The Journal of Ecclesiastical History

http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH

Additional services for The Journal of Ecclesiastical

History:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

The Eastern Schism of 907 and the Affair of the

Tetragamia

John L. Boojamra

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 25 / Issue 02 / April 1974, pp 113 - 133
DOI: 10.1017/S002204690004570X, Published online: 25 March 2011

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S002204690004570X

How to cite this article:

John L. Boojamra (1974). The Eastern Schism of 907 and the Affair of the Tetragamia.
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 25, pp 113-133 doi:10.1017/S002204690004570X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 19 Apr 2015

Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. XXV, No. 2, April

The Eastern Schism of 907 and the

Affair of the Tetragamia
by JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
Director of the Department of Christian Education, Antiochian Orthodox
Christian Archdiocese of New York and N. America

T he fourth marriage of the emperor Leo vi set in motion a com-

plicated 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.
The purpose of this paper is to consider this affair as it developed from
the first years of the tenth century until its apparent resolution in 920 with
the promulgation of the Tome of Union under the emperor Constantine
VII Porphyrogenitus and the basileopator Romanus Lecapenus. The battle
on the marital question fought between the emperor Leo and the patriarch
Nicholas raised numerous significant issues. Mutatis mutandis, this struggle
is somewhat parallel to that between the imperium and sacerdotium in the
eleventh-century West and was related to the notions of the freedom of the
Church and 'right order' in the Christian world.
Leo vi, a pious, though autocratic emperor, sought to have the
Church acquiesce in his decision to undertake a fourth marriage. Such
acquiescence was not an abnormal phenomenon; often in the past the
Church had made allowances for the emperor in matters seemingly
disciplinary in nature. A pattern had been set by which the emperor was
somehow seen to be an 'exceptional layman', whose position as the
embodiment of the empire was completely unique. However, throughout
Byzantine history there were always champions of the 'freedom' of the
Church. Such were the Studites and the Ignatians in the ninth century,
who, although not always above reproach, opposed imperial autocracy at
crucial points of Christian doctrine and the nature of the Christian life.
Leo had earlier deposed the patriarch Photius and replaced him with
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.
"3
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
his own brother Stephen; 1 this move seemingly ensured his control over
the Church for that period. Yet, the great mystery of the Byzantine
Church-State relations was that these innumerable instances of eccle-
siastical submission to imperial will never established that submission as
a principle. On the contrary, we are able to see numerous patriarchs
actively involved in the affairs of the secular life of the empire, sometimes
to maintain a principle of right Christian order. The patriarch Nicholas
Mysticus was one of these men who, with a vision of the importance of his
position as patriarch, was in line with a Macedonius and a Polyeuctus.2
The struggle over the question of the tetragamia is such an instance and it is
precisely here that we discover its true significance and interest for the
historian.
There were numerous occasions for the assertion of the Church's
independence from the emperor and the political exigencies forced upon
it by imperial and dynastic considerations. It must be pointed out,
however, that the nature and degree of opposition depended on the
personality of both the patriarch and the emperor. The leader of the
Church had great moral authority and prestige among the people and
clergy and in a time of conflict, his position was greatly dependent on his
personality, his vision of the patriarchate, and his ability to muster popular
support. 3
As will become evident below, the sources offer us a confusing picture
as to Nicholas's personal integrity and motives. One thing can be asserted
with certainty: Nicholas possessed (in the tradition of Photius before
him) a great jealousy for the honour and authority of see of Constan-
tinople. Nicholas's desire to maintain ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the
Church of Bulgaria, regardless of the political cost, can be seen as an
example in point.*
It would appear that the origin of the schism resulting from Nicholas's
opposition to Leo's fourth marriage did not derive exclusively from the
immediate events of the early tenth century, but rather was a continuation
of the ninth-century conflict between the moderate and extremist parties
in Byzantine ecclesiastical life. Two factions existed with their positions
represented by two people who were, at the same time, nominal leaders,
1
Vita S. Euthymii, i. u , translated by P. Karlin-Hayter in Byzantion, xxv (1955),
1-153. 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 Patriarchal CP., Text, Translation, Introduction, and
Commentary,
a
Brussels 1970.
E . Barker, Social and Political Thought in Byzantium, Oxford 1957, 9. 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. R. Jenkins, Byzantium: the Imperial Centuries, London 1969, 212-3. A different
approach will be taken below and will be supported by demonstrating Nicholas's
concern
3
for the unity of the Church as a leading factor in shaping his decisions.
