The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II (685-695, 705-711 A.D.)

NUl\IISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS is devoted to essays and treatises on subjects relating to coins, paper money, medals and decorations.

PUBLICATION COMMITTEE Chairman

ALFRED R.BELLINGER, THEODORE

V.

BUTTREY, JR.

JoHN V. A. FINE THOMAS O.MABBOTT

EDITORIAL STAFF SAWYER MeA. MossER, HowARD

L.

ADELSON,

Editor

Associate Editor

The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II (685-695, 705-711 A.D.)

By JAMES D. BRECKENRIDGE

THE A:\IERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY NEW YORK

1959

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

PRISTED IN AT

GER!>I:A~Y

J.J. AUGUSTIN • GLCCKSTADT

Not without virtues was the prince. Who is?

- J.

H. Leigh Hunt

CONTENTS FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I

THE COINS OF JUSTINIAN II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

r8

TYPES OF THE EMPEROR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .

28

TYPES OF CHRIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

COIN LEGENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

JUSTINIAN II AND THE MOSLEM REFORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6g

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINS OF JUSTINIAN II . . . . . . .

78

THE MEANING OF JUSTINIAN II'S NEW COIN TYPES • . . . . . .

gr

FOREWORD Even at this late date, it sometimes seems that the value of numismatic evidence for art-historical studies is something more often acknowledged than exploited; nonetheless, each year finds more thorough use being made of numismatic material by scholars in that field, while numismatists themselves are more apt than formerly to see that the findings of the art historians can be of use to them in their own studies. The writer knows of no other single problem, however, in which the two disciplines are more closely interrelated, and in which the solution involves such a degree of interpretation of material from each field in terms of the other, than the one under examination here. For accepting for publication in this series a study of this sort, which sometimes ranges far afield from the normal concerns of purely numismatic research, the writer is deeply appreciative of the consideration given by the Publication Committee of the American Numismatic Society. The problem which forms the focal point of the present study was first set forth in relevant terms over two decades ago by Professor Andre Grabar of the College de France; the writer owes a great debt to Professor Grabar for guidance through his writings, his teaching, and his counsel during the course of the preparation of this study. Some of its conclusions were presented in a preliminary way in Professor Grabar's seminar at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in 1951, while a more final but still more summary account was given at the Symposium on the Byzantine Seventh Century held at Dumbarton Oaks in 1957. This study was prepared originally in the form of a doctoral dissertation, under the direction first of Professor A . .M. Friend, Jr., and then of Professor Kurt \Veitzmann, to whose generous help and assistance its completion is largely owed. Professor Ernst Kitzinger has taken a kind interest in the findings, with the result that the present paper is undoubtedly far sounder than it would otherwise have been; Professors Paul A. Cnderwood and Glan>ille Downey have given of their knowledge and critical advice, as have :Messrs. Cyril lX

X

Foreword

A. Mango, Basil Laour das and Ihor Sevce nko in variou s ways. In bringing this manu script into form for public ation, the advice, suggestions and corrections of Professor Alfred R. Bellinger have been in· valuable. Numi smatic exper ts and curato rs have been most helpfu l in extendin g the facilities of their institu tions and makin g availa ble their funds of knowledge; the writer must acknowledge partic ular indeb tedness to Dr. George C. Miles and Mrs. A. A. Boyce , and to )1. Jean Lafaurie of the Cabin et des Medailles, Biblio thequ e .Natio nale. Study in Paris would have been far more arduo us witho ut the cherished facilities of the Instit ut Byzan tin and the skilled assist ance of its staff, under M. Boris Ermol ov. Such specific acknowledgements can only partia lly indica te the full indebtedness of the writer to the many friends and schola rs, all of whom have had a part in the pursu it of this probl em; an attem pt is made to recognize specific contri bution s at releva nt points in the footnotes. Any scholarly work is a mosaic of contri bution s from many sources, writte n and verba l, publis hed and sugge sted, all of which go to make up the final synth esis; but, as in the creati on of a mosaic picture, the respon~ibility for the final result is not with the contri butors of the indivi dual tesser ae, but v:ith the perso n who puts them togeth er in the hope of forming a coher ent whole. For the faults and errors which may exist in the text which follows, the writer must accep t sole responsibility.

