In the year after the recapture of Classis from the Lombards, that is

to say, in 589, the exarch Smaragdus was recalled. He had apparently

become insane and had been guilty of extraordinary violence towards

the patriarch of Aquileia and three other bishops whom he dragged to

Ravenna. His successor was Romanus who held office till 597. In the

same year, 589, Authari was married at Pavia to Theodelinda, who was

to be so potent an instrument in the conversion of the Lombards and

therefore in the salvation of Italy. And in the following year, 590,

pope Pelagius II. died, and Gregory the Great was chosen to succeed

him.

With the advent of the new exarch a brighter prospect seemed for a

moment to open for Italy. In the first year of Romanus's appointment

the imperialists regained the greater part of the cities of the plain;

they re-occupied Modena, Reggio, Parma, Piacenza, Altinum, and Mantua.

But the strength of the Latin position in Italy lay, and continued to

lie, in the two great imperial cities, Ravenna and Rome. Little by

little this position had crystallised and now a new state appeared, a

state which in one way or another was to endure till our day and which

our fathers knew as the States of the Church. With the two cities of

Ravenna and Rome as _nuclei_, this state formed itself in the very

heart of Italy along the Via Flaminia which connected them. It cut,

and effectually, the Lombard kingdom in two, and isolated the duchies

of Spoleto and Benevento from the real Lombard power in Cisalpine

Gaul, with its great capital at Pavia; and indestructible as it was,

it absolutely insured the final success of the Catholic Faith, the

Latin nationality, and the imperial power, the three necessities for

the resurrection of Europe.

This achievement was in the first place due to three great

personalities: to Justinian who had succeeded in establishing the

imperial power with its capital at Ravenna, and whose work had such

life in it that, in spite of every adverse circumstance, it was able

to develop and to maintain itself during more than two hundred years

and uphold the imperial idea in Italy until the pope was able to

re-establish the empire in the West as a self-supporting state; to

Gregory the Great in whom we see personified the hope and strength of

the papacy and the Latin idea which it was to uphold and to glorify;

and to Theodelinda, that passionately Catholic Lombard queen, who was

able to lead her Lombards into the fold of the Roman church, and who

in her son Adalwald by her second husband Agilulf, whom she had raised

to the throne, presented the Lombard kingdom with its first Catholic

king, and had thus done her part to secure the future.

Of these three powers those of Ravenna and Rome were, of course, by

far the more important; for indeed the conversion of the Lombards was,

rightly understood, but a part of the work of Gregory. Yet though both

were working for the same end they did not always propose to march by

the same road. In 592, for instance, the pope, seeing Naples the

capital of the little isolated duchy upon his southern flank very hard

pressed, proposed at all costs to relieve it; but the exarch Romanus,

perhaps seeing further, was not to be moved to the assistance of the

peasants of Campania from the all-important business of the defence of

central Italy and the Flaminian Way, the line of communication between

Ravenna and Rome. He proposed to let Naples look after itself and at

all costs to hold Perugia. Gregory, however, who claimed in an

indignant letter of this date (592) to be "far superior in place and

dignity" to the exarch, proceeded to save Naples by making a sort of

peace with the Lombard duchy of Spoleto. It is possible that this

peace saw the Lombard established in Perugia, which was the Roman key,

till now always in Roman hands, of the great line of communication

between Rome and Ravenna. However that may be, Gregory's peace not

only aroused great anger in Constantinople, but brought Romanus

quickly south with an army to re-occupy Perugia, Orte, Todi, Ameria,

and various other cities of Umbria. But Romanus had been right. His

movement southward alarmed Agilulf, who immediately left Pavia, and

crossing the Apennines, we may suppose,[1] as Totila had done,

threatened Rome itself. Then, however, he had to face something more

formidable than an imperial army. Upon the steps of S. Peter's church

stood the Vicegerent of God, great S. Gregory, who alone turned him

back and saved the city.

[Footnote 1: All that Paulus Diaconus, _Hist. Lang_. lib. iv. cap. 8,

says is: "Hac etiam tempestate Romanus Patricius et Exarchus Ravennae

Romam properavit. Qui dum Ravennam revertitur retenuit civitates, quae

a Langobardis tenebantur, quarum ista sunt nomma: Sutrium, Polimartium

Hortas, Tuder, Ameria, Perusia, Luceolis et alias quasdam civitates.