George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Oxford 1968, New Brunswick
1969, 3i-
4
Steven Runciman, Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, Cambridge 1929, 51.
114
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7
to wit, the patriarchs Photius and Ignatius in the ninth century, and
Nicholas and Euthymius in the tenth. In each case, one protagonist was
replaced by the other at the will of the emperor. Nicholas, seemingly
opposing the emperor's plans, was replaced by Euthymius. Was this
struggle of 907 not, then, a continuation of the prophetic struggle of the
extremists against those who blindly acquiesced in the will of the emperor?
This theme will be taken up below and will be further complicated by the
fascinating shift in position of personalities from one party to another. For
instance, Nicholas initially representing the moderate tendency,1 became
after 907 the leader of the extremist party; on the other hand, Arethas, a
leading spokesman for the extremists before 907, became an exponent of a
policy conforming to the will of the emperor and favouring the application
of economia, best understood here as ecclesiastical condescension or
dispensation for the sake of a greater good.2
The sources for this affair are the Vita S. Euthymii, and the letters of
Nicholas Mysticus and Arethas. Also on this question the chronicles of this
period, by Theophanes Continuatus, George the Monk, Symeon Magister,
and the Continuator of George the Monk provide some information. The
Vita, which is the main source for this paper, begins in 886. The author is
a monk of St. Euthymius's monastery of Psamathia. On the reliability of
the Vita, Father Jugie has written: 'C. de Boor a etabli sur de bonnes
preuves la veracite de l'historien, son impartiality, sa serenite dans le
recit d'evenements qui avaient souleve tout de passions, encore ardentes au
moment ou il ecrivait'.3 Thanks to the Vita, we are able to obtain an
accurate picture of the personality of Euthymius and glean a less clear
image of that of Nicholas Mysticus.
In 881 or 882, the emperor Basil 1 had his son Leo married to
Theophano. It was an awkward arrangement and proved very difficult
for Leo. Though both partners were pious, their personalities were
radically different. The monk Euthymius was at this time a close friend,
advisor,* and confessor of Leo; Leo complained of his marital situation to
Euthymius: 'Your Holiness would seem ignorant how abnormally I have
been treated by [Theophano]; she went to my late father and made
trouble with a trumped up tale that I had been unfaithful to her with
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.
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 church-
men 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.
3
Martin Jugie, 'La Vie et les Oeuvres d'Euthyme', ftchos a" Orient, xvi (1913), 385-95,
481-92, at 385.
4
Euthymius was for this reason disliked by Stylianos Zaoutzes; cf. V.E., viii. 53.
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
Zaoutzes's daughter, Zoe . . A 1 Euthymius's biographer continues that
Leo and his father actually had a physical confrontation over this matter.
It is not surprising then that after Basil's death in 886, Leo's marital
relationship deteriorated rapidly.
The marriage was terminated by Theophano's death sometime
between November 893 and 896, after which she was canonised.2 Shortly
after her death, the husband of Zoe Zaoutzes, Theodore Gouzouniatis,
died and the Vita reports on this suspicious coincidence that 'it was said
that [Zoe] was responsible for the death of the empress and her own
husband'. 3 Whether or not there is any truth in this suspicion is not
important; it is important that a shadow was cast over the emperor's
relationship with this woman. It is reasonably certain, moreover, though
it is denied in the above-quoted passage of the Vita that he was involved
in an illicit liaison with Zoe while his wife was yet alive.
Leo nevertheless decided to marry Zoe. Her father, Stylianos, urged
that the event take place as soon as possible and with the blessing of his
enemy, the monk Euthymius. Euthymius refused to give his blessing to
the marriage and was then brought by force to the emperor's presence
where he tried to convince him not to make this move. The emperor
objected, saying that it was perfectly proper: 'We have the encouragement
of the laws and the instructions of the apostles: who are you to be laying
down the law over their heads?' 4 Euthymius warned him of the scandal
of marrying Zoe, whose 'evil conduct was notorious'.5 After this affair,
Euthymius was banished to the monastery of St. Diomedes and the
marriage took place over the objection of the patriarch Anthony Cauleas.6
Unhappily for Leo, Zoe, and the child she bore, died towards the end
of 899, just twenty months after their marriage. After her death, Euthymius
returned to the palace and the good graces of the emperor.
Leo's problem was simple: after two marriages he had not yet had a
male heir. He decided to try a third time and married Eudocia Baiana in
900. Leo was again disappointed when Eudocia died in childbirth on
Easter Day, 12 April, 901. The emperor turned to Euthymius for con-
solation and received little. Euthymius calmly reminded him that he was
the author of his own misfortunes and that Eudocia's funeral, for the
sake of propriety, should be as quiet as possible.7
No doubt, though the Vita passes over the circumstances of the third
marriage in silence, we can safely suppose that there was a good deal of
opposition to such a liaison. Even before this dilemma arose, Leo himself
had issued several Novellae which expressly forbade concubinage and