IXTRODUCTIO~

Justinian II was the first Byzantine emperor to place the image of Christ on his regular official coinage. 1 When he took this step, furthermore, he used not one but two quite different representations of the physical appearance of Christ. The precedent thus created was ignored by his successors, however, and the Christ-image disappeared again from the Byzantine coinage for a century and a half, while the Eastern Empire was torn by the Iconoclastic Controversy; then, ahnost immediately upon the Restoration of the Images in the middle of the ninth century, one of Justinian II's two coin types of Christ was copied almost line for line by the die-cutters of :\Iichael III, and thereafter became the prototype of one of the Christ representations which became normal on imperial Byzantine coins from the ninth century on. These facts have long been well known, and the importance of 1 That is to say, the image of Christ as a coin-type of and by itself, on a numismatic issue intended for general circulation. The figure of Christ had appeared on Byzantine coins already, however, to judge by the unique solidus of J'llarcian and Pulcheria in the Hunterian Collection, illustrated by George :Macdonald, Coin Types, Their Origin and Development, Glasgow, 1905, pp. 233-5 & Pl. IX, 8. This coin, which bears on the obverse an image of :\Iarcian, in armor, threequarters facing, has for reverse type the figures of emperor and empress standing, with Christ behind and between them, placing a hand on each of their shoulders. The reverse legend is "FELICITER XUBTIIS." The significance of the type has been elucidated, loc. cit., along the follO\\ing lines: \Vhereas Christ on this coin assumes the place taken in Roman iconography by Juno Pronuba, He specifically replaces the figure of Theodosius II as seen on a coin celebrating the marriage of \"alentinian III and Eudoxia in 437 A. D. Christ appears on the later coin (dated ca. 450) because the marriage was one of form only, the bride having taken irrevocable vows of chastity at an early age; she married only to continue the imperial succession. Christ as depicted on this coin, insofar as can be determined given its worn condition, has the rounded skull, long face, beard, and cross-nimbus familiar in fifth-century Italian art of other media. In any event, this coin, which must ha\·e been struck in very limited quantity, had no immediate influence on Byzantine coin-types, or on the imperial Christian iconography: Christ appears here for a specific sym.bolic reason, and not because of any function He performs in a more generalized way for the Christian religion, or for the Christianized imperial cult.

