Marriage and Its Implications in the Byzantine Era - Essay Example

Karina Chaikhoutdinov Byzantine Art – Ball Marriage and Its Implications of Power for Byzantine Ladies The Byzantine era was rather typical when one considers the lowly status assigned to women and the shoddy treatment they received. However, for women belonging to the aristocracy, the situation was not quite as dismal as might be expected under the circumstances. According to Grubbs, “The law determined, according to status, the sexual relationships and roles open to a woman, and the amount of protection from violence or exploitation she could expect.”1 Marriage, likewise, enhanced the status of aristocratic women by giving them a share in the power wielded by their consorts. Sometimes, they were even able to exercise power themselves thanks to their husband’s authority. It may be argued that this is an absurd notion, given that the institution of marriage largely subscribed to the repressive atmosphere of the time and was designed to subjugate women. However, a study of intrepid women of the Byzantine era reveals that by using marriage as a tool, they were able to siphon off the lion’s share of power enjoyed by men. This siphoning of power from the men by women through the institution of marriage, while not necessarily evident in the documentary record, can nevertheless be traced through the art produced during this period. The idea that women held a power all their own is evident not only in the pictorial records of the church, such as in depictions of the Virgin Mary and female saints, but also in the female patronage of religious artwork and in the artwork of the state. In regards to the Byzantine Empire, Nicol says, “Its people and their rules were conservative by instinct.”2 The length of the period, spanning from roughly the fourth through the fifteenth centuries, provides ample evidence to be studied. Much of this study has focused upon the religious art that was produced during this time. According to the Christian worldview, the female gender was single-handedly responsible for the fall of man and had been given into man’s keeping by God himself. The degree to which a woman epitomized the ideals of genteel womanhood was the degree to which she brought honor and respectability to the man with whom she is most associated. Thus, in keeping with the spirit of the times, women were usually treated like commodities, jealously guarded and secreted away regardless of their status. Most women had their spirit destroyed by a life of unceasing servitude to their male masters, religious rigidity and a lack of opportunity to develop their talents. The church played a powerful role in subjugating women, often containing legal stipulations which limited the actions of women as a means of preventing defilement and impurity.3 By dint of law and religious tradition, women were seen as nothing more than empty vessels to be filled and used by men, yet they still managed to find a way of gaining attention even in the strictest of religious circles by virtue of the Virgin Mary. According to the National Gallery of Art, western artists who worked on panels turned to the Christian East for inspiration. These influences can be traced through the techniques, style, and subject matter of Byzantine icons. For Byzantine Christians, as well as for many Orthodox Christians today, the icon was a true copy of its holy model.4 In addition, no holy model could be complete without the presence of the women of the Bible. One example of how the Virgin Mary helped to establish that women had power in their own right can be found in a thirteenth century panel in the collection of the National Gallery of Art.5 The Madonna, 13th Century Within this panel, the Madonna is sitting on a three-dimensional throne with a stool for her feet, indicating her nobility. She is richly dressed in blue cloth to designate her purity. The cloth includes several delicate striations of gold that also serve to signify her divinity. This idea is then reinforced by the fact that the Madonna is pointing to Jesus and is, thus, showing the way for the world. “With her red shoes and the archangels’ imperial regalia, the elaborate throne underscores Mary’s role as queen of Heaven.”6 Since religion was one area in which women were allowed to directly participate as an outward sign of their own purity and chastity, this image conveyed a great deal of female power. In addition to depictions of the Madonna, the idea that women gained a greater share of power within the religious realm than has previously been credited them is evident in the many depictions of female saints within those institutions where the function of the church did not otherwise preclude their inclusion. An example of where female images might have been precluded as a result of the function of the church is found in the male-centered monasteries, where women entered only upon rare occasions.7 In the church of the Virgin Blachernitissa near Arta, evidence exists that the church was once used as a nunnery and, contains one of the more revealing images regarding the importance of women to the regular worship cycles of the early Byzantine. According to Gerstal8, there had been a