1
2
V.E., vii. 45.
J
Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 259.
V.E., vii. 51.
*s Ibid., viii. 53.
8
Ibid.
7
Runciman, op. cit., 41.
V.E., x. 65.
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7
third marriages, yet he violated both these prohibitions.1 Fully to
appreciate Leo's position, however, it is necessary to try to understand his
view. His were not acts of passionate desire but of political necessity.
His dynastic position was extremely tenuous; he was without a male heir
as was his brother Alexander, at best a passive and nominal co-emperor
since their father Basil's death. 2
It was this situation which drove Leo to consider another liaison with
a Zoe 'Carbonopsina'. When his affair with her first began it is not
necessary to imagine that he had marriage as his immediate goal. Yet,
it always remained a possibility. Probably with this possibility in mind,
he chose Nicholas Mysticus to fill the patriarchal office left vacant in
901 by the death of Anthony Cauleas. The choice is not difficult to
understand. Nicholas was a friend of the emperor, both having been
students of Photius, and a member of that ecclesiastical party which had
traditionally been very responsive to the imperial will.3
At the end of 905, the question of Leo's marriage to Zoe became
urgent. She had borne him a son in the Purple Chamber of the Palace.
Leo's main desire was fulfilled; his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus,
after the place of his birth, would carry on the Macedonian dynasty.
Only one thing remained to ensure the continuity of the dynasty: the
recognition of Constantine's legitimacy. Such a recognition would involve
two processes: first, Constantine's baptism and, second, the blessing of
Leo's marriage to Zoe. Both were ecclesiastical matters!
The explanations for the patriarch Nicholas's initial reactions to the
situation are complicated and not at all clear. The Vita suggests that
Nicholas's early support of the emperor's position was due to the fact that
he had been implicated in the treasonous plots of the rebel-apostate
Andronicus Ducas which involved an attempt on the emperor's life in the
church of St. Mocius the Martyr, during which he was injured and his
entourage and clergy fled. The emperor later came into possession of
some letters of Andronicus, one of which seemingly had its origin from the
hand of Nicholas, and the Vita tells us that it was in 'not only the style
but the very handwriting of the patriarch Nicholas'.4 The emperor chose
1
Novellae 90 and 91, ed. P. Noailles et A. Dain, Les Novelles de Lion VI le Sage,
Paris 1944, 296-300.
2
Alexander did not enjoy his subordinate position and had doubts as to Leo's
legitimacy as a son of Basil 1; cf. Charles Diehl, Figures Byzantines, Paris 1925, 197.
*V.E., x. 71.
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. 1, Fasc. n (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.)
"7
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
to overlook this incriminating evidence due to his association with
Nicholas as a fellow student of Photius. Nicholas, the Vita informs us,
at first refused to consider the baptism of Leo's bastard son. However, he
was informed that Leo knew of his association with Ducas and decided to
appease the emperor and support him.
The Ducas association is thus the explanation for Nicholas's actions
offered us by Euthymius's biography, a document admittedly unfriendly
to the patriarch. However, this rather cynical explanation must be
balanced with one that is, perhaps, more probable. The period is one in
which the ecclesiastical factions—moderates and extremists—were in
continual tension with one another. Is it possible, then, to explain
Nicholas's actions in terms of his being a member of a party which was in
direct line with the patriarchs Tarasius and Photius and tended to respond
positively to the imperial will? On the other hand, many of the objections
to the baptism came from bishops known to have been members of the
Ignatian party. Thus, ecclesiastical factions, characterised as moderates
and extremists, were a real and living issue and gave rise to the second
factor which we must consider: the possibility of this tension coming to
fruition in an open schism. Even the Vita tells us that Nicholas expressed
continual concern for unanimity among all the metropolitans on the
question of the baptism. Nicholas's cautious behaviour with regard to the
baptism and acceptance of Leo's infant son can also be understood as an
effort to win over as many bishops as possible to his position and thereby
forestall a schism between the two factions which had characterised
Byzantine political-ecclesiastical life for at least a century.
The compromise which was finally reached on this matter, presumably
with the agreement of the majority of the metropolitans, was that the
young Constantine would be baptised on the condition that his mother,
Zoe, leave the palace and be separated from Leo.1 This compromise
clearly indicates that a fourth marriage would not be considered legitimate
by the bishops. Nicholas, it seems, sincerely tried to bring all the metro-
politans to agreement. In a letter mentioned in the Vita and written
before 6 June 906, Nicholas reported that two metropolitans—Arethas of
Caesarea and Epiphanius of Laodicea—remained intransigent.2 In fact,
as we shall see, these two bishops were the leading opponents of Nicholas's
policy of conciliation.
The baptism took place on 6 January 906, with Euthymius and the
co-emperor Alexander sponsoring the child. Epiphanius was the sole
metropolitan opposing the baptism and Arethas was conveniently sent to
Hellas on an ecclesiastical mission.3 At this stage, the content of the
opposition to the marriage seems to have centered on an Ignatian
distaste for serving imperial needs by what was seen as the compromise of
the Church's teaching.
1 V.E., xi. 75.
*8 Grumel, Reg., #603.
Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 335.
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7
It is difficult to imagine that Leo or Zoe would have agreed to the
exile of the latter. If the agreement had been made, as seems to have been
the case, it would have amounted to an imperial admission that the
rights of the infant Constantine existed precariously, by ecclesiastical
toleration and consequently subject to ecclesiastical disposition.1 Actually,
shortly after the baptism, Zoe returned to the palace and sometime before
1 May 906 she and Leo were married by the priest Thomas. Leo then
crowned her Augusta.
Byzantine public and ecclesiastical opinion was against such an
unheard of alliance. The canonical penalties were clear.2 Nicholas, for
whatever reason, however, continued his policy of co-operation and
offered to admit Leo to the church on two occasions, i May 906,3 and
Transfiguration, 906. Nicholas, however, withdrew both offers hoping to
hold out and gain the support of as many metropolitans as possible on a
unified decision in favour of economia. Such a wait would then have avoided
a schism and have guaranteed full and unconditional legitimacy to
Leo's son. At the same time, Leo made an appeal to Rome on the question,
a clever move that was, perhaps, calculated to appease the Ignatian
faction, which greatly revered papal decisions since the Photian-Ignatian
conflict and Roman support of Ignatius. The pope, Sergius m, no doubt,
following in the tradition of Nicholas 1, Hadrian 11, and John vm, welcomed
the opportunity to interfere in Byzantine ecclesiastical life over the head of
the Byzantine patriarch and favourably assist the emperor, especially
inasmuch as he was in need of eastern support against the Saracens.
Nicholas's role was far from passive. He continued to assure the
emperor that no question of heresy or scandal was involved in his being
admitted to church. Referring to the Canons of St. Athanasius, he told the
emperor that no special penances were indicated for third marriages and
'why should I fear to regularise a fourth after a certain punishment'.4 We
have an account of the advice given to Leo in a letter written to him by
Arethas. Arethas affirmed that heresy and scandal are indeed involved in
this fourth marriage. 5 He, furthermore, attacked the misuse of the Basilian
canons and of certain early Christian writers, who were liberal in marital
matters, as normative.6 He furthermore referred to the purification of the
civil laws carried out by Leo's father, Basil 1. The Procheiros Nomos, for
instance, held that a third marriage is no marriage at all.7 Leo himself

