Women at Church in Byzantium Where, When-And Why

Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When-And Why?

Author(s): Robert F. Taft

Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 52 (1998), pp. 27-87
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291777
Accessed: 13/03/2009 10:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
http://www.jstor.org
Women at Church in Byzantium:
Where, When-and Why?
ROBERTE TAFT,S.J.
INTRODUCTION
ince the beginning of history, religion, sex, and gender have been entwined in an
unrelenting embrace. It should be no surprise, then, that they were related issues in
Byzantine society too. One result of this was the segregation of women in church in
Byzantium.1 In the following pages I try to determine the modalities and motives for this
segregation. In so doing, I simply presume what should require no demonstration: that
in Byzantine Christianity as elsewhere, women were systematically ranked after men.
ogi 6 6tapokos
"Did not the Devil create woman?" (KalCitr106 tiv y)vaaiKa;), a Byzantine
I am grateful to Jeffrey Featherstone for his help in proofreading the text of this paper and offering
numerous invaluable suggestions and corrections in the interpretation of texts, and to Alice-Mary Talbot
and theane onymous DOP referees for their valuable editorial suggestions.
'Among recent studies on women in Byzantium, see M. Angold, Churchand Societyin Byzantiumunder the
Comneni,1081-1261 (Cambridge, 1995), chap. 21; P. M. Beagan, "The Cappadocian Fathers, Women, and
Ecclesiastical Politics," VChr49 (1995), 165-79; J. Beaucamp, "La situation juridique de la femme a Byzance,"
CahCM 20 (1977), 147-76; eadem, Le statut de la femme a Byzance(4e-7e siecle), 2 vols., I: Le droitimperial;II:
Lespratiquessociales,TM, Monographies 5-6 (Paris, 1990, 1992); G. Buckler, "Women in Byzantine Law about
1100 A.D." Byzantion 11 (1936), 391-416; Av. Cameron, Historyas Text:The Writingof Ancient History (London,
1989); C. Galatariotou, "Holy Women and Witches: Aspects of Byzantine Conceptions of Gender," BMGS 9
(1984-85), 55-94; L. Garland, "'The Eye of the Beholder': Byzantine Imperial Women and Their Public
Image from Zoe Porphyrogenita to Euphrosyne Kamaterissa Doukaina (1028-1203)," Byzantion 64 (1994),
19-39, 261-313; eadem, "Conformity and Licence at the Byzantine Court in the Eleventh and Twelfth Cen-
turies: The Case of Imperial Women," ByzF 21 (1995), 101-15; eadem, "The Life and Ideology of Byzantine
Women," Byzantion58 (1988), 361-93; C. V. Harrison, "Male and Female in Cappadocian Theology,"JTS 41
(1990), 441-71; J. Herrin, "In Search ofo Byzantine Women: Three Avenues of Approach," in Imagesof Women
in Antiquity, ed. Av. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (London, 1983), 167-89; A. Laiou, Gender, Society and Economic
Life in Byzantium,Variorum Collected Studies (London, 1992); eadem, Mariage, amouretparente a Byzanceau
XIIe-XIIIe siecles, TM, Monographies 7 (Paris, 1992); eadem, "Observations on the Life and Ideology of
Byzantine Women," ByzF 9 (1985), 59-102; eadem, "The Role of Women in Byzantin ntne Society," JOB 31.1
(1981), 233-60; eadem, "Sex, Consent, and Coercion in Byzantium," in Consentand Coercionto Sex and Mar-
riage in Ancientand MedievalSocieties,ed. A. Laiou (Washington, D.C., 1993), 109-221; D. M. Nicol, TheByzan-
tine Lady: TenPortraits,1250-1500 (Cambridge, 1994); A.-M. Talbot, ed., Holy Womenof Byzantium:TenSaints'
Lives in English Translation,Byzantine Saints' Lives in Translation 1 (Washington, D.C., 1996); K. Nikolaou,
"HyuvaioKa 6ro Buavtno," Archaeologia 21 (1986), 28-31; eadem, "ruvatiKEt;?EntoTooyp01oi 61 J9[GTvOnpCIavrtvri
7iept6o6 (8o;-10oo; at.)," Proceedingsof the 2nd International Symposium:Communicationin Byzantium (Athens,
1993), 169-80; eadem, H 9EhrrTi; yuvaiKa;
OTicpounavvttvf Kotvovia (Athens, 1993); eadem, "Ot yuvaiKE; OTO
PIo Kat tupya ou OeoikXouV,"Symmeikta 9, In Memory of D. A. Zakythinos, II (Athens, 1994), 137-51.
28 WOMEN AT CHURCH IN BYZANTIUM
interlocutor asks rhetorically in the fictitious Life of St. Andrewthe Fool (ca. 650-ca. 950),2
and though the answer was "no," the question alone is symptomatic: "Anti-feminism was
a fundamental tenet of Byzantine thinking until the sporadic introduction of western
ideas of romantic love in about the twelfth century."3 So my interest focuses on whatever
other factors, exacerbating or mitigating, may have determined the place of women in
church in Byzantium. In so doing I try to avoid anachronistic thinking, though without
pretending to be uninfluenced by contemporary concerns. As A. Laiou said apropos of
analogous issues in Byzantium, "While one must be cautious not to superimpose current
concerns on past societies, nevertheless it would be absurd not to recognize the fact that
historians are moved and informed by the debates of their own day."4 For that, historians
need offer no apologies.
A. WHERE? THE PLACE OF LAYWOMEN IN CHURCH
I. TheByzantineChurch
First some precisions. By "Byzantine church" I mean "Byzantine-rite church," the
church building designed for the celebration of the "liturgy of the Great Church" in use
throughout the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Byzantinist-practitioners of other disci-
plines may choose to use the epithet "Byzantine" more broadly, assigning the term "Byz-
antine" to churches in Palestine or church plate from Syria, provided the objects in ques-
tion date from a time when that province was within the Byzantine Empire. But for the
historian of liturgy, church plate from Syria is no more Byzantine than a Chinese restau-
rant in Rome is Italian. The issue is not geography or political borders, but the distinct
ecclesial cultures of theOrthe odox patriarchates and their respective liturgical traditions
before they were finally Byzantinized in the first centuries of the second millennium.5
These distintinons are not pedantry. Without them everythi in liturgy, at least, becomes
a complete muddle.
Furthermore, in the present context, by "Byzantine church" I mean secular church.
The peculiarities of the disposition of space for women in nunnery chapels are a separate
problem. Arrangements in segregated areas where women were more in charge of their
lives than elsewhere cannot be considered typical.
II. The LiturgicalSpaceof the Laity

In addition to clarifying nomenclature we must also recall that T. F. Mathews6 has
dispensed with the former "received doctrine" according to which the Byzantine nave
2L. Ryden, ed., The Life of St. Andrew the Fool, 2 vols., Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina
Upsaliensia 4.1-2 (Uppsala, 1995), II, line 2224. On the date, which C. Mango would place in the later 7th
century, Ryden ca. 950, see ibid., I, 41-56; C. Mango, "The Life of St. Andrew the Fool Reconsidered," RSBS
2 (1982), 297-313, repr. in idem, Byzantiumand Its Image: History and Cultureof the ByzantineEmpireand Its
Heritage, Variorum Collected Studies (London, 1984), no. viII.
3C. Mango, Byzantium:TheEmpireof New Rome (London, 1980), 225-26.
4Laiou, "Sex, Consent, and Coercion in Byzantium," 110-11.
5See R. E Taft, The ByzantineRite: A ShortHistory,American Essays in Liturgy (Collegeville, Minn., 1993),
56-57 and 64 n. 31.
6T. F. Mathews, The Early Churchesof Constantinople:Architectureand Liturgy (University Park, Pa.-London,
1971), 117-25.
ROBERT E TAFT, S.J. 29
was reserved for liturgical activity and hence closed to the laity.7 In fact, only the ambo-
sanctuary areas were enclosed and set apart for the exclusive use of the clergy. The
chancel-solea-ambo barrier in early Constantinopolitan churches was designed precisely
to keep these spaces and their connecting runway unimpeded by the laity. What would
have been the point of this walled-in solea if the laity were excluded from the nave? And
in fact, several sources Mathews adduces describe the congregation in the center of the
nave crowding up to the chancel, ambo, and their connecting solea, the better to see and
hear what was going on.
1. ThePreachingof Chrysostom(398-404)
The Byzantine historian Sozomen, a native of Gaza writing some time after 443 A.D.
about ecclesial events in the crucial century from 324 to 425, presents in his ChurchHistory
VIII, 5.2, a scenario that would hardly have been possible if the laity were kept in the
side aisles, away from the nave. As Sozomen describes it, Chrysostom's preaching in Con-
stantinople attracted such crowds pressing around to hear him that he sometimes
preached from the ambo in the center of the nave instead of seated on his throne behind
the altar in the sanctuary, as was more customary even, apparently, for Chrysostom:8
TocoDTov&6snpoq av6ov Txb krnXfoq?KrvXiV- So much did the crowd press around him,
oav Kal T6Cva6xro6X6ycovK6pov
oO UiKeXov, unable to get enough of his words, caus-
COT?E,rei cboti6gLevotKai 7rept0Xt3ovTr; ing danger by pushing this way and that
a&XiXoiV; ?KiVct6vv?ov, /KcaooG Tipo- and crushing one another, each one
ocOGTpci[vat ptaI 6tleOvo;06cw; yybi; rzape- struggling to get closer so that by stand-
oTrX;a6lKpt1peGpovai)rToi Xeyovto0; aKoolt, ing near he might hear more accurately
gLoov Eavmov c61ot nap6XOcv icri to6 1Pfla- what he [Chrysostom] was saying, that he
ToS Tcv avayvx0zxTv cKaOef6oevog; i6- placed himself on the readers' ambo in
6a(KCEv.9 the midst of all and taught them seated
there.
In his sermon In Ioh. hom. 3, 1, Chrysostom himself confirms this pushing and shoving
to get near the ambo.10
2. The Synodof Constantinople(518)

A similar mob scene accompanied a synod held at Constantinople in 518.11 With the
accession of the Orthodox emperor Justin I on July 10, 518, the pro-Chalcedonian popu-
7See the remarks in R. Krautheimer, Early Christianand ByzantineArchitecture,Pelican History of Art Z24
(Harmondsworth, 1965), 159. The later Yale edition, revised by R. Krautheimer and S. Curcic, moderates
this view somewhat (486 n. 12). I am grateful to Prof. Marchita Mauck for pointing this out to me.
8Sozomen, Hist. eccles.VIII, 18.7-8, in Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte, ed.J. Bidez and G. Ch. Hansen, GCS
50 (Berlin, 1960), 374 = PG 67:1564B; cf. Maximus, Mystagogy(628-630 A.D.) 14, PG 91.1:692-93.
9GCS 50:357.11-15 = PG 67:1528BC; trans. adapted from A Select Libraryof the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathersof the ChristianChurch, ed. P. Schaff (Grand Rapids, Mich., ser. 1: 1974-; ser. 2: 1952- ; hereafter
NPNF), ser. 2, 11:402; a less circumstantial account of the same in Socrates, Hist. eccles. VI, 5.5, in G. Ch.
Hansen, ed., SokratesKirchengeschichte, GCS, n.s., 1 (Berlin, 1995), 317 = PG 67:673B = NPNF, ser. 2, 11:140.
On the location and posture of the preacher in this period, see A. Olivar, La predicacioncristiana
antigua,
Biblioteca Herder, Secci6n de teologia y filosofia 189 (Barcelona, 1991), 726-36.
'OPG59:37.
1 Background details in R. F Taft, A Historyof the Liturgyof St.John Chrysostom,IV: The
Diptychs,OCA 238
(Rome, 1991), 102-3, and, most recently, J. Speigl, "Synoden im Gefolge der Wende der Religionspolitik
unter Kaiser Justinos (518)," OKS 45 (1996), 3-8.
lace forced the newly elected (April 17, 518) Patriarch John II Cappadox (518-520) to
include the Council of Chalcedon in the conciliar diptychs. The occasion was the patriar-
chal eucharist on July 16 in Hagia Sophia: "at the time of the diptychs the gathered
throng, in complete silence, crowded around the sanctuary in great numbers and lis-
tened" (T4)KatpcO TCOV Tcno
8tIc7iXO(0v?ETa aav to nk0o KUKk()
av
loXCXiaxovfn)vpacLgoV TOio
ODutaTipol0ou Kai riKpocovto)to the deacon proclaim the four councils and the deceased
Orthodox patriarchs.12
3. Paul Silentiarius(ca. 563 A.D.)
Nor was this crowding up to the clergy area just an abuse in times of special excite-
ment or tension. Writing around 563 A.D., Paul Silentiarius, in his Descriptionof theAmbo
of Hagia Sophia, gives a vivid description of the people crowding up to the solea to touch
and kiss the evangeliary being borne back to the altar after the reading of the Gospel.
The sanctuary (a6&8wov,OucutaaTiplov, pfr(a) ofJustinian's Hagia Sophia, described in min-
ute detail by the Silentiary,13was an elevated area including and extending out in front
of the apse, itself a relatively shallow space filled with the curved steps of the elevated
synthronon where the clergy sat. The altar-room in front of it was enclosed by a HI-shaped
chancel barrier (T?|rtXov, G&c'ruta, KaY7K6X0, KayKEXXov, Ky7KXEXa,Kl7yKt, KIMYKIti ?;,
etc.) jutting out into the nave from the two secondary piers at the northwest and south-
west extremities of the apse. Three doors, one in each side (north-west-south) of the
chancel, provided access to the altar-room. Extending out into the nave before the central
"Holy Doors" in the west face of the chancel was a walled-in, raised passageway, the solea,
which led to the oval-shaped ambo enclosure toward the center of the nave. The Silenti-
ary describes this ambo as an "island amidst the waves of the sea . . joined to the main-
land coast by an isthmus"-the solea-"a long strait" extending up to the sanctuary
doors and bounded by waist-high walls.'4 This runway kept open the space needed for
the processional comings and goings between sanctuary and ambo. And it was needed
precisely to keep back the people crowding around, as is clear from the Silentiary's de-
scription:
[247-59] Here the priest who brings the good tidings passes along on his return from
the ambo, holding aloft the golden book; and while the crowd strives in honor of the
immaculateGod to touch the sacredbook with their lips and hands, the countlesswaves
of the surging people break around. Thus like an isthmus beaten by waves on either
side, does this space stretchout, and it leads the priest who descends from the lofty crags
2ACOIII, 71-76 (citation 76).