tradition in Constantinople for the Hodegetria icon to be carried in a special procession through the city every Tuesday. This event is not only commemorated in the Blachernitissa narthex, evidence of it exists in the written accounts of pilgrims who attended the event, who often referred to the diversity of the crowds that came to watch. It is immediately clear, looking at this image, that women played an important role in this weekly celebration since the people pictured in the foreground are all women. Women also surround the icon-carriers as it makes its way through the streets, and the male onlookers that are present are only pictured at the back of the crowd. “Myrtali Potamianou has suggested that three of the women depicted in the foreground were members or relatives of the ruling family of Epiros. Their inclusion, and the artistic emphasis on female attendance at the Constantinopolotan procession, would have resonated loudly with the Blachernitissa’s nuns, who could, by visual association, undertake their own symbolic pilgrimage to the capital in order to venerate the all-holy icon.”9 Other female saints that were frequently portrayed, most often on the north walls of cosmopolitan churches, included Saints Catherine, Helena, Barbara, Panteleimon, Juliane, Marina and Anna, as well as other female saints that have not been identified. The fact that so many female saints were in existence helps to illustrate the fact that while women might have been expected to take a subservient position to men, they were nevertheless influential within their worlds. This is also emphasized by the idea that they were honored enough to be placed in positions that reminded not just female church-goers but male attendants as well, of the contribution of women to the Christian cause. This is evidenced not only in their inclusion in the decorations of the church, in addition to their primary role in the naming of churches, cities and other significant social constructs, but also in their ability to become saints at all. According to Gerstel, the images of female saints that are found throughout small churches served as intercessory figures for women as well as delimiters of female space and ritual.10 While this can be interpreted that women had separate worship spaces as a means of cutting them off from the more important worship services of men, the presence of the female saints indicates that this was not necessarily the case. Instead, they demonstrate how women were frequently involved in all areas of worship. The presence of the female saints merely designated specific areas of the church reserved for the various functions that were intended to take place, such as baptisms, marriage ceremonies and funeral services. Within the churches, female patrons also played a large role in ensuring that women were duly represented within the artwork. Gerstel reports that the unusual placement of a monumental image of St. Kalliope in the thirteenth-century church of the Transfiguration in Pyrgi, Euboia is actually the result of proven female patronage. According to a preserved inscription, the image was commissioned by a woman named Kale Meledone.11 Image of Saint Kalliope in Pyrgi, Euboia Other female saints positioned in unusual places also tend to be linked with female patrons, such as the placement of Saint Catherine in the north burial church of the Penteli Caves in Attica and Saint Glykeria in Omorphi Ekkesia in Athens. The unusual aspect about their placement is that they are positioned in places that were normally reserved for holy bishops or church authors. The fact that women are present in these spaces brings into question the true nature of female influence on the decorative programs of these smaller country churches.12 According to Gerstel, the patronage of the church images often provided the donor with access to the church altar, regardless of whether the patron was male or female, again indicating that the women of the Byzantine period had often found some means of circumnavigating the subservient roles to which they had been relegated to adopt more powerful and influential positions within the society. Given the prescribed roles allotted for women of all classes, aristocratic women in particular typically found that marriage opened an avenue for all kinds of possibilities, besides providing financial security for life. Ladies who married into royalty could choose to live an indolent life of pleasure, (replace that “or” with a comma) make their mark in politics or, as has been seen, even in religion, through subtle or direct means. The empress, though recognized as a luminous presence, had to bow down before the authority of her husband. Nevertheless, there have been instances where she assumed the duties of the emperor, such as when he was off waging wars, and thereby served in an executive capacity. For example, she could serve as a regent, if the emperor died. Through these associations, her sphere of influence could extend to religious as well as legal matters and, of course, to matters directly pertaining to affairs of the throne. According to Garland, “While the empress’s constitutional importance was never defined, it was accepted that by her coronation, which