the religious policy developed as follows. The Emperor still remained an adherent of Monotheletism in spite of the fact that the movement had lost its political importance and stood in the way of friendly relations with the papal throne. After the loss of Egypt, conquered by the Arabs in the forties, the Emperor made a series of attempts at reconciliation with the Pope, offering to make several changes in the doctrines of the Monothelete teaching. With this aim in view, Constantine III issued in the year 648 the Typus (TÚTOS), or Type of Faith, which forbade "all the Orthodox subjects being in immaculate Christian faith and belonging to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to contend and to quarrel with one another over one will or one operation [energy], or two operations [energies] and two wills."59 Besides prohibiting disputes about one or two wills, the Type ordered the removal of the written discussions on this question, which meant the Ecthesis of Heraclius, posted in the narthex of St. Sophia. But this measure of Constantine III did not effectuate the desired religious peace. In the presence of representatives of the Greek clergy, at the Lateran Synod, Pope Martin condemned "the most impious Ecthesis [impiissima Ecthesis]," and the "vicious Typus [scelerosus Typus]," and declared all those whose names were connected with the composition of the two decrees guilty of heresy. The outstanding theologian of the seventh century, Maximus Confessor, resolutely opposed the Type as well as the Monothelete teaching in general. Great dissatisfaction with the Emperor's religious policy was also growing stronger in the Eastern church.

60

Angered by the Pope's action at the Lateran Synod, Constantine III ordered the Exarch of Ravenna to arrest Martin and send him to Constantinople. The Exarch carried out these orders, and Martin was convicted at Constantinople of an attempt to initiate an uprising against the Emperor in the western provinces. He was subjected to terrible humiliations and confined to prison. Somewhat later he was sent to the distant city of Cherson, on the southern coast of the Crimea, the usual place of exile for the disgraced in the

50 Mansi, Conciliorum amplissima collectio, X, 1029-32; in English translation, C. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh, 1896), V, 95–96.

60 Mansi, X, 1157-58 (18th canon); Hefele, V, 112-13.

Byzantine period. He died shortly after his arrival to the city. In his letters from Cherson the Pope complained of bad living conditions and asked his friends to send him food, particularly bread, which "is talked of, but has never been seen." Unfortunately very few passages in Martin's letters about Cherson contain interesting data concerning the cultural and economic conditions of this city in the seventh century.

The Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople continued negotiations with the successors of Martin on the papal throne, and finally made peace with the second successor, Vitalian. The schism in the churches ceased. This religious reconciliation with Rome was politically important for the Byzantine Empire because it strengthened the position of the Emperor in Italy.

The famous opponent of Monotheletism, Maximus Confessor, was arrested by the Italian Exarch and transferred to Constantinople, where he was convicted by a jury and cruelly mutilated. He died as a martyr in distant exile.

Although Monotheletism had lost its political significance, it still continued to sow discord among the people even after the prohibition of the Type. Then the successor of Constantine III, Constantine IV, desirous of establishing complete religious peace in the Empire, convoked in the year 680 in Constantinople the sixth Ecumenical Council, which condemned Monotheletism and recognized two natures in Jesus Christ displayed in his one hypostasis, and "two natural wills and operations [energies] going together harmoniously for the salvation of the human race."62

Peace with Rome was definitely re-established. The communication sent by the sixth Council to the Pope addressed him as "the head of the first see of the Universal Church, standing on the firm rock of faith," and declared that the Pope's message to the Emperor expounded the true principles of religion.®

63

Thus, in the time of Constantine IV, the Byzantine government definitely expressed itself against Monophysitism and Monothelet

" Martini Papae, Epistola, XVI; Migne, Patr. Lat., 87, col. 202. See H. K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (2d ed., London, 1925), I, Part 2, 400. 62 Mansi, XI, 639-40; Hefele, V, 175.

63 Mansi, XI, 683-88.

ism. The patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, torn from the Empire by the Arabian conquest, took part, nevertheless, in the sixth Ecumenical Council by sending their representatives. The Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, who apparently lived in Constantinople and exercised jurisdiction only in Cilicia and Isauria,64 argued the case of Monotheletism at the Council, and for this stand he was deposed and excommunicated. The decisions of the sixth Council proved to Syria, Palestine, and Egypt that Constantinople had abandoned the desire to find a path for religious reconciliation with the provinces which no longer formed part of the Byzantine Empire. The religious peace with Rome was reached by way of resolute alienation from the Monophysitic and Monotheletic population of the eastern provinces, a fact which aided greatly the further strengthening of the Arabian power in these provinces. Syria, Palestine, and Egypt became definitely separated from the Byzantine Empire.