"3PaulSilentiary, DescriptioS. Sophiae418-23, 682-805, and DescriptioambonisS. Sophiae50ff: ed. P. Fried-
lander, Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius, Kunstbeschreibungen Justinianischer Zeit, Sammlung wis-
senschaftlicher Kommentare zu griechischen und r6mischen Schriftstellern (Leipzig-Berlin, 1912), 227-
65 = Paulus Silentiarius, DescriptioS. Sophiaeet ambonis,ed. I. Bekker, CSHB 32 (Bonn, 1837), 3-58 = PG
86.2:2119-2264 (hereafter these works are cited according to line number only); trans. C. Mango, TheArt of
the ByzantineEmpire,312-1453, Sources and Documents in the History of Art (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972),
82, 87-89, 91-96. Cf. S. G. Xydis, "The Chancel Barrier, Solea and Ambo of Hagia Sophia," ArtB 29 (1947),
1-24; Mathews, Early Churches,96-99; R. F Taft, The GreatEntrance:A Historyof the Transferof Giftsand Other
Pre-anaphoralRitesof the Liturgyof St.John Chrysostom,2nd ed., OCA 200 (Rome, 1978), 178ff; R. J. Mainstone,
Hagia Sophia:Architecture,Structureand LiturgyofJustinian'sGreatChurch(London, 1988), 232-33, fig. 252; 271,
plan A2; 276-77, plans A7-8.
14PaulSilentiary, Descriptioambonis224-46; Mango, Art, 95.
ROBERT F. TAFT, S.J. 31
of this vantage point [the raised ambo] to the shrine of the holy table [the altar]. This
entire path is fenced on both sides with fresh green stone of Thessaly.'5
4. St. Stephenthe Younger(d. 765)
This crowding up to the chancel is confirmed by a further witness not mentioned by
Mathews, Stephen the Deacon, in his Life of St. Stephen the Younger, written ca. 807. While
attending night vigils with his mother, St. Stephen, martyred in 765 during the Iconoclast
persecution under Constantine V Copronymus (740-775), would press up against the
sanctuary chancel in order to hear the lections better: "Nor did he interrupt going by
night (vuKTOtop6v) with his saintly mother to the customary vigils (aypvtvifa;) held in
memory of the saints. And that honorable young man received such grace that when it
was time to be seated for the readings, he stood by the chancel (7p6 TflqKtiyKcib8o; t(a6-
gievo;), attentive to the reader." Obviously, Stephen was assisting at the service from the
16
nave, and not tucked away in a side aisle under the galleries.
III. The Women'Place in Church:TheDocuments

The sources speak of women in general-presumably baptized laywomen of varying
social status-as well as of two distinct categories of women: the empress or imperial
consort and deaconesses. I shall discuss ordinary women and the empress as mention of
them occurs in the documents; the deaconesses I reserve for separate treatment later
(below, B.I-II).
What parts of the church building do the sources designate as the women's place of
worship in Byzantium? Numerous texts locate women in the galleries, which are called
either "catechumena," or some generic name, or, very rarely, "gynaeceum." More often,
the latter term is used to designate areas on the ground floor assigned, presumably, to
the women. In what follows I generally refer to the second-story aisles as "galleries."This
I intend as a generic architectural designation like aooai or usepcoa,neutral with respect
to purpose. I use "catechumena" only to translate the corresponding Greek terms (Kaxrl-
Xo<4tleva,KaTrXXoltev?vta, KaTrXou.e?vita) when they are actually found in the source I am
discussing. The same, mutatismutandis, applies to the term "gynaeceum," which I use
only to translate 6 y)valKictr; or, less commonly, especially in later Byzantine sources, the
adjective 7vaiKcovitS;, also used substantively.
As with the term "catechumena," the fact that the Byzantines, for whatever reason,
thought it useful to denominate a place as "the women's" in itself proves nothing. This is
not the place to digress on the maddening insouciance with which the Byzantines threw
around terms. I just wish to underline that although I am sure the terms "catechumena"
and "gynaeceum" not only came from somewhere, and must also at some time or other
have had reference to some reality, one can in no way infer solely from their continued
use that such a referent had remained operative. Consequently, I will assert that women
were in the galleries or elsewhere only when they are actually sighted there, not
just
because some text refers to the place as "the women's." I impose this restriction for the
15Mango,Art, 95-96.
'6PG 100:1081 (= BHG 1666). For the dates given, see C. Mango, Nikephoros,Patriarchof Constantinople.
ShortHistory (Washington, D.C., 1990), 222; S. Gero, ByzantineIconoclasm
during the Reign of ConstantineV,with
ParticularAttentionto the OrientalSources,CSCO 384, Subsidia 52 (Louvain, 1977), 123.
simple reason that the same texts speak of the galleries as "catechumena," though no
extant source ever actually places the catechumens there-a question I return to later
(below, A.IV. 1).
1. The Councilof Laodicea(ca. 380)
The earliest text from the Byzantine realm to legislate concerning the place of women
in church is from the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, near the modern Denizli
in Turkey, in the last quarter of the fourth century.'7 Canon 44, "On women not entering
the sanctuary" (Jepi Tov ITEiotevat ?tg;i'patelov yovatKaS),rules "That women should
not enter the sanctuary" ("Ozt o0 86i? yuvaLtKaS; iS T60uotoat
?iaotevat).18
ptov
Why does this prohibition single out women, when access to the sanctuary was forbid-
den to all the laity, male and female (see below, D.I)? The key to this prescription may
be in canon 11 of the same synod, which decrees "That one should not institute in church
those called female presbyters or presiders" (Flcpi TOigI 6SEv Tra;X?6yOlt?vag;tpp?6pwiTt5ag
01cot
t7poKa90r?vav; ?v
?KKvraigta Ka9i7Txa6O0a).19Who were these female presiders-liter-
ally, "women who sit in front"? They reappear as "the widows who sit in front"
(\ , konl Z\,\NsLZ) in the fifth-century Syriac Testamentum DominiI, 19, 41, and 43,20
which assigns them a place at the eucharist with the clergy, within the altar veil (I, 23).21
Prescinding from the whole Pandora's box of female ministry in the Early Church that
this and similar early texts open up, I suspect that canon 44 of Laodicea may have been
addressing the problem of female ministry rather than the more general issue we are
dealing with in this paper.22Canons were promulgated to bring problem situations under
control. Since one can hardly imagine that all laywomen of Asia Minor were flocking into
the sanctuary at services, in direct opposition to the already existing fourth-century taxis
(see the documents cited below, D.I), the prohibition probably envisaged some particular
local situation perceived to be getting out of hand, like the one just cited from the Testa-
mentumDomini.
2. GregoryNazianzen (380-381)
Gregory Nazianzen was briefly bishop of Constantinople during the Arian domina-
tion of the church there before the First Council of Constantinople (381), over which
Gregory presided, placed the Orthodox again in control. In his famous Dreamabout the
Anastasia Church19-20, he locates the women in the galleries:
170n Laodicea, see C. Foss, "Laodikeia," ODB 11:1177. On the dating of the synod, see P. P. Joannou,
Disciplinegeneraleantique(IIe-IXe s.), 2 vols. plus index, Fonti codificazione canonica orientale, fasc. 9 (Grotta-
ferrata, 1962-64), 1.2:127-28: Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. ca. 466), InterpretatioEp. ad Coloss. 2.18, PG
82:614B = CPG, 5 vols., ed. M. Geerard and F. Glorie, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout, 1983-87), 6209,
refers to canon 35 against angel worship (Joannou, Discipline, 1.2:144-45), which means that the
synod was
no later than Theodoret.
'8Joannou, Discipline, 1.2:148.
19Ibid., 135.
20Testamentum Domini nostriJesu Christi, ed. I. E. Rahmani (Mainz, 1899), 26-27, 98-99, 102-3. On this
little-studied document, see now G. S. Sperry-White, "Daily Prayer in Its Ascetic Context in the
Syriac and
Ethiopic TestamentumDomini" (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1993), esp. chap. 3 for the issue in
question. I am grateful to Dr. Sperry-White for sending me a copy of his study.
2 Testamentum Domini, ed. Rahmani, 34-37.
22From the same period (ca. 380), the ApostolicConstitutionsis also concerned with what women ministers
can and cannot do: cf. Les Constitutionsapostoliques,ed. M. Metzger, vol. 1: books I-II, SC 320 (Paris,
1985);
vol. 2: books III-VI, SC 329 (Paris, 1986); vol. 3: books V-VIII, SC 336 (Paris, 1987),
esp. book III, 6 and 9,
ROBERT F TAFT, S.J. 33
Ai 8' ip' a'' UiTrxqMv

tryEo0v EiUKooatov From the upper story the pure maidens
QKo1ilv 'Ayvai :apeo?vKai KiXvoV agca o70- together with the married women bend a
Xoy6gotS.23 gracious ear.
3. Sozomen(after 443)
Sozomen, in his ChurchHistoryVII, 5.4, narrates a miracle story confirming the pres-
ence of women attending a liturgical service in the galleries of the same Anastasia church
during the same brief and turbulent episcopate of Gregory Nazianzen. A pregnant
woman fell from the gallery to her death, but was revived by the "common prayer"
(KoIvfi; 8? Riapa tiavtcov E?UiX;)of the congregation, a reference-so it would seem from
the vocabulary24-to the customary litanies of intercession following the lections at eu-
charist or at the end of the major hours like Vespers and Orthros:
'QS 65 TtvCovadkr-0Qry?iv iXoVptoCEvo0v As I have heard, some insist it is true that

cKriKoa,
?lKKXrlotamovTo;ToDoXaoo, yuvqily- once, when the people were assembled
KctQroVado Txr; i1e?p)o0) aTo0; KcaTarm- for worship, a pregnant woman fell from
0oo6a, V0a86e rwG0vriKe, KOIvfi; c
TRapa the gallery aisle and was killed on the
,iavtov E6i5qg it' ar'ni yevojt_vrj ave:rloe, spot, but was restored to life at the com-
Ka oDvl cTO)Ppet (C6Or1.25 mon prayer of all for her, and saved to-
gether with the babe in her womb.
As with all such anecdotes, the issue is not whether the story is true. Even in a legendary
tale, Sozomen would not have had the woman take flight from the galleries unless that
was where a Byzantine might legitimately have expected her to be.
4. John Rufus of Maiouma(ca. 512)

John Rufus, bishop of Maiouma, in his anti-Chalcedonian Plerophoria 36, written in
Greek shortly after 512 A.D. and translated into Syriac before 572,26 recounts how the
holy woman Eliana cried out from the galleries (Syriac ZchmnZ aTro) of the church in
Constantinople where Nestorius was preaching, "Be damned, Antichrist!"27
5. Paul Silentiarius(ca. 563 A.D.)
Writing around 563 A.D., in his Description of the Church of Hagia Sophia 580-89, Paul
the Silentiary also assigns women to the galleries, which he calls variously "women's gal-
SC 329:132-35, 142-45; resuming and expanding the 3rd-century Didascalia 15, in R. H.

