Justin's successor, Tiberius († August 14, 582), withdrew from pressure on the Monophysites by government measures. The emperor replied to Patriarch Eutyches of Constantinople, who had been restored to the cathedra after the death of John Scholasticus, that the struggle against the Monophysites was a matter of ecclesiastical authority, not of the state, and that even an external struggle against enemies was sufficient for the state. Left to himself, Patriarch Eutyches tried to influence the Monophysites with exhortations, but without success. It was reported to Eutyches that the Syrian nuns who had reunited with the Church still used the Trisagion with the addition: "crucified for us." Arriving at the monastery, the patriarch exhorted the nuns to abandon these words, introduced by the Monophysites. But the nuns replied that it was enough for them to apostatize from their former faith and enter into communion with the Synodites; but they will never agree to give up the conviction that Christ is the true God, who suffered for us. Eutyches then sent them his theological and polemical work. But the nuns answered: "We are women and do not understand anything about theological subtleties; but we will never abandon the traditions of the Eastern Fathers." The successor of Eutyches († April 6, 582), John the Faster, did not exert any external pressure on the Monophysites, and a period of 40 years of peace again began for them. John the Faster put an end to the policy of Eutyches on principle. When the Constantinople clergy suggested that he persecute the Monophysites and referred to the fact that Eutyches had done so, John the Faster replied that it was Patriarch Eutyches, that they should go to him and ask him whether he would now allow the Monophysites to be persecuted.

The unionist attempts of John Scholasticus and Eutyches are interesting in that in this case the initiative was taken by the representatives of the church, and not by the state power, as had been the case up to now. The Monophysite historian, Bishop John of Ephesus, who himself was imprisoned at that time, does not conceal the fact that the Monophysites did not place the martyrs in this "persecution," that the whole affair was limited to taking them into custody, from which the champions of Monophysitism usually managed to escape.

The weak participation of the state power in these union experiments, apart from the personal character of the sovereigns and the preoccupation with urgent state needs, is probably explained, on the one hand, by the fact that experience showed the ineffectiveness of union agreements, and on the other hand, by the fact that the division of monophysitism into interpretations made it impossible for everyone to reunite; and the annexation of only a small part could not have any special value for the state.

5. The Monothelite dispute.

The causes of the dispute and its first stage: the dispute about actions in Christ.

If Monothelitism were to be regarded as a phenomenon in the history of dogmas, the problem would seem simpler than if it were to be regarded as a historical phenomenon. Once it has been proved that in the Orthodox or Monophysite teaching there existed internal theological data for posing the question of the two wills and actions in Christ, then the genesis of Monothelitism is obvious, and its necessity as a historical-dogmatic phenomenon has already been explained.

There is no doubt that in the person of its prominent representatives the Monophysite doctrine came unusually close to the Orthodox teaching, and the Orthodox themselves felt this closeness, but, nevertheless, there was an abyss between them that prevented their unity. For the Orthodox, this phenomenon seemed inexplicable: how to confess Orthodox teaching and not be able to explain it. On the other hand, the Monophysites also experienced internal shocks that made them fear for their existence: Monophysitism broke up into sects, between which there was a constant polemic about all the essential aspects of this doctrine. Naturally, the Monophysites had to make an attempt to explain their teaching. As a result of this movement, Monothelitism is found. Monothelitism is a novelty in comparison with Monophysitism: while the latter is held in the field of metaphysics, Monothelitism, on the contrary, signifies a transition to the field of psychology. It was impossible for the Monophysites to explain from the point of view of metaphysics some terms of their dogmatics, such as: ουσία, φύσις, ενέργεια, πρόσωπον; Naturally, it was necessary to try to explain these terms psychologically. For the history of the Church, this inner necessity [of Monothelitism] exists; But it is important to solve the question, why did this inner necessity appear at this particular time, and not before or after?

