4
M AK ING A NA ME:
R EPUTATION A ND IMPER I A L FOUNDING
A ND R EFOUNDING IN CONSTA NTINOPLE
Liz James
H
ow could the building of churches influence the reputation of an empress and how
could reputation play a part in the associations
made between empresses and churches ? Work
on women patrons in the 1990s established that
women’s patronage of the arts , like men’s , could
be seen on two levels , the personal and the political.1 In the case of the former , the reasons behind patronage were as individual and varied as
the patrons themselves. On the political level ,
however , women’s patronage was understood as
having a more urgent purpose than men’s. The
political and symbolic benefits for men in terms
of the patriarchal power structures of the medieval and Byzantine worlds have been widely discussed.2 In the case of female patrons , founding
buildings and paying for the arts offered a space
for those disempowered to greater or lesser extents by “the system” to assert their own political
agenda. It became clear that cultural authority in
the Middle Ages and Byzantium functioned in a
socially sanctioned way for women in particular
to achieve political goals , to gain spiritual benefits , to enhance their own positions and their
own families , perhaps in dynastic terms , and to
accrue symbolic credit for themselves , as learned ,
as pious , as virtuous. This symbolic credit could
then be transferred to other spheres , including
political power. A cycle developed in which it
becomes apparent that the building of a church
could lead to a reputation for piety and virtue
and that in turn could lead to the ascription of
more churches to the individual. Founding and
refounding therefore became one element in the
establishment of reputation and the commemoration of certain individuals ahead of others. Matronage , to borrow Leslie Brubaker’s term , was
never simply art for art’s sake.3
Reputation in the context of founding and ,
more particularly , refounding buildings is a central issue. It is well-known that a “good reputation” played an important role in establishing
standing and authority in Imperial Rome and
Renaissance Italy , one that could be both gained
My thanks to the unknown reader for some valuable thoughts and questions.
1
See , for example , J. H. McCash ( ed. ), The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women , Athens , GA / London 1996 ,
esp. A. L. McClanan , The Empress Theodora and the Tradition of Women’s Patronage in the Early Byzantine
Empire , pp. 50–72 ; L. Brubaker , Memories of Helena : Patterns in Imperial Female Matronage in the Fourth and
Fifth Centuries , in : L. James ( ed. ), Women , Men and Eunuchs. Gender in Byzantium , London / New York 1997,
pp. 52–75 ; B. Hill , Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025–1204. Power , Patronage and Ideology , Harlow 1999 ; L.
Garland , Byzantine Empresses : Women and Power in Byzantium , London / New York 1999 ; L. James , Empresses
and Power in Early Byzantium , Leicester 2001 , ch. 9.
2 R. Cormack , Writing in Gold , London 1985 , esp. ch. 5 , and R. Cormack , Patronage and New Programmes of Byzantine Iconography , in : 17th International Byzantine Congress , Major Papers , Washington , DC 1986 , pp. 609–638.
3 Brubaker , Memories of Helena ( cit. n. 1 ).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
64
Liz James
and enhanced by patronage of the arts ; the same
was true in Byzantium.4 The concept of “reputation” itself derived from Aristotle , one of the
most influential of philosophers in Byzantium ,
and his definition of it against a background of
qualities of honour , magnificence and liberality ,
all perceived as qualities made manifest through
a patronage of the arts.5 These virtues were highly
rated in Roman times , but they are just as relevant for Byzantium. They featured among the
qualities of a good ruler , recast to some extent
to incorporate philanthropy and piety. 6 Because
building was a large-scale , expensive , highly visible activity , an act of public display and a claim
to some form of public recognition , it was a significant act in Byzantium , whoever the patron.
As such , it was a political action , as many emperors recognised. Theodosios II is supposed to have
banished his city prefect , Kyros , after the crowd
cheered that Constantine built , Kyros rebuilt , ignoring the emperor altogether.7
Building a church was especially significant
for it established one’s piety in public and for
an emperor or empress , displayed the key imperial qualities of piety and philanthropia , whilst
establishing intimacy with God. The epigram
from St Polyeuktos hailed Anicia Juliana as pious , righteous , a doer of good works ; that from
Sts Sergios and Bacchos described Justinian and
Theodora as fostering piety and bright with piety
respectively , and praised Theodora for nourishing the destitute. For some Byzantine authors ,
one claim to reputation for the good emperor
was that he built churches , whilst bad emperors
demolished them. The Iconophile Theophanes
claimed that Constantine the Great , Pulcheria ,
Justinian and Theodora , Justin II , Tiberios , and
Irene , the mother of Constantine VI , all imperial figures he approves of , were all builders , whilst
Justinian II ( castigated for demanding a prayer
from the patriarch to initiate the demolition of
a church ) and the iconoclast emperors , were all
destroyers.8
As a result , refounding and rebuilding had
the potential to be as significant , and perhaps
more significant , than building in the first instance. Refounding offered patrons a chance to
associate themselves with the original patron.
