The last of the “classic” Christological heresies — monotheletism — worth in history alone. This doctrine was not inflamed the crowd, circling the head, did not rise to charismatic followers fanatics from the grass-roots environment. It is, if anything, thing laboratory, deliberately to find an intellectual construct that emerged in the types of government policies: and c such heresies happened. Planted it emperors, they brutally fought — again for political reasons — with those who are of this doctrine is not accepted. But emanates from this project is not so much folly, how much hopelessness: invented, as it seemed, happy for the fate of the Eastern Roman Empire star, monotheletism collapsed 50 years later, in the situation of one of the greatest crises of not only Byzantium but also the whole of the Mediterranean civilizationally (from the Greek. monos, “one”, and thelema, “will”) — supporters of the doctrine that Christ in the Union of two natures, divine and human, was nevertheless only one will. This postulate was with the filing of the Emperor Heraclius I in the thumbnail view is planned by the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius (early 620 years), and then refined by Pope Honorius I (635). Monotheletism was condemned at the sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681).On the walls aretinsky the Church of San Francesco, in his great “History of the Holy cross” by Piero della Francesca wrote a few “peaceful” scenes, biblical, apocryphal, historical, and battle or two. One battle Multiscopo of the bridge, where armed with the sign of the cross Constantine the Great defeated Maxentius; from della Francesca is not a battle even, and the picture of confusion produced in the enemy army with a single cross, who holds two fingers to the Emperor. But the second — Yes, one hundred percent of the battle mural, the most perfect extant from the fifteenth century, and tender, and cold, and terrible: dire victory of the Christians under the leadership of Emperor Heraclius over the Persians.In the XIII century Virginscom Jacob, from whose “Golden legend” program series della Francesca was borrowed, the context of this victory must have presented quite vaguely, icon painting and kindly. Meanwhile, not only for the history of SV. Of the cross, but in the General history it was an extraordinary victory — a series of victories, to be exact.Because the 620 early years of the Eastern Empire was not just bad, but frankly monstrous. Troops of the Persian Shah Khosrov II Parviz (Chosroe, as it was called in medieval Europe) captured first edge region of Armenia and Upper Mesopotamia. Then Syria. Then Palestine — and the news of the destruction by the Gentiles of Jerusalem and the capture of local shrines made almost more of a panic effect than the news of the capture of Rome by the vandals and Goths in the V century. But uhthat was just the beginning. Then gave up Egypt, and then it was not trouble for religious feelings, and about the direct threat of starvation: six and a half centuries the Empire too used carelessly count on countless harvest of the Nile shores. Then came the turn of Rhodes and the Islands of the archipelago. At the same time the Persians gradually swallowed Asia Minor and were already in that of Chalcedon, the seat of the IV Ecumenical Council. To make it clearer: it is now Kadikoy, a district of modern Istanbul; to the Imperial residence was already literally on the doorstep.Locked in this residence, the Emperor Heraclius, an Armenian from Cappadocia, first with zealous thoroughness of Napoleon I studied maps, messages, travelers, ambassadorial reports and the books of historians. And then, quickly squeeze out of the remaining land is unthinkable amount, sent an army and plan a campaign bolder which in the circumstances is simply impossible to imagine.And it succeeded. Defeating the enemy on the territory of present-day Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, the troops of Heraclius reached the headwaters of the Tiger, where the Persians inflicted a final defeat. Chosroe was killed in a Palace coup, and his successor surrendered the phenomenally honourable to the Byzantine Empire conditions, Empire has received all captured by the Persians of the earth, all the prisoners, a huge indemnity, and (this is what was paramount for Jacob Virginskaja!) captured will Chosroes the Cross; triumph of Heraclius, who, not without reason, could consider themselves a match for Alexander the Great, and humbly walked barefoot through the ruined streets of Jerusalem, returning the remains of the “Holy tree” at the place of execution.”Yes, don’t laugh at us, none of the idolaters that later we have the former deposed, and that our faith is always joining something new; for, experiencing… the