1
Runciman, op. cit., 42.
1
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.
3
Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 343.
• V.E., xi. 79.
5
Arethas, Letter 2:3.
• This is discussed in Arethas, Letter 4:2, 3, 5. The Basilian Canons referred to are
four, fifty, and eighty.
7
Procheiros Nomos, iv. 25, ed. J. D. Zepos and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, ii (Athens
1931) 127-8.
"9
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
before the onset of his dilemma took this theme up in his Novel 90 where
he prescribed the canonical penance for a third marriage. 1
From the above citation, it is clear that the case presented by Arethas
was a strong one and had on its side both civil and canonical legislation.
Nicholas's position was correspondingly weak and Leo was wise enough to
wait for the results of his appeals to Rome and the eastern patriarchates
before being received into the church.
Nicholas made a third offer to receive the emperor on Christmas Day,
906. When Christmas arrived the emperor decided to attend services,
having received assurances that the dispensations were on their way from
Rome and the other patriarchates. When he attempted this entrance,
Nicholas blocked him and explained that he was unable to receive Leo
until Epiphany, 907. Leo acquiesced, hoping to return on 6 January 907.
The account of the affair takes on a different complexion from this point.
What motivated Nicholas's rejection of Leo's efforts after he had en-
couraged him to seek admission to the services?
The solution to this radical volte-face seems to rest in the fact that there
was a distinct possibility of schism over this issue; if Nicholas had allowed
the emperor entrance, perhaps a schism within the Church would have
occurred. This seems to have been Nicholas's fear.2 It is, in this light, not
difficult to understand why he put the emperor off until Epiphany; he,
perhaps, thought that by then he would have been able to win over the
intransigent bishops of Arethas's party.
The Vita, however, takes a different approach to this volte-face between
6 August 906 and 25 December 906. It indicates that the emperor was tired
of Nicholas and decided that once he had gained admittance to the church
he would depose Nicholas on charges of treason in the Ducas affair.3
Nicholas learned of this plan and then decided on his policy of opposition.
Before going on to this new development in Nicholas's policy it is
necessary to clarify some points concerning the Byzantine ecclesiastical
factions.
The Byzantine Church for at least a century prior to this affair was
divided into two more or less clearly defined parties. It is impossible,
however, to see these factions as hard and fast groups. Rather there were
tendencies or attitudes which at various times would crystallise themselves
around certain individuals or incidents. We must keep this in mind because
after 907 some of the partisans will change their parties and positions
with regard to the fourth marriage and the application of economia.
The constitution of the various parties, which at this point can be
referred to by ninth century appellations of Photians and Ignatians, must
be clarified. Before 907, it is safe to say that Nicholas seems to have done
his best to get as many metropolitans as possible to agree to the dis-
pensation. Even the Vita witnesses to this fact. Nicholas, true to his
1
Noailles and Dain, op. cit., 298.
"Jenkins
3
and Laourdas, op. cit., 344.
V.E., xii. 79.
120
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 907
Photian background, was loyal to the emperor, but feared splitting the
Church by his actions.1
The other party, represented by Arethas,2 opposed Nicholas.
Euthymius, whose name will later be applied to one of these parties,
seems to have opposed Leo at this point but maintained a discreet
silence, no doubt out of concern for his friendship with the emperor.
Arethas, as the chief spokesman for the extremist group, makes Nicholas
the target of his attacks and abuse. On the continuity of the mental and
theological attitudes represented by Nicholas and Arethas, it is interesting
that the latter, in an attack on Nicholas, recalls Tarasius's dispensation of
Constantine vi. 3 We shall see these factional tendencies again emphasised
in the Tome of Union.
The crisis arrived on 6 January 907. Nicholas had had some vague
commitment from all the leading metropolitans that they would act in
concord or at least inform him of any move they made.* Nicholas had
hoped to have complete agreement among these metropolitans. Such was
obviously not the case. We can assume that Arethas was yet in the
opposition. The emperor arrived at the gates of the Great Church and was
again refused admittance by Nicholas. The Vita gives us the following
account: 5 'If the metropolitans do not agree, including the primate
Arethas himself, I am powerless; but if you try to take the law into your
own hands and enter, both I and those who are here with me will im-
mediately issue forth'. The Vita, sympathetic to Leo, continues:6 'Then
did Leo, the emperor, show royally as an emperor, for he cast himself
down to the ground' and complied with the patriarch's wishes. Then, as
at Christmas of the previous year, he entered the Great Church as a
penitent by the side door and left after the Gospel reading.
These statements, if taken at face value, can only lead to the assertion
that Nicholas sincerely feared a split in the Church; he finally had to
choose between loyalty to the emperor and peace in the Church and, if
the thesis taken here is correct, he chose the latter course of action.
In February 907, at the end of a court dinner, the emperor began a
vicious attack on Nicholas, accused him of treachery, and questioned him
as to why he had changed his mind after promising him entrance into
St. Sophia. He then informed the gathered metropolitans that he had
received a dispensation from pope Sergius 111, to whom, along with the
Eastern patriarchs, he had appealed.7 After much weeping and pleading
by the emperor for acceptance, several metropolitans yielded to his
requests. Those who did not agree, including Nicholas, were exiled to
reconsider the question. A council was held in the same month in the
1
Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 340.
2
3
Arethas had been a Photian until 901; cf. Arethas, Letter 1:2.
4
Ibid., 3:9.
5
Grumel, Reg., #611.
6
V.E., xii. 83.
Ibid.
' Ibid., 87.
121
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
presence of papal legates and a dispensation granted, recognising Leo's
marriage as an exceptional case.1 Nicholas resigned as patriarch and
Euthymius was installed immediately.
Arethas, after this council, continued his opposition and, after a short
exile, returned and made peace with Leo.2 Thus, the outspoken defender
of the purity of the canons suddenly appears as an exponent of imperial
prerogatives.
It seems that Nicholas did issue three formal resignations. He wrote
two letters to the emperor in which he claimed that his conscience would
not allow him to grant the dispensation without a unanimous decision and
for this reason he was stepping down to give someone else the opportunity
to seek a solution to the impasse.3 A third letter of resignation was sent to
the metropolitans. Nicholas indicated that he was tired of human conflicts
and for this reason was giving up the patriarchal throne. 4
After Nicholas resigned, a solution was reached whereby the emperor
was received back into the Church. Nicholas for various reasons was now
in disagreement with the decision. We are able to conclude that there was
in fact a change in Nicholas's position on the fourth marriage and its
acceptance under the umbrella o( economia. In 912 he began to claim that
he had not been able to employ economia during the crisis in good
conscience; this seems to a large extent to have been a fiction.5
There is no clear and exclusive understanding as to why Nicholas
resigned. Certainly a leading factor was Nicholas's oft expressed desire for
unanimity among the metropolitans so as to avoid a schism within the
Church on the question of the canonical issue of a fourth marriage. The
real irony of the affair was that after his resignation, a schism did ensue
and Nicholas became the leader of the so-called extremist party. As with
Ignatius a half century earlier, Nicholas's name became the symbol of
ecclesiastical opposition to the imperial interference in ecclesiastical
affairs. We are certainly safe in assuming that Nicholas's loss of power had
a great deal to do with his subsequent change of attitude towards the
emperor, the application of economia, and the threat of schism.
With Nicholas's resignation, the more moderate or Photian position
was led by the new patriarch Euthymius who had been selected to
replace him. His selection was the will of a good number of metropolitans
who appealed to him: 'You after God will we take for our shepherd and
