sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chora Church, Constantinople

1

Purity as a Pre-requisite for Praise: The Life of Mary Cycle at the Chora and Historical Pre- Occupations with the Chastity of the Virgin Mary in

Elizabeth Fortune

AH 4119 Natif 12-6-2013 2

In this paper I will explore historical preoccupations with the physical purity of the Virgin

Mary within Christian Byzantium. My discussion will focus on the second-century apocryphal gospel the Protoevangelium of James, Cappadocian theology, and the role of women within

Byzantine society. I will ground my exploration within the context of historical debates regarding the status of the Virgin in the Early Christian Church. I will particularly discuss Mary’s significance as the (God-bearer)within Byzantium, as it was necessarily informed and justified by perpetual assertions regarding the purity and sanctity of Mary’s physical body.

I will utilize the decorative program of the in as a visual manifestation of perpetual concerns with Mary’s purity within Christian Byzantium. As the resident monastic order at the Chora, Cappadocian devotion to the Virgin necessarily influenced the iconographic and thematic content of the church’s decorative program.1 The particular nature of

Cappadocian Marian devotion is thus relevant to my discussion of the Life of Mary Cycle, the

Protoevangelium, and the Virgin’s role as Theotokos within Byzantium and the Eastern Church.

In order to contextualize the Life of Mary cycle at the Chora, I will briefly investigate other historical and contemporary visual examples of the subject. I will then discuss one scene from the Life of Mary cycle at Chora: the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple (fig. 1). While the entire narrative cycle can be said to be preoccupied with communicating the purity of the Virgin, this scene– wherein the young Mary is brought at the age of three to the temple in order to be raised there– particularly emphasizes the holy nature of the Virgin’s early life.2

Visual analysis of this scene will echo the perpetual concern with the Virgin’s physical purity that I will establish through my investigations of The Protoevangelium of James, debates

1 Anne Karahan, Byzantine Holy Images: Transcendence and Immanence, (Leuven: Peeters, 2010): 10. 2 Ousterhout, The Art of the Kariye Camii, (London: Scala, 2002): 107. 3

surrounding Mary as the Theotokos within the early Christian church, and Marian Devotion within

Cappadocian theology.

My aim is argue that the Life of Mary cycle at the Chora encapsulates an underlying ambivalence towards the Virgin as a spiritual figure within the early Christian church in general, and Byzantium in particular. Furthermore, I will assert that this ambivalence is reflective of attitudes towards Byzantine women in general. It thus provides fascinating insight into the influence of gender in the construction of early Christian theology, as well as the role of women in the

Byzantine . In order to proceed with my discussion of the societal and theological implications of the Life of Mary cycle at Chora, I will briefly introduce the history of the church and its decorative program.

The Chora Church

The Chora Church was first consecrated in the fourth century as the main church of the

Chora Monastery. The monastery was historically inhabited by the Cappadocian order and was apparently founded by Saint Theodore, the alleged uncle of Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian. 3

The church is constructed on an unstable, inclined plot by the Adrianople Gate. At the date of it’s consecration it lay outside the walls of , and was thus called “Chora”, which in

Greek translates as “field” or “country.”4 During the reign of Justinian, an earthquake destroyed the original structure of the church. The present naos was re-constructed in the Komnenian Period. It was built in two subsequent phases, one during the late eleventh-century and the other during the early twelfth century. The architectural structure of the church is a modified Greek cross plan–the arms of the structure are relatively short and of an equal length (fig.2).5

3 Ousterhout, Kariye Camii, 11. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 4

When the Ottomans took Constantinople in 1453, the Chora was one of the first ecclesiastical structures to fall under the control of conquering troops. The church was adapted for use as a during the early sixteenth century. It is thus frequently referred to by its name, Kariye Camii.6 In 1568 Stephan Gerlach, a German visitor to the Chora Church, wrote of the site’s magnificent frescoes and . His account of the building evidences the remarkable survival of its dazzling decorative program and unique architectural structure.7 Moreover, Gerlach’s text evidences the toleration of the Chora’s mosaics and frescoes by the Muslim believers that utilized the site. The decorative program was, like the mosaics and frescoes at Hagia , covered with plaster and paint as late as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.8 Few and frescoes have survived Istanbul’s turbulent history. As such, those at the Chora provide unique insight into the religious and political dynamics of the empire.

The church was secularized in 1945 and now operates as a museum. Beginning in 1948, the

Dumbarton Oaks Field committee undertook an extensive investigation of the Chora. The committee performed focused archaeological excavations of the site. They also rehabilitated the physical structure of the church, and cleaned its frescoes and mosaics.9 The committee’s work on the Chora has provided a wealth of information regarding elements of the decorative program commissioned by in 1315–the very aspects of the church most relevant to my discussion of the Life of Mary cycle and historical pre-occupations with the purity of the Virgin within Byzantium.