Connolly, Didascalia
Apostolorum:The Syriac VersionTranslatedand Accompaniedby the VeronaLatin Fragments,with an introduction
and notes (Oxford, 1929), 133-34, 142; E X. Funk, Didascaliaet ConstitutionesApostolorum,2 vols. (Paderborn,
1905), I, 190-93, 198-201.
23PG37:1255A; cf. E van de Paverd, Zur Geschichte der Mefliturgie in Antiocheiaund Konstantinopelgegen Ende
des viertenJahrhunderts:Analyseder Quellenbei JohannesChrysostomos, OCA 187 (Rome, 1970), 416-18. On the
Anastasia, see Socrates, Hist. eccles. II, 38.14-26, GCS, n.s., 1:165-66 = PG 67:325-28; G. Dagron, Naissance
d'une capitale:Constantinopleet ses institutionsde 330 a 451, Bibliotheque byzantine, Etudes 7 (Paris,
1974), 448;
R. Janin, La geographieecclesiastiquede l'Empirebyzantin, I: Le siege de
Constantinopleet le patriarcatoecumenique,
3, Les egliseset les monasteres,2nd ed. (Paris, 1969), 22-25; idem, Constantinoplebyzantine:Developpementurbain
et repertoiretopographique,AOC 4A (Paris, 1964), 89-90; R. E Taft, "Byzantine
Liturgical Evidence in the Life
of St. Marcian the CEconomos: Concelebration and the Preanaphoral Rites," OCP 48 (1982), 159-70.
24Cf.J. Mateos, La celebrationde la parole dans la liturgiebyzantine,OCA 191 (Rome, 1971), 59.
25GCS 50:306 = PG 67:1425B; cf. van de Paverd, Mefiliturgie,419.
26Joannes Rufus, bishop of Maiuma, Plerophories:Temoignageset revelationscontrele Concilede Chalcedoine,ed.
E Nau, PO 8:7.
27Ibid., 81-82.
leries" (0nXrv?fpcv nepicta [389]), "where the place of the women's seats appears" (evOa
7yuvatlKEv avacaivETat Ev6La C0KOV [541]), the "women's precincts" (y7vaiKE^iot ?6s'0Xo
[562]), "women's loggia" (OrXur?Epri
aiOoiaa [587]):28
[580] Ai?tge Kai voTItrvpopecrtxtt itdaav [580] On the south you will find a long
6gotfOv [581] grlKveSav
iv ai0ov7av, ixEt 86 aisle altogether similar to the northern
Tt Kai 7rXfovfi6e' [582] r?EiEi yap :tvt one, yet it has something in addition: for
X%)povdacoKptvFOeva Xa66aooet [583] A6- it contains a space separated by a wall, re-
ovi(ov paotAini OeoGzterxot;Ev eoptai;. served for the Ausonian emperor on sol-
[584] ivOa 6' ?gIo; aoKrzToiX0o; flgmevo; emn festivals. Here my sceptered sover-
ri0a8t 0WKCO o ot ; ipototv
[585] RgVxuo6Xo eign, seated on his customary throne,
sriv tzmTaraev adKOVuv. lends his ear to [the reading of] the sa-
cred books.
[586] '1oa 86 Txoi;D~ncvepOeKai iV6W0t [586] And whoever mounts up will find
IrcvTavoioet [587] OriXwDTprv
v aZtOooav'?; that the women's aisles on either side are
dagRoT-pa; xrt; adveX06v [588] /i yap intep- similar to those below; but the one that
zroXXoa ipbOiaoeppov oKxt Soai; ot [589] runs above the narthex, to the west, is not
I[t
Ta;(5 ?
ixfzpotv, 7i5p vap9rlrKOg;io3a. like the other two.29
The Silentiary's ekphrasisis perfectly straightforward:

1. The north and south ground-floor aisles flanking the nave left and right are
identical except for the emperor's metatorion in one of the bays of the south
aisle [580-81].30
2. Each of these aisles is surmounted by a gallery north and south, similar to
the aisles below them [586].
3. These galleries are "the women's" (09rozT?pj) [587].
Sources describing women assisting at services in the galleries of Constantinople from
the time of Gregory Nazianzen's episcopacy (380-381) continue right until the end of
Byzantium. So the question is not did women assist at services from the galleries, but
rather were all the women there, were they always and only there and nowhere else, and
were they the only ones there? Though the Silentiary does not say so, it is sometimes
inferred that if the second-story galleries were for the women, the ground-floor aisles
below them must have been for the men, at least before the middle Byzantine period.
This was more or less the received doctrine until Mathews proposed that women at-
tended liturgy on the ground floor in the earlier period too.31
6. Procopius(ca. 550-560)
The argument hangs on the interpretation of an admittedly difficult passage from De
aedificiis 1.1:55-58, of the sixth-century historian Procopius of Caesarea in Palestine, a
28Cf.Mathews, Early Churches,130.
29Trans.adapted from Mango,Art,85.
30Mathews,EarlyChurches, 96, fig. 50, 132, 134; and Mainstone,H. Sophia,223-26 and fig. 59, 249, 252;
both locate the ground-floormetatorionof H. Sophia in the south aisle, though not in the same bay.On this
question see also C. Mango, The Brazen House: A Study of the Vestibuleof the ImperialPalace of Constantinople,
Meddelelser4.4 (Copenhagen, 1959), 64, 72 and n. 198; C. Strube,Diewestliche
Arkeologisk-kunsthistoriske
Eingangsseiteder Kirchen von Konstantinopelin justinianischerZeit: Architektonischeund quellenkritischeUntersu-
chungen,Schriftenzur Geistesgeschichtedes 6stlichenEuropa6 (Wiesbaden,1973), 73-81, 163-64.
31Mathews,Early Churches,130-33.
text that both Mathews and C. Strube have translated (into English and German respec-
tively) and discussed at some length. Here is what Procopius wrote about Hagia Sophia
ca. 550-560:
55. cyroatr'r titv Ka,rpoweO6"o,oiKo- 55. There are two colonnaded aisles, on
6ojistz Rev tCoi Vsb, oi56eRn48&Etpy61gswnat, either side, and these are not separated
a'Xx caK Jet2Ov alYrO')1nOtoUO.t o UijUpom from the nave by any structural element,
,
TOJeTpov, Kal Ct( g1KSetg,XPt tO irpa,; but serve rather to increase its width; in
(TvEMKv0146vEvat, TO68 ye i5ji o; Kcxta6ac- length they reach to its very end, while
-repat, wcai acd'zta;&E,i,rs 6po4il O6xo; ica 6o in height they are lower. They too have
Xpuao; EyicaXirunt(yia. 56. rca&katv6e tcitv vaulted ceilings and gold decorations. 56.
aToaitv acrFpa ei~v oio; e
'a,v6pa;xogLvo u; One of this pair o-Fcolonnaded aisles has
&taQ1CMKip(O)cta yVQ&7uvat4 tXU
8tOWI4aC- been assigned to the praying men, while
vat; qi'a'XXI1 avitncat.57. ncapaXX64 &i:oij8&w the other is reserved for women doing
ixo'oavv, oi5&i:8ta6wpou;y 8itnou 6a'i
xxatv, the same. 57. But there is no distinction
KQha tvTO i G0 Uo l z spq S Kc Xo between them [= the two aisles] nor do
8t 'lcFt ica'ttbpdt`5E-to' F'-gF-pP'- 58. cf; 8' 'a'v they really differ from each other, but the
'tCOW LflP(JO)(ov trf yuVlcKomvi"t6o;i'pgljve"i); equality of the pair serves to enhance the
yEvotVW,Ti t1L tU am;t iO;uYovuo cYtOU beauty of the church and their resem-
Icai ta; nrFpt ti5Xou;an5X6;,at; 6 vF-xbO; iCFpt- blance is an ornament. 58. Who, then,
IkI3XTrQzt;32 could describe the galleries of the gynae-
ceum, or enumerate the abundance of
the colonnades or the columned halls
with which the church is surrounded?
The cruxinterpretur,by general agreement, is ? 55: Tctocact eknctv ?KQtKapoei io,

&6 Ot"KO-
6ogf'a gF-v -roi ve bwo-66sgi4 &slepy6gLEvat.
The term otoo has various related meanings: a
covered colonnade or portico, a porch, the narthex or aisle of a church.33 The central
nave of Hagia Sophia is flanked along its full length by a colonnaded side aisle on two
sides, north and south. Each of these side aisles is surmounted by a similarly colonnaded
gallery to form a double or two-story aisle on each side. So in fact 1here are not two but
four ttoaf in all, two on each side, one on ground level, one above it. The translations
of H. Dewing and C. Mango-"There are two [stoa-like]34colonnades (stoai), one on each
side" 35 -rightly preserves the ambiguity of the original, since both aisles and galleries
could be considered stoai. At any rate, the text has been the subject of divergent
interpre-
tations:
1. If Procopius means, as Strube seems to think possible (though less plaus-

ible),36 that "There are stoai, two on each side"-that is, four spaces in all,
two on each side (an aisle surmounted by a gallery)-then what he
says in
? 56 about one of them being for the men, one for the women, could be taken
to mean that one side of the church bothupstairsand down is reserved for the
men, the other for the women. But I do not think that is what the Greek
32Procopius,with an English trans. by H. B. Dewing, with G. Downey, 7 vols., VII: Buildings, Loeb (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1954), 26-28.
33Ibid., 412; cf. Mathews, Early Churches,130.
34Gloss added in Dewing's version (note 32 above).
35Procopius, Buildings 25; Mango, Art, 76.
36Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,90-91.
means. Furthermore, as Strube recognizes, this interpretation would contra-

dict most other sources, which seem to assign the galleries in the plural and
without distinction to the women.
2. So I take Procopius to be saying in ? 55 that "there are aisles, one on each
side, two of them [in all]," referring thereby only to the ground-floor side
aisles flanking the nave north and south, two in all, one on each side. If so,
then in ? 56 Procopius is asserting that women assisted at the liturgy from
one of the ground-floor aisles flanking the nave, as well as from both galleries
(he uses the plural), where he also locates the women in ? 58. This, if I under-
stand him correctly, is the solution Mathews favors, and he shores up his argu-
ment by appealing to Procopius' use of the dual for the stoa in ? 56,37 the
flavor of which I have tried to preserve in my version by translating the dual
as "pair."
In effect, Procopius is saying, "There are ground-floor aisles, one on each side, two
in all, exactly alike. One of this pair is for the men, one for the women, whereas the
galleries over these aisles are both for the women." Not only does this accord with con-
temporary sources like Paul Silentiarius, which assign the galleries in the plural and with-
out distinction to the women, but it also seems to fit in better with the context of what
follows in ? 58, where Procopius clearly designates the galleries in the plural as the wom-
en's. Furthermore, Procopius' insistence that the women's and men's aisles are the same
(? 57) dovetails perfectly with the Silentiary's assertion (above, A.III.5), that the aisles on
ground level and the women's galleries above them are basically the same.
7. Evagrius Scholasticus(6th century)

Another contemporary description of Hagia Sophia from Evagrius Scholasticus (ca.
536-d. after 594), in ChurchHistory IV, 31, has also given rise to varying interpretations:
1. On the right and left, columns of Thessalianmarble are set out in a row beside them
[the main piers], supporting,by means of other, similarcolumns, galleries (6trepc0a),let-
ting those who so wish to look down upon the rites being enacted (rcpoKcVTetvTOi; poUXo-
?gvot; 86t6vT?; 5; xra
TeXo6vgeva) [below]. 2. It is from there that the empress, when she is
in attendance on feastdays, witnesses the offering of the holy mysteries (T itepoupyia z6v
tv(onTrpicv aioxaTat).38
Evagrius places the empress in the galleries during worship (2), but refers in the
masculine to others looking down from the galleries (1) during services. For Mathews,
then, "Evagrius does not seem to be aware that the galleries are reserved exclusively for
women."39 But Evagrius could just be employing the traditional generic masculine. Be-
sides, the emperor and his retinue sometimes attended services from the galleries (see
below, A.III.9.a-e), as did the empress and her entourage (A.III.9.a), which included
male guards and retainers.
37Mathews,Early Churches,130-32.
38J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, The EcclesiasticalHistoryof Evagrius with Scholia (London, 1898), 180; trans.
adapted from Mango, Art, 79-80.
39Mathews, Early Churches,131.
8. The Narratio de S. Sophia (8th-9th century)

