Defining Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium: The

Home , Ariadne (empress), Byzantine coinage, Byzantine dress, Constans II, Constantina (empress), Constantine V

University of Puget Sound Sound Ideas

All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship

2012 Defining Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium: The umiN smatic Images of the Empress Irene (797–802) Kriszta Kotsis University of Puget Sound, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/faculty_pubs

Citation “Defining Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium: The umiN smatic Images of the Empress Irene (797–802),” Journal of Late Antiquity, 5.1, 185–215, 2012.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Sound Ideas. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Sound Ideas. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defining Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium: The Numismatic Images of the Empress Irene (797–802)

Kriszta Kotsis

Journal of Late Antiquity, Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2012, pp. 185-215 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/jla.2012.0011

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jla/summary/v005/5.1.kotsis.html

Access provided by University of Puget Sound (18 Sep 2013 17:43 GMT) Kriszta Kotsis

Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium: The Numismatic Images of the Empress Irene (797–802)1

This study off ers insight into the complex processes through which an unusual ruler, the empress Irene, articulated her authority in visual terms. An examination of the numismatic iconography of her gold coins demonstrates how the public imagery of this female ruler was crafted by carefully joining together a wide network of associations that draw extensively on both male and female imperial predecessors and fi gures of religious authority. It is suggested that while remaining within the narrow confi nes of eighth century numismatic style and iconography, Irene’s coinage presents her both as a reigning monarch and a personifi cation of her most important imperial accomplishment, religious peace. Furthermore, the imagery also conveys a novel iconophile message and casts the empress as an orthodox and philanthropic ruler.

As the most widely available imperial public images, coins enunciated fundamental notions about power, and off er insight into the complex processes through which rulers articulated their authority in visual terms in the late antique and Byzantine periods. The offi cial imagery of the Byzantine empress

1 Abbreviations of frequently cited sources: Theop. Chron. = Cyril Mango, Roger Scott, tr., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford, 1997); I.I. Reiske, ed., De ceremoniis = Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus, De ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae, (Bonn, 1829); DOC = A.R. Bellinger, P. Grierson, eds., Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks and in the Whittemore Collection (Washington, 1966–1973); DOSeals = Nicolas Oikonomides, John Nesbitt, eds., Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbar- ton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art (Washington, 1991–); Grierson-Mays, LRC = Philip Grierson, Melinda Mays, eds., Catalog of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks and in the Whittemore Collection (Washington, 1992); ODB = Alexander Kazhdan et al., eds., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York, 1991); Oikonomides, Dated Seals = Nicolas Oikonomides, A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, 1986); RIC = J.P.C. Kent, The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol.10 (London, 1994).

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 185 6/7/2012 4:35:41 PM 186 Journal of Late Antiquity

Irene (797–802) demonstrates how a dynastic crisis and a rupture in the exercise of imperial power—conceived as a role ﬁ t for a man—could be negotiated by a woman. Irene ascended to power in 780 upon the sudden death of her husband, Leo IV. For the next ten years, she served as regent for their und- eraged son, Constantine VI. In December 790 Constantine banished Irene from the palace, yet recalled her from exile in January 792. Constantine’s rule ended in August 797, when he was arrested, blinded, and exiled upon the command of his mother. Irene governed independently until she was deposed on 30 October 802.2 The solidi of Irene’s sole reign (797–802) issued in Constantinople epito- mize the most innovative devices of her visual propaganda (Fig. 1).3 With a design consisting of portrait busts only, they carry identical legends and types of the empress on both sides. Irene, rendered with a stylized bust, wears a crown and holds prominent symbols of authority, the globus cruciger and the cross scepter. She is dressed in the loros, a long and narrow jewel encrusted band made from leather or heavy silk, wrapped around the upper torso in the shape of an X with one end hanging down to the feet and the other draped over an arm. The legends identify her as “Irene Empress.”4 Identical effi gies also appear on Irene’s copper coins and the lead seals of customs offi cials (Fig. 2).

2 Irene’s reign: Mark Whittow, “Motherhood and Power in Early Medieval Europe, West and East: The Strange Case of the Empress Eirene,” in Conrad Leyser, Lesley Smith, eds., Mother- hood, Religion, and Society in Medieval Europe, 400–1400: Essays Presented to Henrietta Leyser (Farnham/Burlington, VT, 2011), 55–84; Judith Herrin, Women in Purple, Rulers of Medieval Byzantium (London, 2001), 51–129; Lynda Garland, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204 (London/New York 1999), 73–94; Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzanz unter Eirene und Konstantin VI. (780–802). Mit einem Kapitel über Leon IV. (775–780) von Ilse Rochow (Frankfurt, 1996); Warren Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 780–842 (Stanford, 1988), 60–126; Paul Speck, Kaiser Konstantin VI. Die Legitimation einer fremden und der Versuch einer eigenen Herrschaft (Munich, 1978). For Constantine (born on 14 January 771) and his age at the time of his father’s death, see Theoph. Chron. AM 6262, 6273, 614–615, 626–627. Irene’s regency: Aikaterine Christophilopoulou, “He antibasileia eis to Byzantion,” Symmeikta 2 (1970), 1–144, at 20–29. Irene’s recall: Theoph. Chron. AM 6284, 642. Strife between Irene and Constantine: Lilie, Eirene und Konstantin VI, 84–99. Constantine’s arrest and blinding: DOC 3.1.336–337; Theoph. Chron. AM 6289, 648–49. Irene’s fall and death: ibid., AM 6295, 655–659; Lilie, Eirene und Konstantin VI, 105–112. 3 See Cécile Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1970) 2.489–495; Eadem, “L’Impératrice Irène (780–802),” Le Club français de la médaille, Bul- letin 82/83 (1984), 118–20; DOC 3.1.336–351; Franz Füeg, “Zu einem solidus des Konstantin VI, 780–797,” SM 30 (1980), 8–9; Barbara Kopf, “Eirene von Byzanz,” in Edith Specht, ed., Frauen auf Münzen, Materialen zur Frauenforschung (Vienna, 1988), 79–89. 4 A control mark (Θ, X, ) placed after the legend distinguishes the reverse side. For control marks, see DOC 3.1.77–81. For the loros, see Jennifer L. Ball, Byzantine Dress, Representations of Secular Dress in Eight- To Twelfth-century Painting (New York/Houndmills, 2005), 11–29.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 186 6/7/2012 4:35:41 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 187

Fig. 1: Solidus of Irene’s sole reign (797–802), obverse and reverse: busts of Irene (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 2: Follis of Irene’s sole reign (797–802), obverse: bust of Irene (© Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC).

Although Irene’s coins have been discussed frequently, a full analysis of the numismatic imagery of her sole reign has not been undertaken because scholars have focused on coins of the regency, with most attention directed at dating the issues.5 An examination of Irene’s independent coinage reveals how this unusual ruler, a woman exercising full imperial power, crafted her public image by interlocking a network of associations that drew on male and female imperial predecessors and ﬁ gures of religious authority. Her portrayal combined the schematic frontal bust, established on imperial coins since the

5 See, e.g., Alfred R. Bellinger, “Byzantine Notes,” ANSMN 13 (1967), 123–66, at 127–31; DOC 3.1.336–46; Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines 2.488–95; Eadem, “L’impératrice Irène (780–802),” and nn. 20–21, 25 below.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 187 6/7/2012 4:35:41 PM 188 Journal of Late Antiquity

seventh century, with a simple yet highly meaningful legend. Although the design and style of her coins followed the numismatic tradition of her immediate predecessors, subtle alterations drawn from coins of the fi fth through the early eighth centuries conveyed profoundly new meanings. This study thus suggests that Irene’s solidi expressed a novel iconophile message, which distanced her from her iconoclastic predecessors while also associating her with the tradition of orthodox rulership; she was presented as both a philanthropic monarch and a personifi cation of her chief accomplishment, religious peace. Following common Byzantine visual tradition, Irene’s image constructed innovative meanings through the use of minute variations of established iconographic types.6 Therefore, this investigation fi rst explores the numismatic tradition from which Irene’s coin imagery emerged and then examines the gold coins of her sole reign in order to demonstrate how her numismatic representations were invested with new meaning.