6 Ibid, 16. 7 Robert Ousterhout, “A Sixteenth Century Visitor to the Chora,” Papers 39 (1985), 117. 8 Ousterhout, Kariye Camii, 16. 9 A. Underwood, “Notes on the Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul:1955-56,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (1958), 32, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291123. 5

Theodore Methochites’ Decorative Program at the Chora

Theodore Metochites was a great intellectual and spiritual leader, as well as one of the wealthiest men in Constantinople during the Late Palaeologan period.10 During the first decade of the fourteenth-century, Andronikos II appointed him as the leader of the

Cappadocian Monastery at the Chora. Methochites’ most important contribution to the Chora was his design for the decorative program of the church, a significant portion of which has survived up until the present day.11 His and mosaic program–begun in 1315 and completed by 1321– constitutes a dazzling example of the striking mannerism characteristic of the Palaeologan era.12

The church is dually dedicated to Christ and the Virgin; however, the monastery proper is devoted to the Virgin Theotokos (or God-bearer).13 Metochites asserted that the main purpose of the decorative program of the Chora was to relate “in mosaics, and painting, how the Lord himself became a mortal man on our behalf.”14 The program thus includes Old Testament scenes that prefigure the lives of both Christ and the Virgin Mary, as well as narrative cycles from both figures’ lives, and scenes of the Last Judgment.15 Mosaics cover the walls of the naos, while fresco is utilized in the decoration of the parekklesion.

The church boasts a mosaic image of The Virgin , as well as one of The Virgin

Blachernitissa– a less common iconic type that represents Mary in an orant position, holding the

Christ-child in her lap (fig. 3 and fig 4).16 The Virgin is inscribed:“ Mother of God,

Dwelling Place of the Uncontainable.” This epithet speaks the particular significance of the Virgin

10 Ousterhout, Kariye Camii, 19. 11 Ibid, 16. 12 Ibid, 19. 13 Ibid, 13. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid, 19. 16 Ousterhout, Robert, “ The Virgin of the Chora,” in The Sacred Image East and West, ed. Robert Ousterhout and Leslie Brubaker, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 91. 6

as the Theotokos to the Eastern Church and the Cappadocian order.17 I will discuss these particular topics in more detail in subsequent sections of my paper because they complicate any consideration of the religious and political implications of the Life of Mary Cycle at the Chora Church.

The inner narthex of the church boasts three separate sections dedicated to the birth, childhood, and pregnancy of the Virgin Mary. The beginning of the narrative cycle is damaged; however, it represents one of the most complete extant versions of the narrative in the Eastern

Church.18 The cycle continues in the outer narthex with mosaics of the Infancy of Christ, as well as scenes from the Ministry of Christ.19 The scenes portrayed in the Life of Mary cycle expand on narrative accounts of the Virgin’s life found in canonical Christian gospels. The artists who created the cycle certainly drew on descriptions of Mary’s early life found in the apocryphal gospel The

Protoevangelium of James.20 Both the Protoevangelium and the Chora Life of Mary cycle demonstrate a persistent preoccupation with the purity of the Virgin. This thematic strain speaks to the particular inspiration for the apocryphal gospel, as well as the implications of its considerable influence in Byzantium with regard to attitudes towards the Virgin in particular, and women in general. In order to further illuminate the specific content of the Protoevangelium, I will investigate circumstances surrounding the text’s creation. Additionally, I will discuss its significant impact on

Marian devotion in the early Christian church.

The Protoevangelium of James

Contemporary scholars date the Protoevangelium of James to the second century.21 The text was originally composed in Greek, but has been translated into a number of languages including:

17 Karahan, Transcendence, 10. 18 David R. Cartlidge and J. Keith Elliot, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, (New York: Routledge, 2001), 33. 19 Ousterhout, Kariye Camii, 40. 20 Ibid, 35. 21 Cartlidge and Elliot, Christian Apocrypha, 33; Mary B. Cunningham, “The Use of the Protoevangelium of James in Eighth-Century Homilies on the Mother of God,” in The Cult of the 7

Syriac, Coptic, and Georgian.22 The Protoevangelium motivated the creation of other apocryphal texts, including the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (8th or 9th century), which became the primary vehicle for the dissemination of the narrative content of The Protoevangelium of James in the West.

23The text is signed by “James”, who claims to be the half-brother of – Joseph’s son from a previous marriage. This authorship has been widely dismissed.24 The text certainly draws from the canonical Gospels of Luke, Matthew, and Mark, all of which were written around 80 A.D., 90 A.D., and 70 A.D., respectively.25 As such, it was definitely not written during the real James’ lifetime, as he is believed to have died in 62 A.D.26 The earliest manuscript of the Protoevangelium is the

Bodmer Papyrus, which dates to the fourth century; however, Clement of ’s (150 A.D.-

215 A.D.) Commentary on Matthew (10.17) and his student Origin’s(182 A.D.-254 A.D.)

Stromateis (7.16.9), both reference the Protoevangelium.27 While a dating of the Protoevangelium to the mid-second century does seems likely, the geographic location of the author remains a subject of debate. James’ understanding of the of Palestine, Judea, and is inaccurate.