I

2

Numismatic Iconography of Just inia n II

Justi nian II's innov ation is gene rally recognized ; but it has been more difficult to ascer tain the mean ing place d in his actio n at the time it was taken . In recen t years , increased atten tion has been given Justi nian II's issues by a grou p of scholars whos e special concem is the theor y of icon-worship developed by the icono philes of the eighth and ninth centuries. 2 While the inter est shown by these iconophiles in Justi nian II's use of the Christ imag e is of great impo rtanc e to an unde rstan ding of the fully developed image theor y, much less is known abou t the actua l back grou nd, political, theological, or whatever it may have been, of Justi nian ll's own actio ns; in other words, whereas the ninth centu ry's evalu ation of seve nth-c entur y practice is impo rtant in unde rstan ding eight h- and ninth -cent ury attitu des towa rd images in general, it is considerably more difficult to apply this same eighth- or ninth -cent ury evalu ation to the seve nth centu ry itself. This is not to say that our unde rstan ding of what was developing with regar d to attitu des and pract ices of religi ous art in the seven th centu ry has not adva nced mark edly in recen t years , not least as a resul t of the above-mentioned researches. 3 Unti l now, however, no 2 The pione ering work on the subje ct was Andre Graba r's L'emp ereur dans l'art byzan tin, Paris, 1936. Certa in of Graba r's ideas were devel oped, with other origin al ones, by P. Lucas Koch in a series of articl es, "Zur Theol ogie der Chris tusiko ne," Bened iktinis che Mona tsschr ift XIX, 1937, pp. 375-3 87; ibid. XX, 1938, pp. 32-47 , 168-7 5, 281-8 , and 437-5 2; and, most impo rtant to our subje ct, "Chri stusb ild-K aiserb ild," ibid. XXI, 1939, pp. 85-10 5. Devel oping ideas he had alread y begun to publi sh in Germ any, Gerha rd B. Ladn er wrote the impo rtant "Orig in and Signif icance of the Byza ntine Icono clasti c Contr overs y," Media eval Studie s II, 1940, pp. 127-4 9; and, since, "The Conce pt of the Imag e in the Greek Fathe rs and the Byza ntine Icono clasti c Contr overs y," Dumb arton Oaks Paper s VII, 1953, pp. I-34· Still more recen tly we have the signif icant paper by Ernst Kitzin ger, "The Cult of the Image s in the Age befor e Icono clasm ," Dumb arton Oaks Paper s VIII, 1954, pp. 83-15 0; cf. esp. his remar ks, p. 128, on the impor tance , as well as the weakn esses, of Graba r's, Koch 's, and Ladn er's contr ibutio ns. ~lost recen t of all is Graba r's L'iccmoclasme byzan tin, dossier archiologiq~te, Paris, 1957, which overla ps and somew hat anted ates, in comp ositio n, parts of Kitzin ger's work. 3 Cf. the articl e by Kitzin ger just cited, with his "On Some Icons of the Seven th Centu rv,'' in Late Classical and Media eval Studie s in Hono r of Alber t .>fathias Frien d:]r., Princ eton, 1955, pp. 132-1 50, and Graba r's L'ic01z~clasme. Symp tomat ic of grov..ing schol arly intere st in the pre-Ic onocl astic period was the Symp osium on Byza ntium in the Seven th Centu ry, held at Dumb arton Oaks in ~lay, 1957, at which parts of the prese nt work were read in abridr red form. 0

Introduction

3

attempt has been made to study the coins of Justinian II in a thorough way from the numismatic standpoint, with a view to applying our new knowledge of their own and later periods, and their possible relation to pre-Iconoclastic image-theory. The pre-Iconoclastic age was a pivotal one, not only for the Byzantine Empire, but for all of what we know as Europe. The very scarcity of the material from which we must reconstruct a picture of the epoch serves to show us just how critical its position was. \Ve are well enough informed about the era of Justinian the Great, a period in the course of which we may perceive the beginnings of the evolution of the Roman Empire into its mediaeval form. But we are far less aze courant with events in each subsequent decade. With the coming of Heraclius, and the first of a new series of battles with the resurgent Orient, a veil begins to fall over the Byzantine Empire, through which we can dimly discern men and events, but little of the institutions and ideas that gave them life. \Vhen, in another hundred years, the !saurian emperors had succeeded in beating off the Moslem onslaught, the curtain begins to lift. The stage is the same, but all else, characters, scenery, dialogue, the \Vhole frame of reference has changed immeasurably. Clearly all this did not happen overnight, in the eighth century. A great deal of research has been devoted to the study of these new institutions which we see in operation under the Isaurians, 4 and all of it has served to illustrate how much of the modification of the structure of the Empire took place in the century before Leo III, the years between the great Persian invasion of Syria around 613, and the final unsuccessful :Moslem attack on Constantinople in 717 A. D. The new administrative system of the themes, integrating civil and military administration; the new agrarian la\vs, adjusting conceptions of prop4 Cf. for example G. Ostrogorsky, ""tber die vermeintliche Reformtatigkeit der Isaurier," Byzantinische Zeitschrijt (hereafter BZ) XXX, 1929-30, pp. 394-401; G. Vernadsh.-y, "Surles origines de la Loi agraire byzantine," Byantion II, rgz6, pp. r6g-8o; a good summary, with bibliography to date, is Ostrogorsh.-y's chapter in the Cambridge Economic History I, Cambridge, rg.p, pp. 57g-83. :\lost recently, Ostrogorsh.-y has arrived definitely at a Heraclian date for the composition of the Book of the Themes: "Sur la date de la composition du Li-..Te des Themes et sur l'epoque de la constitution des premiers themes d'Asie .:\.Iineure," Byzantion XXIII, 1953, pp. 31-66. According to Ostrogorsky, the "Xamos Georgikos" was probably published under Justinian II himself.

