Empresses and Augustae as wives,

paramours and mistresses

(5th – 11th centuries)

Katerina NIKOLAOU (Athens)

The authors who documented the lives of emperors –with very few exceptions, such as Procopius
and Michael Psellos– were not particularly interested in their private or romantic affairs. Oc-
casionally they might mention imperial wives by name, but they would make extensive references
to empresses only when their actions influenced political developments. What they neglected to
do, however, was to approach those illicit incidents from a feminine point of view as well; as a
result, certain questions emerge, revolving around the central reference point of the women con-
cerned, both as parts of the regularity of marital relations and as agents leading to the disruption
or circumvention.
The aim of this study is to present, with the use of telling references from the above-mentioned
sources, the distinct and/or interlocked “love” parts played by Byzantium’s crowned women,
to attempt their categorization and to draw certain broad conclusions conerning their roles as
wives, paramours and mistressess.

When Theodosius II decided to marry, he asked his sister Pulcheria to

make provisions for finding a suitable bride. The young ruler outlined the desir-
able qualifications in order of preference: pulchritude, royal or senatorial birth,
and wealth. He stated, however, that he was willing to overlook the absence of
the latter two, if the candidate was a virgin and sufficiently beautiful1. Apart
from John Malalas who in this way drew the image of an emperor’s wife, many
Byzantine authors repeated, with only slight variations throughout the ages, the
template of an ideal Augusta 2. For instance, Procopius added social reserve and
prudence to his description of the bride that Justinian could have had by his side
instead of Theodora3. This feminine ideal, to which the empire’s “first lady”
was meant to conform, was not far from what was projected as the desirable
model of a byzantine wife4. Physical beauty aimed at the husband’s aesthetic
1 Ioannes Malalas, Chronographia, (CFHB, 35), I. Thurn (ed.), Berlin – New York
2000, 273.
2 On the ideal model of an Augusta during the Early Byzantine period, see L. JAMES,
Empresses and power in early Byzantium, Leicester 2001, 11–25, and for the Komnenian era
B. HILL, The Ideal Komnenian Imperial Women, BF 23, 1996, 7–18.
3 Procopius, Historia arcana (= Anecdota), G. Wirth (ed.) (post J. Haury), Procopii Cae-
sariensis opera omnia, III, Leipzig 1963, 10.2–3.
4 On the ideal role model of the Byzantine wife promoted by writers, especially au-
thors of saints’ lives, see K. NIKOLAOU, Η γυναίκα στη μέση βυζαντινή εποχή. Κοινωνικά
πρότυπα και καθημερινός βίος στα αγιολογικά κείμενα, (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών –
Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Μονογραφίες, 6), Athens 2005, 153–156. See also 43
 Katerina Nikolaou

satisfaction5, while shyness and prudence guaranteed the preservation of male

and, by extension, family honor.
One might say that, if and when those prerequisites were observed, the mar-
riages of Byzantine emperors should have been happy ones and that, if not mari-
tal bliss, at least peace at home would have been assured.
However, despite the fact that until at least the middle of the eleventh cen-
tury the majority of rulers married women of their own choosing and, in several
instances, those with whom they were in love6, imperial marriages still failed to
break away from the timeless rule which claims that living together in happy
matrimony is a very tricky affair.
The authors who documented the lives of emperors – with very few excep-
tions, such as Procopius and Michael Psellos, during the period in question –
were not particularly interested in their private or romantic affairs. Occasional-
ly they mentioned imperial wives by name, but they only made extensive refe-
rences to empresses when their actions influenced political developments, e.g.
the Moechian Controversy7 or the tetragamy of Leo VI8. What they neglected
to do, however, was to approach those illicit incidents from the point of view of
the women involved. Thus, it is only reasonable that certain questions emerge,
revolving around the central reference point of the women concerned, both as

B. HILL, Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025 – 1204: Power, Patronage and Ideology, Long-
man 1999, 83–87, regarding the ideal woman during the Komnenian era.
5 Even in hagiographical texts it is implied, and in some cases even explicitly stated,
that marriage also aims at pleasure, apart from its obvious purpose, procreation. See for
instance the Life of Thomais of Lesbos, AASS Nov. IV, 235: οὐδὲ γὰρ σωματικῆς ἡδονῆς
ἕνεκα πρὸς ὁμοζυγίαν ἐτράπησαν· οὔμενουν· ἀλλ᾽ ἐφέσει παιδὸς ἀγαθοῦ. Further-
more, in The Life of Philaretos the Merciful, L. Rydén (ed.), Life of St Philaretos the Merci-
ful Written by His Grandson Niketas: A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, Notes,
and Indices, (Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia, 8), Uppsala 2002, 88, one may find evidence
pointing to the existence and use of both a portrait and the shoe size of the ideal royal
wife: Θεασάμενοι καὶ τὸ λαυρᾶτον ηὗραν καὶ τοῦτο ὅμοιον, ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ τζαγκίον
καταμετρήσαντες τοῦ ποδὸς εὗρον ἰσόμετρον.
6 Romantic marriages include, among others, those of Justinian and Theodora,
Heraclius and Martina, Leon VI and Zoe Zaoutzaina, Romanos II and Theophano, Zoe
Porphyrogenita and Michael IV, Eudokia Makrembolitissa and Romanos IV.
7 On the emperor’s first marriage, the “official” text, that of the chronicler Theopha-
nes, is once again rather lacking in detail: Theophanes, Chronographia, C. De Boor (ed.),
Theophanis Chronographia, Ι–ΙΙ, Leipzig 1883 – 1885, 469. The hagiographical works
contain more extensive allusions to Maria, the first wife of Constantine VI. The Life of
Philaretos, her grandfather, makes detailed references to her selection as royal wife and
her marriage: The Life of Philaretos the Merciful, op. cit, 82–92. The author of the Life of
Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople, also discusses at length the divorce, as well as the
accusations of lèse-majesté against Maria and her ensuing tonsure: The Life of Tarasios,
St. Efthymiadis (ed.), The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon (BHG 1698).
Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary, (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman
Monographs, 4), Aldershot 1998, 117–127; on this see NIKOLAOU, Η γυναίκα, op. cit.,
99–100.
8 Even in this latter instance, however, Eudokia Baiane, Leo VI’s third wife, is given
short shrift. The sources spare but a single brief mention for this Augusta, the emperor’s
last legitimate wife. See Theophanes Continuatus, I. Bekker (ed.), (CSHB), Bonn 1838,
364; Ioannes Scylitzes, Synopsis Historiarum, (CFHB, 5), I. Thurn (ed.), Berlin – New
44 York 1973, 180.
 Empresses and Augustae as wives, paramours and mistresses

