of Benevento was divided into two
principalities; Radelchis resided in Benevento and Sikonolf in Salerno,
and the two were constantly fighting. This self-destruction on the part
of the sole great power of Southern Italy was of course in the highest
degree welcome to the Saracens. Sikard died in 839, and immediately
afterwards the Saracens of Sicily were once more in Calabria. They even
advanced as far as Apulia, and though the conquest of Bari was not at
first attained, Taranto fell and was not relieved even with the help of
the Venetians, whom the Byzantines had called to their assistance
(840). The victorious Muslims pushed forward to the Adriatic, burned
Ossero on the island of Cherso, and Ancona, and even appeared
temporarily in the neighbourhood of Venice, whose trading ships they
captured. In 842 also the Venetians suffered a further defeat. Bari,
which was to be the main base of the Saracens for thirty years, had
already fallen (probably 841). Radelchis, pressed hard by Sikonolf, had
called the masters of Sicily to his assistance, and they had begun by
taking Bari from their ally. Radelchis had of course in his distress to
accept this with a good grace and come to terms with these strange and
unruly allies. The Saracens under the Berber Khalfun advanced from
Bari as a base against Sikonolf, but after a bloody battle they were
driven back on Bari, which in the meantime they had converted into a
strong fortress. As the Muslims constantly received reinforcements this
one victory served Sikonolf but little; and Radelchis too, especially after
he had received (in 842), whether he liked it or not, his infidel allies under
the leadership of Masar into his capital, Benevento, became the puppet
of the Saracens, who ravaged the whole country with their despotism
and cruelty—a terrible scourge for friend and foe alike.
In spite of all such misfortunes however Radelchis was of course
under the circumstances victorious over his adversary. As Sikonolf could
not help himself in any other way, he too sought Saracen allies. He is
said to have applied to the Spaniards, whose numerous raids into
Provence, Northern Italy and in fact as far afield as Switzerland do not
come within the scope of this chapter. It is moreover much more
probable that Sikonolf did not draw his auxiliaries directly from the
Iberian peninsula, but from Crete, where a Muslim robber-State had
been in existence since 826, founded there by Spanish Saracens who had
been expelled for mutiny from their country. With these new troops,
who were more easily governed, as they had no neighbouring great
power on whose support they could calculate, Sikonolf succeeded in
defeating his opponent and locking him up in Benevento. He was
however unable to take the town owing to difficulties in his own camp,
and so everything remained in the same state as before. Masar with his
Saracens swept through the whole country, plundering as he went, and
undertook expeditions far towards the north.
These advances however of the Saracens, starting from Bari and


## p. 385 (#417) ############################################

845-849] • Attack on Rome 385
Benevento, were not the only raids with which the unfortunate country
was infested. The large ports of the western coast were in constant
dread of unpleasant surprises, for in the year 845 the Sicilians had
chosen Ponza and Ischia as naval bases, to which moreover they soon
added Cape Miseno. The towns of Naples, Gaeta, Amalfi and Sorrento
formed an alliance for the purpose of mutual defence, as the Duke of
Salerno was not in a position to assist them. In the following years the
Muslims prepared to deal a severe blow. For a long time Rome with
its vast church treasures had tempted them. On 23 Aug. 846, a fleet of
73 vessels, stated to have been manned by 1100 Muslims, appeared
before Ostia, and in the early morning of 26 August the Saracens stood
before the walls of Rome, where they plundered the quarters of the town
lying outside the walls, especially the church of St Peter and the
cathedral of St Paul, and they broke open the graves of the apostolic
prelates. Unfortunately the information we have respecting this event
is extremely scanty and it is moreover distorted by legend, for the very
idea of the hordes of the false prophet having ravaged in the capital of
Christendom gave a magnificent scope for the imagination of the western
world. God himself immediately afterwards seemed to desire to avenge this
visitation, for after a few successes before Gaeta, whither the Saracens had
withdrawn from Rome, and just when they proposed to return, their entire
fleet, conveying all their stolen treasures, was destroyed in a storm (847).
The impression made by these events was enormous. In 847 King
Louis II appeared in Southern Italy, defeated the Saracens and
conquered Benevento. With the disputing parties there he arranged
that thev should make common cause against the infidels in Bari and
Taranto. This plan was frustrated through the selfish policy of the
small States of Southern Italy. Nothing was effected against the con-
tinued piratical raids of the Sicilians. It was not until the year 849,
when the Saracens planned another great expedition against Rome and
collected for this purpose in Sardinia, that the seaports of the western
coast united for the defence of Rome. The fleets met before Ostia, and
the fight had already begun when the elements waxed tempestuous and
the naval battle and the Sicilian fleet came to a sudden and violent end.
The Italian fleet was probably also destroyed—information on the point
is missing—but the sacred city was rescued. Even now, in the Stanzas
of the Vatican, the celebrated picture of this sea fight, painted from
sketches by Raphael, recalls this wonderful rescue of Rome.
Even though these naval expeditions were but episodes, the Saracen
fortress at Bari was a constant menace to Southern Italy. The successes
gained by King Louis had been lost again immediately after his departure,
and Bari once more extended its power to Benevento. Louis II, who
had in the meantime been crowned as Emperor, was therefore compelled
once more to decide on an expedition to the south. On this occasion he
advanced on Bari, but was unable to capture it, as his vassal States failed
C. MED. H. VOL. II. CH. XII. 25