The Numismatic Context Irene’s image fi rst appeared on gold and copper coins in 780 when she became regent for her son (Figs. 3–4), and her countenance remained on the coinage until her deposition in 802. No imperial seals survive from the regency depict- ing Constantine and Irene together, although lead seals of kommerkiarioi used similar imperial imagery and inscriptions as gold and copper coins, suggesting a wider use of their public image.7 Irene’s coins and seals are especially important as they off er the only securely identifi ed extant visual representations of empresses between 641 and the 830s, bridging the gap between images of late antique and middle Byzantine empresses. Empresses appeared on early Byzantine coins with varying frequency.8 Coins depicted four empresses from 324 to 337 and eleven imperial women between 383 and 491.9 Usually, each empress is rendered with a profi le bust

6 For the limited visual range and subtlety of Byzantine iconography, see Robert Nelson, “To Say and to See: Ekphrasis and Vision in Byzantium,” in Robert S. Nelson, ed., Visuality before and beyond the Renaissance: Seeing as Others Saw (Cambridge/New York, 2000), 143–68, at 144. 7 See G. Zacos, A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals (Basel, 1972), I.350–55, nos. 273–78; Oiko- nomides, Dated Seals, 52, no. 42; DOSeals, 1.162, no. 71.19. For the kommerkiarioi, see ODB 2.1141–42. 8 Liz James, Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium (London/New York, 2001), 101–15. See ibid., 103, Table 2, for an incomplete list of coins of empresses from 325 to 802, omitting coins of Constantia, Theodora, Galla Placidia, Honoria, Euphemia, and Licinia Eudoxia, and missing some of the mints. Also see, Leslie Brubaker and Helen Tobler, “The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324–802),” Gender and History 12 (2000), 572–94. 9 Helena, Fausta, Constantia, Theodora in 324–337; Flaccilla, Eudoxia, Pulcheria, Eudokia/ Athenais, Galla Placidia, Justa Gratia Honora, Licinia Eudoxia, Euphemia, Verina, Ariadne, Zenonis in 383–491.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 188 6/7/2012 4:35:42 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 189

Fig. 3: Solidus of Constantine VI and Irene (780–790), obverse: busts of Constantine VI and Irene (with globus cruciger), reverse: seated ﬁ gures of imperial ancestors (Leo IV, Constan- tine V, Leo III), courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

Fig. 4: Solidus of Constantine VI and Irene (790–792), busts of Constantine VI and Irene (without globus cruciger), reverse: seated ﬁ gures of imperial ancestors (Leo IV, Constantine V, Leo III), courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

on the obverse, while one or more personiﬁ cations, and later the cross or a Victory holding the cross, appear on the reverse (Figs. 5–6).10 The Ravennate and Roman solidi of Licinia Eudoxia of 439, however, show diff erent iconography. The obverses carry Eudoxia’s frontal bust dressed in a chlamys (a long, rectantular cloak fastened with a ﬁ bula at the right shoulder), whereas

10 Fifth-century marriage solidi, however, show atypical iconography, see Grierson-Mays, LRC, 145, 158, pl. 15.395; DOC 1.4–5, pl. I.2.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 189 6/7/2012 4:35:42 PM 190 Journal of Late Antiquity

Fig. 5: Solidus of Helena (ca.325), obverse: bust of Helena, reverse: personiﬁ cation of Security (© The Trustees of the Brit- ish Museum).

Fig. 6: Solidus of Flacilla (379–386), obverse: bust of Flacilla, reverse: Victory inscribing on a shield (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

the reverses depict her enthroned ﬁ gure holding the globus cruciger and cross scepter (Fig. 7). Roman coins of 455 also diverge from numismatic tradition: the obverses represent Licinia Eudoxia’s frontal bust in the predecessor of the loros, the trabea (Fig. 8). The trabea was a purple or gold jewel-studded ceremonial toga of the Roman consul draped around the body. The reverses depict the trabea-clad emperor holding a mappa and a cross scepter and the empress carrying a cross scepter.11 Empresses were missing from coins from 491 to 565 but reappeared between 565 and 641, when portraits of ﬁ ve imperial women were stamped

11 Grierson-Mays, LRC, 244–245, pl. 34.870; RIC X, 165, 168–169, pl. 49.2016, 2023, 51.2046. For the chlamys and the trabea, see Ball, Byzantine Dress, 12, 29–35.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 190 6/7/2012 4:35:42 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 191

Fig. 7: Solidus of Licinia Eudoxia (439), obverse: bust of Licinia Eudoxia, reverse: enthroned ﬁ gure of Licinia Eudoxia (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 8: Solidus of Licinia Eudoxia (455), obverse: Bust of Licinia Eudoxia, reverse: standing ﬁ gures of Licinia Eudoxia and Val- entinian III (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

on copper and silver coins (Fig. 9).12 In this period, empresses appeared on gold coins only in the company of other imperial ﬁ gures (for example, husband and/or child), so after 491 no gold coins were minted solely in their names.13 After the reign of Justin II (565–578), names of empresses were not even inscribed on the coins, and numismatic representations of early Byzan- tine empresses gradually lost their speciﬁ city and independence to become

12 Sophia, Anastasia, Constantina, Leontia, Martina. 13 James, Empresses and Power, 110; Anne L. McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses: Image and Empire (New York, 2002), 158–163. Although the issuing authority was always the emperor, coins of empresses often made no direct reference to the emperor prior to 491, see Grierson-Mays, LRC, 6–8.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 191 6/7/2012 4:35:42 PM 192 Journal of Late Antiquity

Fig. 9: Follis of Justin II and Sophia (573–574), obverse: Justin and Sophia enthroned, courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

anonymous symbols of the unity and stability of the ruling house and the empire.14 After 641 the production of coins with images of empresses stopped altogether and was not revived until coins were minted in 780 with Irene’s likeness. The introduction of Irene’s portrait into the coinage thus must have appeared as a signifi cant departure from recent numismatic tradition. Little is known about the process in which numismatic types and legends were designed and it is unclear how the ruler and his/her advisers were involved in designing the new coin types. Nonetheless, given that coins were closely associated with the exercise of imperial power and the head of the mint was a member of the imperial administration, one may suppose that Irene and her advisers would have been consulted about coin designs.15 Although Irene’s portrait was absent from her husband’s coins, her image appeared on the fi rst gold issue of her nine-year old son (Class I, 780–792): busts of Irene and Constantine VI were shown on the obverse and seated fi g- ures of Constantine’s predecessors (Leo IV, Constantine V, and Leo III) on the reverse (Fig. 3).16 Copper coins and lead seals carried the same imagery.17

14 Brubaker-Tobler, “Gender of Money.” 15 DOC 3.1.73–77; Cécile Morrison, “Byzantine Money: Its Production and Circulation,” in Angeliki E. Laiou, ed. The Economic History of Byzantium, From the Seventh through the Fif- teenth Century (Washington, 2002), 3.909–66, at 913. 16 Classiﬁ cation is adopted from DOC 3.1.340–41. For coins of the regency, see ibid., 336– 46; Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines 2.488–95; Eadem, “L’impératrice Irène (780–802).” 17 For copper coins, see DOC 3.1.344–46. For lead seals of the kommerkiarioi, see Zacos- Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I.1.350–54, no. 273–76; Oikonomides, Dated Seals, 52, no. 42; and DOSeals, 1.162, no. 71.19.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 192 6/7/2012 4:35:43 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 193

Undoubtedly, Irene’s image appeared alongside her son’s in order to counter- act the imperial aspirations of her brothers-in-law.18 Irene and Constantine each hold a globus cruciger in the right hand and the empress carries the cross scepter in her left on the solidi. The inscription refers to Irene as empress and mother and to Constantine as emperor and lord.19 The earlier coins of the fi rst issue (Class Ia, 780–790) placed Irene’s name in the honorable position on the obverse, while Constantine’s name was relegated to the reverse.20 Yet, following Constantine’s temporary capture of sole power in 790, later coins of this issue (Class Ib, 790–792) changed the placement of the inscriptions along with the attributes—Irene no longer carried the globus cruciger and Constantine’s name appeared on the obverse (Fig. 4).21 Irene’s representations fi t with numismatic tradition of the mid-sixth to the mid-seventh centuries, when empresses appeared only in the company of other imperial fi gures on coins, and also con- tinued Isaurian dynastic imagery, which often showed several generations of emperors on a single coin (Figs. 10–11).22 Irene was cast as a link in a chain of imperial succession emphatically connecting the past, present, and future; this was underscored by the legend, which identifi ed her as the emperor’s mother. The second gold issue (Class II) carries busts of Irene and her son on the obverse and reverse, respectively; the name of Constantine is followed by the abbreviated title bas[ileus], while Irene is given a full title, augusta.23 (Fig. 12). The empress again holds the globus cruciger and cross scepter, while the emperor clasps the globus cruciger and the akakia.24 Morrisson and Missiou connected this issue with Constantine’s independent rule in 790, while more convincingly, Bellinger and Grierson linked it with Irene’s return from ban- ishment in 792–797.25 Copper coins and lead seals also employed the same

18 For the plots of Constantine’s uncles, see Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, 60–63. 19 “S IRInI AVΓ’ mIτHR’ ”= “s[un] Irinē aug[ustē] mē[tri],” “COnSτAnτInOS C’b’∆’ ” = “Constan- tinos k[aisar] b[asileus] d[espotēs],” DOC 3.338, 340–41. 20 However, see Bellinger, “Byzantine Notes,” 127–31, for diff erent dating. 21 See DOC 3.1.338, 341. However, Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines, 2.490, dates Class Ib to 792 or to 790–797. 22 For Isaurian coinage, DOC 3.1.225–346; Franz Füeg, “Die Solidusausgaben 717–803 in Kon- stantinopel,” RSN 70 (1991), 35–54, pl. 5–14; Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680–850): The Sources (Aldershot/Burlington/Singapore/Sydney, 2001), 116–24. 23 “IRInH AΓOVSτI COnSτAnτInOSbAS’ ”, DOC 3.1.341. 24 Constantine’s face remained beardless even after he had reached adulthood. 25 Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines, 2.489–490; Dionysia Missiou, “Στάδια βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου ΣT’ καί Ειρήνης̉ καί τά νομίσματά τους,” Vyzantiaka 1 (1981), 139–56, at 151; Bellinger, “Byzantine Notes,” 129–31; DOC 3.1.340–42. Vasso Penna dated Class II to 787–797 linking it with the Council of Nicaea (787), see Eadem, Byzantine Monetary Aff airs during the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Centuries (Ph.D. diss., Wolfson College, Oxford, 1991), 18–21. This would unreasonably separate Class Ia and Ib, which share nearly identical iconography and are connected through a die link, see Füeg, “Solidusausgaben,” Tabelle VI. Franz Füeg, Corpus of

