1. Theophanes, , Chronographia, ed. de Boor, C. (Leipzig 1883-85) p. 352 Google Scholar.15-16, and apparatus. See note 4 below. Early concerns regarding this passage are discussed in Brooks, E. W., ‘The Brothers of the Emperor Constantine IV’, EHR 30 (1915) 42–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Successors of Heraclius to 717’, in CMH, vol. ii (Cambridge 1913) 404-05.

2. See works cited in the following note, especially Haldon, John F., Byzantium in the Seventh Century: the transformation of a culture (Cambridge 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar passim.

3. A doctoral dissertation on the reign of Constantine IV is to be submitted to the University of Athens by Maria Leontsini, who kindly read a draft of the present article. In general, on the events discussed below see: Maria Leontsini, ‘Θρησκευπκές πεποιθήσεκ: και γλωσσική διατύπωση του 7°” οαώνα’, in The Dark Centuries of Byzantium (7^th-9^th c.) (National Hellenic Research Foundation Institute for Byzantine Research, International Symposium 9, Athens, 2001) 73-87; Treadgold, Warren, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford 1997) 323-30Google Scholar; Kaegi, Walter E., Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests (Cambridge 1992) 218-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haldon, Seventh Century 67-70, passim; Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton 1987) 277-80; Lounghis, T. K., Δοκίμιο via την κοινωνική εξέλιξη στη διάρκεια των λεγομένων “σκοτεινών αιώνων” (602-867) (Athens 1985) 12–13, 21-4Google Scholar; idem, ‘Some Gaps in a Social Evolution Theory as Research Directions’, in Dark Centuries 411-20; Lilie, R.-J., Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber, Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 22 (Munich 1976) 69 ff.Google Scholar; Stratos, Andreas, To Βυζάνπον στον Z’ αιώνα, vol. v, Κωνσταντίνος A’ 668-687 (Athens 1974) 135 ffGoogle Scholar. (this account, henceforth Stratos vol. v, constitutes the most detailed published narrative survey of the reign to date); van Dieten, J.-L., Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610-715) (Amsterdam 1972) 117-30Google Scholar; Constance Head, Justinian II of Byzantium (Madison 1972) 28 ff.; Jenkins, Romilly, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries AD 610-1071 (London 1966) 42–50 Google Scholar; Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State, trans. Hussey, J. (New Brunswick 1969) 127-9Google Scholar; Kulakovskij, A., Istorila Vizantii III (602-717) (Kiev 1915) 228-52Google Scholar; Bury, John B., The Later Roman Empire, from Arcadius to Irene (395-800) (London 1889) vol. ii, 309–19 Google Scholar, amongst others. For Constantine IV, see Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire 641-886, ed. Martindale, J.R.. CD-ROM (London 2000)Google Scholar (hereafter PBE) Konstantinos 2; and Lilie, R.-J., Ludwig, C., Pratsch, T., Rochow, I. et al., Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641-867), 6 vols. (Berlin-New York 1999-2002)Google Scholar (hereafter PmbZ), no. 3702.

4. Brooks, ‘Brothers …’, 41.

5. Theophanes, Chronographia, op. cit. English translation by Mango, Cyril and Scott, Roger, The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813 (Oxford 1997) 491–506 Google Scholar for the reign of Constantine IV. On Theophanes, see Kazhdan, A. (with Angelidi, Christina and Sherry, Lee F.), A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850) (Athens 1999) 205 Google Scholar, with discussion of earlier theories on the Chronographia and bibliography. On Nikephoros, text, translation and commentary by Mango, Cyril, Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople: Short History, (CFHB vol. xiii; DOT 10 Washington D.C. 1990)Google Scholar with bibliography. All later chronicles and histories essentially repeat the versions in these two works, (e.g. Kedrenos, George, Historia, ed. Bekker, I. (CSHB) (Bonn 1838) 762 ff.)Google Scholar.

6. These are conveniently listed in the bibliography provided by Stratos, vol. v 168-73. Two Syriac sources are also relevant: The Chronography of Gregory Abul Faraj bar Hebraeus, ed. Budge, E. Wallis (London 1932) 100 ff.Google Scholar; Michael the Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, ed. and trans. Chabot, J.-B. (Paris 1899-1904) book ix, chapter x, in vol. ii, 454-8Google Scholar. In general, Palmer, Andrew (trans.), The Seventh Century in West-Syrian Chronicles: translated texts for historians (Liverpool 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. At least one of the Miracles of St. Demetrios may date to the period in question, see John of Thessaloniki, Miracula S. Demetrii, ed. Lemerle, P., Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de S. Demetrius vol. i: Le Texte (Paris 1979)Google Scholar; vol. ii: Commentaire (Paris 1981); vol. i 208-21, vol. ii 128-36, on the attack made on Thessaloniki by ‘Perboundos’, probably in the mid 670s (?). The episode in the same collection (vol. i, 222-32, Fifth Miracle) involving the Romano-Slavs of Kuver may also date to the very end of Constantine’s reign, see Elias Anagnostakis, “Пєріоиоюс Лаос”, in Dark Centuries, 325-46.

8. Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. (Florence 1759-98 ffGoogle Scholar. reprint; ed. L. Petit and J. B. Martin, 1901 ff.) xi, cols. 189-922; ed. Riedinger, R., Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium. Concila Actiones i-xi, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, 2^nd series, vol. ii/1 & 2 (Berlin 1990)Google Scholar. See also Riedinger, R., Die Präsenz-und Subskriptionslisten des VI oekumenischen Konzils (680/81) und der Papyrus Vind.G.3, in Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., N. F. Heft 85 (Munich 1979)Google Scholar. All references to the acts of the council below are provided with column numbers of the Mansi edition, which are to be found included in the Riedinger edition. Nevertheless, the latter edition was used for all quoted excerpts.

9. Most notably Grierson, Philip, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, vol. ii, Phocas to Theodosius III, 602-717, Part Two (Washington D.C. 1968)Google Scholar. More generally on the monetary history of the period, see Hendy, Michael, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (Cambridge 1985) 619 ffGoogle Scholar. with bibliography.

10. Stratos, Andreas, To Βυζάντιον στον Ζ’αιώνα, vol. iv, Κωνσταντίνος Г’ (Κώνστανς) 642-668 (Athens 1972) chapter 9 (henceforth, Stratos, vol. iv)Google Scholar; on Constans’ Italian sojourn, see Corsi, P., ‘Le spedizione in Italia di Constante II: fonti e problemi’, in, Nicolaus 3/1 (1975) 160-97Google Scholar, 3/2 (1975) 343-90 (unavailable to the present author).

11. Theophanes, AM 6160, 351.17. Cf. Lounghis, Δοκίμιο, 21-2, who identifies the ‘Byzantines’ here with a specific elite group with influence in the city, including Theodore of Koloneia. I see no good reason for such an identification, but it cannot be ruled out. Cf.Winkelmann, F., ‘Zum byzantinischen Staat (Kaiser, Aristokratie, Heer)’, in eds. Winkelmann, F., Köpstein, H., Ditten, H., and Rochow, I., Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus [ = BBA 48] (Berlin 1978) 180 ffGoogle Scholar.

12. Theophanes, AM 6160, 351-2 and apparatus; Stratos, vol. iv, 127 ff. On the trial of Maximos, see Haldon, John F., ‘Ideology and social change in the seventh century: military discontent as a barometer’, Klio 68 (1986) 139-90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 173 ff.; idem., ‘Ideology and the Byzantine State in the Seventh Century, the “Trial” of Maximus Confessor’, in From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium (Proceedings of the Byzantinological Symposium in the 16^th International Eirene Conference, ed. Vladimir Vavřínek, Prague 1985) 87-92.