parts of the regularity of marital relations and as agents leading to the disruption
or circumvention of said regularity. For instance, how did an Augusta feel or react
when her husband was unfaithful to her9? When he pushed or even forced her
to become a nun through wrongful accusations, in order to get rid of her and
move on with another woman by his side10? Why were the wishes of a crowned
Augusta, given over as a mistress to the ruler’s favorite, hardly taken into account
and what was her fate11? Were a woman’s honor and prestige rehabilitated when
she rose from emperor’s concubine to royal wife12? Finally, what were the rea-
sons behind an empress defying the laws of the State, the rules of the Church,
and social conventions, in order to cheat on her husband, often in a flagrant
fashion13, or even to break her oath14? These questions are legion and will be
answered in a broader study. What will be attempted here is to classify the “love”
roles of Byzantium’s crowned women and, with the help of references to instruc-
tive cases, formulate some broad and necessary conclusions.
All of the above-mentioned behaviors constitute aberrations from the norm
of prevailing attitudes and social mores; basically, however, these were clear vio-
lations of the laws governing the love life of the Byzantines. In every legal system,
in every age, legislators have actively interfered in the realm of sexual relations in
order to codify them. Since these interferences have a direct influence on every
level of the social structure, subsuming them in a regulative framework meant
the successful “legitimization” of the desirable form of relations that secured the
reproduction of the society in question15. In Byzantium, the influence of Chris-
tianity on the rule of Roman law gave the latter a new character, which in the
course of time was impressed upon legal reforms, codified and recorded in con-
cise codes and voluminous works of legislation.
The citizens of the Empire had to adapt their love lives and live them ac-
cording to those rules. Furthermore, the Emperor was theoretically obligated, as
legislator and also as the Church’s leading helmsman, to follow his own rulings.
All too often, however, there were cases or instances which proved that law en-
forcement did not apply beyond the gates of the Great Palace. Byzantine rulers
and their consorts, by making certain choices in their love lives and by falling

9 On the cases of Theophilos and Leo VI, who were unfaithful to their imperial wives,
see below p. 48–50.
10 As did Constantine VI when, in his desire to marry Theodote, he leveled accusa-
tions against Maria of Amnia. See above n. 7.
11 On the sister of Michael III, the Augusta Thekla, see below, p. 53–54.
12 Here we refer to Zoe Zaoutzaina and Zoe Karbonopsina, Leo VI’s second and
fourth wife, respectively; both were his mistresses before their affairs with the Emperor
were legitimized by marriage, which was prohibited, since it was used to cover up previ-
ous adulterous relations.
13 As did Zoe Porphyrogenita; see below p. 53, n. 57.
14 As was the case with Eudokia Makrembolitissa, who decided to marry again, taking
Romanos IV as her second husband. See N. OIKONOMIDÈS, Le serment de l’impératrice
Eudocie (1067): un épisode de l’histoire dynastique de Byzance, REB 21, 1963, 101–128.
15 Sp. TROIANOS, Έρως και Νόμος στο Βυζάντιο, in: Sp. Troianos (ed.), Έγκλημα και
τιμωρία στο Βυζάντιο, Athens 1997, 173–174. 45
 Katerina Nikolaou

prey to their passions, attested on many occasions to the tolerance of a society

at the head of which they stood and for whose morality they were responsible.
Nevertheless, the image that emerges from all this would be a distorted one
if our interest was monopolized by transgressive behavior, without any reference
to imperial unions in which the wives lived up to the role model of a ruler’s ideal
woman, partner and fellow traveler.
There are many instances that could be examined, but only two sixth-cen-
tury cases will be mentioned here: Theodora, wife of Justinian, and Sophia, wife
of Justin II.
The former is without a doubt the most emblematic female personality of
her time. A woman of the people, who could not care less about the moral re-
strictions of upper-class codes, Theodora was in every way the opposite of the
respectable married women who, at the time, discreetly covered their heads and
lived in Constantinople away from the public eye16. She first faced the public
at the Hippodrome, initially coerced by her mother, and ultimately took center
stage in the Empire’s public sphere, managing to become a model and beloved
imperial wife. Although written many centuries later, the words with which John
Zonaras describes the imperial couple’s joint rule are illuminating: “when Justi-
nian came to power, the kingship did not translate into the rule of a single per-
son, but state authority was split in two; for his life partner yielded power equal to
that of the ruler himself, if not more”17. The Emperor himself, wishing to express
this solidarity and camaraderie, declared in one of his Novels the identity of
opinion between himself and his wife18.
Sophia, Theodora’s niece, was crowned Augusta by her imperial husband19,
for whom she had secured the throne, and managed to rule the empire in tan-
dem with Justin, as “the twin lights of the universe”, in the characteristic words
of Corippus, her foremost panegyrist20. Contemporary sources21 all attest to