humanity of God, and desiring in every way to honor and exalt Him, then we appeal to the fact, that to another. And no single inventor of heresy among Christians would not intentionally blaspheme, no one dared to deliberately destroy the divine, but every thought, claiming it, says better than predecessors” (Evagrius Scholasticus, “Church history”, I, 11)for all that the Emperor knew perfectly well that the reason the Persians so easily went to Syria, Palestine and Egypt: Monophysite most of the invaders were only too happy. We had to do something. In the history of Byzantium there are a lot of autocrator, which in this situation would be to force the Church, putting his conscience, to undo the curses against the Monophysite and to restore a semblance of religious, social and political world in this way. Heraclius was not only an excellent commander but also a tactful politician, even of Church treasures, which was necessary for war is not to seize autocratic, and ddemonstrative borrowed. Here to overthrow the Council of Chalcedon was unable to face: it was death to fight and another part of its Eastern citizens, and certainly those Christians that were under the ecclesiastical authority of Rome — Rome, which the Emperor Heraclius at the very least considered.The task of finding a way out took over the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius, the friend of the Emperor, and, as we say in the XVII century, “patagonic” (he even allowed the monarch to marry a second marriage for him, Heraclius, his niece what was then the Church’s legal consciousness is very, very shameful). To justify Sergius, a man of great intelligence and talent, I must say that patachonica he was not from weakness of will or self-interest, and immaculately clean ideological reasons. And, apparently, he sincerely believed in the legitimacy and necessity of formulated doctrine.What were the initial data? Is recognized by the Emperor, Rome and the Greek minority of the great Chalcedonian dogma of the two natures in Christ. There are Monophysites, believing that nature is in Christ alone. So, we had to find some unifying bridge between these two poles, allowing both sides to save face, and Sergius postulated that the God-man, they say, was typical of “single bohemine deed”, “United energy” (mia energeia theandriki). N. B.: if you, the reader, will fall kolobovsky text, where the word “energy” is understood as something in the same spirit as in the phrase “nuclear energy”, “subtle energy” or “qi energy”,— do not take this text seriously. Theologians of the patristic era after Aristotle meant by “energy” process and the mode of action, formation, actualization of what was potentially inherent in one or another nature.For commoners it is, admittedly, complicated. And that the Pope Honorius I, who Patriarch Sergius, presented his doctrine in a fraternal message, replied somewhat angrily: “How to speak or to think — one or two actions must occur for Affairs of the deity and humanity — it does not concern us: we provide this grammar”. But, wrote the Pope, must confess in Christ one will.In fact, it’s something in Constantinople was required — where the action is, there will. Even before the Epistles of Honorius (635) managed by Sergius doctrine somehow join the dominant Church, the Monophysites of Syria (630), Armenia (630-632), Egypt (632). Now the papal letter, perceived as a support of this doctrine, gave these unions the extra weight. The longed-for consensus of the whole world in the faith that seemed to have been very close. Well armed against the newborn monopolista the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius — so, probably, and it could hypothetically call to order��have. But as luck would have it, exactly at the time the order is again destroyed, and collapsed fatally.In 622 when Heraclius had just gathered in a great campaign, Muhammad made his “Hijra” is the migration from Mecca to Medina. To 634 year, his successor Abu Bakr had already reached with his army to Palestine. The next Caliph, Omar, in 638 year took Jerusalem — but then began what started.The meaning of the conciliatory policy of Heraclius was lost in her eyes, Monophysite territory one after another got a new enemy, and the population quickly forgot about all the unions. However, in the same 638, the Emperor belatedly issued a so-called “Ekthesis” (“Ekthesis tes pisteon”, “exposition of faith”), where an order was obliged his subjects to believe in the “one will.” His grandson, Constans II, succeeded his grandfather in 641-m, tried to finish still ran with the filing of Rome discussion in 648th, issuing a special decree (“Typos”, i.e. “sample (faith)”), where it was forbidden to condemn the doctrine of one will and one energy, and the doctrine