13. On monothelitism, see in general van Dieten, op. cit; Meyendrof, John, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: the Church 450-680 A.D. (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York 1989) chapter 10, and esp. page 354 and note 56Google Scholar.

14. Theophanes, AM 6153, 348, 351. See Stratos, vol. iv, 226, for discussion of the sources.

15. Stratos, vol. iv, 206 for discussion of the sources; cf. Haldon, Seventh Century, 312-3.

16. On the truce, see Stratos, vol. iv, 195 ff. He dates the peace from 659 to 662, thus suggesting that Arab attacks continued after Constans had left Constantinople. But the political turmoil in the Caliphate can hardly have suggested to the emperor that there was any great immediate danger, even from the ambitious Mu’āwiya. See for the Caliphal background, Kennedy, Hugh, The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphs: the Islamic Near East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century (London and New York 1986) 82 ffGoogle Scholar.

17. On the Opsikion, see now J. Haldon, ‘Trouble with the Opsikion: some issues on the first themata’, (forthcoming) (many thanks to the author for allowing me to have a pre-publication draft); Brandes, W., ‘Philippos ό στρατηλάτης TOU βασιλικοϋ Όψικίου. Anmerkungen zur Frühgeschichte des Thema Opsikion’, in Sode, C., Takacs, S., eds. Novum Millenium. Studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck (Aldershot 2001), 21–39 Google Scholar. See also note 36 and 37 below. In general on the rise of the themata, see Haldon, John F., Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565-1204 (London 1999) 71–85 Google Scholar, with bibliography. For more detail, Haldon, Seventh Century, 208 ff., Eleonora Kountoura-Galake, St. Lampakes, Lounghis, T., Savvides, A., Vlysidou, Vasiliki, Asia Minor and its Themes: Studies on the Geography and Prosopography of the Byzantine Themes of Asia Minor (7^th-11^th century) (in Greek) (Athens 1998) 11–34 Google Scholar. Note also Lilie, R.-J., ‘Die zweihundertjährige Reform: zu den Anfängen der Themenorganisation im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert’, in BSl 45 (1984) 27–39, 190-201Google Scholar; idem, ‘“Thrakien” und “Thrakesion” zur byzantinischen Provinzorganisation am Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts’, in JÖB 26 (1977) 7-48. Thanks to John Haldon and Leslie Brubaker for allowing me to read a draft of their chapter on the theme system in their book Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680-850): a history (forthcoming, Cambridge). Warren Treadgold, identifies Constans II as the founder of the theme system, see Byzantium and its Army 284-1081 (Stanford 1995) 21 ff.

18. See note 95 below.

19. It cannot be ruled out, however, that some Armeniakon troops were transported to Italy. A certain Samburrus is mentioned by Deacon, Paul the (Historia gentis Langobardorum, ed. Bethmann-Waitz, , in Monumenta Germaniae historka, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum ei italicarum saec. Vl-IX [Hannover,1878], v, 10 Google Scholar) as having participated in a campaign against the duchy of Benevento, and Stratos has suggested that this officer may be the same person as Saborios, discussed presently. See Brown, T. S., Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy, A. D. 554-800 (Rome 1984) 66, 67, and 275Google Scholar; Stratos, vol. iv, 220. Cf.Kaegi, Walter, Byzantine Military Unrest 471-843: An Interpretation (Amsterdam 1981) 165 and note 41Google Scholar, where he misquotes Stratos. The latter (vol. iv, 218, note 762) states categorically that the Armeniakon theme could not have been depleted to the detriment of the defence of Asia Minor. However, Kaegi (Unrest, 165, note 41) is to be preferred against Lilie, who has doubted the presence of the Anatolikon in Italy (Reaktion, 324, note 89).

20. On the raids in general, see Stratos, vol. iv, 235-246; Lilie, Reaktion, 69-74.

21. Theophanes AM 6159, 348-51. See also Michael the Syrian, vol. ii, 451, where the rebel is mentioned as Šabour Aparasitgan (Šapur Aprasit’gan); Eleonora Kountoura-Galake, ‘ΘΕΜΑ APMENIAKON’, in Asia Minor and its Themes, 113 ff., 373; Kaegi, Islamic conquests, 227 ff. and references therein; Kaeigi, Unrest, 166-9 and passim; Lilie, Reaktion, 71-2, 293; Stratos, vol. iv, 246ff.with further sources. Peeters, P., ‘Πασαγνάθης-Περσονενης’, B 8 (1933) 405–423 Google Scholar, identified an entry in Theophanes (AM 6143, 344) regarding a ‘patrician of the Armenians’ named Pasagnathes (said to have revolted against the emperor Constans in 651/2 and sent his son as a hostage to the caliph Mu‘āwiya) as in fact referring to the later revolt by Saborios. Most scholars appear today to agree with Peeters, see Stratos, vol. iv, historical notes iii, 276.

22. Andreas, a eunuch, was a close associate of Constantine IV, and possibly one of the circle charged with looking after Constans’ family during the emperor’s absence in Italy. He opposed Constans’ attempt to move the imperial family to Sicily. See Niavis, P., entry Άνδρέας’ in Encyclopaedic Prosopographical Lexicon of Byzantine History and Civilisation , ed. Savvides, Alexis G. C., vol. II (Athens 1997) 166-7Google Scholar; PBE, Andreas 1; PmbZ, no. 353. On the term koubikoularios, see ODB, 1154 with bibliography; Guilland, R., Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, vol. i (Amsterdam 1967) 278 ffGoogle Scholar (on Andreas and his rank).

23. Theophanes, AM 6159, 348 ff.

24. Theophanes, 350. linesl8-20 (‘ό 5ε Κωνσταντϊνος … βοηθειαν άποστέλλει Νικηφόρον τον πατρίκιον μετά ‘Ρωμαϊκής δυνάμεως … ‘) Nikephoros may have been the father of the later emperor Philippikos Bardanes, Winkelmann, ‘Byzantinischen Staat’, 207. See note 116 below; PBE, Nikephoros 1; PmbZ, nos. 5354, 5258.

25. On the location of Hadrianople, see Mitchell, Stephen, Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. I (Oxford 1993) 91 Google Scholar and vol. ii, 127; Mango and Scott, Theophanes, 490, note 4, citing TIB vol. 7, 171-2. That Saborios should have died in territory of the Anatolikon while evidently preparing his rebellion and awaiting Arab help may indicate that i) he was initially successful in securing important roads and kastra, and / or ii) that he simply filled the vacuum left by the absence of the core units of the Anatolikon. Also, on the Hexapolis see Stratos, vol. iv, 248, note 872.

26. Stratos, vol. iv, 246-57 and historical note xxiv for a discussion of the sources. I have followed Stratos’ general dating of this event, even though the evidence is not watertight. Note, in particular, the account in the acts of the sixth ecumenical council (Mansi vol. xi, col. 576A) relating the difficulty that the patriarch Thomas (17 April 667 – 15 November 669) had in sending his synodal address to pope Vitalian ‘διά τήν νενομένην, ώς έπίστασθε, τών άθέων Σαρακηνών έπι[κεί]μ[ε]νον καταδρομήν και παράστασιν είς то διετη χρόνον, öv έπεσκόπησεν, έκπέμψοα ούκ ‘ίσχυσε …’ Stratos dates this problematic period to 668 (op. cit., 252, note 884) rejecting Grumel’s unsubstantiated date of 667 (Victor Grumel, Les Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I [Chalcedon 1932] 123).