Quod factum cum regi Agilulfo nunciatum esset statim Ticino egressus

cum valido exercitu civitatem Perusium petiit ..."]

The truth of all this would appear to be that Gregory was really

working for peace. The Lombards were in a fair way to becoming

Catholic, and as such they were no longer really dangerous to Italy.

The real danger was, as the pope saw, the prolongation of a useless

war. Two years later, in 595, we find Gregory writing to the

"assessor" of the exarch enjoining peace. "Know then that Agilulf,

king of the Lombards, is not unwilling to make a general peace, if my

lord the patrician is of the same mood.... How necessary such a peace

is to all of us you know well. Act therefore with your usual wisdom,

that the most excellent exarch may be induced to come in to this

proposal without delay, and may not prove himself to be the one

obstacle to a peace so expedient for the state. If he will not

consent, Agilulf again promises to make a separate peace with us; but

we know that in that case several islands and other places will

necessarily be lost. Let the exarch then consider these points, and

hasten to make peace, that we may at least have a little interval in

which we may enjoy a moderate amount of rest, and with the Lord's help

may recruit the strength of the republic for future resistance."[1]

[Footnote 1: Gregory, _Ep_. v. 36 (34), trs. Hodgkin, _op. cit_. v. p.

382.]

It is obvious from this letter that the pope and the emperor no longer

understood one another, and it is not surprising that the one thought

the other a fool and told him so. Doubtless the emperor recalled the

long and finally successful war against the Ostrogoths, in which

Belisarius had always refused, not only terms of peace other than

unconditional surrender, but even to treat. That policy had been, at

least from the point of view of Constantinople, successful. From the

point of view of the papacy and of Italy, it had had a more doubtful

result, but the fact that the Ostrogoths were Arians had satisfied

perhaps both, and certainly the papacy, that a truce could not be

thought of.

From the imperial point of view things remained much the same in the

Lombard war as they had been in the war with the Ostrogoths. From the

papal and Italian point of view they were very different. To begin

with, the Lombards were fast accepting the Catholic Faith, and then if

Italy had suffered in the Ostrogothic wars, which were everywhere

eagerly contested by Constantinople, what was she suffering now when

the greater part of the country was open to a continual and an almost

unopposed attack? "You think me a fool," the pope wrote to the

emperor. In Ravenna the papal envoy was lampooned and laughed at. Then

in the end of 596 the exarch Romanus died.

Romanus was succeeded by Callinicus (Gallicinus) in whom the pope

found a more congenial and perhaps a more reasonable spirit. By 598 an

armistice had been officially concluded between the imperialists and

the Lombards, and at length in 599, after some foolish delays in which

it would appear that the pope was not without blame, a peace was

concluded. Gregory, however, for all his reluctance at the last, had

won his way. Henceforth it would be impossible to regard the Lombards

as mere invaders after the pattern of their predecessors, Visigoths,

Vandals, Huns, and Ostrogoths. They were, or would shortly be, a

Catholic people; they held a very great part of Italy; they had

entered into a treaty with the emperor not as _foederati_ but as

equals and conquerors. Gregory the Great had permanently established

the barbarians in Italy, and in his act, the act be it remembered of

the apostle of the English, of the apostle of the Lombards, we seem to

see the shadowy power that had been Leo's by the Mincio suddenly

appear, a new glory in the world. The new power in the West, the

papacy, which thus shines forth really for the first time in the acts

of Gregory, unlike the empire, whether Roman or Byzantine, will know

no frontiers, but will go into all the world and compel men to come in

as its divine commission ordained.

In Italy from the time of the peace with the Lombards (599) onwards

what we see is the decline of the imperial power of Constantinople and

the rise of the papacy. And this was brought about not only by the

circumstances in which Italy and the West found themselves, but also

by the character of the imperial government.

When Justin II. disappeared in 578, and made way for Tiberius II., he

was already a madman, and though Tiberius was renowned for his

virtues, he reigned but four years, and in 582 Maurice the Cappadocian

sat upon the throne of Justinian and ruled for twenty years not

unwisely, but, so far as Italy was concerned, without success. It was

he who was at last brought to make peace with the Lombards and thus

for the first time to acknowledge a barbarian state independent of the

empire in Italy. He and his children were all murdered in 602 by

Phocas, a centurion, whose shame and crimes and cruelties doubtless

did much to weaken the moral power of the empire face to face with the

papacy.