of two energies and two wills.” — Listen: if these two wills are the same, it’s like that one; if they are opposite, you have both the two wills will be done at the same time two opposite things, but this is ridiculous; therefore, I for one will. — Oh, father, you Monothelite. Heresy! Heresy! The temptation of the devil! To excommunicate, be deprived of dignity; to convene a Council, most of the new Cathedral; another Emperor, another of the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of another! Oh, my God! How mad these poor Greeks, with all their fruitless and endless debate, and how the right will be my successors, if you try to become powerful and rich!No sooner had the Honorius to say those words as he learned that the Emperor Heraclius was dead, after he thoroughly beat the Mohammedans. His widow Martina poisoned his stepson; the Senate ordered to cut the language of Martin’s nose and another son of the Emperor. The whole Grecian Empire drowned in blood. Whether it was better not to argue about the two wills? And is this Pope Honorius, against whom so much has been written insanity was not a very reasonable person?” (Voltaire, “Philosophical dictionary”), But in the Empire, now pressed by the Arabs, the Avars, the Slavs, after all voices have been raised against this method to solve theological questions. The administration responded ruthlessly and without any attempt even to stage an ecclesiastical court on such occasions. Pope Martin I, who opposed and monopolista, and “Tipos”, was accused of treason, dragged to court in Constantinople, long mocked him and in the end banished the dying man in the Crimea (655). Appeal to Martin monk Maximus the Confessor, perhaps the greatest theologian of the seventh century, too tortured, and mutilating, exiled in increasingly deaf monthsthat up to the Caucasus, where he died in 662-m. Only the great-grandson of Heraclius, Constantine IV Pogonate, realized the futility of such policies and convened in the year 680 in Constantinople the new Ecumenical Council. Which prosacea mournful ten months, decided that in Christ “two natural wills, and two natural desires, and two natural actions are inseparable, unchangeable, inseparable, leslianne”. And at the same time anathematical of Patriarch Sergius and Pope Honorius (thus setting for the future a difficult task for the defenders of the dogma of papal infallibility).And it’s hard to resist the doubt that all this public-theological game was worth the candle. Themonothelite the essence of the argument is clear — like, can not be so that the Lord was inherent from divine will and a human, they’re multidirectional, and generally “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth”. But their opponents understood the fullness of the human will of Christ is not so, as you can now imagine we are. The Savior, they said, has taken upon itself is not damaged in the fall, human nature is weak and obichnuy, and the pristine Adam’s nature; hence, he only had “natural will”, that is, in fact, a set of core aspirations and instincts, and that is not all, and those that were submitted to the VII century philosophy of good, blameless, innocent of sin and looking to the Root cause. And actually free will in the ordinary sense, fallen for the freedom to choose arbitrarily, which is connected with the possibility of doubt, of hesitation, of weakness, of error, of transgression— it was not.Yes, the decision of the sixth Ecumenical Council looks important sidenote veroordeling of Chalcedon, but if this nightmarish abyss lies between these two points of view, does it compare with, say, hatred of Arianism and the Nicene faith. Without the “crutch” in the form of Imperial monotheletism support hardly would have lasted as long as it lasted. For the sake of justice it is necessary to tell that after the Council, it passed in the past is not good. In the year 712 usurper Vardan Philippics of hatred they ousted dynasty decided to restore the heresy: going to the Cathedral, which dutifully did. But after a year of Vardan was overthrown, the new Emperor called another Church (715), which again like nothing happened anathematical Monothelites (and often in both councils voted the same persons, and very generally respected). In the history of Byzantium will be more beautiful, but while the spectacle of bishops, which mechanically stamp offered to them by the king decision (today so, tomorrow the commercials) looks pretty bleak. And in a certain sense — and not at all tragic. How tragic was the role of the Emperor Heraclius, with the great voltage heroically overcame one enemy — but within a matter of years of forced to see how the liberated lands, the glory and pride of the Empire, Church history, one after another captures new fatal rival.