## p. 386 (#418) ############################################

386 Successes of Louis II [852-875
him at the critical moment. However he managed to obtain possession
of Benevento for the second time, and he caused the Saracen leader Masar
to be executed (28 May 852). The Saracen commander-in-chief in
Sicily, 'Abbas ibn al-Fadl, avenged this deed by plundering and occupying
the Calabrian coast.
The same performance was repeated as after the first departure
of Louis. Meanwhile Mufarrij ibn Salim had taken up Khalfun>
position at Bari. He took his revenge for past failures by founding an
independent State, declaring his allegiance directly to the Abbasic
Caliph. His successor assumed the title of Sultan, thus proclaiming his
independence of the Sicilian Amir. Little is known of the doings of
these rulers of Bari, who were probably soldier-emperors like the sub-
sequent Mamelukes in Egypt. The country as far as Central Italy lay
defenceless at their feet, as the troubles in the territory of the old
Duchy of Benevento became greater and greater, and prevented all
defence. The western historians give the most incredible reports of the
bloodthirstiness of these sultans. Capua and Naples had to suffer tit
most, but the rich monasteries further to the north, as San Vincenzo on
the Volturno, and Monte Cassino, also saw the enemy either within their
walls, or at least before them.
In order to put a stop to this distress the Emperor once more
undertook (866) a great expedition against the Saracens, and finally
forced them back on Bari and Taranto. In order to subjugate Ban
however a fleet was necessary, and after long negotiations this *as
eventually placed at his disposal by the Byzantines. By co-operation
at this stage the two emperors and their vassals at last succeeded
(2 Feb. 871) in breaking the power of Bari. On his way to Taranto
however to take this last bulwark from the Muslims the Emperor w&*
compelled to fall back on Ravenna, and this too through the treachery
of the self-same petty princes, whom he had just rescued from the
severest distress. At the same time the Saracens appeared once more.
this time on the western coast, and attacked Salerno, pushing forward
also even as far as Capua. Louis sent help once more, and the Saracens
were defeated at Capua on the Volturno, whereupon they left Italy-
but only to return shortly afterwards with renewed forces. They did not
meet the Emperor again in the south. He died in 875 in Northern
Italy, and with his death all his successes appear to have vanished.
At this point Byzantium assumed the moral heritage of the
Carolingian and profited by his deeds. The further struggle with the
Saracens and their final expulsion from Italy belongs to the great
Byzantine restoration under the Macedonian emperors of the Basiliss
dynasty. A few words only may here be added in regard to the con-
clusion of the Saracen domination on Italian soil. With the consent
of the residents the Byzantines, who were up to that time stationed
in Syracuse, had also settled in Bari. The loss of Syracuse in the I


## p. 387 (#419) ############################################

876-916] Byzantine Conquest of Bari 387
year 878 was certainly a severe blow; Calabria and Taranto were
still in the hands of the Muslims, and the Adriatic too was not safe
from them. Basil was however the first to succeed in defeating the
Saracens at sea, to land in Calabria, conquer Taranto (880) and a few
years later to expel the last remnants of the Saracens from Calabria.
Thus Southern Italy became once more a portion of the Byzantine
Empire. The subsequent attacks of the Saracens in this quarter were no
more than episodes, although the coast towns were again occasionally
laid under tribute to the Saracens, and the constant strife between
Saracens and Byzantines did not in fact cease until the Normans
conquered both contending parties.
Through the downfall of Bari, the Saracens' base of attack for
Central Italy had naturally been shifted. They came now exclusively
from the West. The small Lombard States, rendered shrewd by their
experiences in the past, had made a treaty with the Sicilian Saracens,
on which account the latter, from 875 onwards, directed their raids
principally towards the north, and harassed the pope. In 878 Pope
John VIII was even compelled to pay the Saracens a tribute, in order to
purchase a short period of rest and quiet. For several years thereafter
the Saracens succeeded once again in gaining strong bases on the coast
and in the interior, as, for instance, in the mountains to the north of
Benevento and on the right bank of the Garigliano at Trajetto.
Especially from the latter point they still undertook numerous plundering
expeditions through Central Italy up to the gates of Rome; Monte
Cassino too, which they had not previously entered, was looted and
destroyed in the course of one of these raids. It was not until 915
that, thanks to the initiative of John X, the camp on the Garigliano was
destroyed. Thus ended the reign of Islam on Italian soil, though we
still hear of many a later piratical excursion.
Owing to the irregular nature of the Saracenic raids in Southern
Italy, the events in Sicily and on the mainland have had to be pourtrayed
separately, but it is easy to see the inner connexion of the two. The
subsequent march of events can be given without further ceremony in
connexion with the history of the island. The Muslim command here
had been in the meantime changed. On the ruins of the Aghlabid
dominion the Fatimite Mahdi had founded a new and promising State;
the Arabs and Berbers of Sicily seemed apparently to have submitted
with a good grace to the new order of things in their native country
(910), but the fact soon made itself apparent, that the governor sent by
Mahdi was not equal to the situation. The Saracens of Sicily, under
the leadership of the Arab Amir Ahmad ibn Kurhub, thereupon declared
their independence and named the Abbasid Caliph instead of the
Fatimite in their pulpit prayers (913). But such a period of unity,
patched up in times of need, between Berbers and Arabs, never lasted
long. As early as 916 the Berbers gave up the unfortunate Amir to
ch. xii. 26—2


## p. 388 (#420) ############################################

388 Hasan ibn Ali [91P
the Caliph Mahdl to be cruelly executed, and Sicily became once morta
province of the Fatimite Empire (917).
Thus strengthened the Fatimites again commenced their piraticst
trips from Africa and Sicily, and the Byzantines purchased peace fa
their coasts for some time by a treaty with Mahdl. The latter recoups
himself for this in the north, by plundering the district of Genoa and
the town itself in 934 and 935, at the same time casually honouring
Corsica and Sardinia with a visit.
These years were not happy ones for Sicily; one unscrupuloc
governor drove the Islamic upper classes to revolt, whilst another
subjected them in an unprecedentedly bloody struggle. Thereafter a
more favoured time began under the rule of the Arab Hasan ibn Ali,
who had been entrusted with the governorship by the second Fatimite
in 948. Hasan belonged to a family called Banu abi-1-Husain, and the
Fatimite to the Kalb; he and his successors and relatives who rulei
after him are therefore called the Kalbites, a brilliant dynasty, under
whom all the gifts of civilisation began to collect and take shape, which
gave later a distinctive character to the Norman culture, and even to
that of Frederick II.
The energetic Amir repressed the particularism which militated
against successful development, and thus created the foundations of a
well-regulated and more or less independent State. The Fatimites were
shrewd enough to restrict their choice to members of the race of Banu
abi-1-Husain, whenever a new governor was required, without however
permitting too much private power to arise by so doing. Closely related
members of the family were always employed by the Fatimites in
Egypt, thus securing themselves against any efforts at independence
on the part of the Amir for the time being. But apart from this
the governor had complete freedom, especially since the Fatimites had
removed their capital to Egypt. In this way the Amir of Sicily acted
as a necessary counterpoise to the Amir of Kairawan. In the foreign
policy of the Fatimites moreover Sicily played in the long run a more
and more important part, especially since the Fatimites had become the
leading Muslim power in the eastern Mediterranean territory and were
engaged in constant struggles with the Byzantines for supremacy. This
however can only for the present be briefly touched upon.
Hasan ibn Ali reigned until 965. During his rule renewed fio-nts
took place in Calabria and Apulia, in fact the Byzantines even ventured
on a landing in Sicily, but in the year 965 the Greek fleet was utterly
destroyed off Messina. But shortly after, when the conquest of Egypt
was impending, the Fatimites concluded terms of peace with Byzantium
and thus Italy also obtained a period of rest from the Saracens, and
an alliance was even made with them temporarily when thejaovements
of the Emperor Otto II began in Lower Italy. In 982 however Otto
was seriously defeated by the Saracens at Stilo iij the Bay of T&ranto.
:'