16 See P. VEYNE (ed.), I. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, in Ph. ARIÈS – G. DUBY (gen.
eds.), A history of private life, Cambridge, Mass. 1992, 245.
17 Ioannis Zonaras, Epitomae historiarium libri XIII–XVIII, (CSHB), I–III, Th. Büttner-
Wobst (ed.), Bonn 1841 – 1897, ΙΙΙ, 151: ἄρξαντος δὲ ᾿Ιουστινιανοῦ οὐκ εἰς μοναρχίαν
ἡ βασιλεία κατέστη, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς διπλοῦν τὸ κράτος μεμέριστο· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἧττον τοῦ
κρατοῦντος, εἰ μὴ καὶ μᾶλλον, ἡ κοινωνὸς αὐτῷ τοῦ βίου δεδύνητο.
18 Novella 8, Corpus Juris Civilis, III, R. Schöll – G. Kroll (ed.), Berlin 1895 (repr. 1972):
Ταῦτα ἅπαντα καθ᾿ ἑαυτοὺς βουλευσάμενοι κἀνταῦθα κοινωνὸν τοῦ βουλεύματος
παραλαβόντες τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δεδομένην ἡμῖν εὐσεβεστάτην σύνοικον.
19 On November 14, according to the testimony of Theophanes, Chronographia, op.
cit., 241.
20 Corippus, In laudem Iustini, A. Cameron (ed.), Flavius Cresconius Corippus, In lau-
dem Iustini Augusti minoris. Libri IV, London 1976, II, 171; III, 71. See A. CAMERON,
The Empress Sophia, Byz 45, 1975, 5–21 esp. 8–16. Her last public appearance was
recorded as having occurred in 601; Theophanes, Chronographia, op. cit., 281: Τούτῳ τῷ
ἔτει μηνὶ Μαρτίῳ κ, ἰνδικτιῶνος δ, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ ἁγίου πάσχα Σοφία ἡ αὐγούστα, ἡ
γυνὴ ᾿Ιουστίνου, ἅμα Κωνσταντίνῃ, τῇ γυναικὶ Μαυρικίου, στέμμα κατασκευάσασαι
ὑπέρτιμον τῷ βασιλεῖ προσήγαγον.
21 A. MCCLANAN, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses. Image and Empire, New
York 2002, 149–178, in a chapter of her study specifically devoted to Sophia, titled «The
46 Empress Sophia: Authority and Image in an Era of Conflict», begins by briefly discussing
 Empresses and Augustae as wives, paramours and mistresses

the fact that, she made or helped formulate decisions regarding finances, build-
ing projects in Constantinople, the emperor’s benevolent work and diplomacy.
During the Emperor’s illness she exercised power on her own until, through her
initiative, Tiberius was nominated Caesar 22.
Theodora and Sophia left their mark on an era that ostensibly bears the
unquestionable distinctive characteristics of Justinian. This situation came about
due to the overwhelming romantic feelings both emperors had for their respec-
tive wives, making it possible for private affairs to become public23. In other
words, for the feminine sphere to insinuate itself into the domain of men, to influ-
ence and, occasionally, to define it.
Harmonious marital relations certainly existed and many Augustae enjoyed
their husbands’ love, appreciation and respect. Other empresses, however, were
secretly or blatantly cheated on by their husbands and either reacted forcefully
or suffered the humiliation with stoicism.
Male marital infidelity was not punishable by law, nor was it considered
as grounds for divorce24, while concubinage (παλλακεία), ultimately pro-

the written testimonies, which she uses as a stepping stone for demonstrating the particu-
larly heavy influence of Sophia during the reign of Justin II, based mainly on the relevant
conclusions of A. CAMERON, The Empress Sophia, op. cit. McClanan goes on to present
the numismatic material which testifies to the Augusta’s position as co-ruler of the state,
and then she refers to the so-called Crux Vaticana, a gift by the imperial couple to the city
of Rome. In the last section of the chapter she studies two ivory panels, one preserved
in the Bargello of Florence, the other in the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna, and
proposes to identify the two female imperial figures depicted with the Augusta Sophia, re-
futing older identifications, usually with Ariadne. However, McClanan failed to take into
consideration the study of Aik. CHRISTOPHILOPOULOU, Τίνα αυτοκράτειραν εικονίζει η
εξ ελεφαντοστού πινακίς του εν Φλωρεντία Bargello; (Πίνακες 70α΄–β΄ και 71α΄–β΄),
DChAE (περίοδος Δ΄) 5, 1969, 141–148 (= EADEM, Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία – Νεότερος
Ελληνισμός. Συμβολή στην έρευνα, vol. II, Athens 2006, 227–235), who argued in a
convincing fashion that, first, the empresses on the two ivory panels are not the same
person, and, second, the one in Florence depicts Verina, wife of Leo I, whereas that of
Vienna depicts Ariadne. The former dates from January 474, the latter shortly after Au-
gust 476.
22 On Sophia’s role and the exercise of political power on her part see L. GARLAND,
Byzantine Empresses. Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204, London – New York
1999, 40–57.
23 And this despite the rigid ancient sense of need for a public community – for a
community in which the experiences of the private individual were permeated at every
level by the values of the community and were frequently expected, in ideal conditions,
to be totally transparent to these public values, as has been suggested by P. BROWN, Late
Antiquity, in VEYNE, From Pagan Rome to Byzantium, op. cit., 239.
24 This was a case of gender inequality which was also evident in penal treatment;
see for instance TROIANOS, Έρως, op. cit., 177 and n. 5, with earlier secondary litera-
ture and references to primary sources. See also G. D. KAOURAS, Βυζάντιο. Τα ερωτικά
εγκλήματα και οι τιμωρίες τους, Athens 2003, 55–56. On legal causes for divorce with
the fault attributed to one of the spouses see, among others, TROIANOS, Εισηγήσεις
βυζαντινού δικαίου, Athens 2014, 102–109. A brief overview of Early Byzantine law
alone, based on the study of J. BEAUCAMP, Le statut de la femme à Byzance (4e–7e siècle), II:
Les pratiques sociales, (Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisa-
tion de Byzance. Collège de France. Monographies, 6), Paris 1992, may also be found
in B. STOLTE, Desires denied: marriage, adultery and divorce in early Byzantine Law, in:
L. James (ed.), Desire and Denial in Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-first Spring Symposium 47
 Katerina Nikolaou