27. Theophanes, 350. line (‘διά то τους ‘Ρωμαίους rie όμόνοιαν έλθενν’).

28. See the broader discussion in Kaegi, Islamic conquests, 197-204.

29. Kaegi, Unrest, 165 ff.

30. Chronique, book xi, chapter xi (ed. Chabot, vol. ii, 446). Cited in Kaegi, Unrest, 163, 165 and notes. Michael implies that the emperor was ‘detested’ by some troops, at least, prior to leaving for Sicily.

31. On the rivalry, see Kaegi, Unrest, 182-3, and Appendix 1.

32. On the dates, see Stratos, vol. iv, 262 ff. who argues for 15^th of July (269).

33. Theophanes, AM 6160, 351-2. On the patrician Troilus, see Stratos, vol. iv, 124, 131; PBE, Troilos 3 (see also Troilos 1 and 2); PmbZ, nos. 8524, 8525. He had been assigned the task of trying pope Martin and Maximus the Confessor in the early 650s (Relatio Motionis, PG 90, col. 120 ff.) Also, Michael the Syrian, book xi, chapter xii (ed. Chabot, vol. ii, 451). See note 101 below.

34. Theophanes, AM 6160, and other sources discussed by Stratos, vol. iv, 262ff. Some of these accounts state that Constans was dispatched with a knife (e.g. Peeters, P., ‘Une Vie Grecque de S. Martin’, AB 51 (1933) 253)Google Scholar.

35. Stratos, vol. v, 13 ff. On Mžēž Gnuni, see Kaegi, Islamic conquests, 190, 201, and notes.

36. Haldon, John F., Byzantine Praetorians (Poikila Byzantina 3. Bonn 1984) 179, 194, 359, 450Google Scholar, and particularly note 377; idem, Seventh Century, 214; Brown, Officers, 66-7 (described as commander of the expeditionary armies and leader of the Opsikion forces). See now Haldon, ‘Opsikion’.

37. Mezizios is described as being ‘cum exercitu Orientali’ in the Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, L., (Paris 1884-92) vol. I, 346.5Google Scholar. See, Vasiliki Vlysidou, ‘ΘΕΜΑ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΙΚΟΝ’, Asia Minor and its Themes, 70-1, 351 note 1. The phrase, however, does not necessarily indicate that Mezizios’ was theme commander of the Anatolikon. In the present author’s opinion, Haldon’s interpretation (see note immediately above) is to be preferred, namely that the term army of the East may mean just that: the army from the East, now in Italy. But see the objections in Lounghis, T. K., ‘ A Deo conservandum imperiale obsequium. Some notes concerning Byzantine Field Troops during the Dark Ages’, Byzantinoslavica 52 (1991) 54-5, note 6Google Scholar. Prospography: PBE, Mizizios 1; PmbZ, 5163.

38. Paul the Deacon, book v, 12.

39. The bases of the fleet of the Karabisianoi, and the eventual naval theme of the Kibyrrhaiotai, were located on land originally part of the Anatolikon thema. See respective entries in the ODB, 1105, 1127 and Haldon, Warfare, 11.

40. See discussion in Stratos, vol. iv, 262-9 ff.; idem, vol. v, 13-19. On local clerical dissatisfaction with Constans, see the alleged letter of pope Gregory II, in Gouillard, J., ‘Aux origenes de l’Iconoclasme: le témoignage de Grégoire II’, TM 3 (1968)Google Scholar (= La vie religieuse à Byzance [London 1981] IV). Letter xii, 293, suggesting that certain bishops had provided Mezizios with support by suggesting that Constans was a heretic (i.e. monothelite).

41. Hahn, W., ‘Mezezius in peccato suo interiit. Kritische Betrachtungen zu einem Neuling in der Münzreihe der byzantinischen Kaiser’, JÖB 29 (1980) 61–70 Google Scholar. The coins bear a mint mark for Constantinople. See Hendy, Monetary Economy, 421 note 216 and plate 26/8. Many scholars agree that these coins are genuine, see Herrin, Christendom, 266, note 51 citing an informed assurance made to her personally by Philip Grierson. In addition to works already cited, see Kaegi, Unrest, 164-7; F. Winkelmann, ‘Byzantinischen Staat’, 217.

42. Stratos unreasonably rejects this possibility (vol. v, 16-17) probably in order to boost his theory that Constantine IV did, in fact, visit Sicily with an expeditionary force.

43. LP, vol. i, 346. The event is included under the entry for pope Adeodatus. Also, the Sakra of 678/9, Mansi, vol. xi, col. 200D.

44. Theophanes, AM 6161, 352, apparatus line 9 ff. It was at this point that Germanos was castrated, for protesting his father’s execution.

45. It is by no means certain that Constantine IV actually did visit Sicily in person, although later tradition appears to have maintained that he did. On the whole episode, see E. W. Brooks, ‘The Sicilian expedition of Constantine IV’, BZ (1908) 460-2, who contends that the emperor did not visit Sicily; cf. Stratos, vol. v, 13 ff. and the sources discussed therein. The present author was originally highly sceptical that Constantine IV did, in fact, lead an army to Sicily. On reflection, however, the murder of an emperor (the first in eastern Roman history, if one excludes the executions of Maurice and Phokas following revolts) would have demanded immediate, effective and intimidating action, during which the emperor’s absence would have been inconceivable. Constantine IV’s entire reign was based, as we shall see, on establishing imperial authority as unambiguous and effective. Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, ed. P. Schreiner (Vienna 1975) Chronicle 14 (vol. i, 134) mentions Κωνσταντΐνος ό τοΰ Δυρραχίου, ό εύσεβέσταπκ κου πραότατος. There is no indication what this refers to, but it may echo a long-standing local tradition in southern Epirus that Constantine IV ‘Pogonatos’ had founded the see of Pogonion in the region, as well as two monasteries (Bostas and Molybdoskepastos), as penance for the arrogance with which he and his troops reportedly treated the region on his return to Constantinople from Sicily. See Θρησκευτική και Ηθηκή Εγκυκλοπαιδεία (Athens 1963) iii, 964. Thanks to E. Kountoura-Galake for this information. Constantine IV, of course, was not known as Pogonatos, an epithet used for his father. This tradition may, however, indicate that the emperor visited the region on his return via Dyrrhachion.

46. Herrin, Christendom, 215-16 correctly places Theodore within the context of the Anatolian families that were making their presence felt in high office during the seventh century. See also Haldon, Praetorians, 194, 359 (2) and note 1092. Haldon, as far as I can see, makes no identification of his Theodore (vi) (? comes of the Opsikion) with the historical figure of Theodore of Koloneia. Nor does Stratos, vol. iv, 124. T. Lounghis accepts a possible identification (T. Lounghis, ‘ΘΕΜΑ ΟΨΙΚΙΟΝ’, in Asia Minor and its Themes, 167); Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. ii, 309 recognises Theodore’s important role, but identifies him as the ‘captain of Coloneia’. Cappadocian Koloneia, one of the aplekta, was probably Theodore’s hometown. See PBE, Theodoras 3; PmbZ, no. 7312.

47. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 209A-B; see PBE, Theodoras 48; PmbZ, no. 7345. He appears as count of the Opsikion and hypostrategos of Thrace. See Lounghis, ΟΨΙΚΙΟΝ, 167, 391, passim; Guilland, R., ‘Patrices de Constantin IV à Théodose III’, Ελληνικά 23 (1970) 287 Google Scholar; Michael the Syrian, éd. Chabot, vol. ii, 447 (‘…un soldat qui avait le rang de comte, qui s’appelait Theodoras, et qui était de Colonia des Arméniens.’)

48. Cf. for example, Stratos, vol. v, 13 ff.; Kaegi, Unrest, 166; Haldon, ‘Ideology …’, 182-3.

49. Stratos, vol. v, 135 ff. Mango and Scott, Theophanes, 491-2. On the textual problems, see Brooks, ‘Brothers …’, 46-7 and below.

50. Stratos, vol. v, 24 ff.

51. Anastasii Bibliothecarii Historiam Tripertitam, ed. C. de Boor (= Theophanes Chronographia, vol. ii) 222. 1. 16.

52. Note that the de Boor edition’s ÚCτριάδα πιστεΰομεν is translated by Anastasius (op. cit., 222, 1. 17) as ‘si in trinitate credimus’ (which de Boor suggests in the apparatus to the Greek text may have been translated from ‘εΐ τριάδα πιστεΰομεν’).

53. On Sykai (later Galata) see Raymond Janin, Constantinople byzantine (Institut Français d’Études byzantines / Paris 1964²) 466-7.

54. Alternately, one may argue that they arrived at Chrysopolis from Asia Minor, where they chose to protest to the emperor. Cf., for example, Bury, Later Roman Empire, vol. ii, p. 308-09; Vlyssidou, ‘ΘΕΜΑ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΙΚΟΝ’, 71. On Chrysopolis (a suburb of Chalcedon).

55. See note 2. Cf. Brooks, ‘Brothers …’, 48-9, and idem, ‘Successors’, p. 405-6, where some oversights occur.

56. See, amongst others, Stratos, vol. v, 135 ff.; Grierson, Catalogue, pp. 512 ff.

57. Haldon, Seventh Century, 41 ff.

58. Ibid, 51-3.

59. The History of Theophylact Simocatta, trans. Michael, and Whitby, Mary (Oxford 1986) viii II. 8–11, and note 68Google Scholar.

60. Haldon, Seventh Century, 52.

61. It is significant to remember how drastic and cruel Theodosios’ murder appears to have been regarded by contemporaries accustomed to power struggles and their gory outcomes. See Theophanes, 347, 351.

62. In general, see Lilie, Reaktion, 72-83, 99 ff. on the Roman Offensivpolitik’ after 680.

63. Theophanes AM 6169, 355-6.

64. In general, see Mango, Marlia Mundell, ‘Imperial Art in the Seventh Century’, in New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4^th-13^th centuries. Papers from the Twenty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. Andrews, March 1992, ed. Magdalino, P. (Aldershot 1994) 122, passimGoogle Scholar.

65. Anaphora of Leo II to Constantine IV, Mansi, vol. xi.

66. In general, see John F. Haldon, ‘Constantine or Justinian? Crisis and identity in imperial propaganda in the seventh century’, in New Constantines, op. cit., 100, 105, and passim. On Constantine IV’s burial, Grierson, Philip, ‘The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042)’, DOP 16 (1962) 30, 32Google Scholar.

67. See Grierson, Catalogue, 514-5, 517 ff.; Yorka Nikolaou, ‘Coin circulation in the Aegean islands during the seventh century’, Graeco-Arabica (Athens, forthcoming).

68. See von Falkenhausen, V., I Bizantini in Itali (Milan 1982), pl. 9 Google Scholar; Brown, T. S., ‘The Church of Ravenna and Imperial Administration in the Seventh Century’, EHR 94 (1979) 1–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. Theophanes, 358, lines 12-13, ‘δτι εξάπινα εθνος ρυπαρον και άκάθαρτον έκεΐθεν τοΰ Δανουβίου είς τον Όγλον έσκήνωσεν…’ i.e., they settled beyond the north bank of the Danube. On Oglon, see Moravcsik, Gyula, Byzantinoturcica: Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den byzantinischen Quellen (3rd ed. reprint, 1983) vol. ii, 213 Google Scholar; Mango and Scott, Theophanes, 501, notes 15 and 16.

70. In general on the campaign, see Stratos, vol. v, chapter 5; Jr.Fine, John V. A., The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (Michigan 1983, 1991) 66–73 Google Scholar; Čankova-Petkova, G., ‘Über die Bildung des bulgarischen Staates’, Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte im 9.-11. Jahrhundert, ed. Vařínek, V. (Prague 1978) 473 ffGoogle Scholar.

71. See the discussion in Stratos, vol. v, 107 ff.

72. Theophanes, p. 358 line 22 speaks of an όχυρωμα (earthwork fortification, perhaps). See Nikephorors, Short History, p. §36, line 7-8, and commentary on 196.

73. Theophanes, 358 lines 29-30, ‘ … και τών ο’ικείων αύτοΰ άνθρώπων’.

74. ODB, 662 Dromon.

75. Leontsini, ‘Θρησκευτικέί πεποιθήσεις …’, 86, note 79 implies that some confusion in the language in which orders were given may have contributed to the defeat.

76. On the pakton, Dölger, Franz, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565-1025, Parts i-iii (Berlin-Munich 1924, 1925 and 1932) no. 276 Google Scholar. See also note 88 below.

77. Stratos, vol. v, 110.

78. Mansi, xi, col. 617B. See Mango’s commentary and notes in Nikephoros, Short History, 196, for §36.

79. Cf. Lilie, ‘Thrakesion’, 19, and idem Reaktion, 99-100, 215 who dates the campaign to 680. Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 500-1453 (Cardinal edition / London 1974) 92; Ostrogorsky, History, 126 (who dates AM 6171 as 679/80). See also, Stratos, vol. v, 113, note 440.

80. Kulakovskij, vol. iii, 249; cf. Stratos, vol. iv, 128. See also Mango’s comments in Nikephorus, 196.

81. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 517C-D, ‘άρκοΰντως εχει код та κατά τήν σήμερον ήμέραν πραχθέντα’ έπει δε έν τοκ φιλοχρίστου ήμών πολιτείας ένησχολημεθα πράγμασι, κελεΰομεν …’.

82. Ibid., and beginning of session twelve. See Lilie, ‘Thrakesion’, 8 and passim.

83. Many historians appear to think of the Bulgarian attack as a long drawn out affair. There is no good evidence to show that this was the case. Fine, Balkans, 67 repeats the date of 681 for the treaty, but claims that Asparuch had crossed south of the Danube in the late 670’s.

84. See Haldon, Warfare, 164. Lowest rate of march seven to eight miles a day for infantry, up to 18 or 20. Unaccompanied cavalry, 40 to 50 miles per day. This leaves a fast-slow range from about 35 to 80 days for infantry to cover the distance (some six to seven hundred miles) and a mere 14 as the best time for the cavalry. The fleet would have moved faster, obviously, conditions permitting. See Frank R. Trombley, ‘Mediterranean Sea Culture between Byzantium and Islam, c 600-850 A. D.’, in The Dark Centuries of Byzantium (7^th-9^th c.) 136.

85. See Ostrogorsky, History, 295, note 3, and 294, note 4.

86. See Kazhdan et al., Literature, 215 ff. On the Bulgar war, see Bury, J. B., A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil I(London 1912) 15 Google Scholar passim; Warren Treadgold, ‘The Bulgars’ Treaty with the Byzantines in 816’, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi, 4-5 (1985) 213-20.

