Byzantine women played a relatively minor role in early medieval history according to available sources. However, powerful Byzantine men were able to use women as tools to further their own political and social gains in several ways. They established marriage laws giving men control over women. They slandered women like Empress Theodora to discredit political opponents. And they formed strategic marriages to gain status and alliances, such as Emperor Nicephorus marrying the previous emperor's wife. While sources on everyday Byzantine women are scarce, these examples show how elite men manipulated women for personal advantage in the early medieval Byzantine Empire.

1. 1
Laurie Raymond
Hist. 305
Word Count: 2524
Byzantine Women as Tools
When studying the early medieval ages, knowledge of the Byzantine Empire is
essential. Byzantine influence remained relatively strong throughout this period, with
Constantinople at the center of the Eastern Roman Empire. There are a wide range of
Byzantine primary sources from this time period, some of which include histories, law,
and accounts of foreign diplomacy. The majority of these sources have an inward focus,
however that is not always the case. In Liudprand of Cremona’s Works, for example
Liudprand writes with an outward focus and takes the rest of medieval Europe into
consideration in his writing. The sources that are available are typically of good quality,
and provide insight into the lives of the Byzantines and the struggles they faced.
Although there are a range of Byzantine primary sources, one area of early medieval
history that has very few primary sources is the role of Byzantine women. Sources
available on Byzantine women are varied, and many only mention women in passing.
Unfortunately sources that are available can be taken too literally. For example,
Prokopios’ Secret History gives the largest description of Empress Theodora ever written,
however it is more than likely not an accurate portrayal of the empress. In regards the
historiography of the Secret History, the general thought used to be that the depictions of
Justinian and his general Belisarios were elaborated or false, while that of Theodora was
a legitimate representation of her character as maintained by historians such as E.

2. 2
Gibbon.1 Gibbon’s opinion, published in 1896 is outdated by today’s standards, however
it was referenced again in the Loeb classical library, published in 1935.2 Medievalist
Leslie Brubaker explains that this portrayal of Empress Theodora and the women she
interacted with is taken into consideration much more seriously than that of Justinian,
because the Secret History provides more information about Theodora than any other
source. Brubaker goes on to say that historians continue to focus too much on analyzing
the relationship between Theodora and Justinian rather than information about the era
provided in the text. One reason as to why Byzantine women were more or less left out of
early medieval history was because men did not see them as important enough to write
about, unless it helped them in some way. Although Byzantine women played a
seemingly minor role in early medieval history, powerful men could use them as tools to
further their own gains.
First, Byzantine men in positions of power were able to control women through
the use of marriage law. Emperor Justinian ordered the compilation of the Corpus iuris
civilis in the 530s, which included Roman law, senatorial consults, imperial decrees, case
law, and opinions.3 Justinian wanted to bring the Roman Empire back to its former glory,
and instituted Roman law he saw as necessary. The marriage section of the Corpus
portrayed what was socially acceptable in the realm of sex and marriage, and gave men
control over women. Opinions and works of Roman jurists and lawyers practicing in the
time of Augustus (r. 27 BCE-14 CE) concerning marriage are present in the digest while
1 Leslie Brubaker, “Sex, Lies, and Textuality:the Secret History of Prokopios and the Rhetoric of
Gender in Sixth-Century Byzantium,” in Gender in the Early Medieval World East and West, 300-900, ed.
Leslie Brubaker and Julia M. H. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 85.
2 Ibid.
3“Corpus iuriscivilis,” Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University,
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cjc-marriage.asp.