hibited by Leo VI’s Novel 9125, was until then a widely-accepted established
practice26.
Two more instances will be mentioned which prove that, although the State
might have allowed this behavior on the part of men to go unpunished, the Au-
gustae who found themselves at the receiving end of such acts remained neither
indifferent nor inactive and would often assert their right to restore order in their
household.
It is not easy to say whether or not the marriage of Theophilos and Theo-
dora was a happy one27. It was the outcome of a bride-show in which the selec-
tion of the future Augusta Theodora was possibly a sudden impulse made in a
state of mental agitation28. Theodora did not prove to be the wife the young ruler
had hoped for; she resisted his iconoclastic policies29, nurtured their children in
her own beliefs30, and her actions often crossed the line of acceptable behavior31.
The emperor’s response to the aforementioned situation was rather super-
ficial and failed to get at the root of the problem32. Therefore, an affair with one
of his wife’s beautiful maidservants might possibly have formed a kind of reac-
tion to the manifold “oppression” he was suffering from the womenfolk of his
household, if it was not an indication of a practice widespread among men. In a
of Byzantine Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, March 1997, Aldershot 1999, 77–86.
25 P. NOAILLES – A. DAIN, Les Novelles de Léon VI le Sage, Paris 1944, 299–301.
26 Leo III had tried to safeguard the concubine’s right to own property [Ecloga 2.6,
L. Burgmann (ed.), (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, 10), Frankfurt
1983], but this was retracted in the Procheiros Nomos 4.3, I. and P. ZEPOS (ed.), Jus Graeco-
romanum, vol. II, Athens 1931 (repr. Aalen 1962). See NIKOLAOU, Η γυναίκα, op. cit.,
80–81. On concubinage and the stance of Church and state vis-à-vis the issue see also
KAOURAS, Τα ερωτικά εγκλήματα, op. cit., 152–157.
27 On the relations between Theophilos and Theodora see K. NIKOLAOU, Oι γυναίκες
στο βίο και τα έργα του Θεοφίλου, Σύμμεικτα 9, 1994 (= Mνήμη Δ. A. Zακυθηνού, ΙΙ),
140–144. See also the opinion of J. HERRIN, Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium,
London 2001, 173, who views this marriage as “well suited by medieval standards”.
28 Symeon Magister et Logotheta, Chronicon, (CFHB, 44/1), S. Wahlgren (ed.), Berlin
– New York 2006, 216: ὁ δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τὴν καρδίαν πληγεὶς ταύτην μὲν εἴασε, Θεοδώρᾳ
δὲ τὸ μῆλον ἐπέδωκεν. It has been argued that the selection of Theodora was the result
of the young prince having been manipulated by his stepmother, Euphrosyne; see HER-
RIN, Women in Purple, op. cit., 171–172.

29 The incidents involving the court jester Denderis reveal her faith in the veneration
of icons: J. M. Featherstone, J. Signes-Codoñer (ed.), Theophanis Continuati, Chronogra-
phiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Libri, I–IV, (CFHB, 53), Boston – Berlin
2015, 132–134; op. cit., 91–92; Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 53–54. The decisive part she
played in saving the monk Lazaros the painter from certain death, to which he was being
driven by the torture he had been suffering while incarcerated, may be attributed to a
similar motive: Theophanis Continuati, op. cit., 148; Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 61.
30 Her young daughters’ frequent visits to their iconophile grandmother contributed
to their religious upbringing and familiarization with the veneration of icons: Theophanis
Continuati, op. cit., 130–132; Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 52–53.
31 At least this is what the story regarding the Augusta’s business ventures evinces: Theo-
phanis Continuati, op. cit., 188–130; Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 51.
32 Theophilos gave vent to a number of angry outbursts, while he also threatened the
life of his wife, should she ever repeat actions or endeavors to which he himself was com-
48 pletely opposed. See NIKOLAOU, Oι γυναίκες, op. cit., 141–143.
 Empresses and Augustae as wives, paramours and mistresses

tolerant society where an extramarital affair with an unmarried female did not
constitute an act punishable by law, it must have been common for married men
to have relationships out of wedlock. The chronicler, however, recognizing the
incongruity of the situation, placed Theophilos’ act in a period of his life when
he “was not so well disciplined”. The author goes on to write: “When he realised
what he had done and that Theodora, fully aware of his fall, was very depressed,
they say that he held his hands up to God and declared on oath that this was
the only time he had fallen: and that he begged forgiveness of his own wife”33.
Even though short-term infidelities on the part of men did not have the legal
power to unsettle a marriage, the reactions of both the Augusta and the Emperor
evince the fact that on a personal level a royal consort did not simply accept her
fate with a stiff upper lip and that she would demand, in every suitable way, just
reparation for any personal indignities she might suffer.
The reaction of another Augusta to her husband’s obvious and, as far as she
was concerned, humiliating infidelities was presented in different ways in the
various sources which preserved a record of her response. I refer to the trouble
caused by Leo VI’s extramarital affair with Zoe Zaoutzaina. Historians, chroni-
clers and the Life of Patriarch Euthymios accept the fact that Leo was married
to the Augusta Theophano when he initiated the illicit relationship34. In fact,
the non-hagiographical texts go as far as to mention the occasional cohabita-
tion of the pair of lovers, of which the royal mistress’s father was fully aware35.
However, the perception of infidelity on the part of the aggrieved party, the
Augusta, was presented by the authors in totally varying fashions, depending on
the agenda each writer wished to promote. According to the Life of Euthymios,
which is biased in favor of Leo36, the young Augusta, betrayed and abandoned,
driven by uncontrollable jealousy, complained to her father-in-law. The wrath
of Basil, who tried to salvage his heir’s marriage, manifested itself in a fit of
violence against Leo, the forced marriage of Zaoutzaina and her ejection from