There is enough evidence that under the Heraclides Monothelitism was an uninvited guest. The last thing to be expected was that one of the most intelligent emperors could stir up such a turmoil that did not promise anything good politically. Previous history showed that both any attempts at state pressure and experiments at union with Monophysitism can only increase the dispute, and not produce peace. The new dynasty of the Heraclides, meanwhile, resumed experiments in the reunification of the Monophysites. The participation of the spiritual authorities was passive. The ecclesiastical authorities were not in the foreground when the questions of the two wills and actions in Christ were raised. Thus a very serious question arises: how did Heraclius, that wise sovereign, undertake such a cause, the inconsistency of which had already been historically proved under his predecessors? But those who ask this question and do not find an answer to it, lose sight of the general changes that have taken place in the situation of the Byzantine state.

In fact, political reasons prompted him to take up this matter. The Emperor Heraclius was compelled to do this, perhaps because his circumstances were more difficult than ever. The successor of Tiberius and the predecessor of Heraclius, the emperor Maurice, succeeded in sheltering the Persian sovereign Chosroes, who, in consequence of the revolt of his subjects, fled abroad to save his life. Maurice thus became patronizing of the Persian king; Oriental news says that Maurice gave him his daughter Mary, who had a strong influence on him. But then in Byzantium there was a revolt against Maurice; the troops revolted and elected Phocas in his place; Maurice, on the other hand, was executed with his children. This circumstance served as a pretext for Chosroes to begin hostilities against Byzantium. For Mauritius he gave up a great deal; but now, being at the height of his power, it was natural for him to profit at the expense of Byzantium. He hoped that not everyone in Byzantium would react indifferently to the change. When news of Phocas' accession to the throne was sent, Chosroes declared war on him. Meanwhile, Phocas proved incapable of defending the empire. A riot broke out; General Heraclius raised an uprising, defeated Phocas, reigned in his place, and sent Chosroes the kind news of this. Phocas was executed. It seemed that after the death of Phocas, the pretexts for war for Chosroes were abolished ipso facto. But Khosroes did not think about peace. The Persian troops carried success after success. And affairs on the Danube were extremely doubtful: it was necessary to conclude dubious alliances with the Avar Khan, who broke them whenever it seemed convenient. Finally, a fact unprecedented in history happened. Heraclius, in despair, decided to flee from his kingdom, and only the strong entreaties of the patriarch restrained him. Still, his position was difficult. All this, of course, led to the idea that unanimity was necessary and that it was most important. And so the emperor, like a drowning man, seized on negotiations with the Monophysites.

But another consideration is also permissible. The Byzantine Empire embraced both east and west. The population of the eastern half represented the most diverse elements, only slightly Greekized; The West had the peoples of the Illyrian-Thracian tribe. Rome never ordained the Illyrians and Thracians as statesmen. But soon, however, the most prominent role fell to the lot of this tribe. The Illyrian Diocletian paved the way for other Illyrians to the imperial throne. Constantine V. was the son of an Illyrian and came from the city of Naissus; his dynasty ended on June 26, 363 by Julian the Apostate. Julian's successor was Jovian of Pannonia. Emperor Valentinian was also a Pannonian (from the city of Kival). In 379, on January 19, Theodosius the Great took the throne; the Theodosius dynasty of Spanish origin ended on July 28, 450 in the person of Theodosius the Younger. His successor was Marcian of Illyria, followed by Leo I the Thracian, advanced by European forces, from the tribe of the Bessians in Illyria. He owes his rise to the Goth Asparicus, who dominated Constantinople; in time, Leo did away with the Gothic influence, but had no successor, and bequeathed the throne to his grandson, who also died, and the throne passed to the Isaurian Zeno (Isauria is a region of Asia Minor). "Zeno" was not the original name of the emperor; in Isaurian he was called so intricately that Greek historians have not preserved his name [Ταρασικοδιασα, Αρικμεσος, Τρασαλικαιος]; It was called Zeno in honor of Zeno Stratilates, who under Theodosius II was a magister equitum and played a very prominent role in his time. In the person of Zeno, therefore, the head of the state was a man of an Asiatic tribe. That is why all the revolts against Zeno, with the exception of the revolt of the Isaurian Illus, had their basis not only in certain state conditions, but also in the struggle of European forces against Asiatics. Naturally, the new sovereign could nominate new people regardless of their merits, and the question was who should dominate the empire. With the death of Zeno (April 9, 491), the Isaurian dynasty ended. During his lifetime, the late emperor predicted the throne for his brother Longinus, but the latter, as he did not arouse sympathy in anyone, did not occupy it, so that Zeno's successor was the Thracian-Illyrian Anastasius (from the city of Dyrrhachium in Illyria). His successor Justin I was also an Illyrian; his dynasty lasted from July 9, 518 to 578 and ended with Justin II, from whom power passed to Tiberius.