3. 3
later Roman emperor’s accounts concerning marriage are in the codex.4 Many of the
marriage laws of the Corpus were designed to protect the rights of men and their social
standings.
Women were restricted as to who they could marry based on their place in
society. For example freedwomen were not allowed to marry senators and could only be
with them as concubines.5 In contrast, women closely related to senators were not able to
marry freedmen and in such cases the marriage was void so that children born from the
union retained rank.6 High born women were expected to marry similarly in order to
maintain the station of their birth and gain connections for male family members.
The crime of adultery is discussed in both the codex and the digest extensively. If
caught in the act of adultery a woman was convicted of a criminal offence and if proven
guilty she, would be branded with infamy.7 One can see the gravity of this crime in an
excerpt from the digest which states that if a man and his father-in-law both appear
before a magistrate with the intent of accusing his wife adultery, the husband is given the
right to take legal action against his wife, because he would not be as lenient as her own
father.8 Punishment for adulterous women is not well documented in the Corpus,
however in one account it states that a woman convicted of adultery would be placed in a
monastery, and removed only by her husband. If he did not retrieve her within two years
of her sentencing, the woman remained at the monastery for the rest of her life and her
possessions were divided amongst her family and the monastery.9 Women were not
4 “Corpus iuris civilis,” Medieval Sourcebook.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8Ibid.
9 Ibid.

4. 4
allowed the right to make the accusation of adultery, as their husbands were. Sexually
women were limited to the company of their husbands, while men were also allowed to
keep concubines, which would not tarnish their reputations as adulterers. By allowing for
the use of other women as outlets, men were less likely to commit extramarital
indiscretions and were able to retain their social status.
Next, powerful men used the slander of Byzantine women as a tool against their
families. The most prevalent example of this is Prokopios’ Secret History, which could
not be circulated during the time of Justinian when it was written, due to its scathing
attack on the emperor.10 However, Prokopios of Caesarea was closely linked to Emperor
Justinian and a respected historian. Prokopios’ other works, History of the Wars and
Buildings, which portrayed Justinian in a more flattering light, were well circulated. 11
The close interaction between Prokopios and the emperor, and his prestige allowed him
to influence future readers of the Secret History more easily. The chapters of the Secret
History pertaining to Justinian’s wife Theodora provide the most information available
today about the empress, which is enticing to early medievalists. However the fictitious
nature of the text makes it an unreliable source when researching the character of
Empress Theodora, who Prokopios portrayed as the antithesis of what an Empress should
be. The Secret History tells one nothing about Justinian and his wife, because Prokopios
was less concerned with factual information than his own agenda of slandering the
emperor.12 The purpose for Prokopios’ Secret History, unlike his other works, was to
question Justinian’s ability to rule and to make him out as a monster bent on making his
people suffer.
10 Leslie Brubaker, “Sex, Lies, and Textuality,”84.
11 Ibid., 83.
12 Ibid., 84.

5. 5
The tone of the Secret History and the amount dedicated to Theodora make it
unlike anything else written at this time. Prokopios openly compares Theodora to other
noble women further magnifying her faults and the other women’s virtues.13 In his
slander of the empress, Prokopios used the device of character assassination to further
discredit her and described Theodora as distinctly male in some of her actions.14
Prokopios also openly judged Theodora’s appearance, her up-bringing, and her influence
on other Byzantine women. The empress portrayed in the Secret History “polluted”
women and manipulated them into becoming adulteresses and disobedient wives.15
Though this is likely fictional, the empress was seen as a model for the women of society
and this is echoed by Byzantine law, in which women were held to a high standard. If
women were to commit adultery they would be harshly punished. Prokopios made it
seem as though Theodora “destroyed the ideal of the Roman home,” to further his
agenda. Although Prokopios was attacking Theodora’s character, it was in order to vilify
Justinian and consequently judge him for making a poor decision in choosing a wife.16 To
gain further credibility, Prokopios used the account of Menander a third-century
rhetorician, who detailed what a good emperor was through the use of imperial virtues.17
Prokopios twisted the qualities presented by Menander in describing Justinian in order to
depict him as the opposite of a good emperor.18 At this point in history masculinity was
linked with rationality while being emotional was a more feminine trait, so attacking
Justinian’s rational was akin to attacking his manhood. Prokopios attacked Justinian’s
13Leslie Brubaker, “Sex, Lies, and Textuality,” 99.
14 Ibid., 91.
15 Ibid., 92.
16 Ibid., 99.
17Ibid., 86.
18Ibid., 87.