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 193 6/7/2012 4:35:43 PM 194 Journal of Late Antiquity

Fig. 10: Solidus of Leo IV (776–778), obverse: busts of Leo IV and Constantine VI, reverse: busts of Leo III and Constantine V, courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

Fig. 11: Solidus of Leo IV (778–780), obverse: Leo IV and Constantine VI enthroned, reverse: busts of Leo III and Con- stantine V, courtesy of the American Numismatic Society

iconography.26 Both issues of the regency enunciated dynastic concerns: Irene was portrayed as an empress mother who ensured the succession of her son, the designated heir to the throne. Reviving earlier coin types appears to have been standard practice at the mint of Constantinople.27 Thus, Irene’s coin effi gies share numerous features

the Nomismata from Anastasius II to John I in Constantinople, 713–976 (Lancester, PA/London, 2007), 18–22, 64–66, off ers a diff erent dating of the regency coins. 26 DOC 3.1.345–46; Zacos-Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I.1.355, no. 278. 27 See: DOC 3.1.146; also Alfred R. Bellinger, “The Coins and Byzantine Imperial Policy,” Spec- ulum 31/1 (1956), 70–81, at 73, 75.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 194 6/7/2012 4:35:43 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 195

Fig. 12: Solidus of Constantine VI and Irene (792–797), obverse: bust of Irene, reverse: bust of Constantine VI, courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

with Licinia Eudoxia’s numismatic portraits (for example, the frontal bust, crown design, consular garment, globus cruciger, and cross scepter). Although the chronological gap between them is over three centuries and Licinia’s issues were minted in Italy, these coins could have nonetheless served as prototypes for Irene’s representations. Byzantine solidi circulated widely, and coins of Licinia easily could have been preserved in Constantinople, especially because Licinia, who had been raised in Constantinople as the daughter of the eastern emperor Theodosius II (402–450), spent her waning years there and no doubt had examples of her Italian coins in her possession.28 As empresses had not been shown on coins from 641 to 780 at all, and their carefully rendered portrait busts were absent from coinage since 491, it would not be surprising if Irene’s image makers, lacking recent precedents, revived the frontal bust portraits of Licinia’s Italian coins, which ﬁ t with the contemporary schematic style of frontal numismatic effi gies. Licinia’s connection with the church of Euphemia in the Olybrios district of Constantinople, which she founded and her daughter and granddaughter embellished, also may justify the image makers’ use of her coins as prototypes.29 As will be explored below, Irene restored the relics and another church of St. Euphemia, suggesting that

28 Grierson-Mays, LRC, 244, suggest that she returned to Constantinople shortly after 460, where she died before 493. 29 Leslie Brubaker, “Memories of Helena: Patterns in Imperial Female Matronages in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,” in Liz James, ed., Women, Men and Eunuchs, Gender in Byzantium (Lon- don/New York, 1997), 52–75, at 56–57. For the existence of this church in the eighth century, see De ceremoniis,1.5.50; Averil Cameron, Judith Herrin, eds., Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden, 1984), ch. 30, 92–93; T. Preger, ed., Scrip- tores Originum Constantinopolitanarum (New York, 1975; reprint Leipzig, 1901–1907) 2.60.238.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 195 6/7/2012 4:35:43 PM 196 Journal of Late Antiquity

she may have consciously emulated the association of Licinia and her female off spring with this particular saint. The coins of Irene’s regency depart radically from established tradition, given that no effi gies of empresses appeared on coins in the preceding century and a half. Their imagery, which combines numismatic iconography of the ﬁ fth and eighth centuries, promotes Irene’s role in imperial succession.

Gold Coins of Irene’s Sole Reign (797–802) During her sole reign Irene issued solidi and folles in Constantinople ( Figs.1–2).30 Both sides of the solidi depict her with a schematic frontal bust. Folles and seals carry identical representations.31 The iconography established for her effi gy during the regency is retained with minor modiﬁ cations. She holds the globe and the cross scepter and wears the loros; her crown is decorated with a central cross, but instead of four pinnacles it is now ﬂ anked by two. The legend on both sides reads “EIRInH bASILISSH” (“Irene empress”), diff ering from the orthography and title used on earlier coins, where her name is spelled inconsistently and she is titled augusta and mother of the emperor.32 Irene’s coins introduced subtle changes that conveyed nuanced messages when viewed within the broader context of eighth- century imagery and ideology. The following discussion explores the salient features of Irene’s independent coinage to off er a new reading of her numismatic imagery.

The Imperial Portrait and Its Duplication The coins of Irene’s sole reign diverge from certain aspects of earlier Isaurian numismatic iconography. Isaurian gold coins portray a single emperor on the obverse and the cross on steps on the reverse, or depict two or sometimes as many as ﬁ ve male imperial ﬁ gures (all of diff erent generations) on the two sides of the coin ( Figs.10–11).33 For instance, a solidus of Irene’s husband, Leo IV, shows the emperor and their son on the obverse and Leo’s deceased father and grandfather on the reverse; the legends emphasize the dynastic

30 DOC 3.1.347–51; she also minted solidi in Syracuse. 31 The reverse of the follis shows the traditional M ﬂ anked by XXX and NNN, see DOC 3.1.68, 190, 347, 350. For lead seals and a lead token, see Zacos-Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals 1.38–39, no. 355–57, and DOSeals, 1.162, no. 71.20. 32 DOC 3.1.338–42, 349; Füeg, “Solidusausgaben,” 50. For epigraphy of eighth-century coins, see DOC 3.1.183–89. Class I of her Syracusan solidi, however, used the title augusta in this period; see ibid., 350. 33 See DOC 3.1.9, 241–42; Charles Barber, Figure and Likeness, On the Limits of Representa- tion in Byzantine Iconoclasm (Princeton/Oxford, 2002), 88–89.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 196 6/7/2012 4:35:43 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 197

relationships: “Leo son and grandson, Constantine junior,” and “grandfather Leo, father Constantine” (Fig. 10).34 Irene, however, broke with these iconographic traditions: instead of aligning her image with those of the cross on steps or ancestors, her effi gy appeared on both sides. The duplication of her image created meaning not only through the repetition of the portrait but also through the displacement of traditional types. The avoidance of the cross on steps underscored Irene’s distinction from her immediate predecessors. This motif, introduced into coin iconography in the late sixth century, was consistently associated with the legend “VICTO- RIA AVGVSTORVM,” and after 720 with the Greek legend “IC XC NIKA.”35 Although the cross on steps originally served as an imperial victory symbol, during the eighth century it acquired iconoclastic connotations, because the cross was the only visual symbol promoted in religious images by iconoclast patrons.36 This development likely contributed to the avoidance of the cross on steps on Irene’s coinage, even though it was employed during her regency on the miliaresion.37 The repetition of the same imperial type on both sides of a coin was unprecedented on Byzantine coinage before Irene.38 The double portrait accentuated the absence of imperial colleagues on her coins. Not being blood descendant of the Isaurian line, Irene lacked an imperial predecessor with whom she could be associated, and portraits of her son or husband on her coins would have recalled the bloody circumstances under which she took offi ce, eff ectively terminating the Isaurian Dynasty. Irene, therefore, appeared as an independent ﬁ gure with no connection to the iconoclastic dynasty that preceded her. Nonetheless, her new visual device may be linked with Isau- rian numismatic imagery. The gold coins of her father-in-law, Constantine V, minted in 741–751, show identical ﬁ gures on the two sides, yet the indis- tinguishable busts represent two diff erent emperors, Constantine V and his father, Leo III (Fig. 13).39 This issue could have inspired the pictorial formula of repetition because Irene and her advisers had been likely familiar with it. Yet, the concept for the duplication of the imperial type could have also been

34 G. Zacos, A. Veglery, “Enigmatic Inscriptions on Byzantine Coins,” NCirc 63 (1955), 107–11; A. Veglery, G. Zacos, “New Light on the solidus of Leo IV,” NCirc 69 (1961), 30–31; DOC 3.1.326, 328–29. 35 DOC 2.1.95–99, 102; Barber, Figure and Likeness, 88–89. After 720, when the cross on steps was introduced into the miliaresion, it was only used occasionally on gold coins; see DOC 3.1.182, 231, 286, 317–18, 322–23. 36 Barber, Figure and Likeness, 83–105, with bibliography. 37 DOC 3.1.342–44, pl. XIV.4a1–4b9. 38 Some later emperors followed this practice, see DOC 3.1.367, 375, 394. 39 DOC 3.1.292–93, 299–300, pl. VIII.1b-1g4.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 197 6/7/2012 4:35:43 PM 198 Journal of Late Antiquity

Fig. 13: Solidus of Constantine V (741–751), obverse: bust of Leo III, reverse: bust of Constantine V (© Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC).

derived from coins of Licinia Eudoxia issued in 439, which portray her in a bust and a full fi gure portrait on the obverse and reverse, respectively (Fig. 7), suggesting the repetition of the imperial image. The duplication of Irene’s portrait may also refl ect a diff erent visual tradition. The repetition of an image within the same context was used to reinforce its message and magical effi cacy in the pre-iconoclastic period.40 Similarly, Irene’s repeated portrait amplifi ed the message of her image through a highly eff ective visual device, which ensured that her portrait did not escape notice and presented her position as inevitable. Irene’s double portrait on the solidi off ered a radical new representation of the empress. Her coins evoked the appearance of eighth-century coins emblazoned with imperial busts, corresponding compositionally and stylis- tically with Isaurian numismatic tradition. Yet, the repeated portraits also harnessed the power of late antique protective imagery and evoked coins of Licinia Eudoxia. Moreover, through the displacement of traditional Isaurian types, Irene’s solidi broke with the numismatic iconography of iconoclastic emperors. The doubling of her effi gy activated the viewer’s attention by its sheer unexpectedness, which, in turn, facilitated the reception of its message. The intended message of the double portraits, which present the empress both as a ruler and a personifi cation of peace, becomes clearer when considered together with the accompanying legends.