33 Theophanis Continuati, op. cit., 138: πλὴν ὅτι γέ φασιν αὐτόν ποτε κάλλει
θεραπαινίδος τῆς Θεοδώρας ἁλόντα συμφθαρῆναι αὐτῇ, ῥᾳθύμως τότε βιοῦντα·
ἐπεὶ γοῦν ᾔσθετο τῆς ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦ διαμαρτίας, καὶ ἄλλως οὐδὲ τὴν Θεοδώραν τοῦτο
λαθοῦσαν, κατηφιῶσαν δὲ καὶ αὐχμῶσαν καὶ στυγνάζουσαν, ἔκτοτε ἐξειπεῖν αὐτῇ,
ἐπομνύμενον καὶ φρικτῶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐπαίροντα πρὸς θεόν ἦ μὴν τότε καὶ μόνον
διολισθεῖν, καὶ συγγνώμην ἐπιζητεῖν παρὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικός; cf. Ioannes Scylitzes, op.
cit., 55–56.
34 Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 172: ἤδη γὰρ ἤρξατο (Leo) πλησιάζειν τῇ αὐτοῦ θυγατρί,
ζώσης ἔτι τῆς κατὰ νόμους συνεζευγμένης αὐτῷ γυναικὸς τῆς αὐγούστης Θεοφανοῦς,
ἀκουούσης καὶ βλεπούσης τὰ γινόμενα, καὶ μηδαμῶς τῷ τῆς ζηλοτυπίας πάθει
ἀναφλεχθείσης ποτέ. The historian’s comment on the Augusta’s jealousy is similar to
the spirit permeating the Life of Theophano and runs contrary to the Life of Patriarch
Euthymios, see below.
35 Theophanes Continuatus, op. cit., 360–361: ῾Ο δὲ βασιλεὺς εἰς τὰ Δαμιανοῦ ἐξελθὼν
εἶχεν μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν Ζωὴν τὴν τοῦ Ζαούτζα θυγατέρα καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Ζαούτζαν…
ἡ δὲ Ζωὴ τῷ βασιλεῖ συγκαθεύδουσα…; cf. Symeon Magister et Logotheta, op. cit., 278;
Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 178–179.
36 See A. KAZHDAN, A History of Byzantine Literature (850–1000), Chr. Angelidi (ed.),
Athens 2006, 105.
49
 Katerina Nikolaou

the palace37. The jealousy of the Augusta, which takes central stage in the Life of
Euthymios, is refuted in the historiographical texts, which (in the same vein as
the Life of Theophano, a text inspired by imperial propaganda38) argue that the
fact that she was not jealous contributed to her canonization39.
When Leo was triumphantly rehabilitated, after having been accused of con-
spiring to assassinate the Emperor, his life with Theophano as husband and wife
came to an end. His affair with Zoe was rekindled and became openly known to
everyone. The Augusta was forced to seclude herself for long periods of time, in
order to save her the pain of suffering her husband’s humiliating attitude towards
her. The catalyst was the death of their daughter. Having no wish to remain in a
dead marriage, the couple wanted to obtain a divorce, with Theophano leading
the way. Her efforts came to naught and she had no choice but to tolerate the
new situation40. It would seem that the Augusta in question neither accepted the
fate of imperial wives that had been cheated on, nor did she ever come to terms
with it, as others had in the past, for instance Eudokia Dekapolitissa. She was
most probably led to depression and a bout of the doldrums, which may have
exacerbated a pre-existing physical illness, resulting in her death41. A dose of poi-
son from the hand of Zoe Zaoutzaina could also have been a contributing factor.

37 According to the story Leo related to Euthymios, Theophano εἰσελθοῦσα γὰρ πρὸς
τὸν μακαρίτην μου πατέρα, καταπλοκήν μοι συνέρραψεν, ὡς εἰς τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ
Ζαούτζη Ζωὴν διαπέμπομαι. καὶ οἷος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τοῖς κατ᾿ ἐμέ … καὶ ψιλῆς προσλαλιᾶς
μόνης ὑπακούειν, τῶν τριχῶν με παρευθὺ λαβόμενος καὶ εἰς γῆν ῥίψας, γρονθισμοῖς τε
καὶ προπηλακισμοῖς παίων αἱμόφυρτον πεποίηκεν, ἐκείνην δὲ τὴν μηδὲν ἀδικήσασαν
παραδοθῆναι ἀνδρὶ καὶ μὴ βουλομένην προσέταξεν: The Life of Patriarch Euthymios,
P. Karlin-Hayter, Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP, Brussels 1970, 41.
38 Α. ALEXAKIS, Leo VI, Theophano, a magistros called Slokakas, and the Vita Theo-
phano (BHG, 1794), BF 21, 1995 (= St. Efthymiadis, C. Rapp, D. Tsougarakis (ed.),
Bosphorus. Essays in Honour of Cyril Mango), 45–56; K. NIKOLAOU, Παλινωδίες στη
νομοθεσία των Μακεδόνων: Η κακοποίηση των εγγάμων γυναικών και ο Βίος της
Θωμαΐδος της Λεσβίας, Symm 16, 2003–2004, 108–110; K. NIKOLAOU, Ο Βίος ή ο βίος
της Θεοφανούς και ο πρώτος γάμος του Λέοντα Ϛ΄, in Th. Korres, P. Katsoni, I. Leon-
tiadis, A. Goutzioukostas (ed.), Φιλοτιμία. Τιμητικός τόμος για την ομότιμη καθηγήτρια
Αλκμήνη Σταυρίδου-Ζαφράκα, Thessaloniki 2011, 479–500.
39 Theophanes Continuatus, op. cit., 361: ἀνωτέρα τοῦ τῆς ζηλοτυπίας πάθους φανεῖσα
καὶ πραῶς τὴν παρευδοκίμησιν ὑπενεγκοῦσα Ζωῆς. Cf. Symeon Magister et Logotheta, op.
cit., 279. Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 179, follows a different path, failing to mention the posi-
tive qualities of the emperor’s late wife. He notes the absence of jealousy when he refers to
the beginning of Leo’s affair with Zoe Zaoutzaina. As I have already argued elsewhere, it
is possible that Theophano did not cross the line and simply followed the fate of all those
imperial wives who knew of the rulers’ extramarital affairs and did not go beyond meekly
expressing their displeasure, if at all. See NIKOLAOU, Ο Βίος ή ο βίος της Θεοφανούς, op.
cit., 494.
40 NIKOLAOU, Ο Βίος ή ο βίος της Θεοφανούς, op. cit., 493–495.
41 P. KARLIN-HAYTER, La mort de Théophano (10.11.896 ou 895), BZ 62, 1969 (=
EADEM, Studies in Byzantine Political History, London, Variorum Reprints, 1981, n. XI),
15, refers to tuberculosis, an affliction, however, that is neither mentioned by name nor
implicitly described in The Life of Patriarch Euthymios, op. cit., 45, which mentions
the word νοσηλευομένη. I have fully documented the view that Theophano was suffering
from depression, the somatization of which eventually brought on the empress’s death, in
50 NIKOLAOU, Ο Βίος ή ο βίος της Θεοφανούς, op. cit.
 Empresses and Augustae as wives, paramours and mistresses