That might allow them to inherit the lustre of
the earlier founder or to be seen to out-do them
publicly , or , better , both. In the epigram on the
church of St Polyeuktos , Anicia Juliana is hailed
as refounder , in the footsteps of Eudokia the empress , but as surpassing her.9 Once a reputation
was established for honour , magnificence , piety ,
philanthropy and other virtues , then other benefits inevitably accrued to the individual. Anicia Juliana may well have wished to suggest her
4 The Pantheon being a case in point see J. Elsner , Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph , Oxford 1998 , pp. 69–70.
For the Renaissance see J. Burke , Changing Patrons : Social Identity and the Visual Arts in Renaissance Florence ,
University Park , PA 2004 ; J. Nelson / R. Zeckhauser , The Patron’s Payoff : Conspicuous Commission in Italian
Renaissance Art , Princeton 2008.
5 Aristotle , On rhetoric , 1 , 5 , 8 and 9 , for example : tr. J. H. Freese , Aristoteles , The Art of Rhetoric , London 1926.
6 For proper imperial behaviour see S. McCormack , Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity , Berkeley 1981 , pp. 263–
265 ; James , Empresses and Power ( cit. n. 1 ), ch. 2.
7 Chronicon Paschale , yr. 450 , ed. L. Dindorf , Chronicon Pascale , Bonn 1832 , tr. M. Whitby / M. Whitby , Chronicon Pascale AD 284–632 , Liverpool 1989 ; John Malalas , Chronographia , ed. I. Thurn , Ioannis Malalae chronographia , Berlin / New York 2000 , p. 282 , tr. E. Jeffreys / M. Jeffreys / R. Scott , The Chronicle of John Malalas ,
Melbourne 1986.
8 Theophanes , Chronographia , e.g. AM 5901 ( Pulcheria ), AM 6042 ( Justinian ), AM 6064 ( Justin II ), AM 6073 ( Tiberios ) ; AM 6186 ( prayer for the demolition of a church ) ; AM 6259 ( Constantine V ), ed. C. de Boor , Theophanes ,
Chronographia , Leipzig 1883–5 , tr. C. Mango / R. Scott , The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor : Byzantine and
Near Eastern History AD 284–813 , Oxford 1997.
9 Greek Anthology 1 , 10 , 1 and 7–10 , text and tr. W. R. Paton , The Greek Anthology , Cambridge , MA / London 1916.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
4 Making a Name
possession of appropriate imperial virtues. And
as reputations changed over time , so too did
the founders and refounders of buildings. Not
all were as extreme as the case of St Polyeuktos
which was abandoned by the twelfth century ,
not even warranting a refounding , but , as we
shall see , several churches had founders who were
affected by refounders.
For women , there was an added dimension
in both founding and refounding. In late antique
and Byzantine society , women had no public
roles.10 However , as Anicia Juliana’s St Polyeuktos
showed , in building a church , a woman gained
access to a public space and was able to make a
legitimate statement and civic display of her piety and , consequently , of her wealth and standing.11 This was particularly useful for empresses
whose access to the public world was also limited. They , as much as , or even more than , emperors , could benefit from establishing a reputation
for piety and philanthropy as a result of their
building activities , and in some cases , these reputations outlasted them.12 It was Helena whose
building activities seem to have led to a belief
that church building was what empresses did ,
and empresses from then on could earn themselves the title of a “new” Helena in part through
65
their construction works.13 The fifth-century
Theodosian empresses , Eudoxia , Eudokia and
Pulcheria , were all keen builders and all earned
various reputations for piety , linked in part with
major construction projects : the Eudoxiana in
Gaza for Eudoxia ; churches in the Holy Land
for Eudokia ; churches in Constantinople for
Pulcheria.14 Their successor , Verina , was another
empress whose reputation as pious and faithful ,
beloved of God and as a new Helena derived , at
least in part , from her church-building activities.15 Even Justinian’s Theodora established a potentially-lasting reputation for virtue through her
church building , for the inscription inside the
church of Sts Sergios and Bacchos talks of Godcrowned Theodora , whose mind is adorned with
piety , whose constant toil lies in efforts to nourish
the destitute , and both this church and Hagia
Sophia display her monogram prominently.16 It
is no surprise , therefore , that building churches
became a standard female imperial activity between the fifth and seventh centuries. From Eudoxia , wife of the emperor Arkadios , building in
the early fifth century , down to Constantina , the
wife of Maurice , every Eastern empress is credited somewhere in the written sources with some
form of building activity.17
10 James , Empresses and Power ( cit. n. 1 ) ; J. Herrin , The Imperial Feminine in Byzantium , in : Past and Present , 169 ,
2000 , pp. 3–35.
11 B. Kiilerich , The Image of Anicia Juliana in the Vienna Dioscurides : Flattery or Appropriation of Imperial Imag­
ery ? , in : Symbolae Osloenses , 76 , 2001 , pp. 169–190.
