During the early seventh century a series of capable exarchs in Ravenna consolidated control over the Italian provinces, ensured the payment of local taxes to Constantinople and attempted to enforce the official theology adopted in the eastern capital. Ravenna’s maritime connections with the East facilitated the movement of envoys, pilgrims, merchants and soldiers, who all continued to travel throughout the Mediterranean world, often using the port of Classis.
In November 602 a military revolt in the East threatened this relatively settled arrangement, when a junior officer, Phokas, was acclaimed emperor by his fellow soldiers in the Balkans. After their immediate refusal to campaign north of the Danube in winter, the rebels marched to Constantinople and, in a surprisingly rapid coup, murdered Emperor Maurice and his sons and established Phokas on the throne. While this caused great anxiety in Constantinople and provoked the Persians to invade the empire in the East, in Italy Exarch Smaragdus accepted the new regime.1 Even though Pope Gregory had known Maurice and Empress Constantina in Constantinople during his time as papal representative, he too urged support for Phokas, going out to greet the portraits of the new imperial ruler and his wife on 25 April 603. After this ceremonial reception, Gregory displayed the images in the chapel of St Caesarius within the ancient palace on the Palatine to mark the change of regime in the East. He wrote to Phokas and his wife, Leontia, recommending that they follow the model of Constantine the Great and his mother Helena, always considered the archetype of Christian rulers.2 Had he learned of the murder of the widowed Empress Constantina in 605, he might have been less supportive, but on 12 March 604 Gregory died after a momentous papal reign of fourteen years. While his mission to Canterbury to convert the Angles is often considered his supreme achievement, his organization of the papal office, with efficient record keeping, administration of estates and care for the poor (probably including many refugees from Lombard attacks) was certainly more important for Italy.
His successors, Sabinian and Boniface III, continued to cooperate with the new emperor, and in 608 Boniface IV (608–15) negotiated permission from Phokas to adapt the Pantheon for Christian use. This was the first conversion of a pagan monument in the centre of Rome, and the emperor sent many gifts to mark its transformation into a church dedicated to St Mary and all the martyrs.3 Smaragdus the exarch was also involved in the process and commemorated it in a very striking new monument put up on the Roman Forum on 1 August 608: an honorary column. Not since the fifth century had an emperor been honoured in Rome in this way. The exarch and the pope thus collaborated in renewing control over Rome, imperial and papal respectively, under the aegis of Constantinople’s authority.
The long inscription carved on the base of the column records Smaragdus the exarch who took responsibility for erecting it in honour of Emperor Phokas (Plate 48). Both column and base were re-used; the original inscription to Diocletian was scraped off, and the gilded statue that was erected on top may also have been recycled. Nonetheless, the dedication to ‘our most clement and pious ruler, lord Phokas, perpetual emperor crowned by God, the forever august triumphant [prince]’, in gratitude for his innumerable benefactions, and the peace and freedom of Italy, reflects an appropriate devotion to the emperor in Constantinople, the supreme ruler of Italy. Acknowledging Smaragdus, currently exarch of Italy and patricius, as previously holding the position of praepositus sacri palatii, it also notes the height of the column (at 13.6m, the tallest on the Forum), all part of the effort to commemorate the emperor’s glory.4 The ceremonial dedication was obviously a most unusual event at the time and drew attention to the real master of Old Rome, who now resided in New Rome. And although no one at the time knew it, this was also to be the last in the tradition of raising columns on the Forum.
To judge by the numerous revolts that took place during his short eight-year reign, Phokas was a cruel and incompetent ruler, a soldier who had been promoted by his troops but had very little imperial skill. He might well have suggested the erection of the statue in Rome, but in the very same year of its dedication, disaffected senators in Constantinople appealed to Herakleios, the exarch of Carthage, to oust the emperor. In response, he sent his son (also named Herakleios) by sea, and his nephew Niketas by land, to assist their plans. The following year (609) Herakleios the Younger sailed into Constantinople and removed Phokas. The role of the North African exarchate in providing military muscle to this senatorial revolt drew attention to the power of the western provinces within the empire. Once installed as emperor, Herakleios (610–41) appointed competent men to govern the exarchates, though local leaders – and indeed some exarchs – tried to take advantage of these resources to create their own independent states.5
In 615–16 a revolt broke out in Naples led by John of Compsa, and the exarch, also called John, and other imperial officials identified as iudices rei publicae (notables, often military) were killed.6 The unrest was probably provoked by cuts or delays in paying the army. Herakleios dealt with this effort to shake off Constantinopolitan control by sending Eleutherios, a eunuch, to punish the assassins. He arrived in Ravenna in 616, went to Rome where he was welcomed by Pope Deusdedit with all solemnity, and proceeded to Naples to put down the revolt of John of Compsa. The Roman Book of the Pontiffs records that he returned to Ravenna, paid the soldiers and ‘a great peace was achieved throughout Italy’, that is, in both parts of the exarchate, Ravenna in the north-east, and Rome and Naples on the west coast. But three years later, in 619, Eleutherios in turn decided to set himself up as ruler and demanded that Archbishop John IV of Ravenna should crown him. Instead, John suggested that he should go to Rome to establish his authority, and at the castrum called Lucioli on the Via Amerina between Ravenna and Rome, he was killed by ‘soldiers from the army of Ravenna’. They put his head in a bag and sent it to Constantinople to prove that he was dead.7
This episode exemplifies the dangers inherent in governing an area so far from the centre of the empire. Constantinople had to invest the position of the exarch with sufficient authority to ensure the collection of taxes and obedience to rule from the eastern capital. In this, the exarch also relied on support from the archbishop of Ravenna, who represented another powerful but independent institution, and the city council and other local bodies not controlled from Constantinople. With this remarkably powerful capacity, several governors were tempted to try and establish their own little kingdoms in the West. In 619 Archbishop John and a section of the local militia found an effective way to get rid of Eleutherios, one of these overambitious officials. Their combined action makes plain the inevitable tensions within Ravenna, which were common to many regions of the empire.