40 Henry Maguire, The Icons of their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium (Princeton, 1996), 119–20, 136–37, 145.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 198 6/7/2012 4:35:43 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 199

Irene’s Name The name was a crucial element of one’s identity in Byzantium and the development of the theory of images during the iconoclastic controversy crystal- lized the practice of consistently naming holy ﬁ gures in representations to establish their clear identities.41 The name was perceived as a fundamental component of both image and prototype as stated in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea.42 Maguire has observed, “accuracy and speciﬁ city” rather than “obscurity and ambiguity” facilitated the proper operation of icons in the post-iconoclastic era.43 The coins of Irene’s sole reign demonstrate a similar approach: her portrait is rendered with great clarity and the spelling of her name is standardized. During the regency, Irene’s name was spelled variously on coins as IRInI, IRInH, IRHnH, HRHnI, or HbHnI (Fig. 12).44 Throughout her sole reign, however, it was consistently spelled as IRInH on the coins (Figs. 1–2). This spelling is more consistent with the orthography of her name used in other documents and closely approximates the standard spelling of the Greek noun IRHNH (peace).45 The word eirēnē has varied meanings in Byzantine culture. Since Roman times, imperial ideology established the emperor as the safeguard and creator of peace.46 Moreover, the broad concept of peace ranged from communion with God to the absence of war within the Church.47 The interweaving of

41 Maguire, Icons of their Bodies, 37–40, 138–45. 42 J. D. Mansi, ed., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Paris/Leipzig, 1901– 1927), 13.244B, 252D, 261D; tr. in Daniel J. Sahas, Icon and Logos, Sources in Eighth Century Iconoclasm (Toronto/Buff alo/London, 1986, reprint 1988), 77, 84, 92. 43 Maguire, Icons of their Bodies, 144. 44 DOC 3.1.187, 338–42; Füeg, “Solidusausgaben,” 50. For numismatic epigraphy, see DOC 2.1.103–6 and DOC 3.1.183–89; Cécile Morrisson, “L’épigraphie des monnaies et des sceaux à l’époque byzantin,” in Eadem, Monnaie et fi nances à Byzance: analyses, techniques (Aldershot/ Brookfi eld, 1994), II. 45 Georgios Fatouros, ed., Theodori Studitae epistulae (Berlin/New York, 1992) 1.2.24–27; J. and P. Zepos, eds., Jus Graecoromanum, Novellae et Aureae Bullae (Athens, 1931; reprint Aalen, 1962) 1.45; Spieser “Les inscriptions,” 159; Theophanes, Chronographia, Classen, ed. (Bonn, 1839) 1.702.14. 46 Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, A. Shapiro, tr. (Ann Arbor, 1990), 167–92; Donald Andrew Russell, Nigel Guy Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford, 1981), 88–89; The Digest of Justinian, Alan Watson, tr. (Philadelphia, 1998) 1.43; John Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204 (London, 1999), 44–45; Otto Treitinger, Die Oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung in höfi schen Zeremoniell, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt, 1956), 230–31. 47 Robert F. Taft, S.J., “War and Peace in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy,” in Timothy S. Miller, John Nesbitt, eds., Peace and War in Byzantium, Essays in Honor of George T. Denis, S.J. (Wash- ington, 1995), 17–32.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 199 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM 200 Journal of Late Antiquity

the peace of the Church through Christ and the peace of the state through the emperor was enshrined in imperial ceremonials, church liturgy, as well as the actual building of the Church of Hagia Irene, which was patronized by Constantine the Great and Justinian in the heart of the city and played a central role in its life.48 These multifaceted connotations of the word eirēnē were deeply ingrained in Byzantine thought. The standardization of Irene’s name on the coinage of her sole reign could hardly go unobserved, as it liter- ally linked the empress with a cardinal imperial and religious ideal, thereby presenting her likeness as a visual portrait of the concept of Peace. The word “peace” is an uncommon inscription on Byzantine coins, but it has precedents in the use of the Latin term “PAX” on some seventh- and early eighth-century issues.49 They include the well-known pre-iconoclastic solidi of the second reign of Justinian II (705–711), where the globus cruciger prominently inscribed with the word “PAX” underscores the emperor’s restoration to power and his role as guardian of peace (Fig. 14).50 The obverses of these coins show the bust of Christ demonstrating Justinian’s iconophile stance, which was also conﬁ rmed by the important Canon 82 of the Council of Trullo, which he convoked in 692.51 This canon declared the desirability of representing Christ in human form in images, and was subsequently quoted during the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea convened by Irene, as an argument in defense of images of Christ.52 Irene and her advisers probably recognized in Justinian II a worthy predecessor and staunch supporter of iconophile orthodoxy and peace in Christ. It is possible that the word “PAX” inscribed on Justinian’s solidi inspired the new spelling of Irene’s name on her coins to highlight her pivotal role in restoring peace in the church and the empire.

48 Thomas F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, 3rd print. (University Park/London, 1980), 78–79. 49 “PAX” appeared on copper coins issued in 337 with an image of the deceased Helena, and on the coinage of Anthemius (467–472), but it was absent from coins in 491–602; see Grierson-Mays, LRC, 255–256, pl.35.903–908; Brubaker-Tobler, “The Gender of Money,” 577–78. In the seventh century, “PAX” was inscribed on the silver coins of Constans II in Carthage in 647 and the copper coins of the ﬁ rst reign of Justinian II from Carthage and Sardinia; see DOC 2.2.475, 572, 588–89, 591–92. 50 Ibid, 644–49. 51 Justinian II introduced the image of Christ into Byzantine coinage during his ﬁ rst reign; see- Hans Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Chicago/London, 1994), 134–39. 52 Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1987), 284–89; Leslie Brubaker, “In the beginning was the Word: Art and Orthodoxy at the Councils of Trullo (692) and Nicaea II (787),” in Andrew Louth, Augustine Casiday, eds., Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the Thirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies University of Durham, 23–25, March 2002 (Aldershot, 2006), 95–101.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 200 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 201

Fig. 14: Solidus of Justinian II (705), obverse: bust of Christ, reverse: bust of Justinian II with globus cruciger inscribed with PAX (Photo: Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore, 1951.31.4.1034, Imaging Department © President and Fellows of Harvard College).

Eirēnē was an auspicious name for an empress who was perceived as the restorer of peace. It may well be that the primary meaning Irene’s image makers associated with eirēnē was the reinstatement of orthodoxy and the defeat of iconoclasm at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Irene and her son convoked the council, participated in its ﬁ rst and last sessions, and signed the acts that changed religious policy. It is, however, safe to assume that the empress rather than Constantine (who was only 16 years old) was the instigator of the new policy, which served as a tool of legitimization for her authority.53 The location at Nicaea had both practical and ideological importance. After a failed attempt to hold the council in Constantinople the previous year, Nicaea off ered an uncontroversial location away from the capital at the same time that it suggested association with the First Council of Nicaea convoked by Constantine the Great in 325, further justifying Irene’s authority.54 This connection was enunciated in the conciliar canons, where the empress and her son are praised as “New Constantine” and “New Helena.”55 Following the restoration of images, Irene was presented as the founder of peace. The meaning of Irene’s name was exploited in iconophile texts, which equate the defeat of iconoclasm with the establishment of peace.56 Theophanes,

53 Irene was not the only force behind the Second Council of Nicaea, yet she was instrumental to its success. See Theoph. Chron. AM 6276–80, 630–37. 54 Noted by Herrin, Women in Purple, 87–89; Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, 82–83. For the failed council of 786, see ibid., 79–82; Theoph. Chron. AM 6278, 635. 55 Mansi 12.1055E-1058A, 1154D, 13.129B, 397E, 416E. 56 Noted by Speck, Kaiser Konstantin VI, 1.106–8.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 201 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM 202 Journal of Late Antiquity

for example, describes the reinstatement of iconophile orthodoxy as follows: “And so God’s Church found peace (εὶ ρήνευσεν), even though the enemy does not cease from sowing his tares among his own workmen; but God’s Church when she is under attack always proves victorious.”57 The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea include verbal puns on “peace” and Irene’s name: acclamations extol Irene and her son as “peacemaking emperors,”58 and the letter concluding the council praises her for defeating the iconoclastic heresy, stamping out strife, and establishing unity and harmony within the empire and the Church, in accordance with her name.59 Theodore Studite addresses the empress as “Irene of the divine name” in his letter of 801, while in a mis- sive of 817 he names her as “peace-named” and “peace-bringer.”60 The Life of Patriarch Nikephoros by Ignatios the Deacon (dated 843–846) also exploits the meaning of Irene’s name:

Then [Irene], whose name means “peace,” together with her son Constan- tine, received the imperial scepter from God as an inheri- tance from Constantine’s father. . . . She was God’s instrument in His love and pity for mankind, reconciling into orthodoxy the perversity and dissen- sion that insinuated itself like a serpent into the Church at that time.61