12 James , Empresses and Power ( cit. n. 1 ), ch. 9.
13 Brubaker , Memories of Helena ( cit. n. 1 ), pp. 62–63.
14 The reputations of these women are all linked to their versions of Orthodoxy and that version of Orthodoxy practiced by the particular author. For example , Eudokia was revered in the monophysite tradition , which had only censure for Pulcheria , see James , Empresses and Power ( cit. n. 1 ), pp. 16–20 ; R. Scott , Text and Context in Byzantine
Historiography , in : L. James ( ed. ), A Companion to Byzantium , Oxford 2010 , pp. 251–262.
15 The text is in Paris , BN ms. Gr. 1447, fols. 257.58 , ed. in : A. Wenger , Notes inédites sur les empereurs Théodose I ,
Arcadius , Théodose II , Léon I , in : Revue des Études Byzantines , 10 , 1952 , pp. 47–59 , from p. 54 on , and tr. in C.
Mango , The Art of the Byzantine Empire , Toronto 1972 , pp. 34–35. For Verina’s role in the tenth century see Wenger , Notes inédites ; M. Jugie , L’église de Chalcoprateia et le culte de la ceinture de la Sainte vièrge a Constantinople , in : Échos d’Orient , 16 , 1913 , p. 308.
16 Greek text and tr. in : A. van Millingen , Byzantine Churches in Constantinople : Their History and Architecture ,
London 1912 , pp. 73–74.
17 For Constantina see Pope Gregory , Epistle 4 , 30 , in : PL 77, 701A , and R. Janin , La géographie ecclésiastique de
l’empire byzantin , 1 : Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique , III : Les églises et les monastères , Paris
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
66
Liz James
In Constantinople , building empresses
tended also to be associated with emperors who
built.18 Constantine I , son of Helena , is ascribed
at least eighteen churches ; Marcian five alone ,
and four with his wife Pulcheria ; Leo I six , and
one with his wife , Verina ; Anastasios at least
eight , and three more in association with Ariadne , together with the rebuilding of a Constantinian church ; Justinian at least ten as builder
and seventeen more as a refounder ; Justin II
seven and three with Sophia.19 Other emperors
such as Theodosios I , Theodosios II , Zeno , Justin I are all also credited with church building ,
but to a lesser extent. Underlining an impression
that church building developed into an action
performed by the imperial couple together , on
many occasions , as the figures above make clear ,
emperor and empress were credited together :
Marcian and Pulcheria ; Anastasios and Ariadne ;
Justinian and Theodora ; Justin and Sophia. It
may be that , in building , the empress’s patronage
complemented that of her husband for elsewhere
when emperor and empress are credited togeth-
18
19
20
21
er , the virtues of the empress supplement , clarify
and exalt the virtues of the emperor , underlining
the depiction of the imperial couple working towards the same goals.20
Where empresses are not recorded as building churches , it is often the case that their husbands are not renowned as builders. No churches
are credited to Phokas and Leontia , for example ,
or to Herakleios and either Fabia or Martina.
Although building a church reflected a public
display of piety and philanthropy , coupled with
a public demonstration of the ability to build in
Constantinople , this activity may also have had
more specific individual purposes. The Orthodox
Ariadne’s building work with Anastasios perhaps
bolstered the reputation for piety of that theologically doubtful emperor , and may also have underlined his legitimacy as emperor through his
marriage. Theodora’s work at Sergios and Bacchos has been associated with her protection of
a sizeable group of leading Monophysites within
the Hormisdas palace.21 If so , it was a sign of her
power that she could shelter , protect and advance
1953 , church of St Paul , p. 393. For fuller details of empresses’ building activities see James , Empresses and Power
( cit. n. 1 ), ch. 9 , esp. pp. 150–151.
My calculations in this paragraph , with the exception of Justinian , where the details given by Prokopios in his Buildings were added in , are all drawn from Janin’s Églises. Since it is generally accepted that Janin’s work , though valuable , is in need of updating , these figures should not be taken as including every church built. They do , however ,
provide a sense of who was and was not a church builder. For Constantine’s churches , also see G. Dagron , Naissance
d’une capitale , Paris 1974 , pp. 391–409 , and G. Dagron , Constantinople imaginaire. Études sur le receuil des “Patria”, Paris 1984 , pp. 78–97, on Constantine’s role as a founder in the city. For Justinian’s churches , Prokopios’s Buildings serve as a unique source ; and see G. Downey , Justinian as a Builder , in : Art Bulletin , 32 , 1950 , pp. 262–266.
For why Anastasios might have been regarded as a good thing see P. Magdalino , The Distance of the Past in Early
Medieval Byzantium , in : Ideologie e pratiche del reimpiego nell’alto medioevo ( Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo , 46 ), Spoleto 1999 , p. 137.