The peace of 599, the usurpation of Phocas in 602, and the death of

Gregory the Great in 604, close a great period and stamp the seventh

century in its very beginning with a new character.

That character is in a sense almost wholly disastrous. Those vague and

gloomy years, of which we know so little, are almost unrelieved in

their hopeless confusion. It is true that Italy had found a champion

in the papacy which would one day restore the empire in the West, as

Justinian himself had not been able to do; it is true that already

Arianism was defeated if not stamped out. But it is in the seventh

century that Mahometanism, the greater successor of the Arian heresy,

first appears; and it is in the seventh century that it first becomes

certain that East and West are philosophically and politically

different and irreconcilable. The whole period is full of disasters,

and is as we may think the darkest hour before the dawn.

As I have said, the history of those disastrous years is everywhere in

the West vague and confused, and this is not least so in Italy and

Ravenna.

Ravenna as always remains the citadel of the imperialists in Italy and

the West, and as such we must regard her, passing in review as well as

we may those miserable years in which she played so great and so

difficult a part.

When the Emperor Maurice was assassinated with his family in the year

602, Callinicus was, as we have seen, exarch in Ravenna, but with the

usurpation of Phocas that Smaragdus who had already been exarch and

had been recalled, perhaps for his too great violence, in 589, was

again appointed. He seems to have ruled from 602 to 611. In the last

year of the government of Callinicus an attempt had been made by the

exarch to force the Lombards to renew the two years' peace established

in 599, and on better terms, by the seizure of a daughter of

Agilulf's, then in Parma, with her husband. They were carried off to

Ravenna. But the imperialists got nothing by their treachery. Agilulf

at once moved against Padua and took it and rased it to the ground. In

the following year Monselice also fell to his arms, and though after

the murder of the emperor Maurice in 602 the exarch Callinicus, the

author of the abduction, fell, and Smaragdus was appointed by Phocas,

the hostages were not returned, and in July 603, Agilulf, after a

campaign of less than three months, had possessed himself of Cremona,

Mantua, and Vulturina, and probably of most of those places which the

imperialists had re-occupied in Cisalpine Gaul in 590. Smaragdus was

forced to make peace and to give up his hostages. The peace he made,

which left Agilulf in possession of all the cities he had taken, was

to endure for eighteen months, but it seems to have been renewed from

year to year, and when in 610 Phocas was assassinated and with the

accession of Heraclius (610-641) Smaragdus was again recalled and

Joannes appointed to Ravenna, the same policy seems to have been

followed.

Joannes Lemigius Thrax, as Rubeus, the sixteenth-century historian of

Ravenna, calls him, ruled in Ravenna from 611 to 615, and in the

latter year was assassinated there apparently in the midst of a

popular rising, though what this really was we do not know. His

successor, the eunuch Eleutherius (616-620), seems to have found the

now fragmentary imperial state in Italy in utter confusion, and indeed

on the verge of dissolution. Naples had been usurped by a certain

Joannes of Compsa, perhaps "a wealthy Samnite landowner," who

proclaimed himself lord there, and it is obvious that even in Ravenna

there was grave discontent. Eleutherius soon disposed of the usurper

of Naples, but only to find himself faced by a renewal of the Lombard

war, which he seems to have prevented by consenting to pay the yearly

tribute which perhaps Gregory the Great had promised when he made a

separate peace with the Lombard in 593, when Rome was practically in

the hands of the barbarian. It was obvious that the imperial cause was

failing. That the exarch thought so is obvious from the fact that in

619 he actually assumed the diadem and proclaimed himself emperor in

Ravenna, and set out with an army along the Flaminian Way for Rome to

get himself crowned by the pope Boniface V. But the eunuch was before

his time; moreover, he was a defeated and not a victorious general. At

Luceoli upon the Flaminian Way, not far from Gualdo Tadino where

Narses had broken Totila, in that glorious place his own soldiers slew

him and sent his head to Heraclius.

