The Arsenites.

        Besides the question of union Byzantium was agitated during the reign of Michael by the struggle of religious-political parties, the most nmportant of which was concerned with the so-called Arsenites.

        Beginning with the twelfth century, there were two irreconcilably opposing parties in the Byzantine church which were struggling for influence and power in ecclesiastical administration. One of those parties is called in Byzantine sources the “zealots” (ζηλωται), the other the “politicians” (πολιτικοι) or moderates;[249] church historian A. Lebedev styled this party “by the modern French parliamentary term of opportunists.”[250]

        The zealots, champions of the freedom and independence of the church, were opposed to state interference in church affairs, a point of view which brought them into continual collision with the emperor. In this respect the zealots’ ideas resembled those of the famous Theodore of Studion who in the ninth century openly spoke and wrote against imperial interference with church affairs. The zealots would not make any concession to the imperial power; they wished to submit the Emperor to severe ecclesiastical discipline, and were fearless of any collision with the government or society that might arise from their ideas. Accordingly, they became involved at various times in political troubles and disorders and gained the reputation of a party political as well as ecclesiastical. They could not boast of much education and took no care to have an educated clergy, but they faithfully observed the rules of strict morality and austerity. In the struggle with their opponents they were often supported by the monks, and in the moments of their triumph they opened to the monks the way to power and activity. A historian of that time, Gregoras, noted that one patriarch “could not even read correctly.”[251] Describing the spirit prevailing among the monks when a zealot became patriarch the same historian wrote: “It seemed to these malignant monks that after storm and troubles calm had come, and after winter, spring.”[252] Strict supporters of Orthodoxy, the zealots were stubbornly opposed to Michael’s inclination to the union, and they had great influence with the mass of the people.

        The politicians or moderates were directly opposed to the zealots. They stood for state support of the church and co-operation between church and state; accordingly they did not object to the exerting of state influence on the church. They believed that a strong temporal power unrestrained by external interference was essential for the well-being of a nation; therefore they were ready to make considerable concessions to the imperial power. They followed the so-called theory of “economy,” which stated that the church in its relation to the state should accommodate itself to circumstances; to justify the theory of economy the politicians usually referred to the life of the Apostles and the Holy Fathers. Recognizing the importance of education, they tried to fill the ecclesiastical offices with cultured and educated men. As they interpreted the rules of strict morality rather liberally and lacked sympathy with severe asceticism, the politicians sought support not among the monks, but among the secular clergy and the educated classes of society.

        Naturally, the activities of both parties greatly differed. The Russian church historian A. Lebedev, said: “When the politicians were acting on the church stage, they put their theories into effect smoothly and with comparative peace; on the contrary, when the zealots had the reins of government, relying upon so changeable an element in Byzantium as the monks and, to some degree, the mob, they always acted noisily, often stormily, and sometimes even seditiously.”[253] The majority of the politicians were in favor of the Union of Lyons, giving their support to the religious policy of Michael Palaeologus.

        The struggles between the zealots and politicians, the origin of which some scholars trace back to the epoch of iconoclasm and the disputes between the Ignatians and Photians in the ninth century, were felt, of course, by the people and aroused great agitation. Sometimes matters came to such a pass that one house and one family held representatives of both parties; a historian of that time said; “The church schism has reached such a point that it separates the dwellers of one house: father is opposed to son, mother to daughter, sister-in-law to mother-in-law.”[254]

        Under Michael Palaeologus the zealots, or, as they were sometimes called at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century, the Arsenites, displayed intensive activity. The word Arsentte comes from the name of Patriarch Arsenius, who twice mounted the patriarchal throne, the first time at Nicaea, the second time at Constantinople after the restoration of the Empire. A man of little scholarship, Arsenius was chosen patriarch by the Emperor of Nicaea, Theodore II Lascaris, who hoped that Arsenius, exalted beyond his merits, would be a mere tool in the Emperor’s hands. But Theodore’s expectations were not fulfilled. The administration of Arsenius was marked by severe collisions with the Emperor and led to the formation first of the party and then of the schism of the “Arsenites,” which agitated the Greek church for several decades. Arsenius did not hesitate to excommunicate Michael Palaeologus, who, contrary to his oath, had dethroned and blinded the unfortunate John IV Lascaris, the last Emperor of Nicaea. The infuriated Emperor deposed Arsenius and sent him into exile, where he died. Arsenius considered his deposition and the ordination of the new patriarchs of Constantinople misdeeds which were bringing about the ruin of the church. Arsenius’ ideas roused the people and found not a few partisans among both clergy and laymen. The result was the formation of the schism of the “Arsenites,” who chose as their motto a sentence of the Apostle Paul: “Touch not … handle not” (Coloss. 2:21), i.e. touch not those whom Arsenius has condemned. Eager guardians of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Arsenites are distinguished from the zealots only by their position in regard to the Patriarch Arsenius.