Such a case of complementarity is apparent , though not in the context of building , in Corippus’s poem celebrating
the accession of Justin II , In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris , ed. and tr. A. M. Cameron , Corippus , Flavius Cresconius , In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris libri IV , London 1976 , section II , lines 10–84. As far as I am aware , there
are no empresses renowned for building in Constantinople when their husbands were not. Eudoxia’s church in
Gaza was commemorated locally and neither she nor Arkadios have much of a building record in Constantinople.
Further afield , Galla Placidia was a notable builder in Ravenna , again seemingly divorced from male influence.
C. Mango , The Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople and the Alleged Tradition of Octagonal
Palatine Churches , in : Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik , 21 , 1972 , pp. 189–193 , and C. Mango , The
Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus Once Again , in : Byzantinische Zeitschrift , 68 , 1975 , pp. 385–392 ; for a different
view see J. Bardill , The Church of Sts Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople and the Monophysite Refugees , in :
Dumbarton Oaks Papers , 54 , 2000 , pp. 1–11.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
4 Making a Name
the cause of the monophysites. Some Byzantine
sources suggest that Theodora and Justinian balanced out Orthodox and monophysite claims ; if
that was the case , then this church offered a concrete demonstration of their collaboration.22
The effect of a reputation for piety and correct Christian behaviour offered an empress an
additional level of authority and prestige beyond
that of her office alone.23 The building activities ,
real and otherwise , of the Augustae Pulcheria and
Eudokia reveal something of the importance that
such status could have for an empress.24 If the
view of the two as rivals is accepted , then their
building of churches can be seen as something
of a competition for the better standing and renown.
Pulcheria is said to have built the church of
St Lawrence , the church of the Forty Martyrs ,
to have begun the church of the Prophet Isaiah
and the chapel of St Stephen , and , together with
her husband Marcian , to have built the churches of St Menas and of St Mokios.25 She is also
credited with building the church of the Virgin
Chalkoprateia and the church of the Virgin at
Blachernai.26 Eudokia built churches in the Levant , notably of St Stephen and of St Peter in
Jerusalem. Her building work in Constantinople
itself , the centre of imperial power , appears to
67
have been restricted , perhaps only to St Polyeuktos.27 Almost all of Pulcheria’s recorded building
work was in Constantinople , thus establishing
her buildings as public monuments at the heart
of empire and herself as both powerful enough
to be able to build in this fashion , and worthy
enough of any good reputation that might develop from these works. In contrast , Eudokia’s
foundations were in Jerusalem but these , coupled with her pilgrimages to the Holy Land , allowed her to be hailed as a new Helena and to
gain a standing for holiness and piety. Such a
reputation for imperial virtue placed her sanctity
on a level with that publicly pious virgin , Pulcheria. The rivalry is also potentially visible in
the timings of building work. Sozomenos claims
that Pulcheria discovered and housed the relics
of the Forty Martyrs at some point between 434
and 446.28 This period coincided with the return
of Eudokia from Jerusalem in a blaze of saintliness after her building activities there , activities
that might demand a well-considered pious riposte on the part of Pulcheria. Interestingly , a
later text , the Chronicon Paschale , dates the discovery of the relics to 451.29 This was the year in
which Pulcheria and Marcian were married and
crowned , and so was also a suitable moment for
a divine revelation , in this instance to establish
22 Evagrios , Ecclesiastical History , ch. 10 , ed. J. Bidez / L. Parmentier , The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the
Scholia , London 1898 , repr. Amsterdam 1964. French tr. by A. J. Festugière , Evagre , Histoire ecclesiastique , in :
Byzantion , 44 , 1975 , pp. 187–488 ; Prokopios , Secret History , ch. 10.15 , text and tr. H. B. Dewing , Procopius , The
Anecdota or Secret History , Cambridge , MA / London 1914–1940.
23 Argued in James , Empresses and Power ( cit. n. 1 ).
24 K. Holum , Theodosian Empresses : Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity , Berkeley / Los Angeles / London 1982 ; C. Angelidi , Pulcheria. La castita al potere , Milan 1996 , especially on Pulcheria’s later reputation ;
James , Empresses and Power ( cit. n. 1 ).
25 For Pulcheria’s building in Constantinople , both religious and secular , see Dagron , Naissance ( cit. n. 18 ), pp. 97,
400–401 ; C. Mango , Le developpment urbain de Constantinople , Paris 1990.
26 Theodore Lector , Epitome , 363 ; also statements by Nikephoros Kallistos , Historia Ecclesiastica , ch. 14 , 2.49 and
ch. 15 , 14 , in : PG 145–147.
27 Greek Anthology , 1 , 105 ( cit. n. 9 ). For Eudokia’s buildings in the Holy Land see E. D. Hunt , Holy Land Pilgrimage
in the Later Roman Empire AD 312–460 , Oxford 1982 , pp. 239–242.
28 Sozomenos , Historia Ecclesiastica , 9 ,2 , ed. J. Bidez / G. C. Hansen , Kirchengeschichte , Berlin 1960 , tr. E. Walford , Sozomen and Philostorgius , London 1855.