87. Mango, in Nikephoros, Short History, 196, commentary to § 36.

88. See, for instance, Fine, Early Medieval Balkans, 67, ‘In 681, for the first time, the empire legally surrendered claim to some of its Balkan territory’. There is simply no concrete evidence to verify the ‘legality’ of the action, or what it meant exactly to the partners. The Graeco-Latin word pakton is never used for a formal peace treaty, but implies payment to avoid future attacks. See the references in Theophanes listed by de Boor, in his index, and the two references in Constantinople in the early eighth century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, eds. A. Cameron and J. Herrin (Leiden 1984) § 12, 37 and commentary on 212, where it is translated ‘payment (of tribute)’. I would argue that any recognition of Bulgaria as an ‘independent state’ should be dated to the elevation of the Bulgar khan Tervel to the rank of caesar in 705 at the outset of the second reign of Justinian II, see Stratos, A., To Βυζάντιο οτον ζ’ αιώνα, vol. vi, Iovanviavóc В’685-711 (Athens 1977) 130 ffGoogle Scholar. Also, Čankova-Petkova, G., “Bulgarins and Byzantium during the First Decades after the Foundation of the Bulgarian State”, BS 24 (1963) 41–52, especially 51-2Google Scholar.

89. Nikephoros, Short History, § 9, and commentary on 177-8, and 188, with bibliography. To which add Arnold Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World (Oxford 1973) 460-8.

90. Theophanes, AM 6179, 364.

91. Haldon and Brubaker, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era: a history (see n. 17 above) stress that individual themata cannot at this early stage be spoken of as clearly discernible, rationalised units of military provincial administration. Only later – much later, perhaps – can we speak of a theme ‘system’ proper. Furthermore, historians have for some time underscored that provincial administration, especially fiscal, was not subject exclusively to the strateges of a particular thema, or to a military hierarchy. The term thema in c 680 designated an army based in the provinces, other than the emperor’s field army (the Opsikion).

92. Theodore is also described in the acts as hypostrategos of Thrace. This appears to imply that the soldiers of the defunct magister militum per Thracias, now operating in western Asia Minor, were associated with the Opsikion command when fighting on their old turf in Europe. Cf. Lounghis, ΟΨΙΚΙΟΝ, 168; idem., ‘A Deum conservandum …’, 55-6. Also, Haldon, Praetorians, 194; Lilie, ‘Thrakesion’, 27-8.

93. See in general Haldon, Warfare, 71 ff.

94. Clive Foss states that the old naval command of the Karabisianoi was never a thema prior to its incorporation by the Kibyrrhaiotai, which is first attested in 698, ODB, 1105, 1127. Likewise, Stratos’ arguments for Constans II having established themata in Hellas are based, as he admits, on pure speculation (vol. iv, 215), but are followed by Treadgold, Byzantium and its Army 284-1081 (Stanford 1995) 25.

95. See Haldon, Praetorians, 196-7. Theophanes, 380 speaks of the Opsikion operating ‘with part of the Thrakesion’. As late as 711, mention is made of a tourmarches of the Thrakesion, although the reference is ambiguous: Theophanes, 378-9. See Vassiliki Vlyssidou, ΘΕΜΑ ΘΡΑΚΗΣΙΟΝ, in Asia Minor and its Themes, 201-18; Herrin, Christendom, 202 appears to accept that there were four Original’ themata, including the Opsikion and the Thrakesion. Haldon, Warfare, 86 agrees that 741/2 is the first firm date for the existence of the Thrakesion thema, but on 73 implies that the ‘Thrakesion army’ existed in western Asia Minor from the middle (?) of the seventh century, thus following Lilie, ‘Thrakesion’. Units of the old army of the magister militum per Thracias appear almost certainly to have been settled in western Asia Minor by the mid seventh century (Lilie, ‘Thrakesion’). The father of pope Conon is recorded as having been a ‘ Thracesian’ (Liber Pontificalis, i, 368), and thus may have served with – ? a tourma of – that thema in Italy. Theophanes describes the troops who led the panic or flight during the Bulgar campaign as oi tou kaballarikou, or cavalry units of the Anatolikon. Lounghis, ΟΨΙΚΙΟΝ, 167-8 has argued that the Opsikion was purely an infantry force, but no explicit evidence suggests that the Opsikion did not also have mounted cavalry units. See Haldon, Opsikion’.

96. On this identification, cf. Theophanes, 371, lines 10-11; Haldon, Praetorians, 197 and note 452.

97. Lilie, ‘Thrakesion’, 19 denies (probably correctly) the presence of the Armeniaks at this juncture. Haldon, Warfare, 197, and 344, note 26 notes that infantry units played an important part in the campaign of 679/80.

98. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 617B, ‘… και άπηλθον έγγυς τοϋ πατρικίου Θεοδώρου той στρατηνοϋ …’ This Theodore is not mentioned as being of Koloneia or of the Opsikion, but the high standing of Theodore at court, as well as his presence alongside the emperor at the sessions they attended makes such an identification unnecessary in front of an audience where Theodore was not present, but all knew who he was. If there had been another strategos Theodore, we would expect Constantine of Apameia to have qualified his citation (on the latter see PBE, Konstantinos 25; PmbZ, no. 3710.). Nevertheless, the use of the title strategos here need not reflect official usage, and should warn us as to the fluidity of such terminology. See in general, Haldon, Opsikion’; idem., Praetorians, Chapter Two; Lounghis, ΌΨΙΚΙΟΝ’, 163 ff.

99. On the excubitors, see Haldon, Praetorians, 136 ff. and 161 ff. and notes. Note 372, 448-9 in particular, where the 687 iussio of Justinian II to the pope (Mansi, vol. xi, col. 738 A) is quoted to underscore that the palace units were regarded as quite distinct from the Opsikion units. The epithet philochristos is, in the same iussio, applied to the army in general (‘…et ab excubitoribus, insuper etiam quosdam de Christo dilectis exercitibus, qui inuentì sunt tarn ab a Deo conseruando imperiali obsequio etc. ’). Kountoura-Galake claims that the epithet was later associated with the Armeniakon theme to refer to those Armenians who remained loyal to the Orthodox (i.e. Chalcedonian) emperor (see, ‘APMENIAKON’, 118 ff.), but it was by no means confined to them. As Kountoura-Galake notes (ibid., note 33), it can be found at this time to mean persons or things closely associated with the person of the Orthodox emperor. John of Thessalonica uses philochristos for his city (Miracula, Prologue §4). The politela itself is termed philochristou in the seventeenth/eighteenth session of the sixth ecumenical council, Mansi, voi xi, col. 681 B. Also, Lounghis, ‘A Deo conservandum …’, 54-60.