        The Arsenites gained strong support from the people, among whom they sent secret agents, pilgrims and vagrants, called by the populace “godly men” and by a historian, Pachymeres, “wearers of sackcloth” (σακκοφοροι),[255] who made their way into many families and sowed there the seeds of schism. A Russian church historian, J. E. Troizky, described the situation as follows:

There was in the Byzantine Empire a force, dark and unrecognized. It was a strange force. It had no name, and revealed itself only in moments of emergency. It was complicated, intricate, and of doubtful origin and character. It consisted of the most manifold elements. Its members were beggars, “wearers of sackcloth,” pilgrims simpletons, obscure wanderers, madmen, and other disreputable people — men of unknown origin, without settled homes. For various reasons they were joined by disgraced dignitaries, deposed bishops, interdicted priests, monks expelled from their monasteries, and sometimes even by dishonored members of the imperial family. The spirit of this party was determined by its origin and composition. Created by abnormal social conditions, it offered a secret opposition, in general passive but effective, to these conditions and to the power responsible for them, that is, the imperial power. This opposition was usually expressed by spreading rumors which more or less compromised persons in government authority. This force seldom ventured openly to provoke political punishment, but it often seriously affected the government, whose fear was the greater, because, on the one hand, the secret activity was very difficult to trace, and, on the other hand, it had a great effect on the social organization. The people, miserable, depressed, and ignorant, and therefore credulous and superstitious, constantly persecuted both by external enemies and state officials, burdened with exorbitant taxes, and crushed under the pressure of the privileged classes and foreign merchant monopolists — the people were very easily influenced by the insinuations coming from the out-of-the-way places where lived the representatives of the secret force. This was the more true because the force, formed from the people and subject to the conditions under which they lived, had the secret of playing upon their feelings at the decisive moment. The populace of the capital itself was particularly affected by these insinuations … This force in its opposition to the government used different slogans; but its opposition was particularly dangerous to the head of the state, when upon its banner was exhibited the magic word “Orthodoxy.”[256]

Under Michael Palaeologus the partisans of the blinded ex-Emperor John Lascaris joined the Arsenites.

        The government of Michael Palaeologus resorted to measures of compulsion and severity and the Arsenites were forced to flee from the capital, where their activity had been almost exclusively concentrated. The provinces were now open to their propaganda, and the provincial population, in huge crowds, thronged to listen to their inflammatory speeches condemning the Emperor and exalting the deposed patriarch. Arsenius’ death failed to put an end to the schism, and the struggle continued. As J. Troizky said, the struggle of the parties under Michael, “by its feverish animation and unscrupulousness, reminds us of the stormiest times of the heresy struggles in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries.”[257]

        The Union of Lyons changed in many respects the position of the Arsenite party. The question of union presented a broader interest, for it touched the main foundation of the Greek church — Orthodoxy. The Arsenites with their narrow interests and biased speculations were pushed temporarily into the background; the attention of the government and people was turned almost exclusively to the problem of the union. This fact explains the almost complete silence of the sources upon the activity of the Arsenites from the time of the Union of Lyons to the death of Michael VIII. There is a rather hazy indication that in 1278 an Arsenite council was held in Thessaly or Epirus; its chief aim was to secure the triumph of the Arsenite cause and to glorify Arsenius’ memory.[258]

        Feeling this stubborn opposition, open and secret, to his plans for union, Michael behaved with great cruelty in the last years of his reign.

        His successor and son Andronicus II inherited from his father two difficult problems in the ecclesiastical life of the Empire: the union, and the strife between the Arsenites and the official church. First of all, the new Emperor solemnly renounced the union and restored Orthodoxy. A historian of that time wrote: “Envoys were sent everywhere carrying the imperial decrees which announced the settlement of the church disorders, free return to all those who had been exiled for their zeal in church affairs, and an amnesty to those who had suffered in any other way.”[259] The carrying out of this measure presented no great difficulties, because the great majority of the Eastern clergy and population was opposed to the union with the Roman church. The Union of Lyons lasted formally for eight years (1274-82).