The Life of Theophanes Confessor (dated before 832) written by Patriarch Methodios provides perhaps the most elaborate literary ﬂ ourish based on Irene’s name as it narrates how her ascent to power engendered universal peace.62 The author presents peace as proper obedience to God and orthodox dogma, and portrays Irene as its founder and safeguard. Peace is characterized as a danc- ing, singing, and beautifully dressed maiden bestowing a multitude of beneﬁ ts (e.g., bounty, harmony, regeneration, and rebuilding) to folk in all walks of life. The 58-line text mentions the empress’ name seven times and uses eirēnē or its derivations about eighty times as it extolls her accomplishments.63

57 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. Classen, 1.717.15–17; Theoph. Chron. AM 6280, 637. 58 Είρηνοποιω ̃ν βασιλέων, Mansi 13.201E, 416E. Also see, Mansi 12.1086D. 59 Mansi 13.401E-404A; tr. in Henry Percival, From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Philip Schaff , Henry Wace, eds. (Buff alo, 1900) 14.571–74. 60 Epist. 7: “Ειρήνη̉ θεoνόμαστε” (in some versions θεώνυμε); Epist. 175: “ἐν ἡμέραις βασιλείας ειρηνωνύμου̉ καὶ ειρηνοδώρου̉ ,˙ώς συνδραμει ̃ν φερωνύμως τοι ̃ς ο̉νόμασι τὰ πράγματα;” see Fatou- ros, Theodori Studitae epistulae 1.2.26.83, and 2.296.18–19; for synopses and dates, see ibid., 1.1.149*-150*, 264*. 61 Alice-Mary Talbot, ed., Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Trans- lation (Washington, 1998), 48–49; for dating, see ibid., 33; PG 100.52C. 62 V.V. Latyshev, ed., Zapiski Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk—Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences de Russie, VIIIe série, 13.4 (Petrograd, 1918), 13.26–15.19; for dating, see Theoph. Chron., xliv. 63 Speck notes that it is sometimes unclear whether the text refers to the empress or peace; see Speck, Kaiser Konstantin VI, 2.497 n.29.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 202 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 203

Therefore, Irene’s effi gy on her solidi operated both as a portrait and a personifi cation of her paramount accomplishment and this meaning was conveyed by the changed spelling and standardization of her name. Byzantine visual and textual rhetoric had traditionally presented empresses as personifi - cations of abstract ideas. For example, Constantinian and Theodosian coins linked empresses with personifi cations of imperial virtues, tacitly suggesting identifi cation between them.64 Similarly, Corippus praised empress Sophia as the embodiment of imperial wisdom.65 Irene’s solidi engaged this tradition and presented the empress as both a fi gure of authority and a personifi cation of Peace. By invoking the inscription “PAX” on coins of Justinian II, a supporter of icons, and by reminding viewers of her defeat of iconoclasm, her coins also off ered a subtle iconophile reference.

The Basilissa Title Irene selected a new title, basilissa, for the coins of her sole reign to emphasize her new position; it was used consistently and without variation on her coins and seals. Varied titles designated Irene during the regency: despunēs (a version of despoina) in the mosaic inscription in St. Sophia in Thessaloniki, augusta and augusta mitēr on the solidi, while on silver coins basileis named her and Constantine VI as co-rulers.66 The plural title basileis was introduced into silver coinage to designate co-emperors in the early eighth century by Leo III, refl ecting the more wide-spread use of basileus in offi cial titulature as of 629.67 Signifi cantly, basileus was used for the fi rst time to name a single ruler on Byzantine gold coins during Irene’s regency, where Constantine was given this title in abbreviated form.68 Basilissa was the most frequently employed title in textual sources describing Irene’s sole reign, yet she also employed the male title basileus in her legislation in this period, and Theodore Studite’s letter of 801 addressed the empress as despoina.69 Although various titles were used for Irene during her sole reign, offi cial imagery consistently promoted

64 James, Empress and Power, 108–9; Angelova, “Ivories of Ariadne.” 65 Flavius Cresconius Corippus, Averil Cameron, ed., In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris, (Lon- don, 1976) 2.189–199, 4.264–280, 98, 115, 168, 204. 66 DOC 3.1.340–343; J. M. Spieser, “Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance I, Les inscriptions de Thessalonique,” Travaux et mémoires 5 (1973), 145–180, at 159; for titles of empresses, see James, Empresses and Power, 119–28. 67 DOC 3.1.177–79. 68 DOC 3.1.338, 341. 69 For a list of the use of the basilissa title during Irene’s reign, see Bensammar, “La titulature de l’impératrice,” 250. Theophanes uses basilissa most frequently when designating Irene both during her regency and sole reign, see Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. Classen, 1.706.7, 707.13, 708.5, 709.9, 713.18, 720.2, 733.5, 734.16, 735.1, 735,7. For Irene’s use of basileus, see Zepos, Jus Graecoroma- num 1.45, 49; For despoina, see Epist. 7, Fatouros, Theodori Studitae epistulae 1.2.24–27.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 203 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM 204 Journal of Late Antiquity

the title basilissa. It is likely that basilissa emphasized Irene’s independent rule because its meaning was less restrictively deﬁ ned than that of augusta, which circumscribed the position of the empress as closely dependent upon the emperor.70 The Latin title, augusta remained the primary title of empresses in ceremonials, legal documents, and chronicles in this period, indicating that the basilissa title was not simply its translation but rather a term with a dif- ferent set of associations.71 For example, the Book of Ceremonies uses almost without exception the title augusta in reporting the acclamations celebrating the coronation of the dependent empress.72 Basilissa also commonly designated imperial wives in literary sources and a connection may be observed between the description of an empress’ charitable works and the use of the title basilissa in eighth-to-tenth-century texts.73 In light of the use of the various female imperial titles in the period and the development of the employment of the male title basileus, it appears that basilissa articulated a change in Irene’s position from regent mother to reigning empress; it signaled that Irene supplanted her son, the emperor (basileus), completely. It is possible that the association with benevolence and charity also underpinned Irene’s choice of the title basilissa during her sole reign, for philanthropy was a cornerstone of her policy. Irene imbued this traditional title with her particular message; it underscored the complete transfer of power from son to mother and presented her as a philanthropic ruler, yet it did so with the help of a widely used title customarily applied to imperial wives.

The Imperial Insignia An examination of the insignia illuminates further aspects of the intended messages of Irene’s numismatic portraits. The crown, an essential component of the imperial regalia, played an important part in ceremonials.74 The Book

70 Bensammar, “La titulature de l’impératrice,” 278–79; Stojan Maslev, “Die Staatrechtliche Stellung der byzantinischen Kaiserinnen,” Byzantinoslavica 2 (1966), 308–43, at 340. Also see James, Empresses and Power, 119–28. 71 Bensammar, “La titulature de l’impératrice.” 72 Chapters 39 and 40 (tenth century), which describe the nuptial coronation of an emperor and the coronation of an empress, use the term augusta, although on one occasion ch. 40 also employs basilissa. Chapter 41, which relates the coronation and wedding of Irene in 768, only uses the term augusta to designate the empress. See Albert Vogt, Le Livre des Cérémonies (Paris, 1935), 2.48(39), 49(40), 50(41), 6–23; De ceremoniis, 1.196–216. 73 Bensammar, “La titulature de l’impératrice,” 271–72, 281–84; for example, the Life of Theo- dora (dated 867–912) reports, “To show her generosity, the empress (basilissa) gave fi fteen pounds of gold to the patriarch, fi fty pounds to the senate, and fi fteen pounds to the clergy” following her coronation; see Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images, 366; A. Markopoulous, “Bios tes Autokra- teiras Theodoras (BHG 1731),” Symmeikta 5 (1983), 249–285, at 260.58–60. 74 Klaus Wessel, Marcell Restle, eds., Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst (Stuttgart, 1978), 3.455–70; Ball, Byzantine Dress, 13; DOC 2.1.80–84; DOC 3.1.127–30.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 204 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 205

of Ceremonies describes the coronation of the empress demonstrating the use of the crown and other insignia during this ceremonial.75 Chapter 41 narrates the wedding and coronation of Irene held in 768, and chapter 40 recounts the coronation of the wife or daughter of an emperor from the tenth century.76 The same chapter also relates that the empress, originally dressed in the maphorion, was invested by the emperor with symbols of power, namely the chlamys, crown, and prependulia (hanging attachments of the crown) after the patriarch performed prayers over them. Her change of garment and the receipt of the crown and prependulia marked her transition from ordi- nary woman to sacred imperial being. Following the coronation, the factions praised the empress as an elect of God; the coronation ceremonial articulated her exceptional position and divinely endowed authority. Irene’s schematically rendered crown on the coinage is decorated with a cross, two pinnacles, and double prependulia, similar to crowns shown on Licinia Eudoxia’s Italian coins (Figs. 1, 7–8), suggesting that Irene’s crown design was inspired by these numismatic effi gies. From 642 to the mid-tenth century, crowns of emperors represented on coins do not show prependulia; therefore, during Irene’s reign the attachments were an exclusively female attribute, at least on the coinage.77 Irene holds a conspicuous globus cruciger, a traditional symbol of Christian imperial dominion (Fig. 1).78 Although Parani proposed that the globus cruciger on middle Byzantine coins was “conventional and did not have a speciﬁ c symbolic connotation,”79 visual and textual evidence suggests that it was in fact a meaningful symbol. Irene was stripped of this attribute in her numismatic portraits following her expulsion from the palace in 790, demonstrating that its presence or absence signaled the balance of power between Irene and her son. Moreover, the highly prominent equestrian statue of Justinian near Hagia Sophia showed the emperor holding an orb topped by a cross.80 Procopius