Therefore, scholars place the author in either or Syria.28

Motivations for the composition of the text were both practical and apologetic.29 Prior to the second century, information regarding the early lives of Jesus and Mary was scant. A quote from a letter written by Paul in 50 A.D. vaguely asserts that Christ was “ Born of a woman, Born under the

Mother of God in Byzantium, ed. by Leslie Brubaker and Mary B. Cunningham,( Surrey: Ashgate, 2011), 163; Hock, The Life of Mary, 5; Ehrman, Apocryphal Gospels, 34. 22 Ehrman, Apocryphal Gospels, 34. 23 Cartlidge and Elliot, Christian Apocrypha, 3 24 Ibid. 25 Hock, Life of Mary, 16. 26 Ibid. 27 Cunningham, Protoevangelium, 163. Origen and Clement of Alexandria mention that a midwife confirmed Mary’s virginity after Christ’s birth. This unique narrative detail appears in the Protoevangelium. 28 Hock, Life of Mary, 18. 29 Ehrman, Apocryphal Gospels, 35. 8

law.”30 Paul’s statement does not even mention Mary, and thus evidences the dearth of narrative information regarding the Holy Family during the first centuries of . The author of the

Protoevangelium; therefore, intended to established a narrative for both Mary’s life and Jesus’ conception and nativity. The seminal text would become a crucial reference source for details of the

Virgin’s life for over a century.31

The Protoevangelium was authored in the context of fierce second-century debates surrounding Christianity. Pagan and Jewish opponents of the faith aimed to discredit the divinity of

Jesus and the legitimacy of the Christian story. They argued that both Anna and (Mary’s parents), and Mary and Joseph were poor and common– impossible ancestors for a divine son.

Additionally, they accused Mary of having an affair out of wedlock with a Roman soldier.32

Origen’s Contra Celsum– composed in response to charges by Celsum, a Jewish contemporary, that

Mary was poor and adulterous– speaks to the atmosphere of debate and vitriol within which the

Protoevangelium was composed. It is thus not surprising that the gospel is structured as an encomium (or tributary narrative) intended to praise and vindicate Mary.33 In fact the most striking aspect of the text, particularly for my discussion of historical preoccupations with the purity of the

Virgin, is its persistent, overt, and often explicit references to Mary’s physical virginity.

The Protoevangelium opens with James’ account of the holy nature of Mary’s conception.

Her eminent birth is announced by an angel to the barren Anna and her husband Joachim, a prosperous, pious couple.34 They raise the child in a room described as a “sanctuary” and do “not permit anything profane or unclean to pass the child’s lips.”35 At the age of three Mary is presented to the priests at the Temple, where she is kept to be raise by the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews.

30 Hock, Life of Mary, 30. 31 Cunningham, Protoevangelium, 164. 32 Ehrman, Apocryphal Gospels, 34. 33 Hock, Life of Mary, 23. 34 The Protoevangelium of James, Chapter 4. 35 Ibid, Chapter 5. 9

James consistently employs numerology to link the Virgin to the Holy , and thus foreshadows the birth of Christ.36 At the temple Mary is fed holy manna by an angel while seated beneath the Holy of Holies, a practice that renders her body and soul devoid of any corrupting influence.37

In keeping with the gospel’s aim to assert the perpetual virginity of Mary, the

Protoevangelium’s treatment of her relationship with Joseph is intentionally desexualized.38 He is presented as an older man with little interest in the Virgin. Remarkably, the gospel’s account of the

Immaculate Conception is overtly concerned with the physical particulars of the divine pregnancy and birth. James writes:

A heavenly messenger suddenly stood before her: ‘Don't be afraid, Mary. You see, you’ve found favor in the sight of the Lord of all. You will conceive by means of his word. But as she listened, Mary was doubtful and said, ‘ If I actually conceive by the Lord, and the living God, will I also give birth the way women usually do? And the messenger of the Lord replied, ‘No, Mary, because the power of God will overshadow you. Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, a son of the Most High.39

In addition to his account of the Immaculate Conception, James’ explicitly notes Joseph’s absence during the first six months of Mary’s pregnancy. Upon returning to find Mary pregnant,

Joseph reproaches his wife. His outrage enables James to include an explicit proclamation of chastity by Mary. She proclaims, “ I am innocent. I haven’t had sex with any man.”40 Mary goes on to give birth to Jesus in a cave, a narrative detail unique to the Protoevangelium.41 After the birth, a midwife, Salome, inspects Mary to confirm the maintenance of her physical virginity. Salome inserts her finger into Mary and examines her. Upon finding her hymen intact she exclaims: “ Woe is me because of my transgression and my disbelief…Look! My hand is disappearing, it’s been

36 Karahan, Transcendence, 195. 37The Protoevangelium of James, Chapter 7, in Hock, Life of Mary, 58-100. 38 Ibid, Chapter 9. 39 Ibid, Chapter 11. 40 Ibid, Chapter 13. 41 Ibid, Chapter 18. 10

consumed by flames.”42 The description of the examination is shockingly explicit. Its blunt insistence on the persistence of Mary’s virginity speaks to the early Christian church’s discomfort with the idea of Mary as the literal bearer of the Christ child.43

While the Protoevangelium successfully rebuked doubts regarding the piety and purity of

Mary’s early life, the Virgin’s precise role within Christian theology would remain a subject of debate for centuries. The text was incredibly influential in the Eastern Church, where it reached pseudo-canonical status.44 Its influence did extend to the Western Church via the aforementioned

Gospel of Pseudo- Matthew; however, in the late fourth century when (secretary to Saint

Augustine) translated the Bible from Greek to , he omitted The Protoevangelium of James due to its alleged authorship.45 Jerome was a strict ascetic. As such, his De Perpetua virginitate beatae mariae adversus Helvidium maintains that both Mary and Joseph were perpetual virgins. Thus, the possibility of Joseph having children from a previous marriage was inherently problematic for

Jerome and contributed to the Protoevangelium’s exclusion from Christian canon.46 It was condemned by the Western Church in the sixth-century by the Gelasian Decree.47 Despite its condemnation, the gospel played an influential role in Marian Devotion in the East for roughly a millennium. The Protoevangelium’s preoccupation with the purity of the Virgin would perpetually resurface in debates surrounding Mary’s theological role within the Eastern Church. In order to provide an adequate historical and theological background for my discussion of the theme of purity in the Life of Mary cycle at the Chora Church, I would like to briefly investigate these debates. In so

42 Ibid, Chapter 20. 43 Ioli Kalavrezou, “"Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary became 'Meter Theou,'' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990), 166, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291625. 44 Cunningham, Protoevangelium, 168. 45 Hock, Life of Mary, 38. 46 Ehrman, Apocryphal Gospels, 32. 47 Hock, Life of Mary, 38. 11

doing, I will discuss the establishment of Mary as the Theotokos within the Eastern Church, as well as her status and significance within Byzantium and Cappadocian theology.