archbishop. For with you in the Church there shall be not strife, nor
rebellion, nor quarrelling, but, expediently for all, one fold under one
shepherd'. 6 Euthymius at first refused the call but then accepted when he
was convinced that Nicholas had in fact legally resigned. He agreed to the
1
George Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate, London 1962, 132.
'Jenkins, op. cit., 225.
3
V.E., xiv. gg; cf. Grumel, Reg., #612, 613.
1
Ibid., 101; Grumel, Reg., 614.
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.
8
V.E., xv. 101.
122
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7
dispensation recognising Leo's fourth marriage on the basis that the
Roman pope and the patriarchs had given consent.1
How can we understand this radical volte-face of these two parties?
Jenkins offers a suggestion that casts some light on the shift of Euthymius
and Arethas. He suggests that the movement of partisans of the extremist
party to the support of the emperor's position was motivated by the desire
of some members of this party to gain power.2 We must keep in mind that
as inheritors of the Ignatian legacy they were effectively excluded from
ecclesiastical power since 877. Furthermore, they could in their acceptance
of the fourth marriage refer to the judgement of pope Sergius in to make
their shift in position less awkward. Such a move could be termed
opportunism, which they effectively pursued after their former intransi-
gence had constituted one factor in Nicholas's resignation. Of the leading
pre-907 extremists, only Nicetas of Pophlago remained and wrote a
scathing attack on Euthymius.3
Euthymius and the bishops supporting the decision of the council of
907 were now in power. Euthymius, however, did not go further than the
dispensation allowed by that synod. He seems to have maintained a
balanced position. We have nothing to indicate that he actually thought a
fourth marriage licit in principle, neither was he blindly submissive to the
imperial will. Zoe's relatives, for instance, had requested that Euthymius
should proclaim her Augusta in St Sophia. She had already been crowned
such by Leo, but Euthymius refused and the Vita makes it clear that he
was prepared to make only one concession, that is, the one agreed to at the
synod of 907.4
Zoe herself wrote twice asking for the same recognition and Euthymius
responded that her name would never appear in the 'sacred diptychs'.8
She pushed the question and asked for the re-instatement of the priest
Thomas who had performed the marriage; she appealed to Euthymius's
sense of duty to 'his sacred Majesty and ourself, but in particular your
godson, the lord Constantine Porphyrogenitus . . .'. 6 Such an appeal
should no doubt have fallen sympathetically on the ears of a Photian.
That it was rejected by Euthymius is another indication of the caution
which must be observed when dealing with these ninth- and tenth-
century ecclesiastical parties—they were not hard and fast organisations,
following predictable rules of behaviour.
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 dis-
pensation '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.
2
3
Jenkins and Laourdas, op. cit., 343.
4
V.E., xvi. 107.
5
Ibid., xvii. 115.
6
Ibid., 119; Grumel, Reg., #627, 628.
Ibid., Grumel, Reg., #629.
123
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
The schism of 907 involved a strange shift in the positions of several key
personalities and it is these changes which provide the foundation for
understanding the political-ecclesiastical situation in Constantinople
between 911 and 920.
Leo's ecclesiastical and political policy was directed towards one goal:
the unqualified recognition of Constantine's legitimacy by the Church of
Constantinople, the other patriarchs, and the people of the empire.
Despite his setback with the initial intransigence of Euthymius and the
schism which resulted after February 907, Leo had essentially achieved
his goal by 15 May 908, * when his son was crowned co-emperor. The
Macedonian house was assured, but the price paid was the resignation
(deposition?) of Nicholas and the consequent schism between the extremist
and moderate factions.
Leo died on 11 May 912, and Alexander, his brother and, until then,
nominal co-emperor, assumed the regency for Constantine. Alexander had
had a great dislike for his brother, whose legitimacy as a son of Basil 1 he
doubted. He sought to weaken Leo's policy and directed a good deal of
attention against Constantine, whose legitimacy kept Alexander from
assuming power in his own name. As might be expected, Alexander allied
himself with Nicholas who now replaced Euthymius on the patriarchal
throne in a move reminiscent of the alternation between Ignatius and
Photius in the previous century.
The details of Nicholas's restoration are not clear; Nicholas himself
in his famous letter to pope Anastasius claimed that he was restored by a
repentant Leo before the emperor's death. 2 Such, however, does not
appear to have been the case; the Vita makes it clear that Nicholas was
definitely restored under Alexander.3 Euthymius had offered to resign, a
move which was opposed by Arethas, but failed to do so quickly enough for
Alexander. The Vita gives the slowness of Euthymius's response as the
reason for the persecution which was to follow his forceful deposition by
Alexander.
Nicholas was actually restored to the see of Constantinople by a
council held at Magnaura and packed with Nicholaan bishops and
attended by Alexander.4 The meeting, as presented in the Vita, seems to
have proceeded on a very mean level, with verbal and physical assaults
launched at Euthymius. 5 At the end of the meeting, Euthymius was
exiled to the monastery of St. Agatho.
It cannot be doubted that the passion with which Nicholas threw
himself into the persecution of the Euthymians was motivated by a
desire for vengeance; Nicholas had, from his own point of view, suffered a
great humiliation in 907. Moreover, he regarded his replacement by
1
Cf. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 260 n. 3.
2
Nicholas, Ep. XXXII, in J. P. Migne, P.G., cxi. col 212.
3
V.E., xviii. i a i .
* Runciman, op. cit., 45.
5
V.E., xix. 127.
124
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 907
Euthymius five years earlier as unjust and the new patriarch as a usurper.
No doubt, Nicholas chose to forget at this point that he had earlier issued
several letters of resignation.
After Euthymius's degradation at Magnaura, Nicholas held another
meeting that reveals the full extent of Nicholas's persecution: 'On the
Sunday [following Euthymius's exile], Nicholas convened all his sub-
ordinates, pronounced anathemas, full and complete deposition and
estrangement, not only upon Euthymius himself, but on those who had
communicated with him, elected him, celebrated the holy rites with him
and been ordained by him, securing the same fearful oaths'. 1 Such was
the apparent intensity of Nicholas's desire for vengeance that he ordered
that the people of Constantinople were to give no aid or food to
Euthymius's foal, which pathetically roamed the city without its master. 2
During this persecution, the Euthymian opposition was not inactive.
The saintly Euthymius himself accepted his fate and was happy for the
opportunity to withdraw from tiresome worldly conflicts and pursue his
former monastic life. Effective leadership had passed to Arethas and the
empress Zoe. Zoe took up the battle against Nicholas and Alexander,
no doubt feeling that the two were keeping her from the power that was
rightly hers as the mother of Constantine.
The Euthymian reaction to Nicholas was increased by his close
alliance with Alexander, who, it seems, had involved himself in witchcraft.
Nicholas involved himself in another affair that was not characteristic of
the traditional extremist party; he married Alexander to his concubine
and his first wife was sent, against her will, to the convent of Mesokapilos.3
Nicholas was capable of great flexibility when the political situation
required it and his position was assured.
Arethas began his attack on Nicholas in a letter preserved in the
Vita.* He reminded Nicholas that he had issued three resignations and
that Euthymius's actions were therefore not unlawful. In an exchange of
letters, Nicholas charged Arethas with having violated a synodal agree-
ment of January 907, by which all of the metropolitans had agreed to
act in concord and to do nothing without Nicholas's knowledge.5 In
contradiction to the chronology offered above Nicholas charged that
instead of keeping this agreement, Arethas chose to go against it and side
with the emperor. Nicholas, moreover, clearly indicates that Arethas was
the leader of the opposition to him and his new policy: '[Arethas] drove
us from the flock; for though the emperor seemed to execute this, yet was
he the minister of your sentence, your decision; for you it is who, before