29 Chronicon Paschale , yr. 451 ( cit. n. 7 ).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
68
Liz James
that , despite apparently breaking her vow of virginity , Pulcheria was still blessed by God.30
If the two empresses were in competition
during their lives , then the struggle continued
with their reputations after death. The monophysite Eudokia became increasingly overlooked ,
her reputation distorted by allegations of adultery and marital dispute. Theophanes , writing in
the ninth century, omitted any mention of her
building work , though he allowed that she made
donations to churches in Jerusalem. Instead , he
described her provincial birth , dubious Orthodoxy and dysfunctional marital relations , and established Pulcheria as the winner in any power
struggle.31 The tenth-century Patria , a text concerned with buildings in Constantinople and
their founders , telling us what some of the inhabitants of Constantinople believed or found
plausible about their city , makes no mention
of her building activities , focusing again on her
birth , her dubious Orthodoxy and her unhappy
relationship with Theodosios II.32 The Orthodox
Pulcheria , however , is celebrated by both The-
ophanes and the Patria for her building works ,
in company with her illustrious birth , pious virginity and successful control of imperial affairs.33
A similar story around reputation can be seen
to play out over the foundation of the churches of the Virgin Chalkoprateia and the Virgin
Blachernitissa. It has been widely accepted , from
the ninth century almost to the present , that Pulcheria built both.34 However , as Cyril Mango
has argued convincingly , it is almost certain that
these two churches were the foundation of the
later fifth-century empress , Verina , wife of Leo
I , and Verina has been gradually replaced in the
historical record by Pulcheria.35 This seems a case
of reputation influencing histories of founding
and refounding.
That both churches were founded by Verina and Leo makes religious and political sense.
Verina and Leo were the first rulers actively to
promote a cult of Mary after the Council of
Ephesos.36 An additional political motive may
be supplied by the circumstances of Leo’s accession. He was originally raised to power by Aspar ,
30 There may well also have been a further political significance that we have not appreciated that lies behind the discovery of the Forty , rather than any other saint. For the changing significances of relics see I. Kalavrezou , Helping
Hands for the Empire : Imperial Ceremonies and the Cult of Relics at the Byzantine Court , in : H. Maguire ( ed. ),
Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204 , Washington , DC 1997, pp. 53–80.
31 For example , Theophanes , Chronographia ( cit. n. 8 ), AM 5947.
32 As in the Parastaseis , ch. 64 , ed. and tr. A. M. Cameron / J. Herrin , Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century :
The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai , Leiden 1984 , pp. 140–141 ; Theophanes , Chronographia ( cit. n. 8 ), AM 5940. It
is interesting that it is a thirteenth- / fourteenth-century historian , Nikephoros Kallistos , who gives the most detailed
list of Eudokia’s building activities , including the sums of money spent. Although this testimony is very dubious , it
does indicate a revitalised reputation for piety on the part of this empress.
33 Patria Constantinopoleos , III , ch. 63 , 71 , 74 , ed. T. Preger , Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum , Leipzig
1907 ; Parastaseis , ch. 33 and 45 ( cit. n. 32 ).
34 Holum , Theodosian Empresses ( cit. n. 24 ).
35See C. Mango , Addenda to the Development of Constantinople as an Urban Centre , in : C. Mango , Studies on
Constantinople , Aldershot 1993 , esp. p. 4 ; C. Mango , The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople ,
in : Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae , II , Vatican City / Split 1998 , pp. 61–76 , and C.
Mango , Constantinople as Theotokoupolis , in : M. Vassilaki ( ed. ), Mother of God. Representations of the Virgin
in Byzantine Art , Exhibition Catalogue , Milan 2000 , pp. 17–26. Mango also dismisses her association with the
Hodegoi. For Verina’s patronage see C. Mango , The Chalkoprateia Annunciation and the Pre-Eternal Logos , in :
Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Hetaireias , 17, 1993–94 , pp. 165–170. Also , L. James , The Empress and the
Virgin in Early Byzantium : Piety , Authority and Devotion , in : M. Vassilaki ( ed. ), Images of the Mother of God ,
Aldershot 2005 , pp. 145–152.
36 B. Pentcheva , Icons and Power. The Mother of God in Byzantium , University Park , PA 2005 , pp. 12 , 189.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
4 Making a Name
who as an Alan and more especially as an Arian Christian , could not hope to hold imperial
power himself. Leo made himself increasingly
independent of Aspar and it is not unreasonable
that , in seeking to establish both his independence and his Orthodoxy , he and Verina founded
churches. Faith and politics come together in
the inscription Leo and Verina are recorded by a
tenth-century text as writing on the costly chest
in which they housed the Virgin’s robe : By showing reverence here to the Theotokos , they secured the
power of their basileia , their imperial power.37 In
demonstrating especial imperial devotion to the
Mother of God for the first time , they perhaps
sought to establish her as their special protector
and patron ; in building for the glory of God and
the benefit of the subjects of the empire , Leo and
Verina could be seen as displaying their fitness to
rule and their harmonious relationship with the
deity who protected their empire , asserting that
both God and his Mother were on their side.