4

Numismatic Iconography of Jus tini an II

erty and ownership to the new realities of a rava ged c~unt~yside; these and man y othe r details, large and sma ll, of Byz antm e hfe can be dem onst rated , or may be hypo thes ized , to have had thei r origins in the cent ury which followed the adve nt of Heraclius. The final stag e of this tran sitio n, it is clea r from our evidence, was takin g place unde r the last ruler of the Hera clian Dyn asty , Just inian II. His two reigns, inte rrup ted and follo wed as they were by periods of anar chy which prep ared the way for the new stro ng man , Leo the !sau rian , prov ided despite thei r difficulti es the last perio d before the Iconoclasm whe n the Byz antin e gove rnm ent enjo yed sufficient stability to concern itself not only with civil adm inist ratio n and policy, but also with religious practices. In the mat ter of the art of the period, we find a situa tion directly parallel to that just described with rega rd to its political histo ry. The !sau rian s brou ght with them a new attit ude towa rd the Christian religion and its art, an attit ude which we call Iconoclasm. The y left an indelible impr int upon the char acte r of Byz antin e art, religious and secular. Yet the very natu re of the Icon oclastic mov eme nt eras ed a grea t deal of the evidence which would tell us wha t cam e before it, and consequently whence the Iconoclastic attit ude itsel f derived. Just as rece nt research has push ed the origins of the !sau rian legislative syst em back a cent ury, so we can see now that Iconoclasm itself did not spring like a weed from unti lled soil. Rath er is it true that the conflict had been prep arin g itsel f for decades in the mind s of men, with in and with out the boundarie s of the Emp ire; and wha t happ ened to religious art, in its theo ry and in its practice, in the course of the seve nth cent ury, was of the grea test impo rtan ce in determining the rise of the opposite view point, Iconoclasm. The evolution of religious art in this perio d just prior to the Iconoclasm has a furth er inter est, inasmuch as it formed the basis for the concepts used by the Orth odox part y agai nst the Image-Breakers, and supplied the concrete examples nece ssary for the form ulati on of regular Orth odox icon -theo ry; not only that , but surv iving examples, and memories, of this art evid ently prov ided the poin t of depa rture for the new religious art which flowered almo st immediately upon the Rest orat ion of the Images, in the nint h cent ury. The problem posed for the art histo rian by this period immediately before the adve nt of the !sau rian Dyn asty , as may be seen from the

Introduction

5

foregoing, is that of ascertaining in the first place what monuments survive from that period, and secondly what those monuments can tell us about the character and tendencies of the arts of that time. It is, thus, a problem of extremely broad scope, considered from the point of view of geographical distribution alone. This \Vas perhaps the last moment at which we may consider the art of the Mediterranean basin to have presented a fundamental, though naturally not homogeneous, whole; in all the lands of the Byzantine Empire, whether or not its political rule was still felt, its artistic hegemony was evident. The questions raised about the character of this art can only be answered satisfactorily when all the arts of the period, toward the close of the seventh century, have been studied and compared in detail. History has played us the trick, at just this point, of erasing the center of the disc of the Empire, leaving us only fragments of its rim. At all times, Constantinople was unquestionably the most active center of the creative arts of the Eastern Empire; its influence could not but have been felt in all the peripheral areas with which it was in contact. Only through appreciating the importance of this essential unity can we explain the changes and evolutions of such provincial art as has been preserved, changes which are rarely the result of independent progress, but rather show every sign of being dependent upon the dynamic central source. 5 There are certain of the provincial areas where we may, in time, be able to assemble sufficient data to clarify this aspect of the problem. In Italy, and particularly in Rome, the Popes were frequently active in the fields of construction and decoration, as the tattered palimpsest of S. Maria Anti qua bears \\itness; one of the most active Popes in this respect was John VII, and the art produced during his brief reign, contemporary '"ith that of Justinian II, should provide valuable e\idence, if only by inference, of what influences were reaching Italy from the East at that time. 6 s Kitzinger's article "On Some Icons ... ", cited abo;;e, n. 3, demonstrates this dependence of Roman art upon the Constantinopolitan in a strong way, especially (p. 138) v-ith reference to the period of Pope John YII (;os-;o7) when Constantinopolitan influences had hitherto been thought to ha;;e been weakest, and Roman art at its most autonomous. 6 Cf. for Roman art of this period the basic study by Kitzinger, Romische J;[alerei t•om Beginn des 7· bis zur Jiitte des 8. Jahrhunderts, ).Iunich, n. d. (1936).

