372 RJ. H. Tenkins, Basit Laourda No: 8 Tit dinner. Summary : § 1. It is known to all ; a to all, and has long been T accepted a bishopric only out of repect to my tater ny Stomm tht so that I' make the following defence sot Se sovercig, # To the same, who bad assailed him with + gh OURH Words ater throne or for a position of importance at out of any desire fe yesterday Your Majesty... your court Tate i ett Comment: Kougeas' dates this fragment to 2 Febr | because he thinks that the “dinner” in question ie ther eng to in V. E. (44/18 ff,). But if Arethas was removed fron Constan- | tinople along with Nicholas on that same evening (Ist Februar), it is not lik y that he would have had leisure or materials to embark on a long defence next day. Besides, his words are surely more sui le to the occasion when he came back from exile to the capital and made peace with Leo’. His condemnation meant loss of throne, repute and court favour. An apology for past conduct meant saving all three. So, having nothi from obstinac} in the Title, he de the apology. As for the is likely enough that on his return from Arethas had to endure some bitter sarcasms from Leo, who ‘as Arethas once observed *, prone to making wounding refl If this is accepted, the chronological order of the mam arrangement of all eight letters is preserved. Addenda at corrigenda. 29694 Jenkins corrects the &pP- Ao'Stepinacs eve Biypee Bi nanan 2868 Pol a Mio Jenkins 20888 buh sebve wo antton, 8 S165 ‘Sa1,81 onanctn, sine v6 Rove RORY incerta in fig 2,line 6 964 last line ‘be corrected: a8 who may concede 8158 Jenkins suggests 819,29 daveev Gaveeg XR. J. H. JENKINS, BASIL LAOURDAS: King’s College rnstitute for Balkan Studi London “Thessaloni +p. 20 + Vin, sojaa-29; in late March, we suppose. + Varia Grasea Sacra, 266/18 - 19 vill Three Documents Concerning the“Tetragamy Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 1962concerning the celebrated TE in 906 are still ” veror Leo VI i ax publica | appragemy” of the Em ror ‘because, riage OF he path in itself and also bert ee T or egretable, both Ltrs this Yecently made by the publication of lation, two documents ‘he resignation of the ‘Patriarch Nicholas op and has made @ start On publication of a a emthe cod. Mosquensis 335. tection Sipished long sine, have 901 "been appreciat Sole din ca oe. pl er 342 (ls, 2°35 and were Two suche Paros as eters of NTO ait ae Darzouzts! rightly seb nition, Dut repose icholts ive, However, it would appear meets cho both was Niketas Parner sae rst of the two (ed. Lambros, that is almost certainly addressed *£0. shas, and indeed forms part of 4 wp. 37) ance between Niketas and his mast “th reference to a sophistical cr fa cor. 7:2 (ov svBeame eNOS errata) put out by the etragamist” bishop of Pharsala, The ‘argument deals with the proper place of accessory sexual pleasure” (A Tapugterautyn ‘ipovs) in Christian marriage. Two offen eters 1 Nias Trang axenaorn) on this subject survive jin the Moscow codex 315 (fols. 115'-157")» and have been ublished by Mrs. aninsHayter (ee note 4) See a Recs ‘The second letter of Niketas is longer and more interesting (ed. Lambros, re It is ‘addressed to a certain metropolitan ‘Nicholas, congratulates ts on elog ears band of stalwarts who reject the Fourth Marriage in ep ofa he heat and blancishments ‘of the Court, and urges him to stand eee co The etter is strongly influenced by the style of Arethas. 5 it betrays a direct, verbal knowledge of the Eight Letters oy i arts aye Dyeenion as a) ios Bastin, 5-27 a7) 8 ag thy ab Ger A bapadoposts eal: 28 98), aerate: iid 29-30 ferme publiation (pp 373-389} eoncernthe Ts fhe etry” or neat wan wins igi pratarteorae ae mide, 14 (2956). 298-372 (incorrectly cited as “EEBE 14 meus, Varia grasca sacra [St Petersburg, 1909] 292), through thelt failure to Seriter was Leon Chosrosphactes, Spa en run "ee ata het coeur io eso “eS ei a etn canter ns ge, km cm ay oon ommemon 25 (9). 3 14 te and eel is and sch a fl arteNG THE uTETRAGAMY” 233 ERNI pocumeNTS conc “TRANSLATION c soe by the letter, because TFOEE Tt me by te ejotice whatever —T who, (08 ‘seem painful to me should have Bees to the latter.