## p. 389 (#421) ############################################

989-1042] Decline of the Saracens in Sicily 389
This strange friendship soon came to an end, and in the decades
before and after the year 1000 we come across the Kalbite Amir again
in Southern Italy. In Sicily however the population experienced years
of progress and prosperity under intelligent rulers. The general welfare
was shewn most completely in the households of the Amirs. The
material prosperity of the Orient of the time, the refined style of living,
the rich intellectual life of Court circles in Bagdad, Cordova and Cairo,
were also to be met with in Palermo, whose best period corresponds to the
reign, unfortunately but too short, of the Amir Yusuf (989-998). But
immediately after YusuFs decease indications began to appear which
shewed that the Kalbite dynasty had passed its highest point of
excellence. Yusuf was rendered incapable of holding the reins of
government by a stroke and his son Ja'far (998-1019) was not fortunate
in his methods. The opposition between Arabs and Berbers, never quite
extinct, now started up again. The revolt which followed ended with
the expulsion of the Berbers and the execution of a brother of the Amir,
who had led them. Ja'far was however compelled to yield to another
revolt, carried out by another brother. Thus weakened inwardly Sicily
was no longer able effectively to resist the various hostile naval powers,
such as Byzantium and Pisa, which threatened it; and early in the new
century the Sicilian fleet suffered various defeats. It was not until the
Zlrids allied themselves with the Sicilians that, during its third decade,
more extended raids could be undertaken against the Byzantine lands,
but these too always ended in defeat.
Added to these defeats there followed, from 1035 onwards, a civil
war, which was the beginning of the end of the dynasty and also of the
sway of Islam in Sicily. On this occasion the trouble was not between
Arabs and Berbers, but was the consequence of the expulsion of the
latter. The Berbers had to be replaced by other troops, and these of
course cost money, so that the taxes had to be raised. The native
population thereupon took up arms. The Amir Ahmad at this stage
applied to Byzantium for assistance, whilst the rebels, who were led by a
brother of the Amir, called in the help of the Zlrids. The Byzantine
general Maniakes, in whose army were numerous Normans, gained battle
after battle (1038-1040), but then experienced difficulties with the
Normans on account of his bad treatment of them, and also fell out with
Stephanos the leader of the Byzantine fleet, so that all the fruits of their
victories were lost to the Byzantines (up to 1042). The native popu-
lation too had in the meantime forced the Zlrids, on account of their
licentious behaviour, to return to Africa, so. that there would really have
been a good field for the revival of the Kalbite rule.
In the course of this general fight, each party against the others, the
individual minor magnates and the towns had learned to fight for
themselves, so that Sicily emerged from the great war no longer as an
undivided State, but as a conglomerate of petty principalities and civic
-


## p. 390 (#422) ############################################

390 Coming of the Normans [1061-1091
republics, all mutually at variance with each other. One main antagonism
was in evidence among these States, the same that had called forth the
whole civil war; the opposition between the Arab aristocracy and the
natives who had been converted to Islam. The former congregated
around Syracuse, the latter at Girgenti and Castrogiovanni. The leader
of the Arabs was Ibn ath-Thimna. Being defeated by the opposing party
he called the Normans into the country in 1061; these had in the
meantime founded a vigorous State on the mainland. The Norman
conquest, the details of which are given elsewhere, was completed in 1091.
The rule of Islam in Italy is therewith at an end, the expansion has
passed its zenith, and it is now thrown back on Africa. The process
lasted a few centuries longer in Spain, but here too Islam remained
merely an episode in history. The blessings of culture which were given
to the West by its temporary Islamitic elements are at least as important
as the influence of the East during the time of the Crusades. The
lasting injuries which the constant Saracen scourge inflicted on Europe
must not be exaggerated, for the Saracens did only what every Christian
maritime power of that period held to be justifiable. Robbery and a
trade in slaves were as legitimate on one side as on the other. As far
as their deeds were concerned the opponents were evenly matched. It
was only later on that the western land produced from its own inner
self a new world, whilst the East has never since attained a higher
pitch of excellence than that which immediately followed the Saracen
expansion.


## p. 391 (#423) ############################################

391
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SUCCESSORS OF HERACLIUS TO 717.
Besides Constantine, who had been his colleague since 613, Heraclius
left four sons by Martina—Theodosius, who was deaf and dumb, Heraclius,
who had been crowned in 638, David the Caesar, and Martin the nobilis-
simus, and (though Constantine was twenty-eight and Heraclius only six-
teen) he desired by his will that they should enjoy equal rights, while
Martina received the honours of an empress and a mother from both.
Relying upon this provision, Martina claimed to exercise the practical
sovereignty herself: but the people would not permit this, on the ground
that a woman could not receive foreign envoys, and compelled her to
leave the government to her stepson. Anticipating such a result,
Heraclius had entrusted a large sum to the patriarch Pyrrhus for her
benefit: but, Philagrius the treasurer having discovered this and informed
Constantine, Pyrrhus was forced to surrender it. As the Emperor was
suffering from consumption (which caused him to reside at Chalcedon),
Philagrius, fearing to be left exposed to Martina's vengeance, persuaded
him to send a donative to the soldiers through Valentine the Armenian,
the commander of Philagrius'' guard, urging them to protect his two sons
and maintain their claim to the succession. Valentine however used the
money to gain influence for himself; and after Constantine's death
(24 May 641) Philagrius was forcibly ordained and banished to Septum
(Ceuta), and many of his supporters were flogged, without opposition
from the army, though Martina tried to attach it to her son's cause by a
further donative in the name of the dead Emperor. But in consequence
of her incestuous marriage and her attempt to exclude Constantine from
power she was exceedingly unpopular, and by the malevolence of her
enemies she was now accused of poisoning him. Valentine, who had either
originated this report or used it for his own purpose, placed himself at the
head of a military force in Asia, occupied Chalcedon on the pretext that
the lives of Constantine's sons were in danger, and sent instructions to the
troops in the provinces not to obey Martina, while the Empress brought
the army of Thrace to defend the capital. To allay the commotion,
Heraclius produced his elder nephew, Heraclius, a boy of ten, to whom
CH. XIII.