1
V.E., xix. 131; Grumel, Reg., #631.
3
Ibid., xix. 131.
3
Ibid., xx. 135.
• Ibid., 133.
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.
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
him and with him, plotted against us . . A 1 Nicholas continued that even
after his removal from office the emperor decided to bring him back and
Arethas convinced him against this. So we are able to conclude that, from
Nicholas's perspective, his resignation was not what it was presented to
be in the Vita. In effect, the resignation had become a leading issue and
Nicholas defended himself with the following argument: 'And what kind
of resignation is that of an exile, under the guard and custody of soldiers,
swords all but at his throat, not to mention the rest of the violence and
distress . . .?'. 2
Nicholas referred to several canons and informed Arethas that on the
basis of these he had already excommunicated himself. Arethas responded
caustically: 'It is the custom of the lowest scoundrel to hasten to turn and
accuse of their own ill-deed those who have suffered them'. 3 Arethas then
took up what became the prime issue, Nicholas's 907 resignation. From
Arethas's perspective, Nicholas had resigned, deserting his flock and thus
divorced himself from the Church. Arethas defends the metropolitans who
had agreed to the dispensation—they did not betray Nicholas. In effect,
they had agreed with his position: 'And it was because we realised that
this [the extremist position] was not in the line of the canons that we did
go over [to Nicholas's moderate position] . . .'. 4 Arethas is simply saying
that in 907 the metropolitans had decided to agree with Nicholas and grant
the dispensation to Leo. His letter expresses bewilderment at Nicholas's
shift to a harsher position after Epiphany 907. Even to his contemporaries
Nicholas presented a confusing and erratic pattern of behaviour.
Such is an outline of the polemic between the Euthymians and the
Nicholaans. Nicholas then turned to deal with the other source of his
'humiliation'—pope Sergius in. In 912, he wrote to pope Anastasius
optimistically informing him that the schism was at an end. He then went
on to attack the dispensation granted to Leo by Sergius, and requested
that Anastasius anathematise the 'authors' of the scandal; he diplo-
matically excluded both Sergius and the emperor Leo from the con-
demnation. 5 In this letter it is interesting that Nicholas adopted the line
of attack that characterised Arethas's position before 907. This letter was
never answered and Nicholas consequently removed the pope's name from
the sacred diptychs.6
The political events from this point moved fast and are rather detailed.
1
2
Nicholas, Guilt of the Bishops, 751.
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
3
his fall.
4
Arethas, In Defense, 757.
5
Ibid., 767.
Nicholas, Ep. xxxn, P.G., cxi. col. 195.
'Jenkins, op. cit., 228.
126
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7
They will be passed over and dealt with only inasmuch as they have
reference to Nicholas, the schism, or the general role played by the
patriarchate in state affairs.
Alexander died in 913, just thirteen months after assuming the
regency. He left the throne in the hands of his nephew; since Constantine
was only seven years old he was placed under the regency of a council of
which Nicholas had been designated the head. 1 Nicholas, true to his
vision of the patriarchate, took charge of the affairs of the palace and the
State and 'indeed all the government of the empire was ordered by his
lips'. 2 Zoe presented some opposition to this move and she was promptly
sent off to a convent as Sister Anna. 3 It is not difficult to see in this
episcopal exercise of secular power one of the reasons why the bishop of
Constantinople enjoyed an absolutely unique place in Byzantine
ecclesiastical structure and why his careful selection by the emperor was
so central to political stability.
Unfortunately for Nicholas, his one-man rule was to be short-lived.
Nicholas actually occupied a tenuous and compromised position. He
was exercising power in the name of Constantine vn, who, according to
the logic of his own position, was a bastard and had been crowned by an
illegitimate patriarch. If he ruled as regent, was he not in some way
recognising the dispensation granted by a council which he had rejected
and the legitimacy of a patriarch whom he considered a usurper ? This
apparently disturbed him little.
Nicholas's position was further weakened by his part in the unsuccessful
revolt of the military commander Constantine Ducas. Nicholas had not
only initiated the revolt when he thought Alexander was dying, but
brutally suppressed it when he discovered himself president of the regency
council, seemingly in complete control of the government. The brutality
and cynicism of this suppression won him a great many enemies.4
Another mistake which cost Nicholas a good deal of his support
was his outrageous concessions to Symeon of Bulgaria, who attacked
Constantinople in 913 in response to Alexander's indiscreet refusal to
continue paying tribute. Nicholas's response to the Bulgarian threat
beneath the walls of Constantinople constituted, in the minds of his
opponents within the government, a complete betrayal of the Macedonian
house. Nicholas had agreed to the marriage of the young Constantine
vn to a daughter of Symeon and actually crowned Symeon as emperor of
Bulgaria.5 The outrage was too much and in February 914, John Elads, a
member of the regency council, invited Sister Anna back to the palace as
defender of the Macedonian house.6