100. See, for instance, Lounghis, Αοκίμιο, 23-24, who states that the army had been dissatisfied with Constantine from before the Bulgar debacle; Kaegi, Islamic conquests, 218 ff, idem, Unrest, 183-4. A certain Phillip, stratelates of the Opsikion in 681 (see now Brandes, ‘Phillipos’) appears to have been a neighbour and friend of Steven, the right hand man of Makarios, patriarch of Antioch and one of the leaders of the monothelites who was anathematised at the sixth ecumenical council, Mansi, vol. xi, col. 593A-B. (On the title stratelates, see ODB, 1965. No specific rank appears to be implied by this term at this time, and it is frequent on contemporary seals. See R. Guilland, Recherches, vol. i, 385-92. Philip had been given or purchased a copy of the acts of the fifth ecumenical council). The bishop Makrobios of Seleukia bore witness to the frantic writing activity in Makarios’ house when the latter was still legitimate patriarch of Antioch, during the first reign of the pro-monothelite patriarch Theodore of Constantinople (September 677-December 679). Makarios had had, then, access to the patriarchal library and exploited this to produce the falsified letters of the patriarch Menas to pope Vigilius, which caused such a sensation at the council. That these forgeries had been passed on to the emperor aroused the special ire of the fathers and the civil archons. Furthermore, a few sentences later, we learn that the forgers had purchased a Latin (Romaiko) copy of the same acts for six solidi … from the wife of the patrician Innocentius. Military men, therefore, and their spouses could at times, i) be approached indirectly to disseminate monothelite ‘falsified’ propaganda, and ii) could show deep interest in theological inquiry. See note 116 below. Interestingly, the emperor attempted unsuccessfully, at the end of the twelfth session of the council, to have Makarios reinstated to his throne on condition that he repent. His arguments were politely rejected, and another patriarch was chosen.

101. It just may be, given his important place in the trail of Maximos only seven years later in 655, that the patrician Troilus held such a position. After all, his son, Andreas, would hold a position of great trust in Constans’ inner sanctum in Sicily – a trust that was betrayed, according to Theophanes’ first version of the emperor’s murder. Troilus is described as an hypourgos of the emperor in 668 (see note 31 above). If Troilus was one of the members of the regency council, then his presence at the trial of Maximos would make him not so much a representative and servant of the emperor, but one of the instigators – and a military man, at that – of the later monothelite settlement itself. See Bury, Later Roman Empire, 293, one of the few historians to underscore Constans’ youth when the Typos was published. On the patriarch Paul, see van Dieten, 76-103.

102. Some readers might object that Constans had no pro-Western policy at all, pointing to the emperor’s raising of Ravenna to autonomous archiepiscopal status in 666. This act, however, was hardly anti-Western. It is no more dramatic than any of the many imperial initiatives in northern Italy during the long Tricapitoline controversy, which was then still raging. See in general Meyendorf, Imperial Unity, 235-45, 310-14. For a more detailed account of the origins of the Tricapitoline controversy, see Markus, R. A., Gregory the Great and his world (Cambridge 1997) chapter 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, T. S., ‘The Church of Ravenna and the imperial administration in the seventh century’, EHR 94 (1979) 1–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103. On monothelitism, see note 12 above. On the theology, Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: a History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. ii, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (Chicago 1974) 62–75 Google Scholar; Louth, Andrew, Maximos the Confessor (London & New York 1996) 12–18 Google Scholar, 54-6 and passim. There is at least one possible indirect reference to Maximos the Confessor in the acts of the council, see Mansi, vol. xi, col. 513A, session eleven, where a letter from Makarios of Antioch to a certain presbyter (Luke of Africa) is reproduced, concerning ‘τής τών Μαξιμιανών véaç ούρέσεαχ.’ For the broader context, Haldon, Seventh Century, 313 ff. and notes.

104. Van Dieten, 114, 117 ff.

105. Meyendorf, Imperial Unity, 369-71.

106. Preparations for the council had begun probably in 678, perhaps before, with the exchange of letters with pope Donus of Rome and the replacement of the patriarch of Constantinople Theodore with George late in 679 (van Dieten, 125-134; Meyendorf, Imperial Centuries, 369-70). It may be that the pope was responsible for convincing the emperor that the council should be ecumenical. On the other hand, Constantine’s original sakra to Pope Donus (Mansi, vol. xi, col. 195-203, esp. 197E) as well as the letter of the patriarch George of Constantinople to the pope implies that Makarios of Antioch had not a little say in ecclesiastical matters at this precise time, a fact that seems to have been forgotten.

107. Markus, Gregory, 91 ff.

108. Constantine probably never proclaimed his son and eventual successor, Justinian II, as co-emperor. His second son, Herakleios, disappears from view completely after Constantine had symbolically entrusted both his male offspring to pope Benedict II in 684. Liber Pontificalis, i:363. See Kornemann, Ernst, Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium Romanum (Leipzig 1930) 164-5Google Scholar; Head, Justinian II, 26.

109. Cf. Haldon, ‘Constantine and Justinian’, 103.

110. Haldon, ‘Ideology’, 167.

111. See especially Leontsini, #‘Θρησκευτικές πεπχηθήσειθ…’

112. On the fascinating details of detective work during the council, see P. Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin [Bibliothèque Byzantine, Études 6. Paris 1971) 81-4; Speyer, W., Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum (Munich 1971) 199.Google Scholar On the council’s sessions, van Dieten, 134.

113. Dometios had, at the end of the fourteenth session, justified summoning Polychronios by claiming: (he Πολυχρόνιός TIC πρεσβΰτερος και μοναχος όμόφρων ύπάρχων Μακαρίου καί Στεφάνου τών αίρετικών, έκείνων τε συνισταν τά άσεβη ßouXovoc δόνματα ού μετρίως τους άπλουστέρους άπατά бш τής άαφοϋς αύτοθ ψευδoδıδασκαλíαc. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 601C. See РВЕ, Polychronios 3; PmbZ, no. 6318.

114. Πολυχρόνιον … ύπερασπίζοντα τών δογμάτων Μακαρίου και Στεφάνου τών δυσσεβών τινας τών τοΰ φιλοχρίστου λαοΰ διά τής ματαίοκ αύτοϋ διαστρέφειν бібосакаХіас, και ώστε τοϋτον άχθήνοα παρά тѓј άγία ύμών συνόδω, όφείλοντα περι τής ο’ικείας άνακριθήναι πίστεως … Mansi, vol. xi, col. 605D-E

115. Κωνσταντίνω τω πανημέρω και θεοστέπτω. μεγάλψ βασιλεΐ. έγώ Πολυχρόνιος ώς παρών άσπάζομαι κα\ προσκυνώ. και ön εΐδον πλήθος άνδρών λευχειμονοΰντων και ε’κ το μέσον ανδρα, ού τήν άρετήν διηγησασθοα ού δΰναμαι, νέλοντά μοι ‘ότι “νέαν πίσην κατασκαυάζει, σπεϋσον και είπε τω βασιλέϊ Κωνσταντίνω’ μή ποιήση νέαν π’ιστιν μηδε καταδέξη”, και έλθόντός μου άπο Ήρακλείας έν Χρυσοπόλει, καί στάντός μου ε’ις то ήλιακόν, ην ώσει ώρα έβδόμη тѓ1с ήμέρας, ειδον άνδρα φοβερον λευχειμονοΰντα σφόδρα και εστη εμπροσθέν μου λέγων οτι “ό μή όμολογών εν θέλημα και θεανδρικήν ένέργειαν, οΰκ έστι Χριστιανός”, έγώ δέ ειπον “τοίτο каі Κωνσταντΐνος ό σοφώτατος βασιλευς προώρισεν, εν θέλημα καί θεανδρικήν ένέργειαν,” ό δε εφη “πάνυ καλώς και θεαρεστως”. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 608D-E.