6

Num ism atic Iconography of J~tstini an II

In Greece, and especially at Thessal onika, ther e wou ld app ear to hav e been a good dea l of acti vity in the arts , but here problems of attr ibut ion and aati ng pres ent grea ter difficulties in draw ing preci~e parallels for purposes of comparison. The sam e is true of Egy pt, m the present stat e of our knowledge, for alth oug h it is generally agreed tha t Coptic art remains sub ject to recu rren t wav es of influence from the Emp ire long afte r Egy pt's con que st by the Moslems, the lack of an established chronology, with in even a cen tury for the mos t part , mak es analysis and comparison extr eme ly difficult. Yet it is probable that the only way in which thes e prob lems of Coptic chronology will one day be solved is by just such corr elations betw een Coptic monumen ts and established and date d wor ks outs ide Egypt.7 Finally, our documents tell us enough abo ut rela tion s betw een the Byz anti ne emperors and the Um ayy ad caliphs, as well as between thei r sub ject s at more hum ble levels, for us to be fully awa re of the dependence of Um ayy ad art in its more form ativ e stag es upo n the Byz anti ne trad itio ns which it supp lemented. The hap py discoveries mad e in the Nea r Eas t in rece nt year s, as well as the generally resurg ent position of Islamic studies, give grea t hop e that our knowledge of Byz anti ne as well as Sassanian art will be vast ly incr ease d as more Islamic mat eria l becomes available. 8 The purpose of any one stud y, at the pres ent stag e of our knowledge, could however scarcely embrace with profit all these scat tere d fields of artis tic production. In view of the natu re of the cen tral problems of pre-Iconoclastic religious art, the mos t pressing need is to esta blis h wha t can be kno wn abo ut the art actu ally prod uced in the imp eria l circle itse lf; and in the peri od whi ch concerns us, the surv ivin g ~

On the situa tion at Thes salo nika and abou t the time of Just inia n II, J. D. Brec kenr idge , "Th e 'Lon ginSieg e' of Thes salo nika : Its Date and Icon ogra phy, " BZ XLV III, 1955 , pp. II6- 22, with bibl iogr aphy on prob lem conc ernin g the deco ratio just one n of the chur ch of S. Dem etrio s. \Yit h rega rd to Cop tic art, agai n the work of Kitz inge r is fund ame ntal: "~otes on Earl y Cop tic Scul ptur e," Archaeologia LXX XVI I, 1937 , pp. r8rff . At pres ent, Hjal mar Torp is enga ged upon stud ies of Cop tic art whic hope d, will prod uce a bett er abso h, it is lute muc h valu able mate rial is bein g reco and relat ive chro nolo gy. In addi tion , vere d and docu men ted by the Prin :Michigan expe ditio ns to the :\Ion aster y of St. Cath erine , ~Iount Sina ceto ni. s Grab ar has adde d muc h to our know ledg e of the inter relat ions of Bvz antin e and Islam ic art by the .~aterial asse mble d in L'iconoclasme, esp. Cha pter & pp. ro3- 112. In addi tion , we IV, may Grab ar, in Ars Orie ntali s III, 1958 look forw ard to a cont ribu tion by Oleg . cf.