The Virgin Theotokos: Mary in Byzantium

Debates surrounding Marian Devotion intensified in Byzantium in the fifth century.

Pulcheria (399 A.D.- 453 A.D.), the sister of Emperor Theodosius II, dedicated her life to the

Virgin. She took a vow of chastity and embarked on a crusade to officially grant Mary the epithet

Theotokos, or ‘God-bearer’.48 ’s passionate praise for the Virgin exemplifies the commonly held Byzantine belief that by imitating a holy person a believer could –in a metaphysical sense– reach the divine.49 Her campaign motivated the Council at Ephesos, which convened in

431.50 The council condemned Nestorios, a follower of the Antiochene theological school.

Nestorios maintained that Jesus Christ possessed both a divine Logos and a human aspect, both of which dwelled simultaneously in His body.51 He also preached fiercely against the Virgin’s role as

Theotokos. Nestorios’ objections were particularly unpopular in Constantinople, where the epithet was a cherished aspect of the local faith. In fact, the term Theotokos was a common aspect of contemporary patristic theology, including that of the Cappadocians at the Chora.52 The Council of

Ephesos explicitly condemned Nestorios. It insisted upon the unity of Christ’s two natures and asserted the following regarding the Virgin’s role as Theotokos: “We confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, because the God of the Word became incarnate and was made man, and from the

48 Ibid, 34. 49 Karahan, Transcendence, 223. 50 Hock, Life of Mary, 34. 51 Karahan, Transcendence, 254. 52 Ibid, 250. Gregory Nazianzos, one of the three fathers of the Cappadocian order, utilizes the axiom Theotokos in his Epistula, which pre-dates the Council at Ephesos. The text asserts that anyone who doubts Mary’s role as a channel for the divine is godless. Additionally, a third-century Greek prayer to the Virgin includes the term. It also appears in the writings of Origen, Athanasios, and Cyril of . 12

very conception united to himself the temple taken from her.”53 This quote’s reference to the

Virgin’s body as a temple is particularly striking. Despite the Council’s official acceptance of the orthodoxy of the Mary as the Theotokos, remained fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of the Virgin as the physical mother of Christ in human terms.54 Therefore, in keeping with a precedent set by the Protoevangelium of James, the purity of the Virgin’s body was continually asserted in order to vindicate the spiritual alacrity of both mother and son. It is not a coincidence that Marian devotion perpetually makes use of numerous metaphors for the Virgin as mother that avoid references to her physical body. She is the temple, the tabernacle, the ark– as these typological descriptions conveniently assert the sanctity of Mary as a mother absent any problematic allusions to the anatomical implausibility of the Immaculate Conception.55 Despite the continual need to assert Mary’s physical purity in order to justify her role as the Theotokos, Marian devotion continued to evolve and grow in the centuries following the Council of Ephesos. During the sixth-century, the first were included on the Orthodox calendar of the Eastern

Church. John of Euboia’s In Conceptionem details ten major Marian Feasts, including the

Presentation of the Virgin the in Temple on November 21st and The Conception of Anna on

September 9th. His source was indubitably the Protoevangelium of James, as the text became the pre-eminent source of narrative information regarding the Virgin’s early life.56 By the eighth century various authors– including John of Euboia, John of , and Andrew of – began to author homilies devoted to the Virgin. These homilies, which are categorically preoccupied with the purity of the Virgin and her role as Theotokos, certainly rely upon the thematic and narrative content of the Protoevangelium for inspiration.57

53 Karahan, Transcendence, 255. 54 Kalavrezou, Meter Thou, 166. 55 Ibid, 171. 56 Cunningham, Protoevangelium, 171. 57 Ibid, 174. 13

Additionally, beginning in the seventh century biographies of Mary became increasingly common. The Clavis Apocryphorum records the existence sixty-four separate versions of the .58 All concentrate on her purity, piety, and dedication to her son; however, Stephan

Shoemaker has identified several Byzantine Lives that significantly elevate and expand Mary’s role in the Last Supper and the Resurrection, as well as her status as a leader in the nascent Christian church.59 The Lives authored by and John the Geometrician in the seventh and tenth centuries, respectively (both of which certainly rely upon the Protoevangelium for narrative and thematic content) include descriptions of Mary’s participation as a priest in the Last

Supper.60 Additionally, both texts include accounts of Mary as the sole witness to the Resurrection and describe the Virgin as the pre-eminent leader of the early church.61 Maximus and John’s Lives deviate significantly from the canonical gospels. Both authors offer no apology or additional explanation for their expanded accounts of the Virgin’s role in the Last Supper and leadership of the nascent church. Yet in regard to their descriptions of Mary as the sole witness to Christ’s resurrection, each author asserts that the canonical gospels inaccurately record the two Marys as having discovered Christ’s resurrection via an empty tomb because early Christian leaders feared that Mary, as the mother of Jesus, would be an implausible and easily refutable witness.62

