The Monophysite Conviction in the East Versus Byzantium’S Political Convenience: a Historical Look to Monotheletism

ARAM, 15 (2003), 151-157 151 THE MONOPHYSITE CONVICTION IN THE EAST VERSUS BYZANTIUM’S POLITICAL CONVENIENCE: A HISTORICAL LOOK TO MONOTHELETISM ROBERTO SÁNCHEZ VALENCIA SOME POLITICAL BACKGROUND During the first part of the Sixth Century, Emperor Justinian I started a policy devoted to restoring the orbis romanus. He fought against several barbar- ian towns, some of which were dominated and from others he was expelled. He thus reincorporated big land extensions into the Byzantine Empire. The Italian Peninsula, the Mediterranean Coast of Africa and the High Armenia are some of the most significant treasures acquired by Justinian I. He also estab- lished a system of fortifications in the Balkan borderlands to prevent slaves and Avars from attempting invasion. Such achievements resulted in the exhaustion of the Estate resources and that made it impossible to face the Persian armies, who were guided by Chos- roes I and entered the East Frontier in the Byzantine Empire. The invasions began in 545 when Justinian was over sixty. So, tired as he was, he preferred to negotiate peace with the Persians. The Treaty was revewed several times up to 562 when peace of 50 years was arranged. Those peace treaties benefited Persia because they stipulated Byzantium had to pay an annual tribute. After Justinian I's death in 565, Byzantine Emperors of the second half of the Sixth Century faced the difficult task of governing a State whose weak economy obstructed the development and undermined the stability of society. The Emperors had to choose between paying tribute to Persians or increasing taxes to their citizens in order to pay for a war that would free them of the con- tracted responsibilities with the Persian Empire. Justin II, Tiberius and Maurice, the three Emperors who followed Justinian I in the Byzantine Empire during the second half of the sixth century, chose the tributes moratorium to the Persian Empire. That ended the fifty-year Peace Treaty and renewed hostilities among both empires. The military success was a characteristic of the Byzantine armies, especially under Maurice’s govern- ment. He started a civil war in Persia in 590 between Chosroes II – the legitimate heir to the throne- and Baharam – one of the most distinguished gener- als. Such a conjunction was taken advantage of by Emperor Maurice who interchanged a Peace Treaty favorable to Byzantium as well as an adjustment to the borderlands. He was therefore able to end the Byzantine campaigns in the east in 591. 152 A HISTORICAL LOOK TO MONOTHELETISM Maurice’s victory paid a high price: public funds ran out and there were no resources from which to pay the army. Maurice had to increase taxes to citizens and reduce the payment to his soldiers. Such measures transformed the image of the Emperor, who was no longer a hero to the community, but turned into a unpopular governor. As years went by, the army protested but the citizens did not support it, resulting in a Coup d’état, whose leader was Phocas. Maurice and his children were executed in 602. In order to make his power legitimate, Phocas reinforced the relationship with the Roman Church, which in turn pressed this illegitimate Emperor to oblige his eastern citizens to quit monophysism and adopt the dogma of the two natures in Jesus. The results of the repressive Phocas’ policy were very negative because provinces in Palestine, Egypt and Armenia where monophysite groups were big, were not just to be exploited, but segregated and anathematized too. Such a situation incited a revolt among citizens who prefered the Persian dominance to the Byzantine one. SOME RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND Besides reconquering territories during the first half of the Sixth Century, Justinian I stood out because of the impact his religious policy had in the Italian Peninsula. Rome was then one of the most important Episcopal Head- quarters in the Catholic Church. The Roman Bishop claimed primacy and leadership in Church. During the last years of the Sixth Century, a long, com- plex and pitiful conflict developed inside the Episcopal headquarters of Rome and Constantinople between Gregorius The Great and John the Faster. At the beginning of the Seventh Century, Phocas defeated Emperor Maurice because of the popular support of the army. Nonetheless he did not gain recognition from the Byzantine aristocracy. While governing, Phocas tried, on the one hand, to diminish the power of such an elite, and on the other, to legitimate his image as an emperor. In order to achieve the first aim he began a series of persecutions and massacres against the Byzantine nobility. To obtain the second he took part in the conflict of the Episcopal headquarters in his empire, helping the Roman Pope and limiting the powers of Constantinople’s Patriarch. Benefiting Rome meant that Phocas gained recognition and popularity in the Italian Peninsula, to the point that a triumphal column was built in the Roman Forum in his honor. Phocas had turned into a