Introduction

7

imperial art, with negligible exceptions, is exclusively that of the coinage. It is for this reason that the following study is undertaken on a numismatic basis; its objective is the establishment of the following facts about the emperor's coinage: First, what numismatic issues were struck under his reign, in what sequence, and at what dates; Second, what meaning or meanings these coins were intended to convey, and hence Third, what the reasons may have been for issuing them. It should be possible, in the light of this information, to clarify some

of the attitudes held by official, that is to say, by state and ecclesiastical circles, concerning religious images, and particularly their use in the state cult. From this, it is to be hoped that something may be deduced about the wider context of the religious art of the time, about the spirit which manifests itself through both style and content as an expression of the outlook of the age. From this material, it may be hoped that future research will have one more tool with which to attack some of the major problems of the history of Byzantine art. As a first step in this exposition, it is necessary to provide a brief historical survey of the principal events of Justinian II's reign, insofar as they may be seen to have a bearing upon his numismatic activities. 9 The reign of Justinian II, whose full name was Fla'\ius The historical exposition given here goes into more detail than would otherwise be necessary, both because much of the follmving has a bearing upon the numismatic evidence, and because none of the available modern studies are thorough enough in their examination of the period to furnish an absolutely reliable narrative and chronology of events. It has been necessary to reexamine all the sources, and to make a few new interpretations of their information, in order to clarify all the problems raised about the sequence of Justinian II's art and coinage. The most important single source is the Chronography of Theophanes, written in the years 810-815 A. D.: Theophanis Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, r883. His contemporary, the Patriarch Xicephorus, who held the See of Constantinople from 8o6 to 815, wrote a somewhat less detailed account of events from the time of l\Iaurice (582-6oz) to his own day: Yicephori Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opuscula Historica, ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, r88o. These two chronicles may be supplemented by that: of ~lichael the Syrian, who was Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch from II66 until II99, and who supplies some information not available in the histories just cited: Chronique de .Wichelle Spien, ed. J .-B. Chabot, Paris, r899-1924. The accounts of these historians, who shared many of the same sources, .are generally followed by later Byzantine and Syrian chroniclers, from whom 9

8

Numismatic Ico1Wgraphy of Justinian. II

Just inian us, bega n upon the deat h of his fath er Con~tantine IV, sometime duri ng the summer of 685 A. D.; he was then sixte en years old.1° The Emp ire was at that time in soun der cond ition than had been the case for some decades; Con stan tine IV had beat en off the first high -wat erma rk assault of the :Mos lem power in the protracted siege of Constantinople betw een 673 and 677, and reas serte d ~e stren gth of the Orth odox faith at the Sixt h Oecumenical Council, held at the capi tal in 68o- 68r. This Coun cil cond emn ed the :\lonothelete heresy which, while accepting the two Pers ons of Chri st, preached only one will or operation in the pers onal ity of Chri st; this heresy had been warm ly espoused by the prec eding emp eror , Constans II, and accepted by one Rom an Pope, Hon orius, who m the Council therefore condemned as a heretic. Of Con stan tine IV's vari ous actions to stren gthe n the Emp ire, the only one whic h was less than a resounding success was his campaign of 6J9 agai nst the Bulg ars, who had