Although the Macedonian dynasty’s propaganda machine attempted to

paint a different picture, Leo’s first wife was a characteristic example of a Middle
Byzantine woman trapped against her will in an anti-marriage, as Leo’s supreme
office would not allow her escape.
The polar opposite of those ladies were empresses who often did not seem to
give a damn –to borrow the expression of H. G. Beck42– about social mores, nor
showed any respect for the cautionary words of the Church Fathers. Although
testimonies are slim and the argumentation remains fragmentary, it is clear that
these women hardly conformed to the ideal type of a woman and wife, and all
they could achieve was to confirm the worst fears of the leaders of the Church43.
Here, I refer to those empresses who were unfaithful, or were accused of
being unfaithful, to their imperial husbands, in other words those who were im-
plicated in the gravest of crimes regarding sexual morality, i.e. adultery. As early
as the third century, the penalty for having an extramarital liaison with a mar-
ried woman was death44. The Corpus Juris Civilis not only maintained the capital
punishment for such offenses, it furthermore recognized the husband’s right, un-
der certain conditions, to kill his wife’s lover45, while the penalty for a convicted
adulteress was confinement in a monastery46. According to the provisions of the
Ecloga, the guilty parties were punished by having their noses cut off47; flogging
and shaving of the head were added in the Procheiron and the Eisagoge48, while the
Basilika combined the penalties found in the legal texts of both the Syrian and
the Macedonian dynasty49.
The paucity of legal decrees and decisions does not allow certainty with
regard to the consistent application of the relative clauses. However, the tribula-
tions that marked the marriage of Theodosius II are indicative of the moral as-
pect of the issue in question, since they resulted in the stigmatization and public
condemnation of the adulteress by society. According to the story preserved in
the work of Malalas, it was an apple that set in motion the revelations regarding
the love affair between the Augusta Eudokia and the Emperor’s best friend. Dis-
regarding the procedure for the taking of evidence, the cuckolded husband, the
supreme magistrate of the State, ordered Paulinus to be executed. Eudokia took
offence at the act, because it left no doubt regarding her own guilt. In anger she

42 H.-G. BECK, Βυζαντινόν Ερωτικόν (transl. J. Demetroukas), Athens 1999 (the ori-
ginal German edition, Byzantinisches Erotikon, München 1986, could not be located), 90.
43 BECK, Βυζαντινόν Ερωτικόν, op. cit., 94.
44 V. LEONTARITOU, Εκ γυναικός ερρύη τα φαύλα. Η γυναικεία εγκληματικότητα
στο Βυζάντιο, in: Troianos (ed.), Έγκλημα και τιμωρία, op. cit., 217.
45 Novella 117.15, R. Schöll – G. Kroll (ed.), Novellae, Corpus Juris Civilis, vol. III, Ber-
lin 1895 (repr. 1972).
46 Novella 134.10.1–2; cf. Novella 134.12.
47 Ecloga, op. cit., 17.27.
48 Procheiros Nomos, op. cit., 39.45; Eisagoge 40.5, I. and P. Zepos (ed.), Jus Graecoro-
manum, vol. II, Athens 1931 (repr. Aalen 1962).
49 An analytical comparative presentation of both primary sources and secondary
literature may be found in TROIANOS, Έρως, op. cit., 177–180. See also KAOURAS, Τα
ερωτικά εγκλήματα, op. cit., 55–64. 51
 Katerina Nikolaou

asked her husband to allow her to move to Jerusalem. Permission was granted
and the Augusta remained in the holy city until her death; shortly before that,
she swore under oath that she was innocent of the crime of which she had been
accused50. Doubt has been cast on the veracity of Malalas’ claims and they are
certainly not easy to prove. It is possible that the story of the Apple of Discord,
evolving into an accusation of adultery, was used to “mask” the Augusta’s depar-
ture from the palace, as well as the execution of Paulinus51. If that was the case,
however, it is worth noting that a center of power within imperial circles which
opposed the Empress had to use against her the most serious crime a married
woman could commit in order to get rid of her.
This, as well as later instances, shows how an accusation of adultery was
one of the most potent weapons in the arsenal of anyone who would choose
to go against an empress. Procopius never warmed to Theodora, he made no
secret of that dislike and the Augusta drew fire from him in every field where she
was active. However, after her marriage to Justinian, the historian was unable
to convincingly accuse her of any marital improprieties. Nevertheless, he could
not resist the temptation to hint at the possibility of Theodora’s infatuation with
the handsome courtier Aerobindus52. A similar charge was leveled against the
controversial Zoe Karbonopsina, Leo VI’s fourth wife. For political reasons, the
eunuch Constantine was accused of becoming too close to the Augusta53. Leo
believed the accusations and temporarily dismissed Constantine from the palace,
only to reinstate him after a relatively brief interval and later to award him the
position of parakoimomenos. During the period when Zoe, as regent, became mis-
tress of the affairs of state, the eunuch evolved into a powerful imperial minister
(paradynasteuon)54. In all probability, Karbonopsina’s extramarital affair was real,
yet that failed to turn Leo against her, as there was little room for more problems
in a relationship as troubled as that of the imperial couple in question. Another
adulteress, however, Theophano55, found herself facing the wrath of Patriarch
Polyeuktos, who, though a man of the cloth and not a state functionary, success-