Following the death of Eleutherios, Herakleios appointed as exarch Gregory the patrician (619–25), followed by Isaac, who, like the emperor, also claimed Armenian descent. The first must have rewarded the troops from the army of Ravenna who had obstructed the attempted coup of his predecessor. He also dealt with the Lombard dukes of Friuli and Slavs settled in Carinthia (southern Austria).8 This was an area whose bishops persisted in their opposition to the Council of 553; they had elected a rival patriarch of Aquileia to represent them and resisted all Exarch Gregory’s attempts to win them over to the imperial view. His successor Isaac, who held the position of exarch longer than any other, from 625 until 643 (perhaps a sign that he was a most trusted and reliable supporter of the emperor), had to continue the campaign. In 625 Pope Honorius wrote to Isaac to request his help in curbing the activity of these persistent supporters of the Three Chapters, but the exarch was preoccupied by a revival of Lombard military action.
When he first arrived in Constantinople in 610 Herakleios ‘found the affairs of the Roman state undone, for the Avars had devastated Europe, while the Persians had destroyed all of Asia and had captured many cities and annihilated in battle the Roman army’.9 For two decades the new emperor had to confront a determined Persian invasion, followed by the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, which greatly reduced his resources, while Slavs and Avars threatened the Balkan frontier. In his efforts to rebuild military resources he was strongly supported by Patriarch Sergios, who permitted the melting down of liturgical silver to increase the supply of coin for military pay. Herakleios then transferred military units from Europe to Asia Minor and in 622 set out on a long campaign against Persia.10 Following a complex and brilliant strategy, in 628 he destroyed the Persian capital, Ctesiphon, and celebrated his decisive victory in appropriate triumphs and a new Greek title, basileus pistos en Christo, king faithful in Christ. This reflected Herakleios’ determination to unite all the Christians of his empire, by regaining the support of the Monophysite communities of the Near East, who had never accepted the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon.11 In this effort to find a theological compromise that would command their agreement, the emperor became mired in debates over the single energy and single will of Christ (Monotheletism), which only deepened divisions.
The argument that Christ had only one energy, not two corresponding to his divine and human natures, was initially accepted by Pope Honorius.12 But the more developed Monothelete doctrine of Christ’s single will, pronounced in 638, immediately provoked a strong reaction among a group of eastern monks whose sophisticated grasp of theology made them serious opponents. The death of the pope in October the same year not only opened the western reaction to Monotheletism but was also accompanied by rumours in Rome that Honorius had retained funds sent to pay the army in the papal residence, the Lateran palace. Taking advantage of these ideas and the power vacuum that existed before the consecration of the new pope, the cartularius Mauricius, one of Isaac’s subordinates, broke into the Lateran and wrote to inform the exarch of the great wealth accumulated by many earlier bishops. Isaac went to Rome and decided to remove the treasure, partly to provide pay for the army and partly to support the emperor by sending a portion of the wealth to Herakleios. In order to do so, he had to exile the Roman clergy to other cities temporarily.13 They later complained that in plundering the palace Isaac had exhausted funds bequeathed to the Church for distribution as alms to the poor, for the redemption of captives and of the souls of many Christian donors. But Isaac had to pay his military forces, as well as imposing the imperial theology, and used the funds to ensure the policy of Herakleios. After a long gap of nineteen months Severinus was ordained pope on 28 May 640, but he died only two months later.
This plunder of the Lateran palace coincided with increasing opposition to the Monothelete doctrine of Christ’s will, led by Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem and Maximos, a monk later known as the Confessor, who went to Rome to warn the pope of the danger of a new heresy. Pope John IV (640–42) and his successor Theodore (642–9) both condemned Monotheletism as contrary to the traditions of the ancient church, thus opening a schism not only between the sees of Rome and Constantinople, but also between Rome and Ravenna where Isaac the exarch supported the imperial position. When Herakleios died in 641 his religious policy had failed in both the East and West. In some regions, the persistent upholders of the Three Chapters suspected that Constantinople was now the source of unreliable, if not heretical, beliefs.