Remarkably, both Maximus and John make no indication that Mary’s role as a leader in the

Christian church should not extend to other women. This feature of their Lives is shocking, particularly given the exclusion of Byzantine women from the Christian clergy63 and contemporary

58 Cartlidge and Elliot, Christian Apocrypha, 42. 59 Stephan J. Shoemaker, “ The Virgin Mary in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church According to the Earliest Life of the Virgin,” The Harvard Theological Review 98, no. 4(Oct. 2005), 441-467, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4125276. 60 Ibid, 447. 61 Ibid, 452. 62 Ibid, 452. 63 Ibid, 454. 14

considerations of the female sex as comparatively inferior (and inherently more sinful) than men.64

Shoemaker notes that both Maximus the Confessor and John the Geometrician were members of

Byzantine monastic orders. As such, their Lives were necessarily informed by the experience of religious life at all-male monasteries–the very environments within which their texts were most widely circulated and cherished. Shoemaker argues that monastic orders did not hesitate to expand the theological role of the Virgin because, given the segregated nature of their ecclesiastical lives, they were perhaps less aware of the potential cultural implications of applying such assiduous devotion to a woman.65 To further prove his assertion regarding the peculiar acceptability of

Maximus and John’s Lives within monastic orders, Shoemaker contrasts them with the Life of the

Virgin authored by the layman and famous hagiographer, Symeon the Metaphrast. Symeon’s Life is contemporaneous with John the Geometrician’s; however unlike the latter text, it excludes Mary from any leadership role in the nascent church. Symeon also intentionally limits narrative details from the Protoevangelium– which we must remember was, despite its considerable influence, a non-canonical text.66 Shoemaker thus asserts that Symeon’s Life represents a more mainstream view of both Mary as a theological figure and the appropriate role for women within the Orthodox

Church and Byzantine society.67 Differences among these Lives of the Virgin are fascinating. They indicate the continued relevance of the Protoevangelium of James, as well as the existence of conflicting attitudes toward the appropriate role of both Mary in particular, and women in general within the Eastern Church. That Marian devotion was particularly intense within segregated monastic orders further complicates these attitudes. Indeed, the Cappadocians–the resident order at the Chora Monastery revered the Virgin. In the following section, I will discuss Cappadocian

64Talbot, Alice-Mary. “Women” in Women and Religious Life in Byzantium, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 118. 65 Shoemaker, The Virgin Mary, 466. 66 Ibid, 464. 67 Ibid. 15

theology in relation to Mary and investigate how the order’s devotion to the her influenced the iconographic content of the Chora Church’s Life of Mary Cycle.

The Cappadocian Order: Purity, Piety, and Marian Devotion

The Cappadocian order played a crucial role in Orthodox theology in Byzantium from the fourth century to the . The three – Basil the Great, Gregory of

Nazianzos, and – are considered to be the most important theological figures of the fourth century.68 Gregory of Nazianzos, who is represented immediately below the scene of the

Anastasis in the parakklesion of the Chora Church, authored a number of texts devoted to the importance of worshipping Mary as the mother of God, or Theotokos.69 His Oratio emphasizes the integral role of the virgin birth for Christianity and evidences the importance of sexual abstinence for a pious life. Nazianzos writes: “A great thing is virginity and celibacy, a being ranked with the angels, and with the single nature.”70 Cappadocian theology maintains that a life of perpetual virginity is the surest path to eternal salvation.71 This belief motivated the order’s focused devotion to Mary, as her physical purity provided a fitting paragon for monastic life.72 Remarkably, as the bulk of foundational Cappadocian theology was composed in the fourth century, the order’s devotion to the Virgin as the Theotokos pre-dates the Council of Ephesos (431 A.D.E.) and the official establishment of that axiom for Mary within the Orthodox Eastern Church.73 The correlation between the Cappadocian Order’s relatively early (and remarkably passionate) devotion to Mary and Stephan Shoemaker’s aforementioned research regarding the particular resonance of Maximus the Confessor and John the Geometrician’s expansive and exalted biographies of the Virgin within

Byzantine monastic orders presents an interesting paradox. The establishment of Mary as a female

68 Karahan, Transcendence, 10 69 Ibid. 70 Gregory Nazianzos, Oratio 43.62 in Karahan, Transcendence, 249. 71 Ibid, 250. 72 Shoemaker, The Virgin Mary, 466. 73 Ibid. 16

theological figure worthy–because of her physical purity– of being praised and imitated by men, constitutes a fascinating intersection of gender and sexuality. This intersection is reflective of a fundamental ambivalence toward women within the Christian church.

The foundational theology of the Cappadocian fathers, specifically the thought of Gregory of Nazianzos, continued to be relevant in the fourteenth century when Theodore Methochites renovated the architectural structure and decorative program of the Chora Church. This relevance is evidenced by the contemporary writings of Gregory of Palamas ( c.1296-1359), specifically his

“Homily on the Presentation to the Temple of the Holy Virgin”, which explicates on the piety and sanctity of the Virgin’s ancestors, conception, and childhood. Palamas’ theology thus evidences the century- long pre-occupation with (and perpetuation of) Marian Devotion that was essentially preoccupied with the physical purity of the Virgin.74 This theme is made visually manifest in

Metochites’ decorative program for the Chora.