The eighth-ninth-century legendary Diegesis or Narratio de S. Sophia, 5 and 26, also
mentions the north and south aisles and the galleries of Hagia Sophia:
[5] 1. Tb 68: 864o'V g'pO; tOio o)VatQKitO1 [5] 1. The whole right-hand part of the
oXkovKCl LWS;tOt KLovo; toC ayfou Baoy- gynaeceum up to the pillar of St. Basil
X&o'UKai FK WitOVaO) gCFpoP tt un7TT1pXov and also a part of the nave had been the
OKil0K
aCLta Xapft'Tvoo; Evot-ot) TiO iirhKkv
tcb house of the eunuch Chariton, nick-
XIJvo7toXoTh MA ovfa(lIaav gLEt iL)X-
O, 'Cai' named "the goose-peddler,"4' which was
aptf(yxt;. 2. Tb
&o 6pvitoppv gF'po;toil yu- purchased with thanksgiving. 2. But the
Vat'KttCOKat O); tO) -KiOVO;tOt) aX7tOt left-hand part of the gynaeceum up to
Fprjyopio) tot) Oautgatoupyob )tIUI-JPXOVOtKTj- the pillar of Gregory the Thaumaturge
jinza 6Wvoo65vt6; Ttvo; ... had been the house of a certain Xeno-
phon, a cobbler by trade ...
[26] 3. ...'Ev 8 tF'6ErPi

8tt nkupd toi) &e- [26] 3. ... On the right-hand side of the
4to) ytvawftiaou Fi:nofftjoE 6XkaXav gF,-pt right gynaeceumj' he [Justinian] made a
attOa(gfi;,iva avepXyzat tC t")8p, Kcai-KXL- pool in which water collected to the
gQKQa iLav, 0b1w;6vowtfi; Oa.a'raa; &pXov- depth of one span44 and a gangway for
'
,cat ot tepCt;. 4. 'EacgaF- 66i -Kazhnp6ayo0Tcov the priests to walk over the pool. 4. Facing
&8cxgeviiv b,3pxaV vag6tOV Icai FyXIwE the pool he set up a cistern of rain water,
Xovta; 66W8&FKa, Rap8k6t; &O&EKtX, 80pKa- and he carved twelve lions, twelve leop-
8a; 6&O&8KcI,&EtOUtKOiXcly)ot)i0 Kalt [t6a- ards, twelve deer, eagles and hares and
xo,u; ica' iop6ova; ica a&rotu; 6rv&a 8568ac& calves and crows likewise twelve each, out
Kati t6v
7CVapu'yYcv ai5t6v FgctG0at tb of whose throats water flowed by means
UM6wp &&aini1Xavriii06ttv 'CO
tOtot; itpFi; of a mechanism for the ablution of the
virtczOiat go6vov. 'EKXa'kFT&F'-tv t6'tov priests alone. He called this place "Leon-
Aeovtaptov- 5. Kcti Mi-catdptov, biltp tarion." 5. There, too, he constructed the
FKF-tiG- avr'YF&tpF-vKOtuCOVaWpuitov &6,ptl)- metatorion, a beautiful chamber covered
(3OV, tVca 7tOpE)OfLEVOta) Q)tOt) CV tq vaiq with gold, so that he might rest there
42
~ilccino waOrx~6;1.42 whenever he weni- to church.
This account locates not one (as in Procopius, A.JII.6 above) but two ground-floor
gynaecea in Hagia Sophia:
1. The text in ? [5] describes two properties, formerly occupied

by houses, that
had been purchased for the construction of Hagia Sophia.45
2. Since the right and left gynaecea as well as part of the nave now stand on these
two properties, the text is obviously referring to the ground floor of the basil-
ica, not to the galleries. This is confirmed by the reference ([5] 1-2) to the
40T Preger, ScriptoresOriginumConstantinopolitanarum, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum

Teubneriana, Scriptores Graeci (Leipzig, 1901; repr. 1989), 79-80. On this source, see G. Dagron, Constanti-
nople imaginaire:Etudessur le recueildes "Patria,"Bibliotheque byzantine, Etudes 8 (Paris, 1984), 191-314 (with
French trans., 196-211).
41Dagron, Constantinopleimaginaire, 198, 200 n. 37.
42Preger,Scriptores,103-4.
43Mango, Art, 101, from which this translation of ? [26] is adapted, translates this as "the right women's
gallery," but I think the text is referring to the ground-floor south aisle, as I explain below.
44A oant0ii = 23.4 cm: Dagron, Constantinopleimaginaire,255 n. 190.
45On the location of these properties, see ibid., 221 n. 38.
columns of St. Basil and of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. The latter column,46
which (below, B.II.2 ? 8) supposedly contained the body of the saint, was the
northwesternmost freestanding column of Hagia Sophia, at the northwest
corner of the north (left) aisle by the northwest door to the narthex. The
column of St. Basil was the corresponding one at the southwest corner of the
opposite aisle of the church.47
3. Since the text in ? [5] clearly distinguishes the nave from the gynaeceum, the
left and right-that is, north and south (1-2)-gynaecea occupied both the
north-south ground-floor side aisles flanking the nave, but did not include
the central nave itself. This accords perfectly with ? [26], which again refers
to a ground-floor gynaeceum in the right (south) side aisle (3) where the
emperor's ground-floor metatorion (5) was located.48
4. The existence of two ground-floor gynaecea is further confirmed in section
[23] of the Diegesis, which refers to the lighting fixtures as "six thousand
golden candelabras and lamp clusters of the narthex, the ambo, the bema,
and the two gynaecea" (TnourKav6Sra KaiXa poop6ta co vapO0r1Koq Kca TOoalpco-
voq Kal TDo pr
[flaxo; 6;X6Zpvoa oiv yz6v 6t5 y8vauc?idov
V),49 Ztt6& thus list-
ing the two gynaecea in a series of spaces on the ground floor of the church.50
5. Of course, Hagia Sophia also had an imperial metatorion in the south gallery,
used by the empress and on some occasions also by the emperor, as we see in
De cerimoniis(below, A.III.9.a). This is confirmed by Nicetas David Paphla-
gon's vita of Patriarch St. Ignatius (847-858, 867-886): at the eucharist in
Hagia Sophia on November 23, 867, when Basil I (867-886) restored Ignatius
to the patriarchal throne, the emperor was in attendance in the right (south)
gallery,51that is, where the upper-level imperial metatorion was located. In
addition, according to De cerimoniis,the emperor used some sort of loge, per-
manent or improvised with curtains, on days when he assisted at liturgy from
the galleries in other churches of the capital (below, A.III.9.b-f). So one can-
not argue from the mention of the metatorion alone that our text could not
be referring to the south gallery. I would consider that unlikely, however,
since what most sources call the emperor's metatorion was certainly on the
ground floor (see above, A.III.5 [580-85] and below, A.III.9.a). Hence I think
our anonymous Diegesisis referring to the ground-floor south aisle.
46This column also appears in the Russian pilgrim accounts of Anthony of Novgorod (1200 A.D.), in
Kh. M. Loparev, ed., KnueanaioinHuK:CKasaHuemecmcesmblx so LapeepaOeAHmoHulApxuenucKonaHoesopod
cKaCo 6 1200 zoby, PPSB 51 = 17.3 (St. Petersburg, 1899), 6-7 (hereafter Loparev); and the post-Crusader
Russian "Anonymous Description of Constantinople," in G. P. Majeska, Russian Travelersto Constantinople
in the Fourteenthand FifteenthCenturies,DOS 19 (Washington, D.C., 1984), 132-33 (text), 213-14 (commen-
tary).
47Majeska,Russian Travelers,213-14 and "H" in plan I facing p. 199; E. M. Antoniades, "EK'pactSI;
Tc 'Ayias
So?fiaS, 3 vols. (Athens, 1907-9), II, 205, 226-27 and pl. 62 facing p. 226; R. L. Van Nice, Saint Sophia in
Istanbul:An ArchitecturalSurvey (Washington, D.C., 1965), pl. 9.
48See note 30 above.
49Preger, Scriptores, 100.
50Mango,Art, 100, translates this as "the two women's galleries," but Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,93,
also understands the Diegesis to be talking about the ground-floor aisles.
5 PG 105:544D (= BHG 817). I am grateful to the late Alexander Kazhdan of Dumbarton Oaks for this ref-
erence.
6. As for the large pool ([26] 3) plus a cistern with fountain (4) supposedly lo-
cated in the south aisle being described, G. Dagron52 is tempted to see this as
referring to the baptistry and well that the anonymous Russian pilgrim ac-
count (ca. 1389/91 A.D.) speaks of.53 That is improbable.54 The de Khitrowo
translation Dagron relies on is inaccurate, depending as it does on the "Dia-
logue" version of the text, which locates these emplacements at the east end
of Hagia Sophia, and G. Majeska is doubtless correct in identifying this water
source as the Great Fountain (Otairl) in the atrium before the west facade of
Hagia Sophia.55 Besides, the Diegesis is legendary and not a little fantastic, so
its account of these water sources need not be taken as a literal description of
actual emplacements. Closer to reality than the anonymous Russian pilgrim
is Anthony of Novgorod (1200 A.D.), who refers to "the cisterns (KrJase3H) ...
and bath (6aHn) of the patriarchs in the galleries (Ha nojiaTaxb)" of Hagia
Sophia.56 The term inoJaTH/naIaTH clearly refers to the church galleries. But
since Anthony locates in the same place, Ha nojiaTaxb, the patriarchal store-
room (orpaA,) full of fruits and other victuals, he is doubtless referring to the
patriarchal palace, a multistory building contiguous to the south side of Ha-
gia Sophia, whose south gallery communicated directly with the patriarchal
quarters.57
Note that this interpretation of the Diegesis as describing gynaecea in both the north
and south ground-floor aisles of Hagia Sophia directly contradicts Procopius, who as-
signs one ground-floor aisle to the men, the other one plus both galleries, north and
south, to the women (above, A.III.6 ?? 56, 58). As we shall see in the next section, De
cerimoniisalso refers to only one ground-floor gynaeceum in Hagia Sophia and the other
churches of the capital-but it is not always the same aisle, and, unlike Procopius, De
cerimoniisnowhere implies that the other aisle was not also "gynaeceum" space.
9. De cerimoniis (10th century)
The earliest full description of Byzantine imperial participation in church services
is found in De cerimoniisaulae byzantinae.58Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959) compiled this imperial ceremonial treatise from material representing several
historical strata, and not all of its prescriptions can be taken uncritically as a mirror of
tenth-century Byzantine society.59By that time the government had retreated somewhat
52Dagron, Constantinopleimaginaire,255 nn. 190-91.
53Majeska,Russian Travelers,134-35, 138-39.
54Ibid., 134 n. 26, 202.
55Mme B. (= Sofija P.) de Khitrowo, Itinerairesrussesen Orient (Geneva, 1889), 229;
Dagron, Constantinople
imaginaire,255 n. 191; cf. Majeska, Russian Travelers,138 nn. 32-33, 138-39.
56Loparev, 23; cf. Dagron, Constantinopleimaginaire, 255 n. 191. De Khitrowo, Itineraires,101, translates it
as "au-dessus des tribunes."
57C. Mango, "Hagia Sophia," ODB II:893; R. Cormack and E. J. W. Hawkins, "The Mosaics of St.
Sophia
at Istanbul: The Rooms above the Southwest Vestibule," DOP 31 (1977), 200-202, 247-51.
58A.Vogt, ed., Le Livredes ceremoniesde ConstantinPorphyrogenete,
2 vols. (Paris, 1935, 1939) (hereafter Vogt),
and idem, Commentaire,2 vols. (Paris, 1935, 1940); J. J. Reiske, ed., Constantini
PorphyrogenitiimperatorisDe
Cerimoniisaulae byzantinae,2 vols., CSHB (Bonn, 1829-30) (hereafter Reiske). For the
respective churches
mentioned below from this document, see Janin, Eglises, and the
respective articles in ODB.
590n the problems of text and authorship of this source, see, most recently, A. Moffatt, "The Master of
Ceremonies' Bottom Drawer: The Unfinished State of the De Ceremoniisof Constantine
Porphyrogennetos,"
BSl 56 (1995), 377-88.
from the public scene, and in his preface to the book Constantine VII explicitly admits
his aim to restore traditions that had already decayed.60 For Mango, then, "the Book of
Ceremonies is essentially an antiquarian work rather than a practical manual.'61 The
stylized formality of Byzantine public life, with its predilection for &dt5;,or order,62inevi-
tably involved a heavy dose of ritual conservatism in church and court. Numerous aspects
of civic and court life that the Book of Ceremoniesdescribes as still current-the Hippo-
drome, chariot racing, the factions, luxurious public bathing, reclining at table-were
probably no longer in general use. As Mango remarks, "These survivals suggest that the
evocation of an extinct life-style, that of the Empire in its greatness, was a deliberate
component of court ceremonial. Which is why, perhaps, the Book of Ceremoniesis what it
is-not a guide to existing procedure, but a collection of ancient precedents."63 Neverthe-
less, some of the Book of Ceremonies'rituals are clearly descriptions of actual church cele-
brations,64 and even in court life the continual updating of its prescriptions under Con-
stantine VII's successors Romanus II (959-963) and Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) must
indicate some ongoing relevance to actual practice.65
The liturgical material of interest to us, principally in De cerimoniisI, 1-18, describes,
inter alia, the imperial participation in stational processions and other religious services
on major feasts of the church year. This part of the text is believed to date to Emperor
Michael III (842-867) around the years 847-862(?), later revised ca. 900-903 under
Leo VI (886-912) and again by its final redactor, Constantine VII, ca. 957-959,66 in the
ninth-eleventh-century era of Byzantine "encyclopedism,"67when xtS; was still the or-
der of the day in church and state, and the compilation of anthologies and bureaucratic
manuals was in vogue.
What is important for our purposes is that middle Byzantine sources such as the
Narratiode S. Sophia and De cerimoniisnot only assign a variety of activities to the galleries
of churches in the capital, systematically referred to as "catechumena," but also clearly
locate the gynaeceum in both side aisles on the ground floor of these churches, whereas
Procopius (above, A.III.6) assigns one ground-floor aisle as well as both galleries to the
women.
a. Hagia Sophia
Among these churches the prime analogate for the rite of Constantinople is, of
course, the Great Church. On the feast of Pentecost (I, 9), the emperor assists at the
Divine Liturgy from his metatorion in the south aisle of Hagia Sophia, flanking the nave
60Vogt I, 1-2; cf. M. McCormick, Eternal Victory:TriumphalRulershipin Late Antiquity,Byzantium,and the