1
V.E., xxi. 137.
8
Ibid., xxi. 139
•' I lDid.
bid
4
Ibid., 137; Grumel, Reg., #640.
s
Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 262-3.
'Jenkins, op. cit., 232.
127
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
Zoe returned and immediately plotted Nicholas's overthrow; Nicholas
learning of the plot took refuge in the church of St. Sophia, the inside of
which, we are told, he had not seen for the past eight months.1 After
hiding there pathetically for twenty-two days, Nicholas agreed to resume
the patriarchal throne on Zoe's conditions: he was to remain totally
uninvolved in politics, mention Zoe in church prayers, and finally
proclaim her Augusta.2 We are again reminded of the difficulties of
speaking of factions as hard and fast groups. We here see Nicholas,
formerly the leader of the extremist party, agreeing to Zoe's conditions—
conditions which six years earlier the so-called moderate Euthymius had
refused. By February 914, Nicholas's Hildebrandine position of power had
been reduced to nothing.
Before continuing a chronological account of the development of the
schism, it is instructive to consider the circumstances surrounding the
reconciliation which occurred between Nicholas and Euthymius before
the latter's death on 4 August 917.3
Nicholas, the Vita recounts, went to Euthymius at the monastery of
St. Agatho and presented his position on the matter of the events of 907.
His account was essentially the same as that which he offered to Arethas
—he had been betrayed by the metropolitans and unjustly replaced on the
throne by Euthymius. Nicholas claimed that Euthymius drove him from
the patriarchal authority and then stole the position. Euthymius obviously
had a different interpretation of the events being recounted by Nicholas;
he answered Nicholas's charges: 'O Lord my God, if I have done this, if
even I desired to drive this man from the throne, if in this matter there be
injustice on my hands, may I be cast destitute down from thy everlasting
kingdom. But it is clear for all to see that through no choice of my own,
but perforce, at the request of the monarch and the whole senate, more—
at the persuasion of your own bishops, and with the dispensation of the
patriarchal representatives, did I accept. And they would have persuaded
you rather to do so, had not you, yourself, by three resignations [italics
mine] annulled your right in the Church, that was left forsaken, tossed
and troubled. But with all crying out that I bear the responsibility for
her—I do not mean the laity but the very synod—I gave way to their
unanimity. . . . Wherefore the many trials caused by envy have ever since
come upon me'. 4 From what can be distilled from this response to
Nicholas's attack, we can glean a perspective that will help to clarify the
events of 907. Actually, the schism seems to have been based not so much
on actual theological and canonical differences—we have seen that the
members of the respective factions basically agreed—as on personality
conflicts, supposed insults, and humiliations, and poor timing of events.
Nicholas, for instance, condemned the Euthymians for a certain pattern
1
a
V.E., xxi. 139.
3
Ibid., xxii, 143.
Ibid., 151.
* Ibid., 151-3.
128
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7
of behaviour that was actually based on the fact that he had resigned and
issued three letters to that effect. This is not, however, to say that the
schism as it developed did not have more content than it did at its origin;
insults and humiliations became a real aspect of the conflict especially in
912.
The Vita records that Nicholas responded to Euthymius's gentle
rebuke with the rather irrelevant comment that an 'adulterous union is
against the law'. The comment is irrelevant precisely because Euthymius
scrupulously avoided recognition of the fourth marriage of Leo on any
basis other than economia. A synod under his presidency actually con-
demned Leo's efforts to have fourth marriages legalised.
Euthymius responded to Nicholas's volley, saying that he had taken a
strong stand against Leo, and went no further than the synodal decision
allowed. He then brought up the matter of the priest Thomas: 'Whereafter
also the priest [Thomas] who had unblessedly blessed them I discovered
and bound in bonds not to be loosed, for his recklessness, because he acted
without the Synod's voice, whom you, the holy bishop, freed from his
interdict and ordered again to minister. But what have I done that is
unlawful in receiving the emperor weeping and repentant, resigned to his
punishment, into the church as far as the holy railings, when also the
patriarchs conceded it, and all the holy Synod?' 1 It seems from this
section that Nicholas actually restored Thomas to his priestly functions.
This may have been done simply because Nicholas refused to recognise the
validity of a Euthymian ecclesiastical deposition.
The exchange between the two partisans finally ended with Nicholas's
edifying comment that 'we are all men and fallible'. The Vita happily
offers us a remarkably objective presentation of the respective positions of
each party. It is apparent that the cases they brought against each other
were rather feeble.
Nicholas continued to visit St. Agatho and, just before Euthymius's
death, after much mutual self-incrimination they granted each other
forgiveness.2 Such are the details of the reconciliation between the two men
who lent their names to the ecclesiastical schism of 907.
The final stage of the affair is reached with the accession of Romanus
Lecapenus to the imperial power. The details of this process will not
concern us here. Suffice it to say that Zoe's government was seriously
weakened in 917 by the debacle of the defeat of her armies at the hands of
Symeon of Bulgaria. She sought to consolidate her position by forming
a marital alliance with Leo Phocas, the Domestic of the Scholae. The
emperor's tutor, Theodore, fearing the effect of such an alliance on the
rights of his student, persuaded Constantine to address a letter to Romanus
Lecapenus, Drungarius of the Fleet, inviting him to seize power.3 This