116. Interestingly, the monothelite leader Pyrros, prior to becoming patriarch in 638 was hegumen of a monastery at Chrysopolis, founded by Philippikos, the brother-in-law of Maurice (Pyrros: see PBE, Pyyrhos 1; PmbZ, no. 6386). Maximos the Confessor had served as hegumen of the same monastery in the 610’s. See PBE, Maximos 10; PmbZ, no. 4921; Raymond Janin, Les Églises et les Monastères des grandes centres byzantins (Paris 1975) 24, and on Chrysopolis in general, 23-29. The monastery appears to have persisted in its monothelite ways. Steven, Polychronios’ partner in adversity at the council, would almost certainly have had dealings with it – if indeed, he was not its abbot at one time (PBE, Stephanos 17; PmbZ, no. 6920). If so, it is interesting that he was the mentor of an Armenian officer named Bardanes (the son [?] of the patrician Nikephoros mentioned in note 24 above), who in 711 would depose Constantine IV’s son, Justinian II, to ascend to the throne with the appropriate name of Philippikos, and attempt a monothelite restoration. See the report (Epilogos) by Agathon in the acts of the Fifth-Sixth Council, Mansi, vol. xii, 193-6. This is more proof of a military-monothelite connection.

117. The name Polychronios was played on to refer to the monk’s advanced age (‘ό μοναχος τή ο’νκείο: κακοδοξία єсос vrļpouc ένέμεινε…’ Mansi, vol. xi, col. 609D) but probably also was used in irony by the laos following the very long time over which the macabre event took place. See also Mansi, vol. xi, col. 700B, ‘ … ό πολλω χρόνφ συνγηράσο«; Tf¡ πολιςί τής αΐρέσεως’, ibid, 700B.

118. άλλ’ ele πληροφορίαν τών φιλοχρίστων λαών, ών πλείστους έν τοΐς εμπροσθεν xpóvoic ήπάτησαν αύτός τε και ο’ι τοΰτου όμόφρονείΓ, παρεχωρησαμεν τήν τοιαΰτην αύτοΰ αύθάδειαν και μανιώδη κα\ τολμηράν πρότασιν δημοσία; γενέσθαι, και τοΰ έπιζητηθέντος παρ’ αύτοϋ νεκροϋ είς μέσον άχθέντος παρουσία; ήμών τε και τών ένδοξοτάτων άρχόντων και πλήθους топ φιλοχρίστου λαοϋ, και καθώς έκέίνκ προέτεινε то τοιοϋτον αύτοΰ άσεβκ: σΰνταγμα έπιτεθεικώς και πλείστην ώραν, οσην αύτος έβοΰλετο, έπιστάς τω τοιοΰτφ νεκρφ και έπιψιθυρίσας καθ’ έαυτον απερ ένόμισεν, ‘έως οι5 aÙTÒc εΐπε μηδεν δΰνασθαι ποιείν, - πώς νάρ ¿xv καί έδυνατο βλασφημών άζ θεον δυνάμεκ έπιτελειν; - συνείδομεν τουτον ώς λαοπλάνον και άπατεώνα και πρόδηλον α’ιρεπκον πάατ\ς крапкгјс τάξεαχ τε και λειτουρνίας νυμνωθήναι. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 609E-612A. The extant version of the Life of bishop Leo of Katania includes an incident specifically dated by the hagiographer to the reign of Constantine IV that may contain an echo of Polychronios’ public test of magic, ed. V. Latyšev, Hagiographica Graeca Inedita (St. Petersburg 1914). Pages 12-28 include a purported letter of a governor of Sicily to the emperor Constantine and his son, Justinian (18-19) complaining that the antics of a magician, Heliodoros, were upsetting the populace. Heliodoros is summoned to Constantinople, where he is made to account for his actions in front of the emperors and the people near the hippodrome. Two shortened versions mention Leo and Constantine as emperors (Leo III and Constantine V, or Leo V and Constantine/Smbat) in Synaxarium Constantinopolitanae [= Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur (AASS)], November, cols. 479-80. A short Latin version of the Life exists in AASS, February 3, cols. 226-8. On these texts, see Beck, Hans-Georg, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. Byzantinisches Handbuch 2/1. (Munich 1959) 799 Google Scholar; Turner, David, ‘The Politics of Despair: The Plague of 746-747 and Iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire’, Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 85 (1990) 431 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. I still associate the Life with a text that could be interpreted as supporting iconoclasm but now think that it may, indeed, originate in stories circulating in the late seventh century. See Khazdan, Byzantine Literature, chapter on ‘Leo of Katania’.

119. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 612B.

120. See note 99 above.

121. Comparisons with the iconophile treatment of the last iconoclast patriarch John the Grammarian are clearly apparent. See, for example, Corrigan, Kathleen, Visual Polemics in the Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters (Cambridge 1992) 27-8Google Scholar.

122. In the Logos given by the council to the emperor, Polychronios is described as ‘νηπιόφρονα κοα ληρήσαντα γέροντα χον τούς νεκρούς έγείρειν έπαγνελλόμενον και τω μή ένείρειν νελώμενον.’ Mansi, vol. xi, col. 665A-B. Romily Jenkins’ interpretation of these events, (see note 2 above) is, to say the least, misleading. Far from being an indication of the superstitious nature of clergy, administrators and soldiers at the time, they represent a farcical show, engineered precisely to denigrate the perceived ‘superstitions’ of the monothelite opposition. In this, the council foreshadows the canons adopted in the Fifth-Sixth Council of 691/2 against ‘superstitious’ practices.

123. See note 119 and text.

124. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 617?, ‘ … ήθέλησα yàp απο apxŕjc είσελθειν eie τήν σΰνοδον καί παρακαλέσαι,’iva γένητοα εΐρηνη,ΐνα τί ποτε ένωπκον γένηται ε’ις μέσον, και μηδε έκεΐνοι θλίβωνται μηδε έκεΐνοι, τουτεστιν ο’ι λέγοντες ‘έν θέλημα καί oi λέγοντες δΰο θεληματα.’ See van Dieten, 141. It does not seem likely that Constantine was in Apameia when he heard of the campaign, cf. Haldon, Seventh Century, 123.

125. Leontsini, ‘Θρησκευτικές πεποιθήσεις …’, 86-7, implies that Constantine had demanded the creed to be written in Syriac, as well as Greek for the benefit of the soldiers. In fact, he simply wished to provide his own statement of belief in Syriac, to be translated by the council since he felt his Greek was not good enough. There is no direct evidence that he was specifically charged with representing military interests at the council, although I would guess that this may well have been the case.

126. Stratos suspected the manner Constantine left for Mesembria. He hypothesised that a plot had been hatched in Constantinople, perhaps with the support of the co-emperors. Others have attributed the emperor’s peculiar action to impatience to get the council settled before monothelite agitators stirred up trouble, both in the Church and in the army.In general, Stratos, vol. v, 108 ff., 123 ff., 139 ff. Stratos cites (139-40 and note 548) later sources (Leo Grammatikos, Theodore Melitenos) which relate that the co-emperors were mutilated because of involvement in a plot, but this can hardly serve as reliable evidence.

127. Brooks noted that the initial letters sent by the emperor to the pope Donus and the patriarch George do not mention the names of Tiberios and Herakleios. He regards these as personal rather than official missives, and points out that papal replies included the names of all three emperors. Brooks, ‘Brothers …’, 50. On the other hand, the fact that Constantine’s ‘private documents’ excluded the names of his brothers already in 679/8 may reflect an early intention to remove them eventually, or perhaps even disassociate himself privately from his ‘monothelite’ brothers.

128. Brooks, ‘Brothers …,’, 50.

129. See note 5, and de Mendbidj, Agapius, Kittab al-Unvan, ed. and trans. Vasiliev, A., in PO, vol. viii, 494 Google Scholar.