Of his immediate successor we know nothing--not even his name,[1] but

in or about 625 Isaac the Armenian was appointed and he ruled, as his

epitaph tells us, for eighteen years (625-644). Isaac's rule was not

fortunate for the imperialists. He is probably to be acquitted of the

murder of Taso, Lombard duke of Tuscia, but it is certain that

Rothari, the Lombard king in his time, "took all the cities of the

Romans which are situated on the sea-coast from Luna in Tuscany to the

boundary of the Franks; also he took and destroyed Opitergium, a city

between Treviso and Friuli, and with the Romans of Ravenna he fought

at the river of Aemilia which is called Scultenna (Panaro). In this

fight 8000 fell on the Roman side, the rest fleeing away."[2]

[Footnote 1: Mr. Hodgkin (_op. cit_. vi. 157) suggests that the

predecessor of Isaac was that Euselnus who, as ambassador for

Constantinople, persuaded, or is said to have persuaded, Adalwald,

King of the Lombards since the death of his father, Agilulf (615), to

slay all his chief men and nobles, and to hand over the Lombard

kingdom to the empire; but was poisoned, it is suggested, by Isaac in

Ravenna, whither he had fled when he had killed twelve among them.

Ariwald succeeded him (625).]

[Footnote 2: Paulus Diaconus, cf. Hodgkin, vi. 168.]

[Illustration: THE SARCOPHAGUS OF EXARCH ISAAC]

Nor was this all. It is in Isaac's time that the growing jealousy of

the empire in regard to the papacy for the first time breaks into

flame. Isaac, who as exarch had the right to "approve" the election of

the pope, on the accession of Severinus (638) sent Maurice his

_chartularius_ to Rome as his ambassador. This Maurice it seems was

eager against the papal power, and finding an opportunity in Rome

suddenly seized the Lateran and its wealth at the head of "the Roman

army," and wrote to Isaac that he might come and enjoy the spoil. The

exarch presently arrived in Rome, resided in the Lateran during eight

days, banished the cardinals, and proceeded to steal everything he

could lay his hands on in the name of the emperor, to whom he sent a

part of the booty. A little later Maurice attempted to repeat his

rape, but doubtless hoping to enrich himself he began by repudiating

Isaac, who then dealt with him, had him brought northward, and

beheaded at a place called Ficulae, twelve miles from Ravenna; but

before he could decide what punishment to mete out to Maurice's

accomplices the exarch himself died, "smitten," as it was said, "by

God," and the exarchate was filled apparently by Theodore Calliopas

(644-646).

Theodore Calliopas was twice exarch. Of his first administration we

know nothing at all; but in 646 he was succeeded by Plato (646-649),

whose name we learn from a letter of the emperor Constans II. to his

successor Olympius (649-652), who had been imperial chamberlain in

Constantinople. Theodore Calliopas was then again appointed and ruled

in Ravenna for eleven years (653-664).

We have seen the empire and the papacy politically at enmity and

certainly bent on attaining different political ends in Italy and the

West, and this is emphasised by the economic condition of Italy which

the empire taxed heavily. Philosophically Constantinople had never

perhaps been very eagerly Catholic--or must one say papal? But now at

this dangerous moment a doctrine definitely heretical was to be

officially adopted there and supported by emperor and patriarch with

insistance and perhaps enthusiasm. Heraclius, the grandfather of

Constans II., had asserted the Monothelete heresy which maintained

that although Christ had two distinct natures yet He had but one

_Will_--his human will being merged in the divine. The patriarch of

Constantinople, always jealous of the popes, eagerly upheld this

doctrine which the papacy continually and consistently denounced. Now

Constans II. cared for none of these things. He refused to allow that

either pope or patriarch was right, but as though he had been living

in the sixteenth instead of the seventh century gravely announced that

"the sacred Scriptures, the works of the Fathers, the Decrees of the

five General Councils are enough for us;" and asked: "Why should men

seek to go beyond these?" Roundly he refused to allow the question to

be either supported or attacked.

Now the whole of the West was very heartily with the pope in

sentiment; but save for the bishops of Italy he stood alone against

the great patriarchates of the East. Nevertheless, he refused to be

silent and to obey the emperor. Therefore Olympius, Constans'

chamberlain in 649, came to Italy as exarch with orders to arrest the

pope and bring him to Constantinople: this it seemed to him a prudent

thing to do; he was to judge for himself. Olympius decided it was not

a prudent thing to do. He found the Italian bishops and the people

eagerly Catholic. There is a story that he attempted instead to take

the pope's life as he said Mass, but this is probably untrue, for we

find pope and exarch presently excellent friends. He went on into

Sicily to meet the first invasion of the Saracens in that island, and

died there of the pestilence.

Theodore Calliopas was appointed exarch for the second time as his

successor in 652. He had either less sagacity or less scruple than his

predecessor, for in the following year he appeared with an army in

Rome. He found the pope ill and in bed before the high altar of S.