was performed by her husband after the patriarch had prayed over the crown, an Augusta acquired something of imperial power…”13 The church, despite curtailing the rights and privileges of women, protected them from their philandering husbands. “One result of the Christian influence on Roman marriage law was to make bigamy for the first time a crime in the empire.”14 One begins to wonder how much of the church’s influence was itself influenced by the women themselves, as they provided the funds to decorate the church and served as saints of the family and home in their own right. Through this development, the ties of marriage finally began to provide women with real security. The most acclaimed women of this period were the empresses Theodora, Irene and Euphrosyne.15 While the power each of these women wielded originated with their male counterparts – husbands, fathers, sons – each of them demonstrated what might have then been considered a masculine ruthlessness in order to influence the exterior affairs of all the citizens within their realm. Rather than taking subservient positions to the men of their husbands’ councils, each of these women were recognized as rulers in their own right after the deaths of their husbands, sometimes even refusing to turn over the regency to their sons upon coming of age. Through these women, despite the inferior status accorded to the female gender, this era had its fair share of powerful, dominant female figures who made their presence felt in the pages of history and whose ambition and drive are preserved along with their images in the artwork of the period just as are the female saints of antiquity. The first of these women was the Empress Irene (752-803), who gained control of the Byzantine Empire through the death of her husband, Emperor Leo IV, when her son, Constantine VI was just 10 years old.16 Her regal image, frequently appearing with crown-like head adornments and richly decorated clothing, was almost always accompanied with some form of indication of her power, as in this portrait in which she is seen handling a piece of legislation. Although supposedly only acting as regent for her son until he came of age to take the throne himself, Irene ruthlessly had him seized, flogged and blinded before declaring herself Emperor and becoming the first female ruler of the Byzantine world.17 This hardness of her spirit is captured even in this small portrait as the set of her lips and the turn of her eyes tends to indicate. If the image were to be compared to comparable poses of male rulers, a similarity of eyes and lips would be noted. Ignatios is quoted as saying “Irene was a mere woman, but she possessed both the love of God and firmness of understanding, if it is right to give the name of woman to one who surpassed even men in the piety of her understanding.18 Given the struggles she must have endured in order to retain power following first her husband’s death and then her own betrayal of her son (which was a long, drawn out affair involving several shifts in power before she finally managed to blind and subsequently kill him) it should not be surprising to learn that Irene was also instrumental in reinstituting the use of icons within the church, providing her with long-ranging influence in political as well as religious matters. Her importance in the continued use of icons within the church is reflected in many images of her and gained her the title of Saint Irene within the church itself. 19 St. Irene “She had Tarasius, one of her supporters, elected head of the Byzantine Church in 784. Together, Irene and Tarasius called together more than 300 bishops to formally reject iconoclasm [the practice of rejecting the icons of the church in favor of what they represented]. At the end of this meeting, known as the Second Council of Nicaea, the bishops declared that icons should be venerated but not worshiped.”20 In the above image of her, she is shown complete with a crown-like headdress and stern expression as befitted the Empress of Byzantium, but also crowned with the suggestion of a halo and holding a cross to symbolize the necessity of including icons within religious ceremonies. It was perhaps only because her father abandoned her and her mother to a nunnery while she was still very young that Euphrosyne managed to survive her brutal relative Irene in order to eventually become Empress of Byzantium on her own. This occurred as a result of then-typical political behavior when Michael II of Amorion wished to validate his seizure of the throne through a marital connection with the traditional royal house.21 Euphrosyne After her husband’s death, she, too, served as regent to the throne, continuing the push to include icons in religious ceremonies and struggling to keep what remained of the empire together until her son was of the proper age to ascend the throne himself. According to the record, she was instrumental in helping him select his wife, the next great empress, Theodora.22 The relative lack of images of her on record reflect the lesser degree of power she wielded within her time, yet she is still pictured with the hint of a halo surrounding her head as it is reflected in her regal headdress and she continues