## p. 392 (#424) ############################################

392 Fall of Martina [641-643
he had stood godfather, and, touching the wood of the cross, swore that
the children should suffer no harm; he even took the boy to Chalcedon
and gave the same assurance to Valentine and his army; but, though
Valentine allowed him to return, he refused to lay down his arms. By
these acts the Emperor succeeded for a time in gaining the support of
the capital. But the country round Chalcedon was covered with vine-
yards, many of which belonged to the citizens of Constantinople; and,
when the vintage came on and the produce was reaped by Valentine's
army, they cried loudly for an accommodation, directing their attack
against the patriarch Pyrrhus, who was the strongest supporter of
Martina and was suspected of having been concerned in the murder of
Constantine, and insisting on the coronation of the young Heraclius.
The Emperor then went to St Sophia and ordered Pyrrhus to crown his
nephew: but the people insisted that according to custom he should do
this himself; and they gave the new Augustus the name of Constantine,
though to distinguish him from his father he was popularly known as
Constans (Sept. ). The feeling against Pyrrhus was however still unabated;
and, after a mob had vainly sought him in the cathedral, and in revenge
desecrated the sanctuary, on the following night he laid his stole on the
altar in token of leave-taking (29 Sept. ), and after hiding for a time
escaped to Africa: and, though he had neither resigned nor been
deprived, Paul was ordained to succeed him (Oct. ).
Peace was now made, Valentine being appointed Count of the ex-
cubitors and receiving a promise that he should not be called to account
for the money received from Philagrius, who was recalled from exile, and
that his soldiers should receive a donative. The Caesar David was then
crowned as a third emperor under the name of Tiberius, and Valentine
marched to Cappadocia to act against the Arabs.
The peace was however of short duration. The troops in Cappadocia
produced a letter purporting to have been written by Martina to a
certain David, in which he was urged to attack Valentine, marry
Martina, and depose Constans. Soldiers and people rose against the
Empress under the leadership of Theodore the Armenian, who, having
seized David in a fortress to which he had fled, cut off" his head and had
it exhibited all over the eastern provinces. On Theodore's return to
Constantinople Martina was by decree of the Senate deprived of her
tongue, and Heraclius and Tiberius of their noses, and they were all
banished to Rhodes (Dec). Constans thus became sole emperor.
All this must have been done at the instigation of Valentine, who
after unsuccessful operations against the Arabs returned to Constantinople
with a guard of 3000 men and forced Constans to give him the rank of
Caesar (early in 643): but on strong opposition manifesting itself a
compromise was made, whereby he gave up this title, but was made
commander of the troops in the capital and gave his daughter in
marriage to Constans. Two years later his tyrannical acts led to a


## p. 393 (#425) ############################################

641-655] Arab War 393
popular rising, during which he was seized and beheaded. His military
command was given to Theodore (646)1.
The Arabs first invaded Asia Minor during the commotions of 641
In 642 a plan of Valentine for a combined attack on them was frustrated
by his defeat; but Theodore and Procopius penetrated as far as Batnae,
and an Armenian force occupied Amida and nearly reached Edessa before
they were routed. In 643, Valentine having returned to Constantinople,
the enemy again entered Asia Minor, and Arabissus capitulated to
'Umair. In 644 Mu'awiya, amir of Syria, took and plundered Euchaita;
and in 646 after besieging Caesarea for ten days he ravaged the neighbour-
hood, returned, and forced it to pay tribute, afterwards vainly attacking
Aniorium. On this expedition he found the Cilician fortresses deserted
and left garrisons in them till his return, but in 647 had them destroyed.
In 649 Hablb, and in 651 Busr, raided Isauria, and in 651 Sufyfin also
invaded Roman territory from Germanicea, while in 649 Mu'awiya
placed a fleet on the sea and plundered Constantia in Cyprus, but
retreated on the approach of a Roman fleet under Cacorizus the
chamberlain.
These were only plundering expeditions: but about 647 Hablb
occupied Melitene, Sozopetra, and Adata; and, as the war had gone
against the Romans, Constans in 651 sent Procopius to treat for peace
with Mu'awiya (the Caliph Othman was ignored), and a truce was made
for two years, the Emperor paying tribute and leaving Gregory, the
nephew of Heraclius, as a hostage.
The truce of 651 was hardly more than nominal; for the secession of
Armenia led to the Emperor's expedition to that country (652) and to
the outbreak of fresh hostilities there, and after the expiration of the
armistice the war was renewed on a larger scale than before. Great
preparations were made by Mu'awiya for an attack by sea and land
upon Constantinople. He himself, starting from Melitene, took Ancyra
and advanced to Dorylaeum (653), destroying all the fortresses on the
way. Meanwhile ships were being hastily built at Alexandria, Tripolis,
and other places; and in 654 a fleet under Abu'1-A'war after occupying
Cyprus pillaged Cos, Crete and Rhodes (where the famous colossus, long
since fallen, was broken up and sold to a Jew). But, while the work
was going on at Tripolis, two Roman brothers, Mu'awiya's slaves,
liberated the prisoners, and with their help killed the governor and his
guard, burnt the ships, and escaped by sea to Roman territory. Mu'awiya,
who was probably recalled by the news of this disaster, did nothing this
year beyond taking a fortress near Melitene: but the naval preparations
were not given up, and in spring 655 Abu'l-A'war was sent to Phoenix
in Lycia, a place celebrated for cypresses, to cut wood for shipbuilding,
where he was joined by the Egyptian ships under 'Abdallah. But the
1 The details and chronology of events after the death of Heraclius are very
doubtful.