Thus far, through my investigations of The Protoevangelium of James, the evolution of

Marian Devotion within the Eastern Church, and the particular importance of the Virgin to

Cappadocian theology, I have endeavored to establish the historical perpetuation of preoccupations with the purity of the Virgin within Byzantium. Furthermore, I have attempted to draw forth a fundamental ambivalence within the Eastern Church regarding the appropriate role for Mary in particular, and women in general, within Byzantium and Christianity. In the next section, I will present a visual analysis of the Life of Mary mosaic cycle at the Chora with specific reference to

The Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple (fig. 1). I will present the mosaic as a visual crystallization of historical concerns with the Virgin’s purity. I will also discuss the cycle in relation to Byzantine Christians’ essentially conflicted view of the theologically and socially appropriate place for the female sex.

74 Karahan, Transcendence, 11. 17

The Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple

Chapter Seven of The Protoevangelium of James describes the presentation of the young

Mary to priests at the Hebrew temple. James writes:

When the child turned three years of age, Joachim said, ‘Lets send for the undefiled Hebrew daughters. Let them each take a lamp and light it, so the child won’t turn back and have her heart captivated by things outside the Lord’s temple…The priest welcomed her, kissed her, and blessed her: The Lord God has exalted your name among all generations. In you the Lord will disclose his redemptions to the people of Israel during the last days. And he sat her down on the third step of the altar and the Lord God showered favor on her.75

The similarity between James’ account of the Presentation and the mosaic of the same scene in the domical of the axial bay in the inner narthex of the Chora Church is astounding (fig 1).76

The familiarity of Metochites’ mosaicists with the Protoevangelium is well established; however, this scene makes visually manifest more than the narrative content of the apocryphal gospel. Indeed, the scene particularly emphasizes the righteousness of Mary as the Theotokos, or ‘god- bearer’.77 As such, her presentation at the temple functions on both literal and symbolic levels. She is literally presented to priests at the temple as a pure and pious child. This presentation symbolically likens

Mary’s body to a temple for the Immaculate Conception– an event akin to the creation of heaven on earth.78 Additionally– as discussed in the previous section devoted to Marian Devotion and

Cappadocian theology– the scene stresses the righteousness of a religious, monastic life. Mary is spiritually and physically nourished during her time at the temple. Through constant devotion she, like members of a monastic order, purifies herself of any sin. She prepares her body and soul to receive Christ.79

75The Protoevangelium of James, in Hock, Life of Mary, 65. 76 Ousterhout, Kariye Camii, 35. 77 Karahan, Transcendence, 193. 78 Ibid, 148. 79 Ibid, 194. 18

In order to contextualize the Life of Mary cycle at the Chora, I will briefly investigate other historical and contemporary visual examples of the subject. Pre-Medieval representations of scenes from the Life of Mary are rare. There is a frescoe in Syria at the baptistery of Dura Europos that dates from the mid 3rd century that may depict the of the Virgins to the temple (a scene included in the Protoevangelium of James and The Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple at the

Chora). The scene originally included five women, each carrying a lit candle, yet the surviving fragment of the frescoe only features two women (fig. 5 and fig. 6). The identification of the subject of the frescoe is uncertain; however, Dinkler, Schiller, and Cartlidge and Elliot maintain that it represents a scene from the life of the Virgin.80

Versions of the cycle that are relatively contemporary with that at the Chora exist in mosaic programs and manuscripts in both the East and the West, but regional versions of the narrative vary.

The Western cycle is generally more detailed and includes narrative content from the Gospel of

Pseudo Matthew.81 Examples of the Life of Mary cycle in the West include Giotto’s version at the

Arena Chapel in Padua c. 1305 A.D.(fig. 7), as well as the illustrated manuscript the Wernherlied von der Magd c. 1225 A.D.(fig. 8).82

While the beginning of the Chora cycle is damaged, the program as a whole constitutes the most complete version of the very few visual manifestations of this narrative in the East.83 It can also be found in The Homilies of the James of the twelfth century, of which two manuscripts exist– one in the Vatican, and the other in the Paris Bibliotheque National. The illustrations of the

Life of Mary cycle are slightly different in each manuscript; however, they have been traced to the same scriptorium in Constantinople. Figure 9 is an image of the Ascension from the manuscript at the Paris Bibliotheque National. Cartlidge and Elliot assert that The Homilies of the Monk James

80 Cartlidge and Elliot, Christian Apocrypha, 36. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid, 32. 83 Ibid, 24. 19

indicate the existence of an original illuminated manuscript of the Protoevangelium of James.

Remarkably, the frontispiece of the manuscript from the Paris Bibliotheque National includes an illustration of St. glancing through a copy of biblos geneseos. The book in this illustration is widely taken to be a copy of the Protoevangelium.84

Now that we have explored extant visual precedents for depictions of the Life of Mary cycle and the Presentation of the Virgin at the Temple, I would like to offer a focused visual analysis of the mosaic. In so doing, I will argue that the Presentation at the Chora employs temporal simultaneity, figural orientation, numerology, and color symbolism to effectively communicate the purity and piety of the Virgin’s lineage, childhood, and physical body.

