No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
The fourth marriage of the emperor Leo vi set in motion a complicated series of events involving not only the canonical question of marriage in the Christian life, but also ecclesiastical schism, Church-State relations, and papal ecclesiastical policy. The affair of the tetragamia, centering as it did around the personalities of the emperors Leo vi, Alexander, and Romanus Lecapenus and the patriarchs Nicholas Mysticus and Euthymius, was perhaps the most significant event of early tenth-century Byzantine political and ecclesiastical life.
page 113 note 1 It is with great appreciation that I acknowledge the assistance of Reverend Professor John Meyendorff and Dr. Nicholas Itsines who read this paper in an earlier form and made valuable and constructive suggestions. I am, of course, the only one responsible for any weaknesses or errors in the work.
page 114 note 1 Vita S. Euthymii, i. II, translated by Karlin-Hayter, P. in Byzantion, XXV (1955), 1–153.Google Scholar The text is referred to below as V.E. with the appropriate chapter and page number. The edited text with commentary has recently appeared in a separate edition: P. Karlin-Hayter, Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP., Text, Translation, Introduction, and Commentary, Brussels 1970.
page 114 note 2 Barker, E., Social and Political Thought in Byzantium, Oxford 1957, 9.Google Scholar There are numerous opinions on Nicholas's motivations; Jenkins represents one of the more negative and refers to him as ‘selfish and unprincipled’, caring ‘very little’ how many times Leo married as long as his ‘own personal interests and animosities were served’. Cf. Jenkins, R., Byzantium: the Imperial Centuries, London 1969, 212–3. A different approach will be taken below and will be supported by demonstrating Nicholas's concern for the unity of the Church as a leading factor in shaping his decisions.Google Scholar
page 114 note 3 Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State, Oxford 1968, New Brunswick 1969, 31.Google Scholar
page 114 note 4 Runciman, Steven, Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, Cambridge 1929, 51.Google Scholar
page 115 note 1 Nicholas, like Photius, had been raised in a short span of time from the secular state directly to the episcopal. This, however, seems not to have been an issue as it had been in the earlier case of Photius. Nicholas was both a relative and a student of Photius.
page 115 note 2 The exercise of economia has had a long and often controversial history in Orthodox Christian thought and practice. As mentioned, it refers basically to the exercise of an ecclesiastical dispensation. It was associated with the more ‘liberal’ or moderate churchmen of the period dating from the close of the iconoclastic controversy. With regard to imperial affairs, economia constituted an exception allowed for the sake of political necessity when the issue did not involve a question of doctrine and faith. The nature of economia is such that it cannot be applied on the basis of any universally valid principles and hence gave rise to a great deal of disagreement as to when its application was appropriate and justified.
page 115 note 3 Martin Jugie, ‘La Vie et les Oeuvres d'Euthyme’, Échos d' Orient, xvi (1913), 385–95, 481–92, at 385.
page 115 note 4 Euthymius was for this reason disliked by Stylianos Zaoutzes; cf. V.E., viii. 53.
page 116 note 1 V.E., vii. 45.
page 116 note 2 Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 259.
page 116 note 3 V.E., vii. 51.
page 116 note 4 Ibid., viii. 53.
page 116 note 5 Ibid.
page 116 note 6 Runciman, op. cit., 41.
page 116 note 7 V.E., x. 65.
page 117 note 1 Novellae 90 and 91, ed. Noailles, P. et Dain, A., Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage, Paris 1944, 296–300.Google Scholar
page 117 note 2 Alexander did not enjoy his subordinate position and had doubts as to Leo's legitimacy as a son of Basil 1; cf. Diehl, Charles, Figures Byzantines, Paris 1925, 197.Google Scholar
page 117 note 3 V.E., x. 71.
page 117 note 4 Ibid., xi. 75. It is difficult to date this letter with any precision. The sources are in disagreement as to the date of the Ducas apostasy. The Vita places it in 905 and other sources in 907; see V. Grumel, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, Series 1, Vol. I, Fasc. II (Socii Assumptionistae Chalcedonenses, 1936), #601. (Referred to below as Grumel, Reg.) The date of the letter is essential to the development of the affair as it radically conditions the motives ascribed to Nicholas's early support of the baptism and the marriage. Jenkins points out, however, that Nicholas's actions can be consistently understood without reference to the Ducas plot; cf. R. J. H.Jenkins and B. Laourdas (eds), ‘Eight Letters of Arethas’ (Greek text and commentary), Ellenika, xiv (1956), 346. (Referred to below as Letters of Arethas with the numbering according to the editors.)
page 118 note 1 V.E., xi. 75.
page 118 note 2 Grumel, Reg., #603.
page 118 note 3 Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 335.
page 119 note 1 Runciman, op. cit., 42.
page 119 note 2 The canonical penalties are prescribed by the Basilian Canons numbered four and eighty: cf. P. Schaff and H. Wace (eds.), Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series, xiv. 604, 609.
page 119 note 3 Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 343.
page 119 note 4 V.E., xi. 79.
page 119 note 5 Arethas, Letter 2:3.
page 119 note 6 This is discussed in Arethas, Letter 4:2, 3, 5. The Basilian Canons referred to are four, fifty, and eighty.
page 119 note 7 Procheiros Nomos, iv. 25, ed. Zepos, J. D. and Zepos, P., Jus Graecoromanum, ii (Athens 1931) 127–8.Google Scholar
page 120 note 1 Noailles and Dain, op. cit., 298.