50 Ioannes Malalas, op. cit., 276–278.

51 See K. G. HOLUM, Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Anti-
quity, Berkeley – Los Angeles 1989, 176–194.
52 Procopius, Historia arcana, op. cit., 16.11–12: ὑποψίας δὲ συμπεσούσης αὐτῇ
ἐρωτολήπτῳ εἶναι εἰς τῶν οἰκετῶν ἕνα, ᾿Αρεόβινδον ὄνομα, βάρβαρον μὲν γένος,
εὐπρεπῆ δὲ καὶ νεανίαν, ὅνπερ ταμίαν αὐτὴ καταστησαμένη ἐτύγχανεν, ἀπολύσασθαι
βουλομένη τὸ ἔγκλημα, καίπερ, ὥς φασι, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δαιμονίως ἐρῶσα, ἐν μὲν τῷ
παρόντι πικρότατα αὐτὸν ἀπ᾿ οὐδεμιᾶς αἰτίας αἰκίζεσθαι ἔγνω, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν οὐδέν τι
ἀμφ᾿ αὐτῷ ἔγνωμεν, οὐδέ τις αὐτὸν ἄχρι νῦν εἶδεν.
53 Theophanes Continuatus, op. cit., 375: ὡς τῇ Αὐγούστῃ συνόντα. Cf. Symeon Magister
et Logotheta, op. cit., 292; Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 190.
54 For an analytical presentation and commentary of the events in question
see Ir. CHRESTOU, Αυτοκρατορική εξουσία και πολιτική πρακτική. Ο ρόλος του
παραδυναστεύοντος στη βυζαντινή διοίκηση (τέλη 8ου – αρχές 11ου αιώνα), Athens
2008, 194–195, 199–200.
55 Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 279: ῾Η δὲ βασιλὶς Θεοφανὼ ἀποστρεφομένη τὴν
συνουσίαν τοῦ Νικηφόρου, τινὰ τῶν τοῦ Τζιμισκῆ μεταπεμψαμένη εἰσκαλεῖται τοῦτον
ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ οἴκῳ σχολάζοντα. …διεπράξατο γὰρ ἡ μοιχαλὶς καὶ γράμματα τοῦτον
52 δέξασθαι τὴν κάθοδον ἐπιτρέποντα.
 Empresses and Augustae as wives, paramours and mistresses

fully demanded her punishment according to the law: she was thrown out of the
Great Palace and into a monastery56.
Her granddaughter, Zoe Porphyrogenita, succeeded where her grand-
mother failed: she got married three times. The details of the events in question
may be summarized according to three romantic roles: the empress was repeat-
edly unfaithful to her first husband, Romanos III57, fell passionately in love and
became enamored58 with the second, Michael IV, to whom she was a submissive
and persevering wife59, while she was the victim of infidelity on the part of her
third husband, Constantine IX60.
Before a final assessment, it seems pertinent to make a necessarily brief re-
ference to Thekla, crowned Augusta at a very young age and also a member of
the regency council after the death of Theophilos61. Her brother, Michael III,
56 Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 285; Leo Diaconus, Historiae, C. B. Hase (ed.), (CSHB),
Bonn 1828, 98–99. Scylitzes describes the furious reaction of the former Augusta, when
she managed to escape from her place of exile and seek sanctuary in the Hagia Sophia.
The phrase ἐνυβρίσασα πρότερον εἰς τὸν βασιλέα πολλὰ καὶ ἐς τὸν Βασίλειον, Σκύθην
καὶ βάρβαρον ἀποκαλέσασα καὶ κατὰ κόρρης αὐτῷ κονδύλους ἐπιτρίψασα evinces
the intense emotions of a woman who had lost power, but also had been betrayed by her
lover, whom she had helped implement his plans.
57 According to Michael Psellos, the emperor was aware of the Augusta’s love affairs
and either turned a blind eye, indeed preferring a single permanent attachment to a
series of many lovers, or else looked kindly on his wife being unfaithful to him. Michael
Psellos, Chronographia, D. R. Reinsch (ed.), Leben der byzantinischen Kaiser (976–1075):
Chronographia, 2014, III, 23: ᾔδει δὲ μάλα ἐρῶσαν, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ σφριγῶσαν περὶ
τὸ πάθος. καὶ ἵνα μὴ πρὸς πολλοὺς διαχέοιτο, οὐ μάλα τὴν πρὸς ἕνα τῆς γυναικὸς
ἐδυσχέραινεν ὁμιλίαν· ἀλλὰ σχηματιζόμενος παρορᾶν, ἀπεπλήρου τὸ πάθος τῇ
βασιλίδι. ὃ τοίνυν ἄλλως μοι εἴρητο: ὁ μὲν βασιλεὺς, εὔκολος πρὸς τὴν ἐρωτικὴν
ὑπόληψιν ἢ κατάληψιν ἦν.
58 Authors’ references to Zoe’s feelings towards young Michael and the actions through
which she expressed them are numerous, particularly in the writings of M. Psellos and
secondarily those of Ioannes Scylitzes. I will confine myself to a single passage from the
work of the latter; Ioannes Scylitzes, op. cit., 390: πρὸς τοῦτον ἡ βασιλὶς ἔρωτα δαιμονιώδη
σχοῦσα καὶ μανικόν, καὶ κρυφίους ἐντυχίας ποιησαμένη, σκοτίως ἐπεμίγνυτο.
59 Michael Psellos, op. cit., IV, 16: ἡ δὲ ἐδριμύττετο μὲν ἐπὶ τούτοις (καὶ πῶς γὰρ
οὐκ εἰκὸς, ἀντιδόσεις πολὺ τὸ δυσμενὲς ἐχούσας τῶν χρηστοτέρων ἀντιλαμβάνουσα;)·
ἐπεῖχε δ᾿ οὖν ὅμως· καὶ παρακινεῖν οὐκ ἠξίου τὰ δόξαντα. … καὶ οὔτε τὸν αὐτοκράτορα
τῆς πρώτης ἀνεμίμνῃσκε φιλίας καὶ πίστεως· οὔτε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἐδυσχέραινεν
ἐπικειμένους αὐτῇ καὶ προσονειδίζοντας· οὔτε τὸν φυλάττειν ἐκείνην προστεταγμένον,
πικρῶς ποτὲ εἶδεν ἢ ἀπεπέμψατο· ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἅπαντας πρᾴως εἶχεν· καὶ ὥσπερ οἱ
δεινότατοι τῶν ῥητόρων, καὶ τοῖς προσώποις καὶ τοῖς καιροῖς μεθηρμόζετο.
60 Michael Psellos, op. cit., VI, 52: ᾿Αλλ᾿ ὅ γε αὐτοκράτωρ, οὐδ᾿ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πρὸς τὴν
βασιλείαν εἰσόδῳ, τῆς γυναικὸς (Maria Skleraina) ἐπιλέληστο· ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν αἰσθητοῖς
ὄμμασι, τὴν βασιλίδα τεθέαται· τὴν δὲ ἐκείνης μορφὴν, τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς συνήθρει καὶ
συνελάμβανε· καὶ τὴν μὲν, ἠγκάλιστο· τὴν δὲ ἐγκόλπιον εἶχεν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ. Op. cit., 59:
ἐντὸς τῶν βασιλικῶν ἀδύτων ἡ τέως ἐρωμένη εἰσάγεται, (…) καὶ τό γε θαυμασιώτατον,
ὅτι οἱ μὲν πλείους πεπληγότες ἐτύγχανον τὰς ψυχὰς, ἐφ᾿ οἷς ἡ βασιλὶς ἐξαπατηθεῖσα,
παρῶπτο τὲ καὶ καταπεφρόνητο· ἡ δὲ οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον ἠλλοίωτο· ἢ μειδιῶσα πᾶσι
καθωρᾶτο· καὶ ἐπαγαλλομένη τῷ πράγματι.
61 Although the chroniclers do not mention the events in question, coins, an inscrip-
tion from Selymbria, a reference found in a hagiographical text, as well as other sources,
all attest to Thekla’s capacity and her participation in the council. See Aik. CHRISTO-
PHILOPOULOU, Η Αντιβασιλεία εις το Βυζάντιον, Σύμμεικτα 2, 1970, 32–34 (= EADEM,
53
 Katerina Nikolaou