75 De ceremoniis, 1.40–41.202–16; Vogt, Le Livre des Cérémonies,2.49(40), 50(41), 11–23; Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, “The Imperial Coronation and Theory in “De Ceremoniis Aulae Byz- antinae” of Constantine VII Porphyrogennitus,” Kleronomias 4 (1972), 63–89, at 71–73. 76 ODB 1.596; Tsirpanlis, “The Imperial Coronation,” 71–73. However, for dating ch. 41 to 933–934, see Georg Ostrogorsky, Ernst Stein, “Die Krönungsordnungen des Zeremonienbuches. Chronologische und verfassungsgeschichtliche Bemerkungen,” Byzantion 7 (1932), 185–233, at 214. 77 DOC 2.1.81–83. However, a charioteer silk (ca.700–900) shows a beardless emperor with a crown with prependulia; see Paul Williamson, ed., The Medieval Treasury: The Art of the Middle Ages in the Victoria & Albert Museum (London, 1986, reprint 1996), 82–83. 78 See DOC 2.1.84–86; DOC 3.1.131–33; Angelova, “Ivories of Ariadne,” 4–5; James, Empresses and Power, 140–141; Reallexikon zur Byzaninischen Kunst 3.403–8, 469–71. 79 Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, 34. 80 See Mango, Brazen House, 174–75; George P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington, 1984), 237–40.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 205 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM 206 Journal of Late Antiquity

explains its signifi cance: “In his left hand he holds a globe, by which the sculptor has signifi ed that the whole earth and sea were subject to him, yet he carries neither sword nor spear nor any other weapon, but a cross surmounts his globe, by virtue of which alone he has won the kingship and victory in war.”81 This interpretation was likely known in the eighth century, as later historians drew on Procopius’ work extensively. The statue was still present in middle Byzantine Constantinople, and the Patria attests that the globus cruciger held in its hand expressed imperial majesty founded on Christian belief.82 The globus cruciger also was associated with female authority in early Byzan- tine images; it appears on coin representations of Licinia Eudoxia (Figs.7–8) and Martina and on the ivory panels of an unidentifi ed empress.83 Therefore, the globus cruciger was a widely understood symbol appropriate to commu- nicate Christian universal dominion as well as female authority. Moreover, it reiterated Irene’s fi rm hold on power in light of the history of the power struggle between herself and her son, when she temporarily lost the right to carry this attribute during the regency. Irene holds the cross scepter in her left hand. The scepter as a symbol of authority was derived from the insignia of Roman consuls.84 Consuls were depicted consistently wearing the trabea and holding a scepter on ivory dip- tychs of the fi fth and sixth centuries.85 Nonetheless, scepters were shown infrequently on Byzantine coins until the late eighth century. The cross scepter, not employed on Isaurian coins, was re-introduced into numismatic iconography by Constantine VI and Irene.86 Scepters were, however, not only attributes of imperial fi gures but also of attendants guarding the emperor.87 Yet, ample evidence suggests that scepters were closely associated with imperial authority. In early Byzantium the scepter was seen as a highly symbolic object that could denote the possession of imperial power.88 Several empresses on early Byzantine coins hold the cross scepter, including Licinia Eudoxia, Sophia,

81 Procopius, De aediﬁ ciis, I.2, 11–12; translated in Mango, Sources and Documents, 111. 82 Patria II 17, Preger, Scriptores, 159; Berger, Untersuchungen, 238; for the impact of Procopi- us’s description of Justinian’s statue on later writers, see ibid., 239. 83 For Martina’s coins, see DOC 2.1.288, 292; for the ivory panels, see Angelova, “Ivories of Ariadne.” 84 Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst 3.398–403, 471–72. 85 Kurt Weitzmann, ed., The Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century (New York, 1977), 46–54. Tiberius II (578–582) also was shown in consular robes and holding a scepter on his solidi of 578, DOC 1.266. 86 DOC 3.1.138–40; Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, 31–33. 87 See Theoph. Chron. AM 6268, 621; De ceremoniis II, ch. 15, 566–98; J. M. Featherstone, “∆I’ ΕΝ∆ΕΙΞΙΝ: Display in Court Ceremonial (De Ceremoniis II, 15),” in Anthony Cutler, Arietta Papaconstantinou, eds., The Material and the Ideal: Essays in Medieval Art and Archaeology in Honour of Jean-Michel Spieser (Leiden/Boston, 2007), 75–112, at 90, 97, 102, 104. 88 Angelova, “Ivories of Ariadne,” 4. Also see James, Empresses and Power, 140.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 206 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 207

Constantia, and Leontia.89 The scepter was deeply connected with imperial authority according to textual sources. The Life of Nikephoros, quoted above, describes the transmission of power to Irene and Constantine VI with an image of the bestowal of the scepter.90 The Book of Ceremonies describes the cruciform scepter and the loros garment as signiﬁ cant components of the imperial regalia at Easter, and portrays the emperor’s authority through the image of possessing the scepter.91 This evidence shows that the scepter, often associated with the loros in the middle Byzantine period, was an eff ective symbol of imperial power. Moreover, the scepter also suggested consular associations on Irene’s coinage, an idea also conveyed by her wearing of the loros. These attributes linked Irene to the long and prestigious tradition of Roman government as well as to consular benevolence, as explored further below. The careful depiction of the imperial insignia on Irene’s coins contributes to a traditional, pious, and highly authoritative image of the empress. The globus cruciger and cross scepter were important and well-established symbols of Christian imperial dominion and communicated Irene’s position as a pious sovereign in the strongest terms possible. Her crown with prependulia also emphasized Irene’s female gender and its use along with the cross scepter set the empress apart from her iconoclastic predecessors.

The Imperial Dress Irene appears in the loros both on the coins of her regency and sole reign. The loros was a privilege of the imperial offi ce derived from the garb of the Roman consul, the trabea, worn during during military triumphs and consular pro- cessions.92 Between 717 and 811, however, the reigning senior emperor did not normally wear the loros in numismatic representations.93 The solidi of Leo IV exemplify how Isaurian rulers employed imperial garments (Figs.10– 11). They represent the emperor and his son in chlamydes on the obverses and their deceased ancestors in loroi on the reverses—the loros distinguishes the

89 RIC 10.165, 169, pl. 49.2016, 2023, 51.2046; DOC 1, pls. L-LVII, LXX.71.1–2, LXXX; DOC 2.1, pl. II-V. 90 Byzantine Defenders of Images, 48. Also see Life of Ioannikos (846–47) by Peter, ibid, 267. 91 De ceremoniis, 1.1.25, and 1.63.282; Vogt, Livre des Cérémonies, 1.1.20, and 2.72(63). 91–92; DOC 2.1.88. On Pentecost and the Feast of the Transﬁ guration in 946 the emperors wore loroi and carried scepters, see De Ceremoniis 1.9.62 and 2.15.590–92; Vogt, Le Livre des Céré- monies, 1.57; Featherstone, “Display in Court Ceremonial,” 102–3. 92 Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, 18–27; DOC 2.1.78–80. 93 Exceptions are some Italian coins of Leo III, Constantine V, and Nicephorus; see DOC, 3.1.269–270, 315–6, 322, 359–360, pls. V.56–57, X.23, XVI.9–10.2, XVII.10.5. No loros is found on representations of reigning male emperors on imperial seals and seals of offi cials between 717 and 802, see Zacos-Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 207 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM 208 Journal of Late Antiquity

deceased forebears from the living rulers. The coins of Irene’s regency changed this practice: now Irene, reigning regent mother wore the loros, whereas Con- stantine VI and his ancestors wore chlamydes (Figs.3–4). Here, the loros articulated Irene’s secondary status, real or nominal, while still affi rming her rights in the imperial hierarchy as regent mother.94 The loros along with the prependulia emphasized a distinction in gender and focused attention on the empress, while the chlamydes aligned Constantine VI and his forefathers and highlighted their blood ties.95 The second issue of the regency renders the empress and her son in the same garments, although the ancestors are no longer present (Fig. 12).