1
Ibid., xxii, 145.
2
Ibid., 149.
3
Jenkins, op. cit., 236.
129
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
was effectively accomplished on 25 March 919; the government was
overthrown and Zoe exiled once again as Sister Anna. 1
Romanus, having need of the support of the Church and an ally
against Zoe, maintained Nicholas on the patriarchal throne. On 21 April
919, Romanus consolidated his position by having his daughter Helena
engaged and married to Constantine vu; he himself assumed the title of
Basileopator,2 and then turned his attention to the restoration of eccle-
siastical peace, which had been effectively disrupted since 907 and
aggravated after 912 by Nicholas's persecution of Euthymius and his
supporters.
Before the formal elevation of Romanus to the imperial dignity, a
Council of Union met in July 920. The results of the conciliar decision were
embodied in the Tome of Union (Tomos Endseos) which, in essence, was a
confirmation of Nicholas's position. The fourth marriage was declared
illegitimate and invalid. Interestingly enough, this condemnation made
no direct reference to Leo vi or his marriage to Zoe.
The Tome opened with a reference to the fact that demonic forces
never cease their battle against the Church. Moreover, Christ re-
established peace and unity among his children and his bride, the Church.
Scandals in the past had been solved and so also was a solution reached to
the question of the fourth marriage and the schism engendered by it.
Fourth marriages were absolutely forbidden: 'We therefore decide by
our common judgement and decision that after [italics mine] this present
year,which is the year of the world's beginning six thousand four hundred
and twenty eight [920], none shall contract a fourth marriage, which is to
be absolutely rejected'.3 The Tome included no discussion of the question
and made no allowance for a penance. Such a marriage, if contracted, was
to be immediately dissolved. The inclusion of 'after' in the above passage
is so obvious that by its presence a question is cast on the situation prior to
920 and consequently on Leo's fourth marriage. In spite of the fact that
there was no outright condemnation of Leo, the firm and unequivocal
condemnation of fourth marriages could only serve Romanus's future
imperial plans in casting a doubt, however slight, on the legitimacy of
his son-in-law, Constantine vu. The Tome was a compromise statement
which was designed both to protect the needs of the Macedonian house
and to affirm the freedom of the Church in its proper sphere of moral
concern.
The Tome gave a great deal of attention to third marriages and
penitential conditions were established on a sliding scale. The point of the
third marriage discussion was essentially that no clear-cut principle could
be established, but each situation was to be judged individually.
The council decided that if a man were forty years old or older, he
1
Runciman, op. cit., 58.
"- Ibid., 60.
s
Tomos Enoseos, 5; in G. A. Rhalles and M. Potles (cds.), Syntagma Theion kai Icron
Kanonon, v, Athens 1855, 7.
130
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7
might contract a third marriage provided that he had no children from a
previous marriage. The penance for such a union was prescribed as
five years abstinence from Holy Communion. If a man had had children
from a previous marriage and he was forty years old, a third marriage was
forbidden him. If, however, a man were thirty years old with children
from a previous marriage, he might marry a third time after four years'
period of penance.1
In a very real sense, the Tome was a living document of ecclesiastical
unity and peace and like the earlier published Synodikon of Orthodoxy
(843), would be used as a public proclamation of this harmony. For
instance, names seem to have been added to it posterior to 920.2 For the
concern of this paper, the Tome whole-heartedly blessed the memories of
the late patriarchs who had been involved in ecclesiastical party conflicts
from the late eighth century up to 920—Germanus, Tarasius, Nicephorus,
Methodius, Ignatius, Photius, Stephen, Anthony, and Euthymius, all of
whom were cited as '. . . Orthodox patriarchs, memory eternal!' 3 It was
clear that this document was intended to be an affirmation that all
ecclesiastical schisms and party conflicts of the past were at an end and the
various opponents reconciled. Thus, with the exception of a few in-
transigent Euthymians, this council and the Tome of Union restored
ecclesiastical peace to early tenth-century Byzantium. Only one factor
remained to be dealt with and that was the de facto schism existing since
912 between Rome and Constantinople. Nicholas's letter of 912 to pope
Anastasius had never been answered; Nicholas, at the urging of Romanus,
sent several more letters to Rome where John x was the current pontiff.
He invited John to send legates to Constantinople to end the scandal of the
tetragamia, which was partially created by the interference of Sergius in,
and to regularise relations between the two Churches.* Nicholas had
informed John that several Euthymians yet remained outside of the
settlement of 920. Nicholas's eagerness to have papal legates condemn the
action of Sergius may have had its source in the fact that the Euthymian
intransigents continued to use Sergius's dispensation as a pretext to oppose
Nicholas's settlement of 920.5
Finally, in 923, John x sent two bishops to Constantinople. Eastern
sources record the fact that they anathematised the tetragamia and re-
established concord between the two Churches.6 So it was in this matter,
Ubid.,
3
7-8.
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, 1. 36 in B. G. Niebuhr (ed.)
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, i, Bonn 1839. Cf. the commentary on this service
by A. Vogt, Commentaire sur le Livre des Ckrtmonws, Paris 1935, 174.
3
Tomos Enoseos, 7.
4
Nicholas, Ep. LVI, P.G., cxi, col. 257.
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.
6
Nicholas, Ep. xxvm, P.G., cxi, cols. 176-81.
 JOHN L. BOOJAMRA
as in that of the Euthymian schism, that Nicholas and the position which
he maintained were victorious.
In the affair of the Tetragamia, we witness a lively interplay of forces
in a society that has been traditionally regarded as monolithic, autocratic,
and sterile. In general, the emperor was able to accomplish his will;
somehow he was looked upon by the Church as an exceptional layman
whose position bordered on the sacerdotal. In numerous practical ways,
such as the appointment or deposition of the bishop of Constantinople, he
was able to effect his will in church affairs. We have seen how the choice
of a patriarch and his personality determined the type or extent of eccle-
siastical opposition to imperial interference.
No doubt, Leo selected Nicholas for the patriarchal throne because he
represented a party in Byzantine society that had been traditionally
responsive to the emperor's will and political exigencies. The patriarch
always had a certain moral authority and, depending on his personality,
this could win him great prestige among the people; if his position was
in keeping with tradition, he could often count on the firm support of the
monastic as well as the general urban population.
In rare and exceptional cases the emperor's will would be questioned
and challenged. These cases generally involved the content of the faith
or the Christian life and morality. Such was the context of Nicholas's
opposition to the actions of Leo vi. The often mean nature of Nicholas's
actions and the advantage he took of political situations in no way detract
from this conclusion; the point is that when it was necessary the patriarch
could muster and lead the opposition even from exile against imperial
transgression of Christian order or life.
The party rivalries which had existed as part of Byzantine life, and had
been especially exacerbated by the eighth-century iconoclastic struggle,
continued to play a prominent role in political and ecclesiastical affairs.
The affair of the Tetragamia is, however, a warning to anyone who would
consider these factions as hard and fast groups or formal parties. They
cannot rightly be seen as well defined over any long period of time; their
membership was continually changing and their positions often overlapped
those of their 'opponent'. We are, moreover, forced to the conclusion, on
the basis of the events of 907 and the following years, that the distinguishing
mark of these two 'tendencies' in Byzantine ecclesiastical life was the
manner in which they saw the emperor's role. The Ignatians were those
who traditionally refused to bow to the imperial will and saw the law of
God as supreme; this was carried on in the early tenth century by the
Nicholaans. The Photians, on the other hand, were those who traditionally
bowed to the emperor's will and imperial necessity; this position was
continued in the early tenth century by the Euthymians. The real question
in this struggle was not the propriety of the fourth marriage—both groups
were opposed to this—but the degree to which the imperial will should be
accommodated by the Church.
The simplicity of the issue was greatly complicated by the radical
132
 THE EASTERN SCHISM OF 9 0 7

volte-face of many of the protagonists in the period 906-7. Furthermore,

the details of the schism as it developed revealed all too adequately the
humanity and fallibility of the characters involved. What exactly drove
Nicholas to the extreme position he held? Was it the humiliation he
thought he had suffered at the hands of Euthymius ? What, then, explains
the attitude of Arethas? Was it wilfulness or the passionate desire for
power ? The fact that Nicholas at first condoned and then condemned the
tetragamia and Arethas at first condemned and then condoned the same
act leads to the conclusion that the affair was actually increased in
intensity by the personalities involved.
Other factors involved in the affair were the role of Rome and an
increased emphasis on dynastic continuity and legitimacy in Byzantine
political life. The entire affair, including the 'traditional' appeal to Rome,
was aimed at one goal—the establishment of Constantine vn on the
imperial throne. The success of Leo's policy cannot be really disputed;
Constantine vn, albeit under the tutelage of Romanus Lecapenus
until 944, did manage to rule until 957 and the Macedonian house for
another hundred years. On the other hand, the Church, in the decision
of 920, firmly maintained its theology of Christian life and its freedom
from imperial control. Unfortunately, Leo achieved his end at the
price of internal ecclesiastical peace and schism between Rome and
Constantinople.

133