## Nicholas prof 10 te ater ngacious as L20 shoul BAYS he ins signs of the times ang oY egress towards the fsa en Xe noi). This word movil a pad eee Nk Ronan nee cR o e ace Mig goentenceintheleie (OT yee 's now: he knows well234 ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS enough what I felt about it Dusiness.” The clause dt xx creer bat he Engr yf iS ust also be dated mg immediatelY er is dated bY ‘to the end of 906 oF ed the letter to of go}, which iS PF jer Samonas) got something [that is, some promise ining Emperor is incensed because I cannot now “an ‘a sensible man must realize the importance of uuld safely have been done then; now, it eanr ‘The correspondent Malakinos is unknown from other sources. im as a member of the Emperor's privy council, and he bi ‘esident (wopaBuvacreie»),!*an office which, as we know from the: of icon Metanoeite, ® was held a century later by another member ofthe: same family, John Malakinos. That Leo employed his paradynastewon in com municating with the exiled Patriarch we know from Byzantion, 25-7, P. 73%, Tine 3, where the phrase x .. 7 Sivaatar wap’ air Aayérs means, simply i 48/20-x (Karlin-Hayter, ‘is connection of Samonas, wry and paradynastouon at this time. “The date of the letter could be either before or after Nicholas cannot be many weeks removed from that event. The refusal to can Siurch at Christmas go6 and at Epiphany go7 has presumably, sot Place, since Nicholas lays emphasis on what he was once Willig to do Pennot do now, and speaks of the Emperor's rage at his ref part as bitorse ios yao, 451/19-225 J236 : ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS pray evrsdepnote, wal ro erally 9H 709 rabbnou fmt abe so. fray tor apd fh el sone thos dotSoy ng se eet La a a ae nee GAO, SOK 8 Sutton 5 2 rh Soe 20K be ots eelan trod Ueymorat "won Se reer as, Sues fulv muyxcworres val dst nach 10 Outrepov cod furspov edd. speaketh 0 then to itor rather look ye, whom {T do not know how I begat® to be a curse both to my f wert 2 case you have certainly been were you not born my sons s0 eSSktol with the law which rules the proper conduct of len treat, you might protect me, ight for me, and take my part if wasia since my Christ and God, not for His own ineffable goodness, permitted that any such wrong should be seen to have been done by me 3 Bibiogrophy: a. from cod. Vat. gr. 2780, by Mai, Spc. rom. X (2), 382-2) iE) aa ny eat A. Latin version, Baronius, Amn. Bed. X, 775. Ct Gromel regestes, 208. 630-632, 708. COMMENT In the ttle the Migne edition has foo, but Mai correctly reproduced (¢ tho of ine ig tad the Eatin version of Baronius so transintes. The point: Ctntant Because, if the metropolitans are excommunicated. 10% ‘Nicholas “datable to June 9x2. This is th the fuller version that was found in the Cosinitsa MS and published by ‘Papadopoulos-Kerameus = ‘ean tlayter ™ Nicholas addresses the same parties in both documents; Fl are ram Drea BRIA eT se eer wer LS tna a sent wth mie, PE a IEA SN240 ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE “TETRAGAMY” 241 It will be seen at once that the explanation of thi delegates and Nicholas jointly anathematised the fourth marriage. But the of the fsc were widespread and lating The struggles and Euths fievable complexity, and, as has Siready been said, the fall story of hem ‘cannot yet be written, The interpretation of the above texts may however add Something to their elucidation. unnatural. The Emperor Leo did not “withdraw” from his patriarch: i him out (éGPove).** It is obvious that the phrase means “after the em death, is common enough: in this very colle correctly understood, is contemporary proof from Nicholas’ own position was initially that ascribed to him by the Vita Euthymi, the violent proceedings of Nicholas in the first months of his restoration.