6. 6
masculinity once again when describing the influence Theodora had over him. When
ruling as a unit, Prokopios stated, Theodora was able to mesmerize Justinian into doing
what she wanted.19 Byzantine women were expected to be docile and obey their
husbands, but through Prokopios’ use of character assassination he was able to flip the
roles of Justinian and Theodora and morph them into the opposite of a proper emperor
and empress. Prokopios’ motive for the slander of Theodora was to amplify Justinian’s
incompetence as a ruler and as a man.
To a lesser extent, the character of the Byzantine Empress Theophano is
questioned in Liudprand of Cremona’s Embassy written in 969. Theophano had been the
wife of the previous emperor, Romanus, and Nicephoros was the godfather to their
children. According to Canon law, godparents were considered family members and
therefore Nicephoros would not have been allowed to marry Theophano without
ecclesiastical disapproval. 20 Liudprand criticized the relationship of Theophano and
Nicephoros calling it “incestuous”, and also referred to Theophano as Nicephoros’
“mistress”, suggesting she was an adulteress.21 Although the marriage of the empress to
her children’s godfather was a bit scandalous, Liudprand manipulated the situation to his
favor as he did in the majority of the Embassy. Liudprand discredited Theophano and
Nicephoros in order to cover up the failure of his embassy, to retrieve a princess for Otto
II and properly define Ottonian borders from Byzantine ones.
Finally, powerful men used marriage to women of powerful families to gain status
and form alliances. As mentioned previously, Emperor Nicephoros of the Byzantine
19 Leslie Brubaker, “Sex, Lies, and Textuality,” 98.
20Liudprand, The Embassy of Liudprand the Cremonese Bishop to the Constantinopolitan
Emperor NicephorosPhocason Behalf of the August Ottos & Adelheid, Trans. Paolo Squatriti (Washington
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 264.
21 Ibid.

7. 7
Empire wed the previous emperor’s wife Theophano. This was a strategic move for
Nicephoros, who was afraid that he could be usurped. Theophano and her sons remained
in Nicephoros’ care in order to “sustain a connection” to the legitimate Macedonian
line.22 The Ottonian Emperor, Otto I’s marriage to Adelheid similarly brought him a
measure of legitimacy. In 951 Otto pursued the emperorship of Rome and was denied by
Alberic, the lord of Rome. 23 However after Otto’s marriage to Adelheid, the widow to
king Lothar II, he gained rights over the kingdom through her Carolingian ties. 24
Although Otto I had gained some recognition for the Ottonian Empire as a legitimate
power, there was still doubt about his right to rule throughout early medieval Europe.
Otto I sent an envoy to Constantinople to secure a princess for his son Otto II to prevent
further skepticism of his right to rule and to further define the Ottonian Empire’s
territories from Byzantine ones. 25 Obtaining a prestigious Byzantine princess for his son,
would further secure Otto’s imperial structure and would gain the Byzantine Empire as
an ally. Otto’s first embassy to the Byzantine Empire, headed by Liudprand of Cremona
was not successful in securing a princess for Otto II to marry, or defining Ottonian
borders. However after the assassination of Emperor Nicephoros by John Tsimiskes, Otto
was able to send another embassy to Byzantium and get a princess for his son to marry. 26
Not all alliances of the early medieval world were formed with the use of
marriage ties; some for example the Bulgars used other devices such as religion. 27 In
22 Liudprand, “The Embassy,” 240.
23 Liudprand, Concerning King Otto, Trans. Paolo Squatriti (Washington D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2007), 219.
24 Ibid.
25 Paolo Squatriti, “Introduction,” in The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona. Trans.
Paolo Squatriti (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 31.
26 Ibid., 30.
27 “The Response of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. (Letter 99),” Medieval
Sourcebook, Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.html