Early Medieval West(Cambridge-Paris, 1986), 175-76.
61C. Mango, "Daily Life in Byzantium," JOB 31.1 (1981), 346; cf. also Av. Cameron, "The Construction of
Court Ritual: The Byzantine Bookof Ceremonies," in Rituals of Royalty:Powerand Ceremonialin TraditionalSocie-
ties, ed. D. Cannadine and S. Price (Cambridge, 1987), 106-36.
62 See A. Kazhdan and G. Constable,
Peopleand Powerin Byzantium:An Introductionto ModernByzantineStudies
(Washington, D.C., 1982), 60-66, 126, 134, 137, 158, 161.
63Mango, "Daily Life," 352.
64McCormick, Eternal Victory,160.
65Ibid., 175-76; J. B. Bury, "The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos," EHR 22 (1907),
217-21.
66M. McCormick, "De ceremoniis," ODB I:595-97.
67A. Kazhdan, "Encyclopedism," ODB 1:696-97.
on ground-floor level.68 The empress also attends the liturgy, not with the emperor but
from another metatorion, located in the catechumena, doubtless in the south gallery
right above the emperor's metatorion in the aisle below (the text does not specify which
side the metatorion was on, but it is hardly imaginable for the imperial loge of the cathe-
dral church to have been located in the less honorable north gallery when it could equally
well have been on the other side, where, indeed, we see it in all other churches of the
capital):69
1. One should know that when the Divine Liturgybegins, the chamberlainsmount forth-
with to the catechumena and the empress exits from the metatorion, which is in the
catechumena,and sits on her throne, and all the chamberlainsstand on either side, and
the protospathary70eunuchs stand behind the augusta. 2. And at a signal from the au-
gusta the praepositus goes out, with two ostiaries carrying their staffs, and introduces
the first delegation (Pqfiov):the women-patriciansof the cincture ...
One by one, seven delegations of noble women and the wives of courtiers and court
officialsare ushered in and receive the kiss of peace from the empress. Then:
3. After giving the kiss of peace (xhvayanrrv)to all, the augusta signals the praepositus,
who says, "Command!"and they [the delegations of women] exclaim, "Formany and
good years!",and they go out. 4. And the augusta rises and enters the metatorionwith
her personalchamberlains,5. and the rest of the chamberlainsgo down to the emperor.7l
On the feast of Christ's Ascension, however, it is the emperor who assists at Divine
Liturgy from the galleries of Hagia Sophia, where there were also communion credences
(the emperor and dignitarieswere brought communion in the galleriesby the patriarch),
an imperial dining room (tpitKXvo;)closed off from the rest of the
gallery since it had a
door, and the imperial apartment (Kotcov) with which the dining room communicated di-
rectly.72
On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, De cerimoniisI, 37 (28), specifies that the
emperor at-
tends services from the metatorion of the catechumena and dines with the
patriarch
afterwards.73Also, on the Sunday after Easter the sovereigns (oi 68eoncat) attend
liturgy
from the catechumena of Hagia Sophia and dine there afterwards (I, 25 [16]).74
Finally,
De cerimoniisII, 24, 38, has the imperial party assist at the consecration of a
patriarch
from the upper metatorion in the catechumena.75
The De cerimoniisaccount of the imperial devotions in
Hagia Sophia provides the
following data:
68Vogt I, 59-60.
69See below, A.III.9.b, d, f, h.
70"Spathary"means "swordbearer,"but by this time most of these offices were titular. On the various titles
in this source, see Vogt, Commentaire,I, 10ff, and the
respective chapters in ibid., II; also the respective
articles in ODB; and especially J. Darrouzes, Recherchessur les 60|iKta de l'Eglise
byzantine,AOC 11 (Paris,
1970).
71Vogt I, 61-62.
72Decerim.I, 27 (18): Vogt I, 104-5.
73Vogt I, 145-48.
74Vogt I, 90-91.
75Reiske 566, 636.
1. Hagia Sophia had two imperial metatoria, one in the ground-floor south
aisle,76one in the gallery above it (1, 4).
2. Only the emperor (paaXotEC)77 or co-emperors (6?ec6oat),78 never the em-
press, assist at services from the ground-floor metatorion.
3. Though the gallery metatorion is used also by the empress and her entourage
(1, 4), this should not be taken as reinforcing the notion that the galleries
were the place of the women exclusively.For the emperor and his entourage,
all men, are also described as attending liturgy from the galleries in Hagia
Sophia, Holy Apostles (below, A.III.9.b), Chalkoprateia (A.III.9.c), and Ha-
gios Mokios (A.III.9.d).
4. The retainers attending the empress in the galleries include not only the Byz-
antine equivalent of her ladies-in-waiting, but also various male officials: the
praepositus, two ostiaries, some of the emperor's chamberlains who assist her
at least during the receptions (1-4) before returning to their place at the
emperor's metatorion below (5). Within the culture of the times, it would
have been hardly imaginable for a Byzantine imperial consort and female
attendants to roam about without an escort of male guards and retainers.
5. From none of this, however, can one argue anything pro or con regarding the
presence (or not) of ordinary laity, male or female, in the rest of the galleries.
6. Though the text analyzed above says nothing about a gynaeceum, according
to De cerimoniisI, 44 (below, B.II. 1 ? 1), there was one on the left (north) side
of the ground floor of Hagia Sophia, just as in Holy Apostles (below, A.III.9.b
?? 6, 8) and Chalkoprateia (A.III.9.c: ?? 14-15), whereas in Hagios Mokios
(A.III.9.d ? 24), Stoudios (A.III.9.h ? 30), and the Nea (A.III.9.i), the gynae-
ceum was on the right (south) side of the ground floor.
b. Holy Apostles
The imperial retinue assisted at the Divine Liturgy from the galleries at the Easter
Monday stational liturgy in Holy Apostles,79 the basilica where Constantine and some
of the sainted bishops of the Great Church, including John Chrysostom and Gregory
Nazianzen, were buried. From the description in De cerimoniisI, (10), it is clear that an
imperial loge was located in the south gallery, and there was a gynaeceum on the ground
floor. Going in procession via the Mese to Holy Apostles basilica, the emperor enters the
narthex to await the arrival of the patriarch. When the patriarch has arrived with the
stational procession ([tera rfiXtLi;q) and recited the customary Introit Prayer of the Di-
vine Liturgy in the narthex before the Imperial Doors, they enter the nave,
proceeding
as usual around the ambo and along the solea into the sanctuary via the Holy Doors-
that is, of the templon or chancel-where the emperor places his offering on the altar.80
Then the emperor and patriarch reverence the relics in the sanctuary and outside it:
76See note 30 above, and De cerim.I, 1 and 9: Vogt I, 12-13, 59-61.

77Decerim. I, 9: Vogt I, 59-61.
78Decerim.I, 1: Vogt I, 12-13.
79J. Mateos, ed., Le Typiconde la GrandeEglise: Ms. Sainte-Croixn? 40, Xe siecle, introduction, critical text,
translation, and notes, 2 vols., OCA 165-66 (Rome, 1962-63), II, 96-99.
?Cf. Taft, GreatEntrance, 29-30 n. 76, 195-97.
6. Kai 8tip%ovzatagL6TeOpot
6 ze paotXe)q 6. And both of them, the emperor and the
Kai 6 7axptipXli
p la
TO& apo
6ptOx poi gppouq patriarch, go through the left side of the
ToD vaoD, iyyo)v TOUy7vatKcTOu, avtlKpU church, that is, the gynaeceum, across
To OvotaoTnpiol , 7. Kai 7ipoKuvncovave;s from the sanctuary, 7. and after both of
d%l6ToepotdalxxXou;6 patX?eiq KIcai
6 ca- them, the emperor and the patriarch,
t
Tptp%XgrS,D7nooTpei p
posz To cKTAeXoal have bowed to each other, the patriarch
Tilv Oeiav X?txoupyiav, 8. 6 8 paxotiXei) goes back to celebrate the Divine Liturgy,
8Ifpgexat 8t o5 yDvatKciTOU c
Kail pg?erat 8. while the emperor goes through the
eiq T6v vap9OCKa,Kal ?bKKivaS;nppoqT6O gynaeceum and goes out into the narthex
O XOVTrpO;.
aptlo(Tpd(; EpogiTO and heads toward the left side of the
atrium.
9. oi !.tev cazpiK6tot iTaavwat ~c0oev ziT 9. The patricians stand outside the door
7IrqS; ToiDKOXXtIO, 7?epe%6O?VOeTOzvpa- to the spiral stairway acclaiming the em-
aotXa, 10. 6 68 paotXe;S 618ptyeD)6?0evo; peror. 10. The emperor, preceded by the
nCOTzov dp6OVtov xoD6KOUpOKxe/oV ... chief chamberlains . . . and the rest, as-
Katl otnOv, dvapeati 6da o a6to daptiT-
TOa cends via the same left-hand spiral stair-
epoV KOXXtIO6 v To0; oGCMo0tKaCTcxoVgLe- way into the venerable catechumena, 11.
VEiotg,11. Ta 8 PrXa
[ TaKppeCdievaev toiS and the silentiaries arrange the curtains
KacTntoXoVLEVeio; otXevtlptot Trotoi6ot, 12. that hang in the catechumena, 12. and
Kat daTieXobvizaat elv Toi; 58e to;qlgLpoti, [the emperor] goes and takes his place on
&vEa i9iOtzTatalzT Ka9' KaToztvnpoX:ev- the right side where he is accustomed to
otV tioaoeat, Kal TeEti TCivOeiav X0etTOVp- stay at each procession,82 and assists at the
yiav. 13. oi 8E inaxpictot Kai oi oTpaTtyot Divine Liturgy. 13. But the patricians and
advpXovrati Onta0v TO6 paaiXcow; 8ta TO6 the generals go up behind the emperor,
aDTO6KoXXtO), Kalt itavtat Qa;ivavTI TOD via the same spiral stairway, and stand op-
)oita(aTpioo, v6OaKai To paotXCKOvadvt- posite the sanctuary, where the imperial
ifotov np6OKEi?at, ?V ( Kai Kotvcvi 6 paat- antimension is located, at which the em-
Xieu; v Trat; ota6Tat; 7ipoeXe6Feoiv.81 peror receives communion at such pro-
cessions.
The text presents no problems of interpretation. After reverencing the relics at the
tombs, the emperor and his entourage cross the gynaeceum on the left (north) side of
the sanctuary (6, 8), exit the nave to the narthex (8) where the door to the
spiral stairway
was located on the same north (left) side (9), and mount the stairway to the catechumena
(10). There (11) in the tribune to the right (12)-that is, over the south aisle of the nave-
the silentiaries improvise an imperial loge with curtains (1pfia), and the
sovereign enters
the loge to follow the Divine Liturgy being celebrated
directly below in the sanctuary
(12). The principal imperial chamberlains, apparently, attend the emperor in the loge,
while the lesser officials of his escort remain by the communion antimension, located in
the west tribune over the narthex, opposite the sanctuary to the east (13).83
c. Chalkoprateia
The church of Theotokos in Chalkoprateia also had galleries, reached
by a wooden
stairway and furnished with an imperial metatorion where the emperor assisted at the
81VogtI, 69-70.
82nlposXEiut (accession, coming out, issuing forth), the term commonly used in De cerim. for imperial
court processions, is not one of the common Byzantine church terms for
liturgical processions: see J. E
Baldovin, The Urban Characterof Christian Worship:The Origins, Development,and Meaning of Stational Liturgy,
OCA 228 (Rome, 1987), 205-9.
83On the details of these places and furnishings, see Vogt, Commentaire,I, 111.
liturgy on Annunciation (March 25), according to De cerimoniisI, 1, 39 (30), 44 (43).84In