But , by the ninth century , Verina , Leo and their
particular political and personal motives seem to
have been forgotten. Instead , as Theophanes tells
us , Pulcheria was the founder of the churches of
the Virgin Chalkoprateia and the Blachernai.38
Here , I suggest , reputation played a part in
Byzantine perceptions. By the ninth century , Verina was established in the majority of surviving
textual sources as a troublesome figure , an overmighty female with ideas above her standing , a
woman of uncertain Orthodoxy , a witch and
the Whore of Babylon.39 Pulcheria , on the other
hand , with the defeat of Nestorios and the establishment of Mary as Theotokos at the Council
of Ephesos , was a heroine of Orthodox believ-
69
ers. For Theophanes , she was a pious empress
first and foremost.40 The Souda records that she
managed the kingdom very well , being most wise
and having a god-like mind and that having herself
founded many churches and poorhouses and hostels and monasteries she appropriated the revenues
[ from them ] and by other numerous successes God
often appeared through her.41 Who then had the
better reputation ? And who was the more likely
founder of two of the great Marian churches of
Constantinople ? And , indeed , with whom was it
better for those churches to be associated ? It is
also unsurprising that the Hodegoi , which is first
mentioned in the ninth century , should also appear as a Pulcherian foundation : whom better to
ascribe it to ?
What all of this suggests is that issues of
founding and refounding in Constantinople introduce concerns beyond the “simple” question
of who “really” had the work carried out and
why. Rather , founding and refounding work
on both “real” and “imaginary” levels. Indeed ,
even the Blachernai and Chalkoprateia are not
quite as straightforward as my account implies.
An anonymous tenth-century text describes the
foundation of a church of the Virgin by the pious and faithful Verina , beloved of God.42 This is
an important reminder that different traditions
could and did co-exist and that the same church
could be simultaneously linked to more than one
founder. The Patria , where churches are overwhelmingly ascribed imperial founders of either
sex , perhaps gives us a sense of who the “wrong”
people to associate with churches were , and who
the “right”, whether they be “genuine” founders ,
“fake” founders , imaginary founders or even use-
37 Wenger , Notes inédites ( cit. n. 15 ), pp. 54–59 , tr. in : Mango , Art of the Byzantine Empire ( cit. n. 15 ), p. 35 , and
Holum , Theodosian Empresses ( cit. n. 24 ), p. 227.
38 Theophanes , Chronographia ( cit. n. 8 ), AM 5942 , 5943 , 5945.
39 Witch is Parastaseis ( cit. n. 32 ), ch. 89 ; whore of Babylon is the Oracle of Baalbek : P. J. Alexander , The Oracle of
Baalbek , Washington , DC 1967.
40 Angelidi , Pulcheria ( cit. n.24 ).
41 Souda , “Poulcheria”, ed. A. Adler , Suidae Lexicon , IV , Leipzig 1935 , p. 183.
42 Wenger , Notes inédites ( cit. n. 15 ), pp. 54–59 , tr. in : Mango , Art of the Byzantine Empire ( cit. n. 15 ), pp. 34–35.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
70
Liz James
ful founders.43 The Patria credits Helena , for one ,
with founding at least four churches in Constantinople. Since her death is dated to ca. 330 , before
Constantine established the city as his capital ,
these claims are usually dismissed as pious myths.44
Nevertheless , because empresses clearly did build
in Constantinople , and because Helena was the
mother of all female imperial church builders , her
reputation was such that the patriographers knew
she must have founded churches in the city.
Not only do founders and refounders change
in the written sources , so too do the churches
they built. Eusebios’s church of the Holy Apostles , Prokopios’s , Constantine of Rhodes’s and
Nicholas Mesarites’s are all different , not simply
in their constructions and their decoration , but
also in the roles of the different founders and refounders , all of which tell us as much about these
authors’ programmes as about the church. For
Eusebios , Constantine the Great was the founder and Constantine had his own coffin placed in
the middle of the apostles.45 Prokopios , however ,
claimed that the church was the foundation of
Constantius but that Constantius left no intimation that there were such relics within the church.
Rather , Justinian in his rebuilding rediscovered
and identified these remains.46 Constantine of
Rhodes , writing for Constantine VII and eager to
associate that emperor with great imperial figures
of the past , associated Constantius and Justinian
specifically with the building and rebuilding of
the Holy Apostles and asserted that it was Constantius who placed the apostolic relics there.47
Nicholas Mesarites stated that the founder was
Constantius and that Justinian refounded it , but
he identified the same relics as Constantine of
Rhodes.48 The question of who we should believe
is only part of the story ; almost as interesting is
tracing the ways in which attributions of founding and refounding might change to suit the interests and concerns both of particular writers at
particular times.