8. 8
864, the Bulgars were defeated by the Byzantines in battle and the Bulgarian leader Khan
Boris had converted to Christianity and most likely baptized by 865.28 At this time Greek
missionaries were sent to the Slavic people to speed up the Bulgar conversion process,
and Boris was also sent a letter detailing the concepts of orthodox Christianity by the
Byzantine Patriarch Photius.29 The Patriarch also urged Khan Boris to rule with the
principles of Christian leadership in mind. Although Khan Boris had a more favorable
attitude towards Christianity and was drawn to conversion, for a short while he rebelled
against the orthodoxy in favor of western version of the Christian religion.30 This shows
the instability of religion as a way to form alliances. In Liudprand of Cremona’s
Embassy, Liudprand criticizes the Byzantine orthodoxy and magnifies its differences
from its Roman counterpart; however that did not deter Otto I from wanting a Byzantine
princess for his son. The criticism of the orthodoxy present in Pope Nicholas I’s response
to Khan Boris did however discourage Boris partially from interacting further with the
Byzantines. Marriage ties appear to be somewhat of a stronger way to form alliances,
which could be why Otto was so adamant to get his son a Byzantine bride. The Ottonians
were already Christianized and had gained some legitimacy through a marriage tie,
seemingly making it the best option for Otto II as well.
To conclude, although Byzantine women seem to have only had a minor role in
early medieval history, powerful men were able to use them as tools to further their own
gains. Through the use of law, slander, and marriage, these men were able to get what
they wanted by using women. As stated above due to the empire’s influence, a greater
understanding of the Byzantines is essential to early medieval history. By studying the
28 “The Response of Pope Nicholas” Medieval Sourcebook.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.

9. 9
Byzantines one is able to see the cultural differences between the eastern and western
portions of the Roman Empire, and the conflict that ensued because of these differences.
The inward focus of Byzantine primary sources, allows historians to gain a better
perspective as to what went on in the empire and what was important to the Byzantine
elite class. Although early medieval sources available on the Byzantine Empire range in
content and much can be learned about the empire, very few sources have an outward
focus like Liudprand of Cremona’s Works. This means that much of what is available
must be pieced together in order to gain some semblance of an idea as to how Byzantine
actions affected the rest of the medieval world. Areas of Byzantine history that are
impossible to learn about are the lives of low born men, women, children, the elderly,
and slaves because they were not deemed important enough to write about. It may have
been thought of as impractical to write about children, because of the high death rate
associated with disease and famine. Some accounts, like the plague section of Prokopios’
History of the Wars, provide information about low born people, but not enough to gain
an accurate portrayal of peasant life in Byzantium. Further research about the lives of
women in early medieval society would be beneficial to historians to use as a comparison
to women of the Byzantine Empire. Other available information about Byzantine
Empresses would also be useful to look at as well. For example, in his Secret History,
Prokopios mentions that Theodora had control over Justinian in some way, which
although likely false could mean that there was some consultation between Justinian and
Theodora in regards to concerns about the empire.31 The role of women in Byzantium
may not have been as small as sources lead some to think. When manipulated by
31Leslie Brubaker, “Sex, Lies, and Textuality,” 98.

10. 10
powerful men, the actions and lives of women had a large impact on not only the
Byzantine Empire, but the early medieval world as a whole.

11. 11
Works Cited
Brubaker, Leslie. “Sex, Lies, and Textuality: the Secret History of Prokopios and the
Rhetoric of Gender in Sixth-Century Byzantium.” In Gender in the Early Medieval
World East and West, 300-900, edited by Leslie Brubaker and Julia M. H. Smith,
83-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
“Corpus iuris civilis.” Medieval Sourcebook. Fordham University. Accessed March
10, 2014. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cjc-marriage.asp.
Liudprand. The Embassy of Liudprand the Cremonese Bishop to the Constantinopolitan
Emperor Nicephoros Phocas on Behalf of the August Ottos & Adelheid.
Translated by Paolo Squatriti. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 2007.
Liudprand. Concerning King Otto. Translated by Paolo Squatriti.
Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007.
Squatriti, Paolo. “Introduction.” In The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona.
Translated by Paolo Squatriti. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 2007.
“The Response of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. (Letter 99).”
Medieval Sourcebook. Fordham University. Accessed March 16, 2014.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.html.