Chalkoprateia as in Hagia Sophia and Holy Apostles, a gynaeceum is also located on the
ground floor to the left (north) of the sanctuary:
14. The sovereigns,having entered the sanctuaryand deposited their purse on the holy
altar,leave via the left side of the same sanctuaryand go through the gynaeceum of the
same church (?;pzovc0xat troaa,toD dpo x?0po) po); TOiaXTo)01)(taGTpiopt0,Kai 8tiepovrcTa
6a Toi6yvvaKiTOio Trfq ar;Sq EiKKXqntaiaa).15. And in the gynaeceum they await the whole
senate, which renders homage to the sovereigns, 16. and the sovereignswith the patri-
arch and the chamberlainsgo through the arch to the holy altar of the [chapel of the]
Holy Coffer ... 85
When the devotions are completed,

17. a reception is held in the same gynaeceum of the church (yive'at 6oX0liv aC5otTO
yuvatKiTnT'rf;?KKni7ia;).86
In De cerimoniis I, 39 (30), this chapel of the Holy Coffer (16) holding the prized relic of
the Virgin's cincture87 is reached by exiting the main sanctuary from the left side: 8ta TriS
Titayfia ToD aptarepoi g|?pou; E?4SX06v, EirEpXETat ?i5; TTiVayiav oopov.88 So the chapel
must have been located on the ground floor just north of the main sanctuary. On the
same side of the sanctuary is "the gynaeceum" (14-15), which the sovereigns and patri-
arch cross on the way to the chapel (14-16). Far from being restricted to the women, it
is used by the imperial party for the traditional ceremonial homage (15) and for recep-
tions (17).
d. Hagios Mokios
On Midpentecost Wednesday the emperor attends services from the
galleriepr s of the
church of the martyr St. Mokios (I, 26 [17]):
18. Eic?oeXOv6V pa6 toti?); v TX XouVTpt 18. Enteringthe atrium and going across
Kcai6t?X0Ov FtXp TC6O Tv vep-
yparxOkit6iv to the steps leading into the narthex, the
Xo[tFvtOv ?v Tz vap0rKlC, KCKice? vtva- emperor, after performing the ablutions
8t
t?VOq,8tIPX?eralt 'r) vap0rlKO;, traVTZ?; there, crossesthe narthex while the patri-
6Eoi rarpiKctotKai (TTpaTriyoi
fl?OTa TX1S
Guy- cians and generals with the members of
7tV
CKXiTOl Xo1ov TfS eioayo6ol(n; nTXrl; iS the senate, standing by the door to the
TOvKoXXfav,?e67?ovxTa TObv paotLXa..... spiral staircase,acclaim the emperor....
19.06' i07c6
paiaeot S;65lptyeDu6tevo; C? 19. Then the emperor, preceded by the
TCOvdpXOV-cOv TOV KOVpOVKX?0io V Kai fa- chief chamberlainsand imperial domes-
otXtKcV OilKEtIaKcOV, TOD)trf KaTaoT(3dae(Y tics, the master of ceremonies and the si-
?e Kali oite?vxtaptov, advepg?eat 86t TOlo lentiaries,goes up via the spiralstaircase,
KoXXtoi, 20. Kati LtKpOv cKKiva; dapto- 20. and veering a bit to the left, goes
T'p6v, 8tl?px?xat 8ta iCv KaTcq%ODVt?Vliovthrough the catechumenaof the narthex
TOD vap0OnrKO;,cKai eioEpXETa Ei TOVKOt- and enters his apartment.
tO6vaauxou.89
84Vogt I, 24-25, 154-55, 173.

85Decerim.I, 1: Vogt I, 24-25.
86Decerim.I, 1: Vogt I, 25.
87Vogt, Commentaire,I, 76; Mathews, Early Churches,33.
88VogtI, 154.
89Vogt I, 93.
Once the emperor is vested, the account continues, he goes out from his apartment
into the catechumena:
21. Toi 68 piaotXfo; eeX006vto;?K ToD 21. After the emperor has gone out of his
KOtTOvo0axTou ev Toi~KaTrlou)gevfott; i7c- apartment in the catechumena over the
e?p?v 'TCVpa(?tKOCvrVTUXOV, ei?opxovTat oi Imperial Doors, the vestiaries enter and
PerriryopeS KCait Xak6aooool Thv XXaviSa put on him the imperial mantle, 22. and
TxvpaotkEa, 22. a 86i Keloe
iC KpeCLageva the chamberlains arrange the curtains
PriXa?v toi; KaTr%ouXL?VtioIt KOUptKOuXC- that hang in the catechumena.
ptot :otoOGtv.90
The emperor and his retainers then descend the spiral stairway for the Introit cere-
monies of the Divine Liturgy, after which he returns to his loge in the galleries:
23. And the patriarch remains in the sanctuary for the Divine Liturgy,24. while the
emperor, leaving the sanctuary,goes across via the side of the gynaeceum (Ei;eXO9v?K
0)a(otaTorpio 86tep%eta 86a T nktzay
ias xo yuvaKictou)), 25. and the patricians stand out-
side the door to the spiral stairway,along with the generals, the master of ceremonies,
and the silentiaries,acclaimingthe emperor with the senate. 26. The emperor,preceded
by the chamberlainsand imperial domestics, goes up via the privatespiral stairwayand
enters the loge (advpXE?a
ra ToDgvLo,trcoi KoX0to KcalieiGtpxovrat ei; TO6capaKwuTIKOV),
where he assistsat the Divine Liturgy.27. If he so wishes, the emperor awaitsthe patri-
arch there until it is time to take his place at table. 28. If not, he goes through the
catechumena ... and enters his apartment. When the time for dinner has come, the
emperor leaves his apartment... and goes into the catechumena,in which the precious
table has been set.91
After the liturgy the emperor dines with the patriarch in the catechumena, either
waiting for him there or first passing through the catechumena to enter his apartment
(86tIpXTat 86t TO6vKaTo)lXOV,Levto)v
... K:ai dTc1pX?at ?v TO KOttcVI a6Cxot), then coming
out again later, when it is time to join the patriarch at table.92
Here again, several distinct spaces can be identified:
1. There is an imperial chamber or apartment (Kotr6Cv) in the gallery over the
narthex at the west end of the church (20-21).
2. There is also an imperial box or loge in the catechumena from which the
emperor assists at the liturgy (26). It is called not "metatorion" but To6capa-
Kcvn-KO6V,literally "lookout," an observation post from which the activities be-
low could be seen.
3. This loge was clearly a space distinct from the imperial apartment over the
narthex in the west gallery (20-21), for after the liturgy the emperor must
leave the loge and traverse the catechumena to enter his apartment (28).
4. The galleries, called "catechumena" (20-21), were accessible via two spiral
stairways large enough to accommodate the emperor and his entourage. The
first, entered from the narthex (18-19), seems to have been located at the
southwest corner of the building, since the imperial party, upon coming up
into the catechumena, had to turn left to get to the west gallery over the
90VogtI, 94.
91Vogt I, 96.
92Vogt I, 96.
narthex (20). This stairway to the catechumena was doubtless also accessible
to the public. The other one, called "the private spiral stairway" (26), prob-
ably because it was reserved for use by the imperial retinue only, apparently
led from the gynaeceum inside the church (24) directly into the imperial loge
in the galleries (26).
5. As in Hagia Sophia, Holy Apostles, and Chalkoprateia, this gynaeceum is an
area on ground level across from the sanctuary (24), since the emperor
crosses to it after exiting from the sanctuary (24) but before going up the
private stairs to his loge (26).
6. The text does not say which side of the church this gynaeceum is on. But
since the emperor exits the sanctuary and goes through this ground-floor
gynaeceum area on his way to the private spiral stairway leading directly to
his loge (24-26), and this loge was undoubtedly located in the right (south)
gallery, as it seems to have been in Hagia Sophia (above, A.III.9.a), this stair-
way must have been on the right (south) side of the church. Otherwise it
could hardly have communicated directly with the loge. At any rate, it is
hardly conceivable that the imperial loge would have been placed in the
north gallery on the less honorable left side of the church when it could
equally well have been placed on the right side. And from the description one
can infer that it was not in the west gallery. The emperor is said to leave his
loge and cross the catechumena to reach his apartment (27-28) in the west
gallery over the Imperial Doors (20-21), a description that would make no
sense if the imperial loge and apartment were located together in the same
west gallery.
7. But this means that the gynaeceum the emperor crosses to reach his private
stairway also had to be on the right (south) side of the Hagios Mokios church.
Since the parallel texts in De cerimoniisregarding Hagia Sophia (below, B.II. 1
? 1), Holy Apostles (above, A.III.9.b ?? 6, 8), and Chalkoprateia (A.III.9.c
? 14) identify the opposite (left/north) aisle as the gynaeceum, does this mean
that both ground-floor aisles were for the women? The evidence is inconsis-
tent: Procopius (above, A.III.6 [56]) clearly assigns only one of these aisles to
the women, the other to the men, whereas the Narratio de S. Sophia (A.III.8)
is equally explicit in assigning both to the women.
e. Sts. Sergios and Bacchos
De cerimoniisalso describes the emperor's attendance at the liturgy in two of the
smaller churches of the capital. On Easter Tuesday he assists at Divine Liturgy in the
galleries of Saints Sergios and Bacchos (I, 20 [11]).93 The ritual is basically the same as
what we have seen in the other churches of the capital. What is interesting for our
pur-
pose is the number of distinct spaces or chambers located in the galleries of this rather
small edifice: oratory, loge, and metatorion. Even if these chambers were very small,
they
would occupy a lot of the gallery space in so small a building, and one would be hard
put to imagine all the women of the congregation finding room in the galleries too.
However, as A.-M. Talbot has reminded me, Sts. Sergios and Bacchos, like Theotokos of
93Vogt I, 79-80.
Pege and Stoudios (?? f, h below), was the church of a male monastery perhaps little
frequented by women.
f. Theotokos of Pege
On Ascension Thursday, in De cerimoniisI, 27 (18), the emperor attends the liturgy in
the monastic church of Theotokos of the Source (f-; rlqriy), outside the Theodosian
Walls near a miraculous spring (triy7i).94After the usual Introit formalities the emperor
leaves the sanctuary, crosses the right side of the nave, and goes up the spiral stairs to
the catechumena, where he assists at the liturgy "in the usual place." The catechumena
contain an imperial dining room (tpiKXivo;), an imperial apartment (KovcOV),a "small
metatorion" (gLlrXacptOKtov), and the usual two portable communion credences (avrt-
ti<ota), one where the emperor communicates from the patriarch's hands, the other for
"the usual dignitaries."
What was said above (A.III.9.e) apropos of Sts. Sergios and Bacchos applies, mutatis
mutandis,here too. If one takes into account the size of the imperial party with its master
of ceremonies, silentiaries, chamberlains, generals, senators, and the other "usual digni-
taries," doubtless accompanied by guards, all in the galleries, the galleries seem in this
period to be more "imperial space" than anything else. At any rate, they certainly were
not reserved for the women in this male monastic sanctuary.
g. Theotokos of Blachernai
De cerimoniisI, 36 (27), gives the imperial ceremonial for the February 2 Hypapante
feast at Theotokos of Blachernai. The emperor mounts the stairs to an oratory in the
catechumena (6ta TxoioxpacKio dveX0covtev v O ?rKTrlpto)95 where he attends liturgy and
is brought communion by the patriarch. He also has an apartment and dining room
there.96
h. St. John Prodromos at Stoudios

The right (south) aisle of the basilica of St. John the Forerunner at the Stoudios
monastery also had a metatorion, referred to explicitly as a gynaeceum. In De cerimoniis
II, 13, after the Introit ceremonies of the Divine Liturgy on August 29, the patronal feast
of the Decollation of St. John the Baptist whose relics were venerated in the
monastery
church,97 the sovereigns leave the sanctuary,
29. Kai 6e4ta to Prjgaxost?po6gCevot... 29. and going via the right side of the
Kai epx60evot eioapXovxat eig TOEKEtGe? sanctuary .. and exiting, they enter the
lrtaxoptov ... 30. eioCepX6govotioTavrat metatorion there ... 30. [and] entering,
ei; TObV
YDvat-KirlVei;Tg 6e4tbv RtpOgdvaxo- they stand in the gynaeceum on the right
Xaxg gLpog To 1P3jaTo;, Kai afTiouoiv side of the sanctuary to the east, and light
Krcpou;eiq TxIvTODE6DayyeXtoUaCKp6aaov.98 candles for the reading of the Gospel.
94Vogt I, 102-5. Cf. C. Mango and N. P. Sevcenko, "Pege," ODB 111:1616.