The Loros and Iconophile Policy The coins of Irene’s reign retained the portrait created for her during the regency, emphasizing continuity with established tradition (Fig. 1). The loros dissociated her from her iconoclastic predecessors who never appeared in this garment during their reigns, while it also associated her with the pre-iconoclastic coinage of Justinian II who frequently donned it. The predecessor of the loros, the consular trabea was rarely used on coins in the sixth and seventh centuries, and it was absent from numismatic iconography from 610 to 692 in Constantinople. Justinian II was the ﬁ rst emperor represented in the loros. This is noteworthy, because the loros appears on his gold issue of 692 that inaugurates another numismatic novelty, the image of Christ (Fig. 15).96 The loros may convey the emperor’s subordination to Christ, clearly stated in the legends: Christ is “REX REGNANTIUM,” whereas the emperor is “SERVUS CHRISTI.”97 The loros was closely associated with Christ by the tenth century; at Easter the emperor and twelve offi cials appeared in loroi to represent Christ and his apostles. The loros signiﬁ ed the resurrection and evoked the burial shroud of Christ.98 It is not certain, whether these notions had existed in the late seventh or late eighth centuries. It is unclear when the Christianized meaning of the loros developed, although it was known by 899,

94 The loros is used once for a junior emperor in the eighth century, but was employed more often for junior emperors in the ninth century see, DOC, 3.1.283–89, 363–70, 387–404, pls. VII.3b, XVII.1a1–2, XX.2b-XXI.11. Leo V reintroduced the loros-clad image of the reigning emperor in 813, see ibid, 375, pl. XVIII1. 95 Ball, Byzantine Dress, 22. 96 DOC 2.1.79, 2.2.569–70; George P. Galavaris, “The Symbolism of the Imperial Costume as Displayed on Byzantine Coins,” ANSMN 8 (1958), 99–117, at 105–7. 97 DOC 2.2.570; Breckenridge, Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II, 63–68. 98 De ceremoniis 2.40.637–38. ODB 1.595–97, dates this chapter to the mid-tenth century. Michael Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081–1261 (Washington, 1969), 154, with translation of an excerpt.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 208 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 209

Fig. 15: Solidus of Justinian II (692–695), obverse: Bust of Christ, reverse: Justinian II standing (© The Trustees of the British Museum).

as the Kletorologion attests; the consular feast probably acquired Christian meanings through its movement from 1 January to Easter in the eighth century.99 This at least allows the possibility that the loros already had Christian meanings in Irene’s reign or possibly earlier. The pairing of the loros-clad emperor with an effi gy of Christ conveyed Justinian’s iconophile views and divinely sanctioned authority. Considering the possible connections between the use of the loros and the image of Christ on Justinian’s coins and the avoidance of the loros by reigning iconoclastic emperors, it is plausible to conclude that Irene’s image makers employed this garment because it had iconophile connotations.

The Loros, Philanthropy, and Orthodoxy Because of its consular origin, the loros could have also conveyed another aspect of Irene’s imperial persona, philanthropy. Consulship in the Late Roman Empire was associated with muniﬁ cence, as consuls were responsible for ﬁ nancing feasts and public games.100 The Book of Ceremonies mentions that the loros originated in the consul’s dress and alluded to the ruler’s obli- gations in governance, suggesting that its consular origin was understood in the eighth century.101 Irene’s largess (hypateia) during the Easter procession

99 Hendy, Coinage, 154–55; also see Breckenridge, Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II, 42–45. For the Kletorologion, see N. Oikonomides, Listes de préséance byzantines des IXe at Xe siècles (Paris, 1972), 201. 100 Roger Bagnall, et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (Atlanta, 1987); Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance, 296. 101 De ceremoniis, 2.40.637–639; Breckenridge, Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II, 36–37.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 209 6/7/2012 4:35:44 PM 210 Journal of Late Antiquity

of 799 recorded by Theophanes may indicate that the consular procession was still celebrated at this time.102 The loros was still associated with imperial muniﬁ cence in the tenth century, for the emperor distributed largess at Eas- ter and Pentecost clad in the loros.103 Perhaps Irene’s preference for the loros highlights philanthropy as a pivotal virtue of her imperial persona.104 Other evidence also suggests that philanthropy was essential for Irene’s policy. Philanthropy was a central imperial virtue molded after the Hellenistic theory of kingship; numerous early Byzantine empresses patronized philanthropic institutions and Irene likely drew upon their example.105 For instance, Theophanes highlights Pulcheria’s benevolence: “She . . . left all her posses- sions to the poor. . . . She herself had founded numerous houses of prayer, poor-houses, hostels for travelers, and burial places for strangers. . . .”106 Irene’s philanthropic record is similar: she founded homes and kitchens for the elderly and the poor, hostels for travelers and the sick, a cemetery for the poor, and established a public bakery near her palace in the Eleutherios district.107 She also canceled taxes and provided tax exemptions to orphanages, hostels, elder homes, churches, and imperial monasteries.108 Theodore Studite

102 Ibid., 43–45. Scholars suggested that the consular feast was moved in the eighth century from 1 January to Easter: see J. Ebersolt, Mélanges d’Histoire et d’Archéologie Byzantines (Paris, 1917), 65; Galavaris, “Symbolism of the Imperial Costume,” 107. For the view that hypateia had no consular connotations and designated imperial largess in a general sense by the eighth century, see R. Guilland, “Le Consul,” Byzantion XXIV (1954), 548–78 (reprinted in Idem, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines [Amsterdam, 1967] II.44–67, at 45, 61 n.18). For the view that hypateia denoted years of independent rule in the late seventh through the ninth centuries, see E. Stein, “Post-consulat et autokratoria,” Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales, Mélanges Bidez II (1933–34), 869–912, at 898–902. 103 De ceremoniis, 2.30.637–39, and 1.9.58–71; Kathleen Corrigan, “The Ivory Scepter of Leo VI: A Statement of Post-Iconoclastic Imperial Ideology,” AB 60 (1978), 407–16, at 411–12. 104 For similar conclusions, see Ball, Byzantine Dress, 17–18. I thank Jennifer Ball for sharing references with me. 105 D. J. Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare, 2nd ed. (New Rochelle, , 1991), 33–42; Judith Herrin, “Ideals of Charity, Realities of Welfare: The Philanthropic Activity of the Byzantine Church,” in Rosemary Morris, ed., Church and People in Byzantium, (Birmingham, UK, 1990), 151–64; McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 13, 19–22, 99, 103–6; James, Empresses and Power, 148–63. 106 Theoph. Chron. AM 5945, 164. 107 Patria III, 85, 173, see Preger, Scriptores, 246, 269; Berger, Untersuchungen, 634–35, 588– 90; Lilie, Eirene und Konstantin VI, 144–45; Herrin, Women in Purple, 102–7, 115. 108 Theoph. Chron. AM 6293, AM 6302, 653, 667–69; Jacques Lefort, “The Rural Economy, Seventh—Twelfth Centuries,” in Economic History of Byzantium, 1.231–310, at 285–86; Nicolas Oikonomides, “Le kommerkion d’Abydos, Thessalonique et le commerce bulgare au IXe siècle,” in V. Kravari, J. Lefort, and C. Morrisson, eds., Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantine (Paris, 1991), 2.241–48, at 242; John Philip Thomas, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire (Washington, 1987), 128–29; Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, 117–18, 151.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 210 6/7/2012 4:35:45 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 211

thanked Irene and applauded her philanthropic measures that alleviated the crippling tax burden in a letter.109 Irene’s philanthropy also manifested in her building and restoration proj- ects, another well-established female imperial role since the early Byzantine period.110 Irene’s architectural patronage was more ample than that of most rulers of the late seventh and eighth centuries, demonstrating a commitment to public welfare.111 She is credited with the rebuilding of Beroia in Thrace, renamed as Eirenoupolis evoking the illustrious example of the foundation of Constantinople.112 Irene is described as the patron of the monastery of St. Euphrosyne ta Libadia, and the churches of Sts. Anastasios (with Constantine VI), Luke, and Eustathios in Constantinople, and the convent on the Princes’ Island.113 Her restoration of churches, images, and relics is also applauded.114 Of particular interest are the rediscovery of St. Euphemia’s relics and the refur- bishment of her church because these actions show sustained attempts at presenting Irene as a philanthropic and orthodox ruler.115 Euphemia was the patron saint of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and was seen as an embodiment of true orthodoxy.116 Her relics, located in her Chalcedonian church before their translation to Constantinople in the seventh

109 For Epist. 7, see n. 60 above; Nicolas Oikonomides, “De l’impôt de distribution à l’impôt de quotité à propos du premier cadastre byzantin (7e-9e siècle), in ZRVI 26 (1987), 9–19 (reprint in Idem, Social and Economic Life in Byzantium, Elizabeth Zachariadou, ed. [Aldershot, 2004], IX), at 14–16; Speck, Kaiser Konstantin VI, I, 382–83. 110 James, Empresses and Power, 149–54; Brubaker, “Memories of Helena”; James, “Building and Rebuilding.” 111 Herrin, Women in Purple, 106. 112 Theoph. Chron. AM 6276, 631; during the same campaign she also rebuilt Anchialos, ibid. 113 Patria III, 17, 77, 85, 154, in Preger, Scriptores, 219, 243, 246, 265; Berger, Untersuchungen, 741–42, 646–48, 634. For the convent, see Chronicle of Theophanes, xlv, and Theoph. Chron. AM 6295, 657, 658; Judith Herrin, “Changing Functions of Monasteries for Women during Byzan- tine Iconoclasm,” in Lynda Garland, ed., Byzantine Women: Varieties of Experience, 800–1200, (Aldershot/Burlington, 2006), 1–15, at 11. 114 For the Pege and the Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki, see Brubaker-Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 23–24, 30. For the restoration of Christ’s image at the Chalke Gate, see Patria III, 20, in Preger, Scriptores, 219–20; Mango, The Brazen House, 121–22; Brubaker-Haldon, Byzan- tium in the Iconoclast Era, 71; Marie-France Auzépy, “La destruction de l’icône du Christ de la Chalcé de Léon III: Propaganda ou réalité?,” Byzantion 60 (1990), 445–92. 115 See Theoph. Chron. AM 6258, 607–8; Patria III, 9 in Preger, Scriptores, 216–17; Albre- cht Berger, Untersuchungen, 556–59. For Euphemia’s church, see ODB 2.747, with bibliography. Mango speculated that Irene may have built the church of Euphemia anew, see Cyril Mango, “The Relics of St. Euphemia and the Synaxarion of Constantinople,” in Santo Lucà, Lidia Perria, eds., Opora: Studi in onore di mgr. Paul Canart per il LXX compleanno (Grottaferrata, 1997–1999), 3.79–87, at 86. 116 Richard Price, Michael Gaddis, tr., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, (Liverpool, 2005),3.122–23. Also see Cameron-Herrin, Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century, 176.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 211 6/7/2012 4:35:45 PM 212 Journal of Late Antiquity