forced her against her will into an illicit and immoral love affair with Basil, as an
offset against his own liaison with Eudokia Ingerina62. In this way the Emperor
wished on the one hand to assuage his own guilt over the havoc he wreaked on
his friend’s family life and on the other to secure for him a love life controlled by
himself. In his planning he showed no consideration whatsoever for any conse-
quences his actions might have on a member of the imperial family.

In 1996, at the funeral of French statesman François Mitterrand, his wife

Danielle and his mistress Anne Pingeot, both clearly shocked by their loss, sat
in their respective seats, while his illegitimate daughter took her place next to
her half-brothers. It was an image that was transmitted around the world and
probably added to the legend of Mitterrand, the first Socialist president of the
French Republic, while at the same time highlighting the magnanimity of an
erstwhile First Lady, Danielle.
Almost 950 years earlier, a Byzantine ruler became the target of verbal
abuse in the streets of Constantinople, because he dared to cross them in the
company of his legitimate wife, the Augusta Zoe, and his mistress, the sebaste Ma-
ria, side by side. After all, the people had not opposed Constantine Monomachos
even when he was having a secret affair with his mistress, before he officially in-
troduced her into the imperial court63. The disturbance, which was quelled with
an effort, stemmed from the perceived affront to the ruling dynasty, to the blood
relative of Basil II, not from any disrespect shown to the empress-consort. Insults
towards an imperial wife, as had been proven throughout time, were overlooked
by Byzantine society, just as the latter turned a blind or indifferent eye to what-
ever amorous faux pas might take place within the confines of the Great Palace.
In the eyes of her people, Zoe was neither adulteress, victim of an unfaithful
husband, nor guilty of breaking almost every rule in the code of sexual conduct.
The role models for Byzantine Augustae and Byzantine women were there, but
they often remained a dead letter, as empresses became victims and victimizers
in the pursuit of love.

Katerina Nikolaou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Faculty of History and Archaeology
Panepistimioupolis / 157 84 Zographou / Greece
anikolaou@arch.uoa.gr

Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία – Νεότερος Ελληνισμός. Συμβολή στην έρευνα, vol. I, Athens

2006, 153–155). See also HERRIN, Women in Purple, op. cit., 201–202.
62 Symeon Magister et Logotheta, op. cit., 248: Θέκλαν δὲ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀδελφὴν προσήρμοσε
Βασιλείῳ τοῦ ἔχειν αὐτὴν ἰδίως. See also HERRIN, Women in Purple, op. cit., 224–225.
According to the same chronicle (Symeon Magister et Logotheta, op. cit., 263), after
he became emperor, Basil punisher his former mistress and her new lover, John Neato-
kometes, when he was informed of their affair. Regarding the actual causes of Neato-
kometes’ punishment, see CHRESTOU, Αυτοκρατορική εξουσία, op. cit., 140, n. 20.
54 63 BECK, Βυζαντινόν Ερωτικόν, op. cit., 94.