## p. 394 (#426) ############################################

394 Constans in Italy [655-663
new naval policy of the Arabs had forced the Romans also to institute a
standing fleet; and the invaders were attacked by the Emperor in
person, who was accompanied by his brother, Theodosius. In the battle
which followed the Arabs were victorious, the Roman fleet being almost
destroyed and Constans with difficulty escaping in disguise; but the
Arabs, having attained their object, returned. Mu'awiya at the same
time made an expedition by land as far as Caesarea; but in 656 the
murder of Othman and the civil war which followed put an end to his
schemes, and he was at last glad to buy peace by paying tribute (659).
The Emperor used the respite to reduce some Slavonic tribes, some of
which he transferred to Asia to assist in the defence against the Arabs.
Constans had crowned his eldest son, Constantine, as Augustus in
Apr. 654, and in 659 conferred the same dignity on his two younger
sons, Heraclius and Tiberius, and had his brother Theodosius put
to death on a charge of conspiracy (659). This made him very un-
popular both with the citizens and with the army; he was greeted in the
streets with the appellation "Cain," and at last, finding life in Constanti-
nople irksome and perhaps dangerous, although war had again broken
out with the Arabs, resolved to leave his capital and devote his attention
to restoring the imperial power in the West, for which the disunion
among the Lombards after the death of Aripert (661) afforded an
obvious opportunity. In 662 he invaded the duchy of Benevento, and
took several cities with little or no resistance. He failed indeed before
the strong town of Acerenza; but he stormed Luceria, which he razed
to the ground, and laid siege to Benevento itself, which was defended
by Duke Romuald in person. Here he was met by a vigorous defence,
and, having heard that Grimoald was marching to his son's assistance,
made terms with the Duke, receiving his sister Gisa as a hostage, and
raised the siege. An attempt to attack Capua was foiled by a defeat
on the Calor, and he then withdrew to Naples for the winter. In spring
(663) he sent the Persian Sapor on a fresh invasion; but he had hardly
crossed the frontier when he was met by Romuald at a place called
Forinum and severely defeated. Constans then abandoned all thought
of reducing the duchy, and, secured against attack by the possession of
Gisa, betook himself to Rome, and was met by the Pope and clergy six
miles from the city, which he entered on 5 July, the first Emperor who
had been seen in the ancient capital for 190 years. He attended service
in the principal churches and made offerings, but left a more impressive
memorial of his visit by appropriating all the bronze ornaments that he
could find, including the tiled roof of the Pantheon. This last with
some of the other articles he sent to Constantinople, carrying the rest
with him. After a stay of twelve days he returned to Naples, and then went
on to Sicily, which was threatened by the Arabs, and settled at Syracuse,
where he set himself to organise measures for the defence of Sicily and
Africa. For this purpose heavy burdens were laid on his Italian and


## p. 395 (#427) ############################################

665-669] Murder of Constans 395
Sicilian subjects: but he was so far successful that no further invasion
of Sicily was made while he lived, and in Africa, though the patrician
Nicephorus is said to have been defeated in 665, no permanent conquest
was effected till after his death. From Syracuse he sent for his wife and
sons; but, as this foreshadowed a transfer of the seat of government,
the citizens, headed by Andrew the chamberlain and the patrician
Theodore of Colonia, refused to let them go.
It was not only at Constantinople that Constans was unpopular; and
in 668 a plot was formed among those who surrounded him, one of
whom, Andrew, son of Troilus, while the Emperor was bathing, poured
an unusual quantity of soap over his face so as to blind him, and then
killed him by striking him on the head with a silver ewer (15 July).
The army proclaimed as emperor an Armenian named Mzhezh, who is
said to have been of high character, but seems to have had no other
recommendation except good looks, and was reluctant to accept the
honour. His elevation found no favour elsewhere, the armies of Italy,
Sardinia, and Africa united to overthrow him1, the rebellion collapsed
(Feb. 669)2, and the assassin Andrew, Mzhezh himself, and his chief
adherents suffered death, among them the patrician Justinian, whose
young son, Germanus, afterwards patriarch, was mutilated.
Before turning to the eastern war it is necessary to speak of the
military and administrative organisation which by a process we cannot
trace in detail had been growing up during the reigns of Heraclius and
Constans. The co-ordination of civil and military officials instituted by
Diocletian had been greatly modified by Justinian, who in many places
combined both functions in the hands of one man. From this time the
civil governors, where they still existed, gradually became subservient to
the military power, and the process was completed by the Persian and
Saracen invasions, which made military rule a necessity, while the loss of
the eastern provinces caused a new distribution of forces, and therefore
new administrative divisions. Hitherto Asia Minor had hardly needed
defence; and the only large contingent permanently stationed there was
a portion of the palatine troops under the magister militum praesentalis
quartered in the north-west, where in a district reaching from Paphlagonia
and Galatia to the Hellespont they still remained under the name of
imperiale obsequium (oifrUiov), while their commander bore the title of
Count. Of the countries under the magister militum per Orientem only
Isauria and Cilicia remained; but, as his troops were required to defend
southern Asia Minor, they were also quartered in part of Cappadocia
and the district to the west of it, but were still known as Orientates
(avardkiKoi). Further west by the Aegean was a section of the Thracian
army which had followed Heraclius to the Persian war and were known
as Thracesii; but these were under the Anatolic general. Armenia and
1 For the alleged expedition of the young Emperor see Byz. Zeitschr, xvii. 455.
* I infer the date from Michael, p. 437.
CH. XIII.
y


## p. 396 (#428) ############################################

396 Arab Raids [661-668
Pontus Polemoniacus had been placed by Justinian under a magister
militum per Armeniam; and these provinces with Helenopontus and part
of Cappadocia were still occupied by the Armeniaci. Thrace was still
ruled by the successor of Justinian's praetor, and the Aegean islands
obeved the commander of the naval forces (carabi-siani), who took the
place of Justinian's quaestor Justinianus, and also exercised jurisdiction,
at least for some purposes, over most of the south coast of Asia Minor1.
Each of these divisions was called a theme (defia), and the title of the
commanders of all except Obsequium was o-Tpanjyos. Illyricum was
almost lost; but the Illyrian praefect still ruled in Thessalonica, exercising
military as well as civil powers. The provincial governors perhaps
remained as minor judicial officers, but the vicars of the dioceses had
disappeared. Of the great civil functionaries, the city-praefect, the
magister officiorum (tidyurrpos), and the quaestor retained their old
titles; but the comes largitionurn was now known as \oyodeTi)t tov
ytviKov and the comes rei privatae as saceliarius (treasurer), while the
praefect of the East may have survived under some other title, with
greatly reduced functions. The general tendency of these changes was to
abolish the dependence of one official on another, and bring them all
into direct relation to the Emperor.
In 661 Hasan's abdication enabled Mu'awiya to renew the war.
A raid by Habib in 661 effected nothing; but in 662 the Romans
were defeated, and in 663 Busr wintered in the Empire. As Constans
had taken the bulk of the Anatolic theme to the West, 'Abd-
ar-Rahman, son of the celebrated Khalid, could advance in 664 to
Colonia (Archelais), where he wintered, and in 665, after failing in an
attack on some islands in Lake Caralis, he placed a garrison in Amorium,
the head-quarters of the Anatolics, which was forced to capitulate, took
Pessinus and, after an unsuccessful attack on another fortified place, Cius,
Pergamum, and Smyrna, Having been joined by some of the Slav
colonists, he again wintered in Roman territory, and then returned to
Emesa, where he soon afterwards died, it is said by poison (666).
In 666 Malik made a raid from Adata and wintered in Roman
territory, and in 667 Busr ravaged the district of Hexapolis, west of
Melitene, while another force wintered at Antioch in Pisidia: but in 668
the rebellion of Sapor, now general of the Armeniacs, gave an opening
for a more dangerous attack. Sapor sent Sergius, one of his sub-
ordinates, to ask for the Caliph's support; and on hearing of this the
young Constantine, who was ruling in his father's absence, sent Andrew
the chamberlain to present gifts to Mu'awiya and beg him not to
countenance rebellion. The two envoys met at the Caliph's court, and
Mu'awiya decided in favour of Sergius, who insulted Andrew by calling
him not a man but a eunuch. Andrew retreated by the pass of Arabissus
on the road to Hexapolis, where Sapor then was, the commandant of
1 The territorial jurisdiction of the naval <rrp<rn;ydr was perhaps developed later.