All this theological turmoil developed while Exarch Isaac faced military threats from the Lombards under kings Ariold (626–36) and Rothari (636–52), invigorated by a revival of their traditional Arian beliefs. While this recreated the earlier rivalry between religious leaders – ‘there were two bishops throughout almost all the cities of the kingdom, one a Catholic and the other an Arian’ – the resurgence of Arian communities among the Lombards strengthened their military ambitions to conquer all imperial territory. In addition to the usual diplomatic efforts to play off one hostile force against another, Isaac sent imperial forces to confront a Lombard invasion of the duchies of the Venetiae, north of Ravenna, and campaigned in north-west Italy, where Rothari consolidated his rule over Liguria when he captured Genoa and Albenga and Luni in Tuscany. Paul the deacon claims that the Lombards defeated Isaac near the River Scultenna (Panaro) where eight thousand troops fell – a terrible loss for the exarch, if true.14
In the Venetiae the Lombards occupied much of the mainland, forcing the inhabitants of Oderzo and Altino to flee to islands in the lagoons at the head of the Adriatic, where they formed the settlements of Cittanova, which later became the core of Venice, and Torcello, respectively. The local bishop, Maurus, recorded the patronage of Isaac in the foundation of a church dedicated to Holy Mary, Mother of God, on Torcello, reflected in the inscription of 639:
On the order of the pious and devout Lord Isaac, most excellent exarch and patrician, for his benefit and that of his army this was built from its foundations by Mauricius, the glorious master of the soldiers of the province of the Venetiae . . .15
Isaac may also have intervened when an invasion of northern people, often identified as Bulgars, fled the domination of the Avars in Pannonia and advanced into Gaul and Italy. Some were settled in central Italy by the Lombard duke of Benevento, others reached the Pentapolis, under Isaac’s control, and in both regions their presence is reflected in the names of places and people.16
When Pope John IV died in October 642 Mauricius, the devious cartularius, launched an even more brazen rebellion with the help of those local troops who had plundered the Lateran. Claiming that Exarch Isaac intended to set himself up as emperor, Mauricius tried to persuade all the people from Rome and the neighbouring cities to swear loyalty to himself alone. Isaac reacted by sending Donus, magister militum, and a sacellarius (treasurer), to put down this revolt, and they captured Mauricius and killed him. His head was carried into Ravenna and displayed on a pole in the middle of the circus there, a typical punishment for a rebel. Before he had decided how to punish the others who had taken part in the revolt, Isaac died in 643.17
The Roman Book of the Pontiffs records his death as an act of God, a divine punishment for his loyalty to the Monothelete doctrine opposed by Rome. His grieving widow, Susanna, acquired a late antique sarcophagus for his tomb and a lid on which she had his life and achievements recorded in Greek iambic trimeters. These claim that ‘he kept Rome and the West safe for the serene sovereigns’, and praise his Armenian origin and his unusually long tenure of office (Plates 34 and 35).18 This magnificent sarcophagus, which can still be admired inside the church of San Vitale, dates from the fifth century and displays the three kings presenting their gifts to the Virgin and Child, an elaborate cross flanked by peacocks on the two long sides, with Daniel in the lions’ den and the raising of Lazarus on the short ends. Bishops of Ravenna were all buried in these impressively carved sarcophagi.19
Isaac’s epitaph was probably chosen by Susanna who paid the author of the verses and the carver, who very skilfully created their record on either side of the cross that was already on the lid. The Greek letters were very accurately and precisely carved and are quite different from contemporary Greek inscriptions in Rome or Vicenza, displaying no influence from Latin inscriptions. Accents and breathings must have been added much later, probably in the Renaissance when a Latin translation of the verses was added on the other side of the lid.20 The entire Greek inscription is presented in such a fashion that the verses can be read from left to right across the central divide formed by the cross, or in two sections separated by it. In the use of Greek, Susanna displayed her appreciation of the language employed at the highest levels of government and identified the governor as one who belonged to the cultural milieu of imperial Constantinople. While his Greek epitaph would not have been understood by most local inhabitants, on his seal Isaac was also identified in Latin (as patricius et hexarchus).21 Like his predecessors he must have used Latin for writing letters to local officials, Lombard kings and popes, while employing Greek for communication with Constantinople.22
Isaac is also known from another inscription in Greek, at Comaclum (Comacchio) near Ravenna devoted to his nephew Gregory, who died at the age of eleven, which is equally carefully executed.23 The Armenian exarch’s trilingual identity reflects the very mixed population both of the eastern empire and of the western exarchates, where skilful military commanders and experienced administrators could make their careers. One of them may be Paulacis, a soldier of the Armenian numerus, who sold a property named Terriatico to the church of Ravenna for 36 solidi in 639. A schole gentilium (cohort of guards) is recorded at Classis and another schola forensium existed for secretaries, who represented the literate lowerlevel administrators. As we’ve seen, there were several Greeks in Ravenna who signed acts using Greek letters, while other merchants, moneychangers and officials witness legal documents writing their names in Greek characters.24 Educated people still wished to understand and extend their knowledge of Greek. Ravenna was just the sort of place where such bilingual knowledge was preserved, reinforced by the regular arrival of officials appointed by Constantinople and by the study of medical, liturgical and geographical texts.