What the Holy Apostles and the fifth-century Marian churches also suggest is that founding and refounding were not viewed as different
activities.49 Indeed , refounding does not seem to
have been treated as a lesser activity than building from scratch. It certainly does not seem to
have created lesser reputations for either emperors or empresses. According to the Patria , the
church of St Euphemia was built by Constantine
the Great , destroyed by Constantine V during
Iconoclasm and restored by Irene. Whether or
not Constantine was the actual founder , such an
ascription might render Irene’s pious refoundation all the more valuable and Constantine V’s
destruction even more reprehensible.50 Nor does
it seem to have been the case that churches built
by particularly godly emperors or empresses were
singled out for rebuilding. Although there was
some refounding of the churches of Constantine and of Justinian , notably by Basil I , there
43 On the Patria see Magdalino , Distance of the Past ( cit. n. 19 ), pp. 115–146.
44As Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), pp. 63 ( Monastery of Bethlehem ), p. 67 ( Gastria ) does.
45 Eusebios , Life of Constantine , ch. 4 , 58–60 , tr. and commentary A. M. Cameron / S. G. Hall , Eusebius. Life of
Constantine , Oxford 1999 , pp. 176–177, 337–338.
46 Prokopios , Buildings , ch. 1 , iv , 9–24 , text and tr. H. B. Dewing , Cambridge , MA / London 1914–1940.
47 Constantine of Rhodes , On Constantinople and the Church of the Holy Apostles. A new Greek edition by I. Vassis ,
ed. L. James , Farnham 2012 , p. 52.
48 Nicholas Mesarites , The Description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople , ch. 39 , ed. and tr. G.
Downey , in : Transactions of the American Philosophical Society , n.s., 47, 1957, pp. 891–892.
49 See also M. Mullett ( ed. ), Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries ( Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations , 6.3 ), Belfast 2007.
50 Patria Constantinopoleos ( cit. n. 33 ), III , pp. 216–217 ; Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), pp. 120–121 ; A. Berger , Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos ( Poikila Byzantina , 8 ), Bonn 1988 , pp. 556–559. Also see Parastaseis , ch. 5
( cit. n. 32 ), for the arrival of St Euphemia’s relics in Constantinople.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
4 Making a Name
was also considerable refounding of small and
even apparently insignificant churches. Prokopios describes how Justinian rebuilt a church
of St Michael ( the original founder is simply
called “a patrician” ) because it was small and very
badly­lighted , utterly unworthy to be dedicated to
the archangel.51 Refounding may have depended
in large part on what needed refounding. Justinian was forced to carry out a great deal of rebuilding after the Nika riots ; and he refounded
a sanctuary dedicated from ancient times to Sts
Kosmas and Damian after an illness and in response to a vision of the holy healers.52 Such
rebuildings established , as well as any foundation might , imperial claims for piety and philanthropy , even a more abstract philanthropy
( restoring a small church because it was in poor
condition ), and a chance to show the emperor’s
blessings from God ( thanks for divine healing ).
In the case of Justinian’s building work , Prokopios carefully constructed a pattern that makes
it appear that Justinian built churches for every
level of the heavenly hierarchy , from Hagia Sophia and Hagia Irene , through the Virgin , St Michael , the Apostles , the saints and the martyrs ;
he also claimed that Justinian built throughout Constantinople , including the suburbs and
shore.53 The refoundation work of Basil I forms
a distinct contrast to this dispersed building.
Written sources make it very clear that Basil’s refoundations were overwhelmingly of former im-
71
perial churches ( or churches identified by Basil
as such ), an emphasis that might relate to Basil’s
own circumstances as a usurping emperor and
own desire to assert his legitimacy and relationship with previous rulers.54 Basil’s actions again
underline the idea that memories of the early
founders had some resonance in later Byzantium.
Of course , confusion could also play a part
in attributions of founding and refounding. The
church and monastery of the Augusta are said to
have been built by Euphemia and her husband
Justin I or by Justin II and his wife Sophia , suggesting an uncertainty over the Justins.55 That
Euphemia is also said to have built the church
of St Euphemia is an example of the very typical epony­mous way in which the Byzantines
thought about names ; Byzantium itself was said
to have been founded by Byzas and Antes.56 The
trend of creating eponymic founders is apparent
in countless other examples. In the case of the
church of St Euphrosyne , the Patria claimed it
was built by Irene , but that Michael III closed
up his mother and sisters in it , and that it took
its name from one of Michael’s sisters. Michael , however , did not have a sister called Euphrosyne. Nikephoros Kallistos , writing in the
thirteenth / fourteenth century , employed the
same technique when he ascribed the church to
Leo VI in the context of an apparently legendary
saint , Euphrosyne the Younger.57 Elsewhere in
the Patria , the monastery of Kallistratos is seen as
51 Prokopios , Buildings ( cit. n. 46 ), 1 , 3 , 14. Also see the twin shrines of St Michael at 1 , 8,2–20 , and Theophanes ,
Chronographia ( cit. n. 8 ), AM 5816 , for Constantine as the founder of these.