©* As hhas been suggested supra, Nicholas soon saw that his wholesale denunciations ‘had made peace impossibie, and that the last state was worse than the first. In a series of letters datable between gr4 and 920, of which Mai-Migne nos. 113, ‘119, 123, 126, 128 are characteristic specimens, we see him trying painfully to cope with the storms which his radical policy had aroused. The third document throws further light on this same period of strife. The Empress Zoe and her advisers had established themselves in the palace while the Emperor Alexander ‘was on his deathbed. The breath was no sooner out of his body than they began, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally, to reverse his policies, and to give back their sees to the Euthymian bishops, who had been eagerly prophesying ‘and awaiting the Emperor's demise. Against this conduct Nicholas, who was by Alexander's nomination de jure regent for Constantine VIT, protests in the letter under review. Shortly afterwards he managed to evict the Empress altogether, and was, for the next seven or eight months, regent de facto as well, ‘as de jure. The Byzantine Church seldom knew a period of such utter confusion as prevailed during the next seven years, until, a length, peace was restored by the statesmanship of Romanus Lecapenus and under the threat of destruction by Symeon of Bulgaria, (hid, col, 328 C); and yeré thy be ws wavolos rexrns Caf vox oonew (Ol 389 D). This narrows the field of possible explanations. Leo VI died in 9) his brother Alexander in 913. It is not difficult to choose between them: Tieo's death, Nicholas wae at once felnstated as patriarch bY Alexanday there could have been no question at that time of terning out a Nichola Jaan (one, that is to say, put there by Nicholas in 912) and reinst whom Euthymius had previously ordained and sent to Neapolis betwet and 912. ‘The letter, then, must be dated to 913, very shortly aft palace revolution of February 914. But it is plain from the Vita Euth that in the period immediately after Alexander's death he was engaged in violent struggle for power with the dowager Empress Zoe, and succeeded making good his temporary ascendancy only when, after 1 b expelled her from the palace, that is, from the seat of a ‘What we know of Nicholas’ correspondent, Constantine protoa: well with this interpretation. He was the Empress Zoe's chief of the i chancellery in 919, when he joined the luckless revolt of Leo Phocas ag Romanus Lecapenus.*” His surname is given by the chronicler as Mi ‘After the collapse of the revolt, he was charged with treason; but, owing friendly offices of John Mysticus, at that time influential with R Constantine was acquitted. * le over the “‘Tetragamy”’ lasted, officially speaking, from Jani 906 until July 920, when the Tomus Unionis was Rome for the Tomus was obtained nearly three years later,** when the fi Ch, Byzantion, 25-27, 752-754. 768Other Variorum Ri G.A.ILYINSKIY ‘THE BOOK OF THE EPARCH Le Livre du Préfet by Jules Nicole - Geneva 1893 edition and French Collected Studies series: IWAN DUICEV Slavia Orthodoxa: collected studies in the history of the ANDRE GUILLOI Studies on Byzantine Italy NIKOLAY ANDREYEV Studies in Muscovy: Western influence and Byzantine inheritance. Romilly J.H Jenkins Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and 10th Centuries VARIORUM REPRINTS London 1970‘SBN 902089 072 Published in Great Britain by ‘VARIORUM REPRINTS 21a, Pembridge Mews, London W.11. Printed in Switzerland by REDA SA, 1225 Chéne-Bourg, Geneva. VARIORUM REPRINT CSI CONTENTS Constantine VII's Portrait of Michael IIL -the Date and Significance ofthe Tenth Homily of Photius ‘The Chronological Accuracy of the “Logothete” for the Years A.D. 867-913 ‘The Classical Background of the Septores Post Theophanem ‘A Note on the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticos ‘Nine Orations of Aretha fom Cod: Mate: GF S24 Bight Lett cof Arethas on the Fourth Marsiage of Leo the ise three Documents Concerning the Tetragamy” [A Note on Nicetas David Paphlas? and the Vita Ignatii ‘The Flight of Samonas ‘Leo Choerosphactes and the Saracet Vizier the Supposed Russian Attack 27 Constantinople Te revidence ofthe Psendo-svmeo? -qhe Date of Constantine VI's Corenaho® ‘the Date of Leo V's Cretan. Expedition _the Emperor Alexander and the ‘Saracen Prisoners 13-30 145-147 140 372 2-241 wi-247 217-235 161-175 403-406 133-138 2-28) 789-293