950n the term oxdp6ctov, see Vogt I, 140 n. 1.
96Vogt I, 140; cf. De cerim.II, 52: Reiske 759.
97Janin,Eglises, 430-40; on the relics, ibid., 435.
98Reiske 563; cf. Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,92-93 and n. 370.
i. The Nea Ekklesia

Finally, a gynaeceum is also identified in the right (south) ground-floor aisle of the
Nea or "New" Church, built within the Great Palace99under Emperor Basil I (867-886)
and consecrated by Patriarch Photius on May 1, 880. De cerimoniis I, 28 (19)-29 (20), has
the imperial party attending services there on two occasions, the vigil (irapaRovi)100 of
the feast of the Ascension of the Prophet Elijah, July 20 (the Nea had a chapel of St.
Elijah,101doubtless the reason for the celebration),
et and the dedication of the Nea on
March 1.102 The Nea had galleries north and south, the latter communicating directly
with the palace.'03 The De cerimoniis account describes a ground-floor gynaeceum with
an oratory (7po(eoXa?6ov), through both of which the sovereigns pass to reach a narthex
on the side of the sea (6t?p60R?vot 6i a TOiaoi"oTywvatKlTo
v .... i. pXtovTaX ?v TO?KE?1?
K8Kxei0EV ?KpaivovTE0
7TpOG?uX%a5clO, i; TOV
;np?i aaoav v ,pOerKa).Thisnarthex had
T9IvOaK
a curtained area with seats for the sovereigns,
s, from which the y listened to the proclama-
tion of the Gospel. 04 The sea, found in every direction except west of the promontory
occupied by the monumental Hagia Sophia-Patriarchate/Great Palace-Hippodrome com-
plex, is a less than exact point of reference. What "sea" is the text referring to? Doubtless
the open water to the east (Bosporus) and south (Sea of Marmara) of the basilica.105The
south gallery of the Nea communicated directly with the palace. Since the sovereigns are
said to exit to the palace through the gynaeceum in question, this gynaeceum must have
been in the right (south) aisle flanking the
thnave.06 Theophanes Continuatus' Life of
Basil I 85-86, in his ChronographiaV, confirms explicitly that the seaward side of the Nea
was to the east.107According to the Continuator, the Nea had not only an atrium to the
west (npoS;i?o?pav lv Kai KaT' awta TOI vaov Ta I7poa3Ui(ta),but also a covered portico
or walk (repiaToar;)on the other three sides, east, north, and south-the latter "facing
the sea":
KaTra6e tS; npoSvo6ov T Kai -v Oa aaaQav If, on the other hand, you go out the
X7Thaneie4nXeOV np,; avaroona;Snorlaa- southern doors facing the sea, and wish
(oan -iv 7iopefiav
e)Xioeta;, aov [n7epi- to proceed eastward, you will find an-
i Rpo;
T
RtaTov]eapiToeE; ix7o|qiroKr popp&v other [portico] of equal length to the
Kai i0o6pojiov 6ia ov.'08 northern one and likewise extending as
far as the imperialcourtyard.109
99Cf.C. Mango,"GreatPalace,"ODB11:869-70,and the literaturethere, especiallyidem, BrazenHouse;J.

Ebersolt, Le GrandPalais de Constantinopleet le Livredes ceremonies(Paris, 1910), 130-35; and the foldout plans
at the end of Vogt, Commentaire,I.
'000n the term, see Mateos, Typicon,II, 311; R. F Taft, "Vigil,"ODB 111:2166.
'OlJanin,Eglises, 361-64; C. Mango, "Nea Ekklesia," ODB 11:1146, and the further bibliography there.
'02VogtI, 107-9, 111-12; cf. Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,78 n. 300, 92-93 and n. 370. Mateos, Typicon,
I, 346-47, records only the vigil, not the March 1 dedication.
'03Janin,Eglises, 364.
'04VogtI, 109. In De cerim.I, 30 (21), the sovereigns at services in the palace church of St. Demetrios also
exit to hear the Gospel in a side area called the Teipdaepov ("square"or "quadrangle"): ibid., I, 115; cf. Vogt,
Commentaire,I, 141.
'05See the foldout plans at the end of Vogt, Commentaire, I.
106Ebersolt,Palais, 134, mistakenly places it on the north side.
107Theophanes Continuatus, loannes Cameniata, SymeonMagister, GeorgiusMonachus, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB
(Bonn, 1838), 327-28.
108Ibid., 328.
'09Mango,Art, 195 (slightly adapted).
ROBERT F TAFT,SJ. 49
j. Conclusions from De cerimoniis

Though the archaizing nature of De cerimoniisdoes not permit one to conclude that
ritual prescriptions were still in force at the time of writing, I see no reason to
all its ris
doubt that these rubrics represent the imperial ritual on some feasts in the ninth to tenth
centuries. Apart from the peculiarities dictated by the location of the imperial loges-in
Hagia Sophia two permanent metatoria, one constructed in the south ground-floor aisle,
the other in the gallery surmounting it; one apparently improvised in the south aisle of
Stoudios or, with curtains, in the south narthex of the Nea and in the galleries of Holy
Apostles and Chalkoprateia; a space called a "lookout" (TiapacuKtriKOv)in St. Mokios and
Sts. Sergios and Bacchos; a "small metatorion" (girTrazrptKiov) in Theotokos of Pege-the
basic common elements of the ritual remain the same.
Regarding thee main
m issue here, the place of the women in church during services,
one can conclude the following from De cerimoniis:
1. A gynaeceum is identified on the left (north) side of the ground floor in Hagia
Sophia, Holy Apostles, and Theotokos in Chalkoprateia, but on the right
(south) side of Hagios Mokios, Stoudios, and the Nea. There is no indication,
however, that this is to be understood exclusively, that is, that there was not
also a gynaeceum on the opposite side of the respective churches.
2. Though nothing in De cerimoniisimplies that the gynaeceum was restricted to
the side aisles, by analogy with the Narratiode S. Sophia (above, A.III.8)-but
against Procopius (A.III.6)-it seems likely that in this period the gynaeceum
occupied both ground-floor side aisles flanking the nave north and south,
leaving the central nave area to the men.
3. There is no indication whatever that the galleries, called "catechumena," were
assigned to the women or, for that matter, to the catechumens.
4. At any rate, the women were not the only ones in the galleries, nor could all
the women have fit in the galleries. In small monastic churches like Sts. Ser-
gios and Bacchos, even a small number of women in attendance at the ser-
vices together with their children could hardly have been relegated to the
galleries, already occupied by the large imperial entourage and all the other
imperial chambers De cerimoniistells us were there.
10. SymeonMetaphrastes'Life of Chrysostom (10th century)
Still, right until the end of Byzantium, we find references to women attending ser-
vices from the galleries. Symeon Metaphrastes' Life of St.John Chrysostom27, from the end
of the tenth century, recounts this story:
1. Agye?at ... abv oeiovvaptov
6acKt &iv 1. It is said ... that, when he [Chrysos-
ieponpyiov ava epot, ?iv0oxv 6Xov yiv6- tor] elevated the Divine Bread while cel-
I?ivov, oGji6pXoi0t;tio T To O?EOiaytov ebrating the liturgy, he became com-
nIve)gra c't xrairpOKrJI?1eva
8xpa KaMapal- pletely enraptured and through certain
vov 6pav. 2. 'Ev6; yoov toTe T6v 7rapitoa- symbols saw the Holy Spirit descend
jifvcov aM6YoXetto0py6v yuvaif tvI TCO upon the offered gifts. 2. But when one
8taKuiTOCV65V avov 7poox6vTOg;Tv6v00- of the ministers serving with him cast an
aXog6viKaiireptipyo; aiDTzTv
c:po[3PX;E0ovT0O, eye at a certain woman of those looking
5taKpouo9fivat RptvoitZo TnV Oecplav TroD down from above, and stared at her with
7ve6g,uaxog 3. EKicevov 58 It dayvofioal, curiosity, the vision of the Spirit was
50 0WOMEN AT CHURCH IN BYZANTIUM
a'calxtoyv g'iFv citco'opyov a?uTfKa gctaictvrj- thereby driven away. 3. He [Chrysostom]