It cannot be said that the agreement reached with Rome on the sixth Ecumenical Council lasted very long. Even in the reign of Justinian II, the successor of Constantine IV, the relations between the Byzantine Empire and Rome became strained again. Desirous of completing the task of the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils, Justinian II summoned in 691 a synod in Constantinople, which was held in the Domed Hall. This council was called Trullan," from the place of its meetings, or Quinisext (Quinisextum), because it completed the task of the two preceding ecumenical councils. This synod called itself ecumenical. Pope Sergius refused to sign the acts of the council by reason of certain clauses, such as the prohibition of fasting on Saturdays, the permission to priests to marry, etc. Following the example of Constantine III (Constans II), who had exiled Martin to the Crimea, Justinian ordered Sergius to be arrested and brought to Constantinople. But the army of Italy protected him against the imperial commissioner, who would have lost his life had it not been for the intercession of the Pope.

During the second reign of Justinian II (705-11), Pope Constantine came at the invitation of the Emperor to Constantinople,

64 See E. W. Brooks, in the English Historical Review, XXXIV (1919), 117. 65 In Greek & трoûλλos means a dome, or cupola.

t

the last pope to be summoned to the capital of the Byzantine Empire.

66

The Roman bishop was treated with highest honors by Justinian, who, as is claimed by the papal biographer, with the imperial crown upon his head prostrated himself before the Pope and kissed his feet. A satisfactory compromise was reached by Justinian and the Pope; but we have no exact information thereupon. The German church historian, Hefele, remarks that Pope Constantine had undoubtedly already struck that fair middle path which Pope John VIII (872-82) subsequently adhered to, in the declaration that "he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome."67

To the great joy of the people, Pope Constantine reached Rome in safety. It seemed that religious peace was finally established within the greatly reduced boundaries of the Empire.

The origin and development of the organization of the themes in the epoch of the Heraclian dynasty.—In Byzantine history the origin of the organization of the themes is closely connected with the epoch of the Heraclian dynasty. By the organization of the themes we mean that peculiar provincial organization, prompted by the conditions of the times, whose distinguishing feature was the concentration of both military and civil authority in the hands of the military governors of the provinces. It must be remembered that this combination of power in the hands of the provincial rulers did not occur at once, but was accomplished gradually and completed (according to the opinion of the majority of scholars) by the eighth century, in the time of the Isaurian dynasty. For a long time the Greek word theme (rò éμa) meant a military corps stationed in a province, and only later this word began to be used for denoting not only the military detachment, but also the province where it was stationed. Thus it began to be applied to the administrative divisions of the Empire.

The main Byzantine source relating to the administration of the themes is the work "On Themes," written by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the emperor of the tenth century, and hence dat66 Liber Pontificalis (ed. L. Duchesne, Paris, 1886), I, 391. 67 Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, V, 240.

ing from a period much later than the epoch of the Heraclian dynasty. This work has also the disadvantage of being based on geographical works of the fifth and sixth centuries used in a very superficial manner or copied verbatim in parts. On the whole, this work of the imperial writer does not give much information about theme organization in the seventh century, although it does connect the beginning of the system with the name of Heraclius. Very interesting, but not yet fully explained, material on this problem is found in the works of the Arabian geographers, Ibn-Khurdadhbah (Khordadhbeh), of the first half of the ninth century, and Kudama, of the early tenth century. They also, of course, were not contemporaries of the Heraclian epoch. For the study of the earlier period of the theme system, historians have made use of occasional remarks of chroniclers and especially the Latin message of Justinian II to the Pope, dating from the year 687, and regarding the confirmation of the sixth Ecumenical Council. This epistle contains a list of the military districts of that period, not yet referred to as themes, but denoted by the Latin word exercitus (army).

68

We have pointed out elsewhere that even in the sixth century, under Justinian the Great, there were instances of the concentration of both military and civil powers in the hands of one person, as was the case in Alexandria, for example, where a civil governor was also intrusted with military functions. But at that time we must note also the more general phenomenon, necessitated by Justinian's wide conquests, namely, the division of the Empire into a number of large military units ruled by magistri militum. The boundaries of these military districts coincided very closely with those of the provincial divisions of the Empire in the seventh century. There is some ground, therefore, to suppose a direct connection between the military territories of the sixth and the seventh centuries. During the anarchy of Phocas' reign the military organization of the Empire was profoundly upset.

The true precursors of the theme organization were the exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage (Africa), established at the end of the sixth century.

68 Mansi, XI, 737-38. See also H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung (Leipzig, 1899), 10-17.