The mosaic depicts two events simultaneously– the Presentation of the Virgin at the Temple and Mary being fed holy manna by an angel while seated beneath the Holy of Holies (fig. 1). This temporal simultaneity evidences the Life of Mary cycle’s preoccupation with the physical purity of the Virgin– the angel nourishes Mary with holy sustenance to ready her body for the fruit of the divine.85 Furthermore, the manna given to the Virgin resembles the bread of the Eucharist– spiritual food for the Christian believer that, via the sacrament of Holy Communion, literally becomes the body of Christ.86

Additionally, the figural orientation of the mosaic emphasizes the purity and piety of Mary’s lineage. Joachim, Anna, and the Virgin are portrayed on the same curved horizontal plane, creating an unbroken connection between their bodies, the priest, and the sacred temple (fig.10).

The number three– which symbolizes the holy trinity and thus references the birth, life, and – is repeatedly stressed throughout the mosaic. In keeping with the description of the Presentation in The Protoevangelium of James, the Virgin is brought to the temple at the age

84 Ibid, 33. 85 Karahan, Transcendence,139. 86 Ibid. 20

of three. She is depicted standing on the third step of the temple entrance and is seated beneath the

Holy of Holies atop a three-tiered throne.87

The coloration of the mosaic is also symbolic. The Virgin’s blue dress and veil represent the blue of the heavens. This association makes the Virgin a representation of God’s kingdom on earth– her body is an ideal vessel for the Christ-child.88 Additionally, gold tesserae in the background of the mosaic (as well as in Mary, Anna, and Joachim’s halos) shimmer when they catch the light, imbuing the scene with a divine radiance–immaterial evidence of the immanence of God.89 The torches carried by the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews, who accompany Mary to the Temple, also link the young Virgin with the essential creative force of divine fire.90

The strength of the composition’s efforts to assert the piety and purity of the Virgin’s lineage, childhood, and body evince historical preoccupations with the sanctity of Mary’s physical form. That purity is continually presented as a prerequisite for the righteousness of Marian Devotion speaks to a fundamental ambivalence toward the Virgin as a theological figure.91 Insistence on

Mary’s perpetual virginity implies that any sexual engagement on the Virgin’s behalf would taint her body, thereby interfering with the essential divinity of the Christ-child. This assertion evidences a patriarchal view of female sexuality that assumes women, as the ancestors of Eve, to be the original source of all sin.92 Therefore, in order to justify the elevation and praise of Mary as a female theological figure any indication of her sexual agency is perpetually excised. Christianity’s insistence on the physical purity of the Virgin as a pre-requisite for Marian Devotion reflects views of gender dynamics and female sexuality within the at large.

87 Cunningham, Protoevangelium, 170. 88 Karahan, Transcendence, 148. 89 Ibid, 148. 90 Ibid. 91 Kalavrezou, Meter Thou, 167. 92 Talbot, Women, 118. 21

In the subsequent section of this paper I will discuss understandings of femininity in

Byzantium. My aim is to further illuminate the aforementioned ambivalence toward Mary as a theological figure and contextualize historical preoccupations with her physical purity. My discussion will, ultimately, reveal these preoccupations to be symptomatic of larger societal concerns with feminine chastity and virtue.

Women in Byzantium

Attitudes toward women in the Byzantine Empire were both negative and positive. In her comprehensive research, Alice- Mary Talbot examines civil and canon law, the few surviving biographies of female saints, and decisions made by ecclesiastical courts in the empire in order to ascertain the role of women in Byzantium.93 Her research reveals that they were dually associated with Eve and Mary: sin and virtue, respectively.94 Notably in 434 A.D., following the Council of

Ephesos’ official recognition of the Virgin as Theotokos, (the of Constantinople) asserted: “Happiness has come to all women. Because of the Theotokos the feminine sex is no longer under a curse. She is the temple of God sanctified.” 95 Women were criticized as physically and morally weaker than men; however, Byzantine society did revere the crucial role of mothers in family and religious life. A paradox thus emerges with regard to Byzantine views of female sexuality– purity and chastity were considered premier feminine virtues, but a woman’s role as mother constituted an essential element of the perpetuation of Byzantine society and culture.

Women were praised, yet simultaneously devalued. Remarkably, sin was commonly referred to utilizing feminine pronouns.96

93 Ibid, 117. 94 Ibid, 119. 95 Kalavrezou, Meter Thou, 166. 96 Talbot, Women, 118. 22

With the exception of Empresses, Byzantine women enjoyed few political and religious rights.97 In a fascinating parallel with The Protoevangelium of James’ account of the childhood of the Virgin Mary, young girls of respectable families were traditionally confined to their homes from infancy, as any excessive interaction with the outside world threatened their chastity and essential purity.98 Women did serve as midwives and nursemaids– integral roles given the difficulty of childbirth in Byzantium. They were often, as with Salome in The Protoevangelium of James, employed to confirm a woman’s virginity prior to marriage.99 Women were expressively forbidden from joining the clergy; however, many young girls and widows found refuge in Byzantine convents.100 The primacy of marriage and motherhood in Byzantium cannot be overstated. Even women who joined convents were, with their vows, essentially wedded to Christ. Like the Virgin

Mary, they committed to a life of perpetual virginity despite their spiritual marriage to Christ.101

Girls married soon after they began menstruating in order to maximize the number of children they could give their husbands. Infertility was, perhaps, a Byzantine woman’s greatest fear, as her role as mother validated any weakness inherent to her gender.102 The parallels between the narrative of the early life of Mary presented in The Protoevangelium of James (and made visually manifest in the

Life of Mary cycle at the Chora) and societal expectations related to the ideal childhood and life for a woman in Byzantium are striking. Like the Virgin Mary, women in Byzantium earned status and praise if and only if they satisfied norms of physical purity. Additionally they were, like Mary, granted respect only through their roles as mothers. An unchaste, unmarried woman was essentially worthless–an Eve-like temptress undeserving of the respect of her peers (and certainly unlikely to achieve religious salvation).