## p. 397 (#429) ############################################

668-679] Attacks on Constantinople 397
which still held for the Emperor, and having instructed this officer to
watch for Sergius and arrest him if he passed that way, went on to a
place called Amnesia. Here Sergius was brought as a prisoner, and
Andrew avenged the insult to himself by having him mutilated and
then hanged. Sapor now advanced to Hadrianopolis in Bithynia; and
Mu'awiya sent Fadala to his assistance, while Constantine sent Nice-
phorus to oppose him. But, while Sapor was riding before the walls,
his horse bolted and dashed his head against the gate, which caused his
death. His men then returned to their allegiance; and Fadala, who had
only reached Hexapolis, was obliged to ask for reinforcements, which
were sent under Mu'awiya's son, Yazld, while a fleet under another Yazid
supported the army. The Arabs advanced to Chalcedon, and in spring
669 crossed to Thrace and attacked Constantinople, which was defended
by Constantine (usually known as Pogonatus), now reigning Emperor.
No serious siege was however undertaken; and in the summer pestilence
and lack of food compelled them to retire: but on their way back they
took Amorium, in which a garrison was placed. During the winter
however Andrew surprised the town by night in deep snow and slew the
Arabs to a man.
In 670 Fadala came again by sea to the Propontis and wintered at
Cyzicus; and during the years 668-671 other lesser raids took place. In
672 Busr carried off numerous prisoners, and in 673 another great effort
was made. A fleet under Mahomet wintered at Smyrna, and another under
Kais in Lycia, with which an army under Sufyan co-operated, and a
colony was settled in Rhodes, while an attack on Constantinople was
being planned, to meet which Constantine prepared fireships provided
with Greek fire, the invention of the Syrian architect Callinicus. On the
arrival of reinforcements the combined fleet appeared before Constanti-
nople in spring 674, and after occupying Cyzicus assailed the city without
success from April to September, and returned to Cyzicus for the winter.
The same year Fadala and 'Abdallah wintered in Crete; and other ex-
peditions were made every year without important result: but meanwhile
the fleet at Cyzicus attacked Constantinople each year down to 677',
when the loss in men and ships compelled it to withdraw. On its return
it suffered severely from a storm off the Pamphylian coast, what remained
of it was attacked by the division of the Roman fleet which from the
town of Cibyra in Pamphylia was called Cibyrrhaeotae, and few, if any,
ships returned home. This disaster and the Mardaite invasion of
Phoenice and Palestine (678) caused Mu'awiya for the second time to
buy peace by paying tribute. The colony in Rhodes was now with-
drawn, and the fortress of Camacha on the Euphrates, which the Arabs
had after two earlier unsuccessful attempts taken in 679, restored. The
garrison in Cyprus was removed by YazTd, but the island continued to
1 The invitation to the Pope in 678 to send deputies to Constantinople shews
that the siege did not last beyond 677.


## p. 398 (#430) ############################################

398 Origin of Monothelete Controversy [618-rai
pay tribute. The last raid was one in Isauria in the early part of 680.
Peace having been thus secured on the east, the Khan of the Avars and
other barbarian rulers sent presents and made treaties with the Emperor.
Meanwhile a theological controversy which seemed likely to cause a
division between East and West and facilitate usurpations like that of
Mzhezh was demanding the attention of the government. The dis-
affection of Egypt and the East arising from the Synod of Chalcedon
had long been a menace to the Empire and had led to Zeno's attempt
to restore union through the Henotikon and the attempt of Justinian
to placate the Monophysites by the condemnation of the Three Chapters;
but in neither case was permanent success attained. The rapid conquests
of the Persians drew the attention of Heraclius to this state of affairs,
and led him to try a plan suggested by the patriarch Sergius, himself a
Syrian by birth, to whom it had occurred that the Monophysites might
accept the expression "two natures" if satisfied that this did not imply
two operations (evipyeiat). About 618 accordingly Sergius wrote to the
Egyptian George Areas, one of the Paulianist section of the Mono-
physites, adherents of the patriarch Paul of Antioch, deposed in 578,
asking for quotations in support of the doctrine of one operation, and
suggesting a union on this basis. Further steps in this direction were
however prevented by the Persian occupation of Egypt. In 622 again
Heraclius during his Armenian campaign conversed with a Monophysite
leader named Paul, to whom he propounded the doctrine of one operation,
but without success. He then drew up an edict against Paul, which was
sent to Arcadius of Cyprus, in which the doctrine of two operations was
condemned. In 626, while in Lazica, he discussed the question with
Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, who was doubtful on the point and wrote to
Sergius for information. Sergius answered his objections and sent him
a copy of a letter of Menas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius in which
one operation was asserted: by this Cyrus seems to have been satisfied.
Communication with the East having been restored in 628, Sergius sent
the letter of Menas to Theodore, bishop of Faran near Sinai, who ex-
pressed his assent. This correspondence and Menas' letter were then
sent to the Monophysite Paul at Theodosiopolis.
After the recovery of the East the plan of reconciliation was taken
up in earnest. In 630 or 631 Heraclius met the patriarch Athanasius
at Hierapolis in Syria and promised him the official patriarchate of
Antioch (vacant since 610) if he would accept communion with the
Chalcedonians on the basis of the doctrine of one operation; and to
this he was ready to consent; but, though some Jacobite monasteries,
especially that of Maron in the Lebanon, accepted the union, the
patriarch's death wrecked the scheme (631 )1. In 631 the Armeniac
Catholicus, Ezra, came on the Emperor's invitation to Syria, was
1 So Michael, and Elijah of Nisibis. Cf. Mansi, xi. p. 504, where Athanasius is
distinguished from living heretics. Owsepian's chronology is untenable.