The latter was a Thracian, and history destined him to be the last Thracian representative on the Byzantine throne. As a young soldier he went to Asia on the duties of military service; in Arzaninus he intended to marry a rich girl, but it so happened that both she and her father died, and Tiberius married the remaining widow in order to inherit all her fortune. He seems to have been very attached to his wife, because he did not yield to proposals to divorce her. This is how the Asian empress appears in Byzantium. If she could have an influence on her husband, then this influence could only be feminine, because she had not received a court education, and could be expressed, for example, in the patronage of fellow countrymen. Be that as it may, but during the reign of Tiberius, a turn was made in favor of the Asiatics. His successor was Maurice of Aravissus, magister equitum, who claimed an unprecedented strength of family ties; Most of his relatives ended up in the capital. It was so popular among the Armenians that even legends were made about it. On August 13, 582, he ascended the throne and married the daughter of Tiberius. But on November 23, 602, in the European army stationed on the Danube (fighting against the Avars), there was a revolt against Maurice, and he was deprived of the throne. The mutinous troops chose by lot a new emperor, the Cappadocian Phocas (Asiatic), who, however, reigned briefly and ingloriously. In the end, even those closest to him (his son-in-law Priscus) began to write rebellious letters, which raised an uprising in Constantinople. Phocas was deposed, and his successor was Heraclius, also a Cappadocian by birth, of a family long since settled in the East. His father was an honored Byzantine general. For a long time he acted with Maurice against the Persians, and before his elevation he held the rather difficult post of ruler of Byzantine Armenia. Thus, a revolution was made in favor of electing to the throne not Europeans, but Asiatics, who came from a region close to Armenia (Cappadocia), and naturally tried to draw their countrymen into the capital and put them in prominent places.

In the indicated origin of Heraclius, perhaps, lies the key to the riddle of his union mission. All the previous emperors, in their attempts to return the Monophysites to Orthodoxy, took a foothold in Syria (Antioch), where these opposing currents were concentrated. Egypt stood behind Syria. It was necessary to strengthen the situation in these two dioceses, since here was the nucleus around which the new church life was to be formed. Now this core is being transferred to Armenia.

{p. 443}

The course of the union can be represented in the following way. Emperor Maurice facilitated the return to the Persian throne of Chosroes (591), who had fled from the rebels to Byzantium. In gratitude for this service, Chosroes made significant concessions to Mauritius in the demarcation. Some territories went to Byzantium, and they were settled by Armenians. First of all, Arzanina went to Byzantium, where Tiberius' wife was from. Then, the line reached Lake Tospi up to the city of Dvin, which was the capital of Persian Armenia, because the Persian officials who ruled Armenia lived here, and finally reached Tiflis. Maurice, who spent part of his youth in these regions of Armenia, was well aware of the state of affairs in this region, but to be its sovereign, as time has shown, was hardly a godsend for him. Armenia had a feudal structure, or, better, an allodial one. It was divided into estates of enormous size, which were owned by certain certain families; Each clan was a fairly concentrated force. Of course, the subordination of the younger to the older was established between them. But this country was located on the very border of Persia and Byzantium, and the satraps of the country had to maneuver between one and the other, to pass from one citizenship to another. Any complication with the Persians prompted the Armenians to seek help from Byzantium, and vice versa. But the Armenians dreamed of complete independence, and therefore did not particularly try to observe either the interests of Persia or the interests of Byzantium, and therefore, of course, neither the Persians nor the Greeks trusted the Armenians.