to hold a balance of power in her hand. Theodora is perhaps the best known of these three empresses of the Byzantine Empire, primarily because of the tremendous mosaics and other artwork that had been created in honor of her power and influence. Perhaps the best example of this is the monumental double mosaic at San Vitale in Ravenna.23 The Great Mosaic of Theodora and Attendants, Ravenna In this image, the depiction of Theodora is believed to be a relatively realistic portrait of the women who would lay the foundations for future Empresses to gain power. She is pictured dripping with pearls and riches and under a shell alcove completing the idea of the Venus symbology with which she associated herself. At the same time, she is haloed as a saint in a manner similar to her husband and appears as the center of focus for her mosaic, indicating, at least, the same degree of power as her male counterpart. While Justinian carries the Holy Host, Theodora carries the chalice for the Holy Wine, indicating, again, equality with her husband and a power that supercedes that of even the highest order of priests. It has been suggested that the officials, opening the curtain on her right side are symbolically parting the Temple Veil for her in preparation for her entry into a Holy of Holies. This is despite the executions she ordered as a means of eliminating her rivals or the suspicions that she was the real power behind Justinian’s throne. With a throne equal to his, it is believed she at least had a tremendous ability to influence her husband.24 This observation is supported by other evidence that suggests Theodora had strength of character that far surpassed her husband’s in personal matters and in matters of state. Reports indicate that she was unflinching in her rule as empress and became Justinian’s backbone in the Nika revolt. When he would have run, Theodora indicated she preferred death to abdication or flight when she said “Imperial purple makes a very fine shroud.”25 Investigations of the mosaic have indicated that the ladies waiting upon Theodora have much more royalty in their ancestry than Theodora herself, some even suggested to be the actual descendents of Constantine (the founder of Byzantium) yet it was Theodora who was co-ruler with Justinian and Theodora who maintained center stage in the artwork produced during her time. Although they had to do it by stealing or otherwise gaining power from their husbands in most cases, women of the Byzantine era can be seen through the artwork produced to have held a good deal of power and influence on the world around them. Far from being forgotten in some back room of her husband’s or father’s house, as much literature suggests, these women were able to keep their gender at the forefront of attention in political and religious circles through their patronage and their power. Females ruling over the people did so as a genderless being, as women were not known to have the kind of strength of character necessary for the kind of ruthless dealings that had to take place at the level of Emperor. They were also not considered to be in position to make decisions regarding finances, spending or art patronage, yet they have been proven to have done so. In accomplishing power of leadership and power of patronage, women demonstrated that even without any official form of power, they were capable of taking enough control to keep their memories alive throughout the centuries. Works Cited Brundage, James. Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. London: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Christensen, Martin K.I. “Women in Power: 750-1000.” Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership. (April 4, 2007). May 1, 2007 Garland, Lynda. Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium Ad 527 – 1204. London: Routledge, 1999. Gerstel, Sharon E.J. “Painted Sources for Female Piety in Medieval Byzantium.” Dunbarton Oaks Papers. Harvard University, 1998, 89-111. Gibbs, Laura. “Saint Irene.” Modern Languages: Medieval Latin. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma, December 29, 2003. Grubbs, Judith. “Virgins and Widows, Show –Girls and Whores: Late Roman Legislation on Women and Christianity”. Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity. Ed. Ralph Mathisen. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 220 – 241. Herrin, Judith. Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001. Hunt, Patrick. “Byzantine Art as Propaganda: Justinian and Theodora at Ravenna.” Philolog. (January 2006). May 1, 2007 Murray, Peter and Linda. Oxford Dictionary of Christian Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, 284. National Gallery of Art. “Tour: Byzantine Art and Painting in Italy during the 1200s and 1300s.” The Collection. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 2007. Nicol, Donald. The Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits, 1250 – 1500. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Owen Chadwick. A History of Christianity. New York: St. Martins Press, 1995, 169. Viscuso, Patrick. “Theodore Balsamon’s Canonical Images of Women”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 45. 3 (2005): 317 – 327. Read More