52 Prokopios , Buildings ( cit. n. 46 ), 1 , 6 , 5.
53 Downey , Justinian as a Builder ( cit. n. 18 ), p. 264.
54 P. Magdalino , Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I , in : Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik , 37,
1987, pp. 51–64.
55 Patria Constantinopoleos ( cit. n. 33 ), III , 273 ; Constantine Porphyrogennetos , The Book of Ceremonies , II , 42 , ed.
J. J. Reiske , De Cerimoniis , Bonn 1829. Cedrenos , Synopsis historion , ed. I. Bekker , Georgius Cedrenus , Ioannis
Scylitzae operae , Bonn 1838 , p. 642 , says that Justin and Euphemia were buried in the Augusta and Justin and Sophia in Justinian’s heroon. Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), p. 54 , takes this as reason to accept the Patria over the Book of
Ceremonies. Also see Berger , Untersuchungen ( cit. n. 50 ), p. 655.
56See Parastaseis ( cit. n. 32 ), ch. 34 and p. 34 of Cameron and Herrin’s introduction.
57 Patria Constantinopoleos ( cit. n. 33 ), III , 243 ; Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), pp. 130–131 ; Berger , Untersuchungen ( cit.
n. 50 ), pp. 646–648.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM
72
Liz James
a monastery founded by one Kallistratos and Justin II’s church of St Zoticus was apparently built
for the holy man Zoticus.58 A further legendary
founder is apparent in the Patria’s mention of
the empress Anna , wife of Leo III , as founder of
the monastery of St Anna.59 It was Leo’s daughter
who was Anna ; his wife was Maria. How true , as
opposed to convenient , these ascriptions might
be is difficult to determine. Sometimes , church
and founder appear to match in terms of their
date and what is known from other sources , as is
the case with the church of the Virgin tou Kyrou ,
and sometimes they do not : witness the church
of St Theodore ta Klaudio.60 What these ascriptions might say about private foundations as opposed to imperial ones is another key issue.
The potential gaps and differences between
the written sources also offer a chance to look at
the changing geographies of the city. One aspect
of this that I have not had space to deal with here
is that of the founding and refounding of types
of church : did it make a difference to found , or
be seen as founder of a monastery , a nunnery , or
simply a church ? Do churches become monasteries part way through their lives and at whose
behest ? Do the patriographic sources describe
churches as monasteries because in the tenth century the trend was to found monasteries rather
than churches ? Is this a contrast between Justinian I and Basil I for instance ? And how far was
the gender of the founder or refounder an issue ? So far , this does not seem to have been a
problem : when sources record different founders
or refounders for churches , these tend to be of
the same sex ( for example , Verina and Pulcheria ). Perhaps most frustrating is the numbers of
churches that still survive within the city , such
as the Kalenderhane Camii , where we have no
certain knowledge of the founders or refounders.
By looking at the construction of the history
of a building by different authors , we can gain
access to the different ways in which different
figures , most notably imperial figures , could be
mobilised. When monuments and sites drop out
of the record and are apparently removed from
memory , or when the people associated with
monuments change and are reconfigured , this offers a means of tracing discontinuities in remembrance and in thinking about social change.61
Founding and refounding , and its relation to
reputation , also offers insights into the Byzantines’ perceptions and constructions of their own
past , for both founders and reputations appear to
be contingent on time. There is the question of
the reputation of individuals in their own time , a
reputation created or enhanced by their patronage. There is also the issue of reputations changing over the years , and how this shift could have
a knock-on effect on the status of a building or
an object , enhancing or diminishing it in accordance with the perception of its founder. Pulcheria
offers an example of a reputation enhanced over
several centuries. In considering empresses as
founders and refounders , it is apparent that sex
and gender were not automatic barriers to gaining a good reputation.
58 Kallistratos : Patria Constantinopoleos ( cit. n. 33 ), III , 269 ; Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), p. 275 ; Berger , Untersuchungen ( cit. n. 50 ), p. 677. Zoticus : Patria Constantinopoleos ( cit. n. 33 ), III , 267 ; Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), p. 135 ; Berger , Untersuchungen ( cit. n. 50 ), p. 426. The Synaxarion of Constantinople has another version of events : Synaxarion Constantinopolitanum , ed. H. Delehaye , Brussels 1902 , nos. 360 , 1.18–20 and 362 , 1.19–29.
59 Patria Constantinopoleos ( cit. n. 33 ), III , 251 , and Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), p. 38 ; Berger , Untersuchungen ( cit. n.
50 ), pp. 524–525.
60 Virgin tou Kyrou : Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), p. 195. St Theodore ta Klaudio : Janin , Églises ( cit. n. 17 ), p. 149.
61 S. E. Alcock , The Reconfiguration of Memory in the Eastern Roman Empire , in : S. E. Alcock et al. ( ed. ), Empires. Perspectives from Archaeology and History , Cambridge 2001 , pp. 323–250 ; S. E. Alcock , Archaeologies of
the Greek Past. Landscape , Monuments and Memories , Cambridge 2003.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 10:32 AM