John Lateran. He surrounded the church and entered it with his men,

who were guilty of violence and desecration. But the pope, to save

bloodshed, surrendered himself to the exarch, shouting as he emerged

from the church, "Anathema to all who say that Martin has changed a

jot or tittle of the Faith Anathema to all who do not remain in his

orthodox Faith even to the death." Through the tumultuous and weeping

city the pope passed to the palace of the exarch upon the Palatine

Hill. He entered it a prisoner and was presently smuggled away on

board ship to Constantinople, where he was examined and condemned to

death, insulted in the Hippodrome, and his sentence commuted to

imprisonment and exile to Cherson, where he died in 655.

The controversy slumbered. Before long, surely to the amazement of the

West, the emperor landed in Italy at Tarentum with the object of

finally dealing with the Lombards, for Rothari was dead. It is said he

asked some hermit there in the south: "Shall I vanquish and hold down

the nation of the Lombards which now dwelleth in Italy?" The answer

was as follows, and, rightly understood, contained at least the

fundamental part of the truth: "The nation of the Lombards," said the

hermit after a night of prayer, "cannot be overcome because a pious

queen coming from a foreign land has built a church in honour of S.

John Baptist who therefore pleads without ceasing for that people. But

a time will come when that sanctuary will be held in contempt, and

then the nation shall perish."[1]

[Footnote 1: Diaconus. v. 6; cf. Hodgkin, _op. cit_. vi. 272. Paulus

adds that the prophecy was fulfilled when adulterous and vile priests

were ordained in the church at Monza and the Lombards fell before

Pepin.]

That prophecy contained the fundamental truth that since the Lombards

were Catholic it was not possible to turn them out of Italy. But

Constans heeded it not. He marched on, besieged Beneventum, was not

successful, and went on to Rome, and himself spoiled the City. From

Rome he returned southward to Naples and Sicily, where in 668 he died.

All that time Gregory was exarch. He had succeeded Theodore Calliopas

in 664, and he ruled till 677. We know little of him save that he

appears to have attempted to confirm Maurus, archbishop of Ravenna, in

his "independence" of the Papal See.[1] This Maurus was undoubtedly a

schismatic and Agnellus tells us that he had many troubles with the

Holy See and many altercations. Indeed the position of the archbishop

of Ravenna can never have been a very enviable one and especially at

this time when the breach between pope and emperor, papacy and empire,

was continually widening. Always the archbishop of Ravenna, as the

bishop of the imperial citadel in Italy, must have been tempted to

follow the emperor rather than the pope, and more especially since,

personally, he might expect to gain both in power and wealth that way.

[Footnote 1: That was the "Privilegium," whatever it was worth and

whatever exactly it meant, conferred by Constans II. Constantine

Pogonatus, the successor of Constans, is still to be seen in S.

Apollinare in Classe the "Privilegium" in his hands in mosaic. See

_infra_, p. 208.]

The exarch Gregory was succeeded apparently by a certain Theodore

whose contemporary archbishop in Ravenna was also a Theodore. He ruled

it seems for ten years, 677-687, and built near his palace an oratory,

or a monastery, not far from the church of S. Martin (S. Apollinare

Nuovo), and was, according to Agnellus, a pious man, presenting three

golden chalices to the church in Ravenna and composing the differences

of his namesake the archbishop and his clergy.

Theodore in his turn was succeeded by Joannes Platyn (687-701). Two

years before his appointment in 685 Justinian II. (685-695) had

succeeded to the imperial throne, and in that same year pope Benedict

II. died. John V. succeeded him and reigned for a few months, when

there followed two disputed elections, those of Conon and of Sergius.

In the latter Joannes Platyn the exarch played a miserable and

disastrous part. For he suddenly appeared in Rome as the partisan of

Paschal, the rival of Sergius, who had obtained his support by a

promise of one hundred pounds of gold if he would help him to the

papal throne. On his advent in Rome, however, the exarch found that he

must abandon Paschal and consent to the election of Sergius, in which

all concurred. He refused, however, to abandon his bribe which he now

demanded of the new pope. Sergius replied that he had never promised

anything to the exarch and that he could not pay the sum demanded. And

he brought forth in the sight of the people the holy vessels of S.

Peter, saying these were all he had. As the pope doubtless intended,

the Romans were enraged against the exarch, the money was scraped

together, and the holy vessels rescued.

Ravenna, a Study · 第 9 / 20 段