Early Christian history is full of controversies on issues apparently so
abstruse that modern scholars have often felt they were really about subjects
far removed from the matters being overtly debated, and the controversy
over the Three Chapters in the west may have been one where the real
issue was unstated. It is possible to interpret the strong stance the west
took against Justinian’s line as constituting a response to the impact of his
wars of conquest. Doubtless the heads of churches in Africa and Italy sincerely
welcomed the coming of Justinian’s armies, but while governed by
non-Roman Arians, they had come to enjoy de facto independence from
imperial oversight, which they would not surrender willingly. It is no coincidence
that one of the most famous assertions of ecclesiastical power ever
made vis-`a-vis the emperor was enunciated by Pope Gelasius (492–6) during
the period of Ostrogothic power in Italy. The wars created a situation
in which an emperor, for the first time in a long while, was able to attempt
to impose his will directly on western churches, and some of the opposition
to Justinian’s policies may simply have been a reaction against the
new reality. But it may also be that opposition to the Three Chapters was a
vent for hostility towards, or disillusionment with, the outcome of the wars
in the west. If we accept this, we will not be surprised to find Cassiodorus,
the best-known collaborator with the Goths among the Romans, writing
towards the middle of the century in terms which suggest sympathy for
the theologians whose condemnation Justinian was seeking. Nor are other
indications of western coolness towards Byzantium lacking in the period
after the conquests.
The indigenous inhabitants of Africa and Italy initially welcomed the
Byzantine armies. In Italy the Gothic government was worried about the
loyalty of the populace even before the war began, and the detailed narrative
of Procopius makes it clear that its fears were justified. Yet early in the war
a Gothic spokesman told the people of Rome that the only Greeks who
had visited Rome were actors, mimes or thieving soldiers, suggesting there
was already some resentment towards the Byzantines, which the Goths
sought to exploit. We are told that during the pontificate of Pope John
III (561–74) the inhabitants of the city maliciously told the emperor that
‘it would be better . . . to serve the Goths than the Greeks’.31 The use of
the term ‘Greeks’ is interesting, for in Procopius it is a hostile word placed
in the mouths of non-Romans. Perhaps the Romans had come to accept,
or at least pretend to accept, the barbarians’ assessment of the easterners.
The dire state of the Italian economy after the long war, and the corrupt
and grasping nature of the Byzantine administration imposed in both Africa
and Italy, made imperial government unpopular. Further, Italy’s integration
into the empire did not imply reversion to the position of independence
from the east which it had enjoyed before the advent of barbarian power,
nor were its Roman inhabitants able to enjoy the positions of influence
they had held under the Goths; Italy was now a minor part of an empire
governed by a far-away autokrat¯or who never troubled to visit the west.
Power in Africa and Italy passed to Greek-speaking incomers, and we have
evidence for cults of eastern saints, which they presumably brought with
them. Needless to say there were loyalists and careerists who supported
the Byzantine regime, for example the African poet Corippus, whose epic
Iohannis was partly an attempt to justify the imperial cause to his fellow
Africans;32 but these represented minority opinion.
If this were not enough, opposition to Justinian’s wars even developed in
the east. This can be traced through the works of Procopius, which move
from a sunny optimism in describing the Vandal war to the sombre tone
which increasingly intrudes in the Gothic war and the animosity towards
the emperor displayed in the Secret history; but one can also deduce from
other sources a feeling that resources had been committed in the west to
little profit. However impressive their outcome in bringing Africa and Italy
back into the empire, Justinian’s wars had in some ways the paradoxical
result of driving east and west further apart.
World History