## p. 399 (#431) ############################################

631-637] Sophronius: Pope Honorius 399
induced to accept the communion of the Chalcedonians, and on his
return ratified the union at a synod at Theodosiopolis, but without
formally recognising the Synod of Chalcedon. In 632, on the death of
the patriarch George, Cyrus was appointed to the see of Alexandria and
immediately opened negotiations with the chief Monophysite party in
the city, the Theodosians. With these a union was effected by means of
nine articles, in which the doctrine of two natures was asserted with a
qualification, and one theandric operation maintained, while there was
no acceptance of the Synod of Chalcedon or anathema against the Mono-
physite leaders (3 June 633).
At this point opposition arose. Sophronius, a Palestinian monk,
who was then in Alexandria, entreated Cyrus not to make public pro-
clamation of the articles; whereupon Cyrus referred him to Sergius, to
whom he gave him a letter. As Sergius was unable to convince Sophronius,
who was a man of great influence, the attempt at union seemed likely
to cause a new schism: accordingly he agreed to a compromise by which
both expressions "one operation" and "two operations" were to be
avoided; and Sophronius with a letter of explanation from Sergius
returned to Jerusalem, where early in 634 he was chosen patriarch.
Sergius meanwhile wrote to Cyrus in the sense of the compromise; but
Cyrus, not wishing to undo his own work, did not immediately accept it.
Receiving a request from Heraclius at Edessa to send the quotations in
support of the doctrine of one operation and one will contained in the
letter of Menas, Sergius did so, but suggested that the controversy should
cease. He then wrote an account of the affair to Pope Honorius,
proposing that both expressions " one operation" and "two operations"
should be rejected as stumbling-blocks, but specially reprobating the
latter as implying the doctrine of two wills, which he condemned as
impious. In answer to this Honorius concurred in the banishment of
both expressions, and maintained the doctrine of one will, the advocates
of which are generally known as Monotheletes. Sophronius now sent
his synodical letter to the patriarchs, in which in accordance with the
compact he avoided the expression "two operations," but strongly
asserted the doctrine implied in it. This letter Sergius ignored: but
Honorius wrote to Sophronius begging him to let the dispute drop;
and the messengers of Sophronius said that he would do so if Cyrus
would do the same. To him therefore the Pope also sent a request to
cease preaching one operation. Sophronius however sent bishop Stephen
of Dora to Rome to try to bring the Pope round to his side; but the
capture of Jerusalem (637) and his own death, which soon followed,
prevented any further action on his part, while in Egypt the abandon-
ment of the doctrine on which the union was built destroyed the union
itself, and the violent measures used by Cyrus to enforce conformity
made matters worse than before.
The next step on the part of Sergius was to compose the Ekthem,


## p. 400 (#432) ############################################

400 Pyrrhus and Maximus [636-648
in which the principles contained in the letter to Honorius were put in
the shape of a formal confession of faith (636). Heraclius on his return
from the East signed this document, and it was posted on the walls of
St Sophia (autumn 638). A copy was sent to Cyrus, who received it
with veneration, and to Severinus, who had been elected to the papacy
after the death of Honorius (Oct. ); while a synod at Constantinople
threatened spiritual penalties against anyone who asserted either one
operation or two operations. This was the last act of Sergius, who died
9 Dec. 638. As Severinus rejected the Ekthesis, confirmation of his
election was refused, and his emissaries were detained in Constantinople;
but on their allowing it to be understood that they would obtain his
acceptance permission was given for his consecration, which took place
28 May 640.
Egypt having been cut off by the Arab invasion, the question
resolved itself into a contest between Rome and Constantinople.
Severinus died two months after his consecration without accepting the
Ekthesis; and his successor, John IV, wrote to the new patriarch,
Pyrrhus, to denounce it: whereupon Heraclius, now at the point of
death, in a letter to the Pope disclaimed the responsibility for it, which
he threw on Sergius. After his death John wrote to Constantine main-
taining the doctrine of two wills, explaining away Honorius'' letter, and
asking for the removal of the Ekthesis. The civil troubles prevented
any further steps at the time; but the government of Constans gave the
Pope to understand that the Ekthesis would be removed (642); and Pope
Theodore (consecrated 24 Nov. ) wrote to Paul of Constantinople to
complain that this had not been done. He further reproached Paul for
having taken possession of the see when Pyrrhus had not been formally
deposed, and wrote to the Emperor to suggest that Pyrrhus should be
tried at Rome. Sergius of Cyprus expressed his adherence in a letter to
the Pope (29 May 643): but his strongest support came from Africa,
where the exarch Gregory was contemplating rebellion.
The most resolute opponent of Monotheletism was Maximus, archi-
mandrite of Chrysopolis, who had met Sophronius in Africa shortly
before the Alexandrine union, and had now again gone thither to stir up
opposition to the Ekthesis. Here in the presence of Gregory he held a
dispute with Pyrrhus (July 645); who, hoping by Gregory's help to
obtain restoration, declared himself converted, and having gone to
Rome with Maximus, condemned the Ekthesis and was received by the
Pope with the honours of a patriarch. In 646 several synods were held
in Africa; and letters in condemnation of the Ekthesis were written to
the Pope, the Emperor, and the patriarch, the last being sent through
the Pope. Theodore forwarded the African letter with a remonstrance
of his own; and Paul answered by an enunciation of the Monothelete
doctrine; upon which Theodore declared him deposed.
Gregory rebelled in 647: but in 648. he fell in battle with the Arabs;