we can deriv e little or no new infor matio n exce pt from an occa siona l indir ect refer ence, or a not infre quen t blun der, usua lly mista king Justi nian II for Justi nian I or Justi n I or II. Far more nearl y conte mpor ary to the even ts descr ibed than any of the afore ment ioned is the Liber Ponti(Lcalis, ed. L. Duch esne, Paris , 1886 , whic h supp lies infor Italy , but is not alwa ys comp letely reliab matio n on even ts takin g place in le in its acco unts of what was transpirin g at Cons tanti nople and elsew here in the East . :Mate rial upon one episo de of Justi nian II's secon d reign is foun d in Agne llus' biog raph y of Arch bisho p Felix of Rave nna, writt en in the ninth centu ry: Liber Ponti(Lcalis Ecclesiae Raun natis , ed. Hold er-Eg ger, in Monu ment Reru m Langobardicarum et ltalic arum saec. a Germaniae Historiae, Scriptores VI-I X, Hann over , 1878 , pp. 367- 71. Final ly, there is the text of the chur ch coun cil held unde r Justi nian II: J.-D. :O.Iansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et ampl issim a collectio IX, cols. 921-1 007. The neare st thing to a mode m stud y of Justi nian II is foun d in the essay by Char les Dieh l, "L'em pereu r au nez coup e," in Chases et gens de Byza nce, Paris , 1926 , pp. 173- 2II, whic h also exist s in a priva tely- print ed Engl ish trans latio n. This artic le follows litera lly and rathe r uncri ticall y the acco unts of Theo phan es and Xice phoru s. (Only sligh tly more roma ntici zed is a dram a by Alex andre Emb irico s, L'Em pereu r au nez c01tpe: Chronique byzantine en cinq actes, Paris , 19z9 , ambi tious and elabo rate enou gh to tax any thea ter smal ler than the Yank ee Stadi um.) In the highl y cond ensed acco unt of the reign s of Justi nian II whic h follo ws, specific sourc e refer ences are not indic ated tatio n, or of disag reem ent betw een sourc exce pt wher e a ques tion of inter prees, arise s. 10 A broth er of Justi nian II, name d Hera clius , is ment ioned in a "Sac red Lette r" from Cons tanti ne IV to Pope Bene dict II, quot ed in the Liber Pont , I, p. 363. The lett~r, whic h has not been pre:e rved m the papa l archi ves, presuma bly dated trom late m the year 684. :\o furth er ment ion of this broth er occu rs; he may have died befor e Justi nian II assum ed the impe rium .

Introduction

9

recently invaded the Balkans, and whom he was unable to dislodge from their new strongholds. The first actions of Justinian II's new reign were designed to continue this procedure of strengthening the position of the Empire, both internally and in relation to allies and enemies abroad. To make plain his adherence to the tenets of strict Orthodoxy, he held a synod in the Great Palace to confirm the Acts of the Sixth Council. 11 In 688 n Documentary evidence for this Synod is scattered and, in part, confused; since inferences have been drawn about it which have a bearing upon Justinian II's presumed conception of his imperial function with regard to ecclesiastical affairs, we shall trouble to go into the problem: The account of the Synod is first mangled by Theophanes, where, under A.M. 6177 (ed. de Boor, pp. 361-2), confusion was created by an uncertainty regarding the date of the later Quinisexte Council (cf. below, n. 14), and compounded by Theophanes' losing sight of the distinction between this Synod and that Council. The Synod is mentioned in the Lib. Pont. I, p. 368, which describes Pope Canon's receipt of Justinian's sacra regarding his Synod and its new text of the Acts of the Sixth Council; and the sacra itself is preserved and published by 11ansi, op. cit. XI, cols. 737-8, at the head of one text of the Acts of the Sixth Council, the one which it had conveyed. It has been suggested by F. Gorres, "Justinian II und das romische Papsttum," BZ XVII, 1908, pp. 432-54, that Justinian II was abrogating the rights due the papal and patriarchal authority to publish the acts of an oecumenical council; thus this was the first move in a concerted caesaropapistic campaign by the young emperor to bring the See of Rome under the complete sway of his own authority. This seems rather an overstatement of the situation on several counts, the most important being the lack of evidence that at this period such publication 'lt'aS considered the particular prerogative of the ecclesiastical authorities; to the contrarv, the initiati"•:e in each of the great church councils was taken by the reigning emperor, from Constantine I on, and he was never in any case considered to be infringing upon clerical rights by these actions. The emperor held ex-officio, in fact, the rank of deacon in the church hierarchy. In the same way, it was customary for the emperor to take the responsibility for circulating the completed acts of the councils. Although Rome shortly found reason to object to certain of Justinian n·s actions, there is no indication that his promulgation of the texts of the Si.xth Oecumenical Council was in any way disappro~-ed. The explanation for holding the Synod seems to be more simple. There is an indication that the volume of the _-\cts of the Sixth Council which was the property of the imperial palace had strayed from its place in the palace archives, and was found in the offices of the chancellery. (Cf. :\Iansi, op. cit. XII, cols. r89-