        The abolition of the union meant the triumph of the ideas of the zealots and Arsenites, who were the convinced enemies of union, the “uniates,” and of everything Latin. But the Arsenites were not satisfied. They took part on the side of Lascaris in a political plot against the Emperor, hoping, in the case of success, to obtain exclusive influence in the state. But the conspiracy was disclosed in time and put down; thereafter the Arsenite schism gradually disappeared and did not survive Andronicus the Elder, who, in spite of many troubles from the Arsenites, finally consented to their solemn reconciliation with the church. After the reconciliation, a few of the schismatic Arsenites “seceded from the agreement and began to live apart in schism again;”[260] but J. Troizky, said this was “the last convulsion before the death of the out-of-date movement, which at that time found no support anywhere, and soon disappeared, leaving no trace, along with its last followers, giving place to new civil and ecclesiastical troubles.”[261]

        Towards the end of the thirteenth century, in connection with the abolition of the union and triumph of the Orthodox policy, the party of the zealots, who placed their reliance upon the monks and monastic ideals, increased in power. In the fourteenth century they showed vigorous activity not limited to church problems, but extended to politics and social movements. For example, the zealots took an active part in the troubles of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century, pursuing some political aims which have not yet been satisfactorily elucidated, and they sided with Emperor John V Palaeologus against Cantacuzene; for this reason Iorga called the zealots “legitimists.” An interesting attempt to expound the political ideology of the zealots, on the basis of an unpublished oration of the famous Byzantine mystic Nicholas Cabasilas has been recently made by the Roumanian scholar Tafrali.[263]

        In the first half of the fourteenth century the zealots and monks gradually got the upper hand of the secular clergy. This movement ended in the complete triumph of the Athenian monks over the patriarchate of Constantinople in the epoch of the so-called Hesychast controversies. This period saw the last patriarch elected from the state officials and the last patriarch elected from the secular clergy. “From this time on the highest posts in the hierarchy are exclusively occupied by monks, and the patriarchal throne of Constantinople becomes for a long time the property of the representatives of Mt. Athos.”[264]

        Under Andronicus II the Elder an important change in the administration of Athos took place. At the end of the eleventh century Alexius Comnenus had freed Athos from submission to any outside ecclesiastical or civil power and placed the monasteries of Athos under the control of the Emperor alone. He ordained the protos, that is to say, the head of the council of abbots (igumens), to whom the administration of the monasteries was entrusted. Andronicus the Elder renounced direct power over Mount Athos and handed the monasteries over to the patriarch of Constantinople, who was to ordain the protos. In the imperial charter (chrysobull) granted on this occasion, the protos of Mount Athos, this “second paradise or starry heaven or refuge of all virtues,” was to be “under the great spiritual power of the Patriarch.”[265]

        With the name of Andronicus the Elder is connected the last important reform of the ecclesiastical organization in the history of Byzantium, a new distribution of the eparchies in accordance with the reduced territory of the Empire. In spite of some changes under the Comneni and Angeli, the distribution of the eparchies and episcopal sees at the end of the thirteenth century corresponded nominally to the distribution usually ascribed to Leo the Wise in about 900. But in the thirteenth century circumstances completely changed. The territory of the Empire was reduced: Asia Minor was almost entirely lost; in Europe, the Slavonic and Latin states occupied the major part of the land which had belonged before to the Empire. Nevertheless “the list of the metropoles submitted to the Apostolic and Patriarchal throne of the city protected by God, Constantinople,”[266] which was drawn up under Andronicus the Elder, entirely disregards the modest extent of the territory of the Empire: the list enumerates a long line of cities in foreign regions and lands, which in ecclesiastical respects were subject to the patriarch of Constantinople. Of the more distant points indicated in this list one may notice several metropoles in the Caucasian regions, in the Crimea, Russia, Galich, and Lithuania. The distribution of the metropoles under Andronicus the Elder is also important, because with some changes which were introduced later, it is still in force in Constantinople. “The list at present in force of the metropoles of the Oecumenical throne,” wrote a Russian specialist in the field of the Christian East, J. Sokolov, “goes back to ancient times and in one part is a direct and undoubted continuation from the Byzantine epoch.”[267]