## p. 401 (#433) ############################################

648-653] Arrest of Pope Martin 401
and Pyrrhus, having nothing more to hope from the party of Maximus,
went to Ravenna and made his peace with the government by recanting
his recantation. Theodore then solemnly deposed and anathematised
him in St Peter's. Meanwhile, as the Ekthesis had only shifted the
dispute from operations to wills, Paul made another attempt on the
same lines to restore peace. An imperial edict, known as the Type, was
at his instigation put forth, by which the Ekthesis was abrogated and
all controversy on either question forbidden under heavy penalties (648);
and, when the papal representatives refused to accept this, they were
punished by imprisonment, flogging, or exile.
Theodore died in May 649; and his successor, Martin, who was
consecrated without awaiting the imperial confirmation (5 July), im-
mediately held a synod in the Lateran, which asserted the doctrine of
two wills, denounced all who maintained one operation or one will, and
condemned the Ekthesis and the Type, and Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul,
Cyrus, and Theodore of Faran (5—31 Oct. ). The synodal acts were
sent to the Emperor; and Paul of Thessalonica, who refused to accept the
Roman theology, was declared deposed by a letter of the Pope.
Martin by his illegal consecration and flagrant disregard of the edict
had defied the Emperor; and the answer of Constans, acting under the
advice of Paul, was to send the chamberlain Olympius to Italy as exarch
with orders to find out the general disposition towards the Type, and, if
it should be favourable, and if the local army supported him, to arrest
Martin, whom the Emperor did not recognise as Pope, have the Type
read in all the churches, and make the bishops sign it; but, if not, to
wait till a stronger force could be collected. Olympius however, observing
the state of affairs at Rome, preferred to play the part of Gregory,
and accordingly came to an understanding with the Pope and threw off
allegiance to the Emperor. Some time afterwards he died in Sicily,
whither he had gone to repel an Arab invasion; and after the imperial
authority was thus restored in Italy, the new exarch, Theodore Calliopas,
entered Rome with an army (15 June 653), and arrested Martin in the
Lateran church (17 June) on charges of sending a letter and money to
the Arabs and of disrespect to the Virgin (i. e. Nestorianism). At mid-
night on the 18th he was removed from Rome, conveyed to Misenum
(1 July) and placed on board ship for Constantinople, which after a
short stay in Naxos he reached (17 Sept. ). He was kept in prison till
20 Dec, and then brought before the Senate. Being ill from the voyage
and the long confinement, he was carried to the court in a litter. The
charges of usurpation and disobedience, the real ground of his arrest,
were kept in the background, nor do we hear anything more of those
made against him at Rome; but he was accused of complicity with
Olympius. Next, after the Emperor had been consulted, he was first
exposed to the public gaze in the entrance-hall of the building, and then
placed in a gallery overlooked by a hall in the palace where Constans
C. MED. H. VOL. II. CH. XIII. 26


## p. 402 (#434) ############################################

402 Deposition of Martin [645-6»
was: here a crowd was allowed to surround him. The treasurer after
again consulting the Emperor finally ordered him to be deprived of his
pontifical headdress, as not being lawful Pope, and delivered to the
praefect to be beheaded. He was then stripped naked except for one
torn garment and dragged with a chain round his neck over rough
stones to a common prison with a sword in front of him, and thence
to the praefect's praetorium, where he was chained to the jailer: but in
the evening the praefect sent food with an assurance that the sentence
would not be executed, and the chains were removed. The sentence had
in fact been passed in order to frighten him into submission; and after
Paul's death, which shortly followed, unsuccessful attempts were made to
extort a statement that Pyrrhus, who had returned to Constantinople
after his reconciliation and was seeking restoration, had recanted under
compulsion at Rome. Nevertheless Pyrrhus was restored, but died on
Whit Sunday following (1 June 654). As all attempts to induce Martin
to communicate with the clergy of Constantinople were vain, he was on
15 Mar. removed to the house of a scribe, and thence on 11 Apr. to a
ship, in which he was conveyed to Cherson in the Crimea (15 May),
where he remained till his death in Sept. 655, complaining bitterly of
the lack of food and the neglect of his friends at Rome to send supplies.
Martin had however better reason to complain of the fickleness of
the Romans. At the time of his arrest the exarch had ordered the
clergy to elect a new pope; and after a year's resistance they yielded,
and (10 Aug. 654) Eugenius was consecrated to the papacy. The new
Pope sent envoys to Constantinople without a letter; and these com-
municated with the new patriarch, Peter, under a compromise. It
had been implied in the Type that the expressions "one will'" and "two
wills" were both in a sense correct: and, though this doctrine had been
condemned by the synod, the envoys acquiesced in it (655). Peter then
sent a synodical to the Pope in which this principle was stated; but
popular clamour compelled Eugenius to reject it.
Maximus had since 645 been living in Rome; and, as he was
believed to have been the chief instigator of Martin's resistance, it was
thought that, if he could be induced to submit, the cause would be won.
Accordingly an imperial commissioner who had been sent to order
Eugenius1 to communicate with Peter tried to persuade Maximus to
accept the Type; and on his refusal he was arrested and conveyed to
Constantinople, where he was brought before the treasurer and Senate
and accused of advising the magister militum of Nuraidia to disobey
the orders of Heraclius to march against the Arabs in Egypt, of
encouraging Gregory's rebellion, of disrespect to the Emperor, and of
anathematising the Type (655). During part of the proceedings the
patriarchs Peter of Constantinople and Macedonius of Antioch, who
resided in the capital, were present, and on Whit Sunday (17 May)
1 "rbv 8forl)irp-ov wdwwav " must be Eugenius, since Martin was never recognised.


## p. 403 (#435) ############################################

656-677] Exile of Maximus 403
Peter made a special attempt to induce him to accept the compromise
which had satisfied the Roman envoys: but, as he refused to yield
anything, he was banished to Bizye in Thrace. On 24 Aug. 656
Theodosius, bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, and two senators came to
Bizye with an offer to repeal the Type if he would communicate with
the Church of Constantinople; and on this being rejected Theodosius
agreed to accept two wills and operations, that is without condemning
the other doctrine according to the compromise; and, as Maximus
insisted on the Emperor and the patriarch sending a profession of
faith to the Pope, Theodosius undertook to try to bring this about.
Maximus promised that, if Theodosius were sent to Rome, he would
go with him, but refused to accept,one will and one operation in any
sense. Constans would not concede this, but made another attempt
to win Maximus over. On 8 Sept. he was brought with great respect
to the monastery of Theodore at Rhegium, and the next day Theo-
dosius and two patricians came and promised him high honours if
he would accept the Type. This he also refused, and the patricians
assailed him with blows and abuse till persuaded by Theodosius to
desist. He was then conveyed under military guard to Selymbria
(14 Sept. ), and thence to Perberis. Five years later he was brought
before a synod at Constantinople, anathematised with Sophronius and
Martin, and flogged.