97 Ibid, 143. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid, 131. 100 Ibid, 137. 101 Ibid, 143. 102 Ibid, 123. 23

Conclusion

There is certainly a remarkable correlation between Byzantine attitudes towards women and the historical treatment of Mary by the Eastern Church. In both cases physical purity is asserted as a necessary pre-requisite for praise, as well as a vindication of Eve’s original sin. Mary is justified as the Theotokos only through the continual assertion of the sanctity of her physical body. This apologetic strain courses through The Protoevangelium of James and debates and texts surrounding

Marian Devotion in the Early Church. It surfaces in both Cappadocian Theology, and the Life of

Mary cycle at the Chora Church. The implications of this millennium-long concern with the purity of the Virgin are both theologically and socially significant. They speak to the influence of the patriarchal structure of Byzantine Society and the Eastern Church, as well as conflicting considerations of the appropriate role for women in both spheres. In Christian Byzantium women were elevated as mothers and virgins, yet categorically diminished as inherently sinful– physically and mentally inferior to their male peers. This ambivalence toward the female sex is consistent with standard feminist interpretations of history. While a threat of misinterpretation certainly lingers when applying present conceptions of gender dynamics to past historical periods, I maintain that the textual and visual examples I have examined present an undeniably pervasive and impactful pre- occupation with female purity that influenced not only Marian Devotion in the Early Eastern

Church, but also gender norms within the Byzantine Empire at large. Where my argument finds particular nuance is the role of Mary as exemplar within all-male monastic orders, particularly the

Cappadocians at the Chora. While the order’s assiduous devotion to the Virgin was certainly underwritten by their particular identification with the righteousness of a chaste, pious life, their unusual willingness to accept an expanded role for Mary in the Christian story evidences a strain of devotion to a female figure that could very well have established a precedent for an increased role for women within the Christian church. That this possibility has been essentially eradicated since 24

the completion of the Life of Mary cycle at the Chora in 1321, speaks to a continual conflict within

Christian doctrine regarding the appropriate role for women within the religion.

25

Fig.1. The Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple. Domical Vault of the Axial Bay of the Inner Narthex of the Chora Church. c. 1315. Mosaic. Istanbul. Image from Creative Commons flickr.com.

26

Fig. 2. Plan of the Chora Church. From Robert Ousterhout. The Art of the Kariye Camii. London: Scala, 2002: 9.

27

Fig. 3. Virgin Hodegetria. c. 1315. Naos. mosaic set into marble revetments on the western face of the southeastern corner pier of the nave of the Chora Church. Istanbul. ARTSTOR. Image and original data provided by Erich Lessing Culture and Fine Arts Archives/ART RESOURCE, N.Y. http://www.artres.com/c/htm/Home.aspx.

28

Fig. 4. Virgin Blachernitissa, main entrance to narthex, c. 1315. Chora Church, Istanbul. Image from Creative Commons flickr.com.

29

Fig. 5. Procession of the Virgins. Baptistery NW Wall Dura-Europos (Syria) c. A.D. 240-245. Dura Europos Archive (Yale University). ARTSTOR.

30

Fig. 6. Procession of the Virgins. Baptistery NW Wall Dura-Europos (Syria) c. A.D. 240-245 Paint on plaster 95 x 140 cm (37 3/8 x 55 1/8 in.) http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/baptistery-wall-painting-procession-women- 1#sthash.HOGUezGG.dpuf.

31

Fig. 7. Giotto di Bondone, Presentation of Mary in the Temple with Ornamental Band, fresco. c. 1305, Cappella degli Scrovegni nell'Arena (Padua, Italy) ARTstor Collection (Scala Archives) SCALA, /ART RESOURCE, N.Y. http://www.artres.com/c/htm/Home.aspx http://www.scalarchives.com 2006, SCALA, Florence / ART RESOURCE, N.Y.

32

Fig. 8. Wernherlied von der Magd c. 1225 A.D. 24v. Mary Surpasses the Other Temple Maidens in Doing Needlework for the Men of the Temple from Pamela Sheingorn, “Making the Cognitive Turn in Art History: A Case Study” in Emerging Disciplines: Shaping New Fields of Scholarly Inquiry in and Beyond the Humanities, ed. Melissa Bailar. http://cnx.org/content/m34254/latest/?collection=col11201/latest. 33

Fig. 9. The Ascension of Christ. The Homilies of the Monk James. c. 1100-1150. Orig. Constantinople. Bibliotheque National, Paris. Image from The Royal Academy of Art UK. http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/byzantium/image-gallery-exhibition- highlights/gallery-of-key-images-5,14,BZ.html.

34

Fig. 10. Detail. The Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple. Domical Vault of the Axial Bay of the Inner Narthex of the Chora Church. c. 1315. Mosaic. Istanbul. Image from Creative Commons flickr.com