defender of “orthodoxy”, that is a Roman version of Christianity. Any theological divergence among the villages conforming his empire therefore became intolerable. Once again, in history, an antimonophysite campaign took place throughout the imperial terri- R. SANCHEZ VALENCIA 153 tory. The most affected communities were Palestine, Egypt and Armenia where significant sectors of the population were monophysite. The level of stress in such lands amounted to an insurrection. The deep sociopolitical crisis experienced by the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire was taken advantage of by the Persian Empire. History has a predeliction for irony and there, in the middle of the fight for hegemony in the Eastern Land we can find, once again, Chosroes II, the one who had previously received Maurice's assistance in containing insurrection in his Empire in order to recover his legitimate throne. Chosroes II took advantage of the vulnerability in the Middle East of Byzantium and in 610 invaded Syrian lands, going afterwards to Roman Armenia and Egypt. Such invasions were based upon incredible foundations: Chosroes II wanted Phocas to be corrected severely because he assassinated Maurice, the Persians benefactor. I cannot ignore two little details: the first one is that Maurice's assassination took place eight years previously, and during all that time Persians did not demonstrate any offence. The other little detail is that Chosroes II's revenge did not cease with Phoca's death in 610, but continued, when opportunity arose, for several more years. Phocas death was due to a conspiracy among the main sectors of the Byzan- tine society, aristocracy as well as army. Both elected a new leader called Her- aclius. The new Emperor was certificated in his high position by Sergius, Con- stantinople’s Patriarch. FROM RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS TO POLITICAL ADVANTAGES: MONOTHELETISM When historians of the Catholic Church explain the events that took place during the Seventh Century, they normally refer to Monotheletism or Mono- energysm as a heresy theologically related to Monophysitism. That is, no doubt, a theological conflict from their point of view, the last conflict based on christological controversies. The opinion of such historians is based on testimonies from those days: the writings of Maximus the Confessor as well as those of Anastasius of Sinai, the Papal correspondence and the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council celebrated in Constantinople City in the years 680 and 681. My point of view departs from tradition in that before considering Monotheletism as a heresy, I would consider it a political strategy of the State. The intention of the strategy was to unify all Byzantine territories, avoiding certain sectors of the population felt to be segregated because of their beliefs. That is why Monotheletism used an ambiguous theological language to hide, or apparently dissolve, the very deep theological divergences between the Catholic and the Monophysite doctrine. 154 A HISTORICAL LOOK TO MONOTHELETISM My point of view is based both on the testimony of religious sources of the Seventh Century mentioned above and Sebeo’s History, the work of an Armenian Bishop of the Seventh Century. About this last document I con- sulted the Russian translation done in the nineteenth century by the notorious Armenist Patkantean. On the other hand I have used some references of the documents that appeared later on, like Photius’ Bibliotheca written in the second half of the Ninth Century. All these documents complement each other in an outstanding way. What it is omitted in one of them is detailed in another, enabling a better focus on the historic scenario, namely the strategies used by the Byzantine and Persian Empires in order to obtain hegemony in the Middle East. Both the origins and the end of the Monothelite Movement are closely related to events of foreign affairs, such as the invasions of the villages of var- ious ethnic backgrounds as well as the disagreements between the Roman Church and the Byzantine State. The Monothelite conflict lasted for most of the Seventh Century, approximately from 620 to 681. Five Byzantine Em- perors was involved: Heraclius, Constantine III, Constans II, Constantine II and Constantine IV. There were also four Patriarchs of Constantinople during the conflict: Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus II and George. Ten Popes lived during that time, and among them the most significant because of their participation in the Monothelite conflict were Honorious, Martin I and Agatho. My point of view is supported by a case history, the famous book History of the Byzantine State, written in the middle of the Twentieth Century by the notorious Byzantinist George Ostrogorsky. According to him: “Developments in the East necessitate a reorientation of Byzantine ecclesiastical policy. With Byzantine reverses in the East, the provinces which had fallen to the Arabs had no longer to be reckoned with, and any further maintenance of Monotheletism was therefore pointless.

Load more