130. Brooks, ‘Brothers …,’; Stratos, vol. v, 138 ff. who also cites the Greek sources of the Chronicle of 1234 (ed. Chabot, CSCO) 225, and George Monachus, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig 1904) 728, which mostly repeats Theophanes.

131. Brooks, ‘Brothers …’, 44-5; Kaegi, Unrest, 168 appears to accept this story as historical fact, citing Theophanes 352, and stating that Leo was the strategos of the Anatolikon theme. No such identification is made in Vlyssidou, ‘ΘΕΜΑ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΙΚΟΝ’, who makes no mention of the episode, probably for good reason.

132. Brooks, ‘Brothers …’, 45, quoting Michael the Syrian, book xi, chapter xiii (ed. Chabot, vol. ii, 455-6).

133. Where the mysterious Leo comes into all this must remain a matter for conjecture. He may have denounced the Senate in 669 or 681. If he existed at all, he must have been one of ‘τά πρωτέΐα’ who was tricked into the capital and impaled.

134. Brooks, ‘Brothers …’, 45-7. Theophanes was acquainted with versions of the eastern sources.

135. For an overview, see Grierson, Philip, Byzantine Coinage, (Washington D.C. 1999) 7–8, 13, 19-20, 26, 29-30, 38Google Scholar.

136. The cross on globe was also a frequent motif. Note that what appears at times to be a cross potent on four steps can also be interpreted as a cross potent on three. The cross bar of the lower arm of the cross simply appears to be a fourth step. The + and T marks in the field on Class I folles minted in Carthage (Grierson, Catalogue, 520) may just be another way of representing the stepped cross, given that the symbolic T (a tripartite sign and the first letter of the word triada) could stand in for the three steps. Grierson states that the T has no obvious explanation, and any suggestion on the present author’s part must remain pure conjecture. On the other hand, Grierson also states that ‘elaborate double meanings seem often to have been welcome to the management of Byzantine mints’ (ibid., 518). On the cross motif, see Grabar, André, L’lconoclasme byzantin (Paris 1984) 150 ffGoogle Scholar. Watermarks on Egyptian parchment also included a cross or invocation of the Holy Trinity, see Stratos, vol. vi, 43.

137. Grierson, Catalogue, 512-23.

138. Grierson, Catalogue, 513, note 6. Trans. Wallis-Budge, Chronography, 101. Also, Michael the Syrian, Chronique, book ix, chapter 13 (ed. Chabot, ) 454 Google Scholar.

139. Grierson, Catalogue, 513.

140. Ibid., 513-14.

141. See, for instance, the Logos of the council to the emperor, Mansi, vol. xi, col. 668B, where passages in Ephesians (6.14; 6.17) are alluded to, ‘χαΐρε, πόλις νέα ‘Ρώμη Κωνσταντινοΰπολις, δεδοξασμένη τω τοϋ κράτους όνόματι, Ίδοΰ ό βασιλεΰς σου тототатос άλλά κου άνδρειότατος, καί ληψεται πανοπλίαν τήν ζηλωτικήν αύτου δΰναμιν, ένεδΰσατο θώρακα δικαιοσΰνην και όσιότητα, περιέθετο κόρυθαφρόνησιν то τών άρετών σκοπευτήριον και θυρεον άνελάβετο τήν άκαταμάχητον θεοσέβειαν τοΰτοις καθοπλιζόμενον κατίδοι τοϋτον το βαρβαρον και ε’κ то θεΧον έλπίζομεν ύπόσπονδον άχθήσεταχ τω δεσπόζοντι•’

142. See note 121 above, on possible evidence for an attempt to displace the co-emperors in c. 680.

143. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 665B.

144. du, C. du Cange, F., Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyon 1688) col. 489Google Scholar, citing Constantine Porphyrogenitos, DAI, cap. 16. Sophocles, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. Thayer, J. H. (New York 1887 and 1893)Google Scholar includes ‘to collocate’, ‘to adopt, to assume as real that which has no existence’. It may be that mss of the acts of the council actually write the form ‘θεμανίζοντοκ’ for ‘θεματίζοντας’. ‘θεμανίζοντας’ is, as far as I can tell, unknown in Greek texts, and appears to this author to be a play on the words thema and mania. Mansi and the 1761 edition of the councils made by Sp. Melias (Πρακτικά των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων, reprint ed. Holy Skete of St. Anne, Mt. Athos, 1986, and apparently not simply a copy of Mansi) read ‘θεμανίζοντοκ:’, and this may have been corrected as a scribal error by Riedinger in his edition, without comment in the apparatus. (There are instances of spelling ‘mistakes’ in the Mansi reading of the mss corrected in the ACO edition, but with no reference made in the apparatus). I have not been able to check the mss on this matter, and it must remain open.

145. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 697-712.

146. This ‘third narthex’ is described by Antoniades, E., Έκφρασις της Αγίαζ Σοφίοκ (Athens 1907-9) vol. ii, 156-8Google Scholar as the North-East gallery, the dikymbalon being identified with the two saucer like vaults therein. A more likely identification, in the present author’s view, is with the west gallery. This would fit more closely the letter of the edict’s title, which states that the ‘so-called’ dikymbalon was near (plêsion) the gallery.

147. Mansi, xi, col. 697. One is struck by the language of imperial conceit in the acts, since it reflects language similar to that the popes themselves were to adopt in the following century or two. See also the general remarks by Llewellyn, Peter, ‘The Roman Church on the outbreak of Iconoclasm’, in Bryer, A. A. M. and Herrin, Judith, eds., Iconoclasm (Birmingham 1977) 29–34 Google Scholar.

148. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 700-01.

149. E.g. Mansi, vol. xi, col. 700E, μονάς γάρ ώς άληθώς ή Τριάς ένιζομένη θεότητι και Tptàc ώς άληθακ ή μονάς διαιροΰμενη ταϊς ίδιότησι, και ού μεριζομένη тѓј άϊδιότητι. Note that there does not seem to be any direct similarity between this Trinitarian excursus and other passages from documents in the council. A much shorter, but only vaguely similar, exposition of the Trinity appears in pope Agatho’s long letter to the emperor, Mansi, vol. xi, col. 233-86.

150. See especially Haldon, ‘Constantine of Justinian?’, op. cit., for a lucid overview.

151. In this context, a climate appears to have been developing in the second quarter of the seventh century that favoured an institution such as the much debated military holdings of later times, although I do not want to open this matter here. Suffice it to say that lingering members of the senatorial class would find a challenge in such a development, especially at a time – the 680’s – when things appeared to be on the mend for the empire. See Gregoriou-Ioannidou, Martha, Στρατολογία και Έγγεια Στραιωτική Ιδιοκτησία στο Βνζάντιο (Thessaloniki 1989)Google Scholar for a useful summary of the problem, and 42 ff. in particular.

152. See in general Winkelmann, ‘Byzantinischen Staat’, 171 ff; Haldon, ‘Ideology’, 182 ff.

153. This appears for the first time in the sources in 687. See Brandes, ‘Phillipos’.

154. It would do well to note that so-called monophysitism is not at all akin to Islam, given that the single nature of Christ, as God, is completely anathema to Islamic teaching. The ‘collapse’ of Christianity in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab invasions has absolutely nothing to do, theologically, with the pre-existing ‘monophysite’ leanings of its Roman inhabitants.

155. Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204 (London and New York 1997) 264 Google Scholar.

156. See P. Brown, ‘A Dark Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy’, reprinted from the EHR (1973) in ibid., Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity (Los Angeles 1982).