page 120 note 2 Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 344.
page 120 note 3 V.E., xii. 79.
page 121 note 1 Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 340.
page 121 note 2 Arethas had been a Photian until 901; cf. Arethas, Letter 1:2.
page 121 note 3 Ibid., 3:9.
page 121 note 4 Grumel, Reg., #611.
page 121 note 5 V.E., xii. 83.
page 121 note 6 Ibid.
page 121 note 7 Ibid., 87.
page 122 note 1 Every, George, The Byzantine Patriarchate, London 1962, 132.Google Scholar
page 122 note 2 Jenkins, op. cit., 225.
page 122 note 3 V.E., xiv. 99; cf. Grumel, Reg., #612, 613.
page 122 note 4 Ibid., 101; Grumel, Reg., 614.
page 122 note 5 Nicholas took this line of argument in his letter to pope Anastasius in 912. It is the first time his rejection of economia appears in writing: Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 345.
page 122 note 6 V.E., xv. 101.
page 123 note 1 Ibid., 105. The Vita is quite clear. Euthymius had agreed to accept the patriarchal throne only after he learned that Nicholas had resigned and the dispensation had been granted by the pope. Jenkins (Byzantium: the Imperial Centuries, 224) treats Euthymius as a cynical opportunist who agreed to become patriarch and grant the necessary dispensation ‘if a reasonable pretext could be found’. Jenkins maintains that the pretext was the soon to arrive papal dispensation which Euthymius used as an excuse to seize the throne.
page 123 note 2 Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 343.
page 123 note 3 V.E., xvi. 107.
page 123 note 4 Ibid., xvii. 115.
page 123 note 5 Ibid., 119; Grumel, Reg., #627, 628.
page 123 note 6 Ibid., Grumel, Reg., #629.
page 124 note 1 Cf. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 260 n. 3.
page 124 note 2 Nicholas, Ep. XXXII, in J. P. Migne, P.G., cxi. col 212.
page 124 note 3 V.E., xviii. 121.
page 124 note 4 Runciman, op. cit., 45.
page 124 note 5 V.E., xix. 127.
page 125 note 1 V.E., xix. 131; Grumel, Reg., #631.
page 125 note 2 Ibid., xix. 131.
page 125 note 3 Ibid., xx. 135.
page 125 note 4 Ibid., 133.
page 125 note 5 The two letters referred to are appended to P. Karlin-Hayter, op. cit., 748–78. The letters will be referred to below as Arethas, In Defense and Nicholas, Guilt of the Bishops. For a discussion of Nicholas's letter cf. Grumel, Reg., #632.
page 126 note 1 Nicholas, Guilt of the Bishops, 751.
page 126 note 2 Ibid., 753. It is difficult to follow Nicholas's chronology. He here implies that Arethas was involved in his downfall before Euthymius became patriarch. We know from Arethas's letters that he had opposed the dispensation until after the elevation of Euthymius. We must now consider the possibility that those who had opposed Nicholas and his efforts in favour of economia may have been involved in a conspiracy, here hinted at. to have Nicholas removed. Nicholas is clear in this letter that it was Arethas who arranged his fall.
page 126 note 3 Arethas, In Defense, 757.
page 126 note 4 Ibid., 767.
page 126 note 5 Nicholas, Ep. XXXII, P.G., cxi. col. 195.
page 126 note 6 Jenkins, op. cit., 228.
page 127 note 1 V.E., xxi. 137.
page 127 note 2 Ibid., xxi. 139.
page 127 note 3 Ibid.
page 127 note 4 Ibid., 137; Grumel, Reg., #640.
page 127 note 5 Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 262–3.
page 127 note 6 Jenkins, op. cit., 232.
page 128 note 1 V.E., xxi. 139.
page 128 note 2 Ibid., xxii, 143.
page 128 note 3 Ibid., 151.
page 128 note 4 Ibid., 151–3.
page 129 note 1 Ibid., xxii, 145.
page 129 note 2 Ibid., 149.
page 129 note 3 Jenkins, op. cit., 236.
page 130 note 1 Runciman, op. cit., 58.
page 130 note 2 Ibid., 60.
page 130 note 3 Tómos Enóseos, 5; in Rhalles, G. A. and Potles, M. (eds.), Syntagma Theion kai Ieron Kanonon, V, Athens 1855, 7.Google Scholar
page 131 note 1 Ibid., 7–8.
page 131 note 2 Nicholas Mysticus, Stephen, Tryphon, Theophylactus, Polyeuctus, and Anthony. The document became, like the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, a liturgical event. It was read on the first Sunday of Lent; a description of a service which might have celebrated the event of 920 is found in Constantine VII, De Cerimoniis, I. 36 in Niebuhr, B. G. (ed.) Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, i, Bonn 1839.Google Scholar Cf. the commentary on this service by Vogt, A., Commentaire sur le Livre des Cérémonies, Paris 1935, 174.Google Scholar
page 131 note 3 Tómos Enóseos, 7.
page 131 note 4 Nicholas, Ep. LVI, P.G., cxi, col. 257.
page 131 note 5 A small group of Euthymians seem to have maintained the legality of the fourth marriage until the end of the tenth century. Cf. M. Jugie, op. cit., 486.
page 131 note 6 Nicholas, Ep. XXVIII, P.G., cxi, cols. 176–81.