century, were credited with authenticating the fi nal defi nition of faith at the council.117 In the defi nition of faith the presiding imperial couple, Marcian and Pulcheria, were praised as New Constantine and New Helena and as “luminaries of orthodoxy” and “luminaries of peace.”118 Pulcheria was clearly perceived as a creator of harmony and peace within the church. Pulcheria’s orthodoxy, leadership in convoking the council, and her comparison to Hel- ena furnished a suitable imperial female prototype, although Irene’s imitatio Pulcheriae was not articulated in surviving texts of the period.119 Yet, it is likely that contemporaries familiar with imperial and ecclesiastical history would have recognized Irene’s emulation of Pulcheria. By the tenth century the commemorations of Irene and Pulcheria were intertwined, strengthening the possibility that Irene’s imitation of Pulcheria was understood by her contemporaries.120 The restoration of Euphemia’s relics and church allied Irene with a powerful female saint who produced healing miracles and safeguarded orthodoxy, while also affi liated her with the venerable Pulcheria, carefully weaving together main threads of her imperial ideology, namely philanthropy, peace-making, and orthodoxy. Therefore, it is conceivable that the loros on Irene’s coins alluded to both philanthropy and iconophile orthodoxy.

Garments of Empresses The signiﬁ cance of Irene’s use of the loros is heightened when we consider that its precursor, the trabea, was rarely worn by empresses in surviving early Byzantine images. The only empress shown in the trabea on coins before Irene was Licinia Eudoxia (Fig. 8). Although empresses did not appear in the trabea often, it was used on occasion for representations of personiﬁ cations and the Virgin.121 The most frequently represented garment of empresses on coins and

117 François Halkin, ed., Euphémie de Chalcédoine (Brussels, 1965), 93–95, 129–32, 165–67; and Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, ed. H. Delehaye (Brussels, 1902), 811–13. 118 Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 2.240. Also see ibid., 240–43; Kent Holum, Theodosian Empresses, Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1982), 213–16. 119 Irene’s emulation of Pulcheria was noted by Linda Marie Hans, “Der Kaiser als Märchenprinz: Brautschau und Heiratspolitik in Konstantinopel, 395–882,” JÖB 38 (1988), 33–52, at 47–52; and Christine Angelidi, Pulcheria. La Castità al Potere (c.399-c.455) (Milan, 1998), 136–38. 120 Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, 871–72; Juan Mateos, S.I., “Le Typicon de la Grande Église,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165–66 (1962–1963), Rome, I.363; Angelidi, Pul- cheria, 138. 121 Jannic Durand, Byzance, L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises (Paris, 1992), 60–61; Bissera Pentcheva, Icons and Power. The Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park, 2006), 21–26. Bente Kiilerich, “The Image of Anicia Juliana in the Vienna Dioscurides: Flat- tery or Appropriation of Imperial Imagery,” SOsl 76 (2001), 169–90, at 173–77, describes Juliana’s garment as a consular dress.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 212 6/7/2012 4:35:45 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 213

in other media (e.g. the ivories representing an unidentifi ed empress) from 383 to 641 was the chlamys122 (Figs. 6–7, 9). Originally a military garment, the purple chlamys was one of the most recognizable visual symbols of imperial power, as both emperors and empresses were vested with this cloak during their coronations.123 The chlamys became particularly popular in representations of Theodosian empresses, creating assimilation between the fi gures of the emperor and the empress, and visualizing the notion of partnership in imperial power.124 Another garment, the palla, is worn by empresses on steelyard weights and a marble statuette.125 Although early Byzantine empresses wore various garments according to the visual record, their most frequently represented vestment was the chlamys. It is impossible to know what garments were favored by empresses from 641 to 780, because there are no securely identifi ed surviving representations of imperial women in this period. Chapter 41 of the Book of Ceremonies provides meager evidence for eighth-century practice: it indicates that the would-be empress wore an imperial tunic and a maphorion before her coronation and that during the coronation ritual her maphorion was replaced with the chlamys.126 Irene’s selection of the loros appears highly signifi cant against this back- ground. Its relatively rare use in the preceding period may have recommended it for Irene’s coinage. The loros was clearly associated with the exercise of imperial authority and consular philanthropy, and on occasion empresses or female personifi cations donned it. Yet, it was not the customary garment associated with imperial wives. The selection of a well-established but infrequently used garment appropriate both for rulers and personifi cations allowed Irene’s image makers to project specifi c meanings onto the loros, such as her iconophile affi liation, philanthropic policy, and peace-making regime. Her image taps into tradition by reviving the pre-iconoclastic visual prototypes of Licinia Eudoxia, Justinian II, and female personifi cations and thereby distancing her from her iconoclast predecessors.

Conclusion While most aspects of Irene’s numismatic iconography were already established on the coins of the regency, the messages associated with her portraits

122 ODB 1.424; Angelova, “Ivories of Ariadne;” Ball, Byzantine Dress, 29–35; Parani, Recon- structing the Reality of Images, 12–18; McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 168–78. 123 Ball, Byzantine Dress, 30. 124 Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 43; Angelova, “Ivories of Ariadne,” 2–3. 125 For steelyard weights, see McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 29–64; for the statuette, see Durand, Byzance, 36–37. 126 De ceremoniis 1.41.208–9; Vogt, Livre des Cérémonies 2.50(41).16–17.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 213 6/7/2012 4:35:45 PM 214 Journal of Late Antiquity

came into their full capacity during her sole reign, when her image was shown with greater clarity and was associated with new legends. Irene’s solidi visual- ized her newly acquired authority and presented her as a philanthropic, orthodox, and iconophile ruler who also guaranteed and embodied religious peace. The imagery on her solidi refrained from direct visual references to iconophile policy. Clearly, Irene’s representations merged tradition and innovation carefully. Her images acknowledged her connections with her Isaurian male predecessors yet also strategically distanced her from them in order to enunci- ate clearly the legitimacy of her independent rule founded upon a return to iconophile orthodoxy. The restoration of orthodoxy was undoubtedly Irene’s greatest accomplishment, as textual sources regularly attest to her presence in Byzantine collective memory as a champion of orthodoxy, and subtle references to this achievement may be also found on her coinage. Irene’s coin images provide a link between the last portraits of late antique empresses and the next extant representations of middle Byzantine empresses; her representations are therefore pivotal for understanding the development of the offi cial imagery of empresses from the seventh through the ninth centuries. The employment of the loros for empresses, which became their garment of choice in the middle Byzantine period, may have originated with Irene, and her coin effi gies clearly served as prototypes for numismatic portraits of empresses of the ninth and tenth centuries.127 While scholars emphasize the strong ideological connections between diff erent generations of imperial women in forging their political and visual identity, in the case of Irene, it is noteworthy that her prototypes include not only imperial women but also male imperial predecessors and a female saint.128 She is presented as a ruler fi rmly ensconced in the tradition of Byzantine orthodoxy and rulership. Although the Byzantine mentality was usually unforgiving of women transgressing traditional gender roles, Irene’s defeat of iconoclasm provided a discourse in which her non-traditional behavior could be viewed in a positive light.129 Consequently, she is described in a ninth-century text as a woman shattering the very defi nition of Byzantine womanhood: “Irene was a mere woman, but she possessed both the love of God and fi rmness of understanding, if it is right to give the name woman to one who surpassed even men in the piety of her understanding. . . .”130 Although Irene as a

127 DOC 3.1.461–63, DOC 3.2.490, 541–42. 128 See, Brubaker, “Memories of Helena;” Herrin, “The Imperial Feminine;” Eadem, Women in Purple. 129 See for example Procopius’ highly negative evaluation of the empress Theodora: McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 107–20. 130 Life of Patriarch Nikephoros I, in Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images, 48. The praise of women through masculinization is a trope of Byzantine literature, see Paul Halsall, Women’s

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 214 6/7/2012 4:35:45 PM KOTSIS ^ Deﬁ ning Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium 215

female ruler indeed broke new ground, her offi cial imagery presented her in a restrained visual image that upon ﬁ rst glance ﬁ ts perfectly within eighth- century numismatic tradition, yet upon closer inspection reveals a plethora of subtle references that highlight both the traditional and innovative aspects of her sovereignty.131

University of Puget Sound

Bodies, Men’s Souls: Sanctity and Gender in Byzantium (Ph.D. diss., Fordham University, 1999), 191–205. 131 For their generous help in my pursuit of this project, I thank the University of Puget Sound for the John Lantz Junior Sabbatical Fellowship, William Metcalf and the American Numismatic Soci- ety for membership in the 1997 Graduate Summer Seminar, Elena Stolyarik, Michael Alram, Les- lie Brubaker, Masa Culumovic, Philip Grierson, Georgia-Constantia Nikolaou, Linda Williams, Alicia Walker, Anna Kartsonis, Ralph Mathisen and the anonymous JLA referees. Preliminary conclusions were presented at the Byzantine Studies Conference in Boston, 2000.

JLA 5.1 3rd proof text.indd 215 6/7/2012 4:35:45 PM