oat 'r a-r6o'cam; .... 4. Ac{a TcpovotavKQt did not ignore this, but removed the min-
tot) [tFXXovroqOa'gcvov, irapacncgaaiv ister from his position forthwith .... 4.
ElcuPF-va6'Ca ixi
WrcFp6a8ta EtXfSEcrTat Then, providing for future eventualities,
he ordered that the galleries be curtained
off with veils.
The scenario is the Elevation at the ancient communion call, T& "iayta tot; &ytot;, of
the Divine Liturgy (1). Women were in attendance from the galleries (2), and Chrysos-
tom, distracted from his mystical rapture by the fact that one of his fellow ministers is
giving them the eye (2), dismisses him (3) and orders that in the future the galleries be
curtained off (4) so the women could not be seen from below.
An earlier variant of the same legend is found in the eighth-ninth-century
apocryphal Pseudo-Amphilochius, In vitam et miraculaS. Basilii 9, though it uses the later
term "catechumena" for the galleries."'
11. Balsamon(ca. 1130/40-d. after 1195)
The Byzantine canonist Theodore Balsamon (ca. 1130/40-d. after 1195), comment-
ing on Dionysius of Alexandria's ruling (below, C.II. 1) that women in menstruation may
pray but are not allowed to enter the church proper or receive communion (Ci; vaov
ciai0vczat
oi5, &ytaGg-r(Ov, o"566s), describes Byzantine practice
i" gt _raxacg6vciv ai-r,;U -r6Ov
as follows:
1. ... f3~XErogCv arCgcpov Ect tQ YLJVatKtcZ 1. Today we see such [menstruating]
Kati REXXOv govaatpita t'
&69cS6toWz6ta; ia- women in gynaecea and especially in
tcxagva; yuvatixca;ci; -obS;iTcpovdou;itav- monasteries standing freely in the vesti-
tofat; aytia; Ecix6ct KceKaxx(jonagJvYo
u), bules, which are decorated with all sorts
Kati ci; 85~4xoyfavOcoiZa'novegwiev'ra;-
2. of sacred images, and devoting them-
OitO TO'to yiVzCat, aQKoOo-
Kat Fpw(OtCOVtCF selves to the praises of God. 2. And in-
gcv gqre]cKxxrjaiaiv ai5t6;, iircp igoi tao; quiring how this can be, we hear that they
o; 6oi~ci. 3. Oi y6p cictv oi ntp6vaoi oivoi are not attending church-which does
tpoa6i"h a, aXX'agF,po;
t;'a t(Ov?KKXTlcTOtcv not seem so to me. 3. For these vestibules
a{,rciv a'rovegfrlOv tai;S yivati tai; gi~ are not for common use like the fore-
K(oXuogc'vatc;E'KKXria1Xit4tv.4. 0;g &, 7npo' courts of the churches, but are a part of
vao; t6ito; 8citupa; Fati gCtEavofa;,6 'r6iv them set aside for women who are not
axpoCOjEvowv Xcy6jicvog. Kai i9v Tht65 o ii) prevented from attending church. 4. This
av6pdai,v 'Ci'
rcat t"aa0ma, tg19ijoetat~ti vestibule is the place of second penance,
iCKKXYtC1tV, aXXQaFoO)cv aTht2Oi npoa- called that of the hearers. Nor are men
xCaei,tv.5. 'E5ct yoiv 'oib; 'owouco;qirpo- excluded by penance from attending
vaox; ci; ou; ai rotaibcat a']KCa'patotyu- church permitted to stand in it; they must
vciicc; F,,geXXoV iItcyaaOat,gi a'vawrxrpoi5v do their weeping outside of it. 5. It is fit-
tronov FKiicXTja6ivF-'4 6p0oif, 6. (ox;t Kcn
iCa p- ting, then, that these vestibules in which
"'PG 114:1113Bc.
"'F. Combefis, ed., SS. PatrumAmphilochiiIconensis,MethodiiPatarensis,etAndreaeCretensisoperaomnia(Paris,
1644), 183 (= CPG 3253; BHG 247; BHO 164-68, 170). On gallery use and terminology, see V. Ruggieri,
"Kat&ehoumenon: Uno spazio sociale," in ETAOFHMA:Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S.J., ed. E. Carr,
S. Parenti, A.-A. Thiermeyer, and E. Velkovska, Studia Anselmiana 110 = Analecta Liturgica 17 (Rome,
1993), 391ff; Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,90-96, 296-303; my review of Strube's excellent monograph
in OCP 42 (1976), 296-303; and A.IV.1 below. We are still in need of a fully systematic and comparative
chronologico-geographical study of the catechumena/gynaeceum terminology in the archaeological and lit-
erary (includingliturgical)sources.
Eti; gTeaTOIV OEiovdayitaoLTv at&pXeooal such unclean women are to stand should
KaTa TOv XepouptKcvigvov, 7. Kai 0Lgtiv not directly occupy space in churches, 6.
TObg?vovToxp iao; o 6vag
qTa (oov; Kai ayiov;, so that the priests may pass through with
8. rKaiTevx&Ea; &aycovE6Xv ircotteiv 9. if the divine gifts during the Cherubic
KaV ie?e'Tam tKOTiKciK ertTpoTrfil Toi; Tot- Hymn, 7. and incense the tombs and
o6uoV; T6rOo;V
oXore a&opi?e60at, aTOKp- saints that might be in this [church
gaTtiToco;otaaolat v aVmxoi Ta; aKcaO&p- space], 8. and complete the holy prayers;
TOZ;yuiVatKac;.112 9. or that under the bishop's direction
such places [not directlyin the churches]
should be set apart so that the unclean
women may stand in them without con-
demnation.
The ambiguities in this text result from Balsamon's failure to use what we (anachro-
nistically) might like to consider "standard" terminology for the antechambers of the
Byzantine church (auXri, wc0vap0rl,vapOrl).13 Though this reflects the Byzantine ten-
dency to eschew "ordinary" words in literary works, it is less usual in juridical and theo-
logical writings. Balsamon refers to two spaces, the 7rpoa)iXtaand tpo6vaot,which I have
translated neutrally as "forecourts" and "vestibules" so as not to preempt their meaning
in advance. The forecourts (npoa6)Xta)are "common" (Kotva)-that is, ordinary or "pro-
fane," not "sacred"-space, whereas the vestibule (ncp6vao;)is set aside for use by the
women (3). Just what spaces is Balsamon referring to? Though not frequent, both npoa6-
kta"4 and 7cp6vaoS;5are used by other authors, and Balsamon also uses Tp6vaos in an-
other context, as we shall see below.
Let us take the terms one by one:
1. npoavi6ta. This is a generic term with several meanings. Some sources use
aiuXtain the plural to designate the Constantinopolitan narthex.16 But in
Theophanes Continuatus' ChronographiaV, Life of Basil I 85, the npoau'kta is
clearly the atrium or large unroofed forecourt before the west entrance of
the church (rnp6o;SonTpav v Kai Kxa' ax&a rxo vaou xra poa6kta),"7 which
Ve
in Constantinopolitan sources is given a variety of
names:'18 ai5li,119 or, by
synecdoche, Xkowip(pool)120or even adXkrl (fountain),l21 after the traditional
I2n epist. S. Dionysii Alexandrini ad Basilidem episcopum,canon 2, PG 138:465c-468A. I am grateful to
Sharon Gerstel for suggesting that I take a second look at my earlier translation and
interpretation of this
text (Taft, GreatEntrance, 199-200), both of which I substantially modify here; and
especially to Jeffrey
Featherstone for his suggestions on how to translate and interpret the text.
"3 See Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,n. 629 and the index under "atrium" and "narthex."
4Cf. Lampe 1138 and the texts adduced below.
15 C. Du Cange, Glossariumad scriptores mediaeet infimaegraecitatis(Lyons, 1688; repr. Graz, 1958), 1245-46;
L. Clugnet, Dictionnairegrec-franfaisdes nomsliturgiquesen usage dans
l'Eglisegrecque(Paris, 1895), 128, and the
texts adduced below.
"6Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,41-42.
17Theophanes Continuatus,ed. Bekker, 327, line 4; Mango, Art, 195.
18Strube, Die westliche
Eingangsseite,"atrium" in the index.
9"Ibid., and Paul Silentiary, DescriptioS. Sophiae590-93.
120Strube,Die westlicheEingangsseite,40-46, esp. 43 n. 128; C. Mango and J. Parker, "ATwelfth-Century
Description of St. Sophia," DOP 14 (1960), 236 (text), cf. 242 (commentary). This term is also used for the
baptistry: Mateos, Typicon,I, 182.
"2'Narratiode S. Sophia 26, in Preger, Scriptores,103, line 4; cf. Mango, Art, 101. This term is also used for
the baptismal font: Mateos, Typicon,I, 182.
atrium fountain.122Pseudo-Sophronius, Life of St. Mary of Egypt 22-23, is best

interpreted in the same way.123In Balsamon's text cited above, however, it is
not clear whether 7tpoav6ita (3) designates the atrium before the facade at the
west end of early Byzantine churches of the capital, or whether Balsamon is
using the term more generically, for the other colonnades and porticoes be-
fore the other entrances and even surrounding the building of churches like
Hagia Sophia124and the Nea.125John Damascene (ca. 675-ca. 753/4) could
well be using ipoaXtau for the atrium too, when he refers to an image of the
Theotokos, also in Alexandria, "in the forecourt of the Great Church" (Tilviv
OT eot0lxopo;q EKova),126 though in fact
TOTcpoauxcf Ti|; MEyd6rX;?KKXrociax Tfij
this could mean any forehall of the cathedral, including the narthex.
2. rIp6vaoS. This term is generally taken to mean narthex,'27 as in the vita of
Maximus Confessor (cited below, A.IV.1), and Balsamon himself employs it
elsewhere for what seems to be the narthex of Hagia Sophia. Commenting
on canon 76 of Trullo, which forbids commerce within the sacred precincts
of a church,128he recounts how the Constantinopolitan patriarchs ordered
buyers and sellers expelled "from both the Augusteon129 and the areas
around the npo6vaocof the most-holy Great Church of God" (67o6eT?TO A6-
yoUxT?covo; Kai TCOVTpooF?X?eaTx?po ?epv TcpoVa6c Tr aytcOTaTrqSTo6 OEO)
M?y6Xr; ?KKTri7tag).'30 Some protested that "the canon names as church en-
closures the pronaos of each church, but not the fountains and the other parts
of the sacred basilicas attached to them" ((;S tneptl56oX); ?KKXrlYotaoTtKo
1; 6
Kcavv 6vogCle? xo;S 7Ipovoaov; ?KctTOx) vaov, Ov jitv TaX;tadXag Kait ax i?T?pa
vaov tx ovrIvocvi?va a6ixo-t). Since it would not occur to any
I?pi TOCv0?EOVfVO
Christian to engage in trade in the middle of the church or in its vestibule
i1ipovacp),Balsamon continues, the real problem is to distinguish
(?v ?atoovd6q
what is "within the sacred enclosures" (?v68ov TOVi'?p(v 7c?ptp36o0v)of the
22Mateos, Typicon,I, 324; Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite, 34ff, 43, 60, and nn. 128, 209; Mango and
Parker, "Twelfth-Century Description of St. Sophia," 242.
23PG 87.3:3113AB (= BHG 1042); "Life of St. Mary of Egypt," trans. M. Kouli, in Talbot, Holy Women,
82-83. In the lively scenario, on September 14, Mary, not yet converted from her dissolute life, tries to push
her way into the church with the rest of the crowd to witness the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. She crosses
the forecourt of the basilica (z&Tzo otcov 7rpoa6Xta) and gets as far as the threshold of the church doors (xriv
kXthv Tfi 016pa;)when a hidden force pushes her back into the tpoaoita, preventing her entrance (eioo60o).
So she is forced to stay in the npoaxita, unable to witness the ritual. In this case npoa;ita must mean the
atrium. Mary is unable to see the service, which would not necessarily be true from the narthex. Besides,
the whole point of the story is that Mary cannot force her way into the church. She crosses the
courtyard but
is stopped in her tracks at the threshold of the church because of her sins.
24See the next paragraph; also Paul Silentiary, DescriptioS. Sophiae605; Mango, Art, 85; and B.II below.
'25SeeA.III.9.i; also Theophanes Continuatus, ChronographiaV, De Basilio Macedone86, ed. Bekker, 328,
lines 2ff; Mango, Art, 195.
"6Ep. ad Theophilumimperatorem de sanctis et venerandisimaginibus6, PG 95:353A.
127Seenote 115 above.
28G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone, eds., The Councilin TrulloRevisited, Kanonika 6 (Rome, 1995), 157.
'29Theforum between H. Sophia and the palace, by the 12th century considered the south forecourt of
H. Sophia: Mango, BrazenHouse, 42-47 and figs. 1-5, 28; Mango and Parker,
"Twelfth-Century Description
of St. Sophia," 242.
130PG137:773BC. I find no trace of such patriarchal edicts in the patriarchal registers (see note 134 below)
or in J. Oudot, PatriarchatusConstantinopolitaniacta selecta, 2 vols., Fonti codificazione canonica orientale, ser.
2, fasc. 3-4 (Vatican City, 1941; Grottaferrata, 1967).
church from the rest of the enclosures (iteptipoot) within its precincts.'31
Among the latter places "otherwise joined" (a2koxTp6oct;KOltvw0gvTg;)to the
sacred precincts-that is, areas contiguous to the church but not designated
for exclusively religious purposes-he lists
ra X;oxpa Kai KioqCOioq Ktat Ta; oToa;
TOia the baths and the gardens and the col-
Txa; ovrlvoggEva; ati; EKKrtoiat;.... onnades attached to the church....
Ta6ia yap geprl tievtf5 i KKicria; Xooyi- These are called part of the church but
ovxat, ic?pol 8 i 7repti3oxot OD ?XOfi- are not said to be sacred enclosures.
132
JOVxat.
So the pronaos where nonmenstruating women can stand is part of the

church and its sacred precincts, not just one of its forecourts or outer enclo-
sures. Indeed, along with the nave, it is one of the two parts of the church
that Balsamon names as areas no one would think of considering otherwise.
Further, he says the pronaos was separate from both the yvatlKEta (1) and
the tzpoaiXta (3). The latter were "common," that is, not for sacred use and
therefore accessible to everyone without restriction (3), part of what Bal-
samon's commentary on Trullan canon 76 places outside the sacred precincts
(though Balsamon does not use the term npoacXwta there). The pronaos, how-
ever, was restricted space, considered part of the church, which is why Bal-
samon says those excluded from church by penance could not stand there,
except for the "hearers" (4),133that is, those in the last stages of their penance,
one step away from reintegration into full communion with the community.134
131The 12th-century Ekphrasis(lines 34-35) also distinguishes between "enclosure" (cEpifpoXov)

and "holy
place" (ro iepov), i.e., the church proper: Mango and Parker, "Twelfth-Century Description of St. Sophia,"
236.
132PG137: 773C-776A.
1330n the hearers, see J. Grotz, Die Entwicklungdes Bufistufenswesens in der vornicdnischenKirche (Freiburg,
1955), "BuBstufen" and "Horende" in the index; also J. A. Favazza, The Orderof Penitents(Collegeville, Minn.,
1988), 130-35, 165-66.
134Canonicalanthologies and commentaries, like liturgical sources, are often anachronistically antiquar-
ian, preserving reference to practices long fallen into disuse. So the mere mention of "hearers" (see the
previous note) and penitents by canonist Balsamon does not prove that the categories of public penance
were still alive and well at that late date. In the absence of any adequate historical study of public penitence
in Byzantium anterior to the liturgical manuscripts, Balsamon's references to types and classes of ecclesiasti-
cal penance and the exclusion of penitents from church attendance (4-5) are not easy to interpret. On the
one hand, we know that the Byzantine liturgy once prayed over and dismissed penitents at the end of the
Liturgy of the Word, as was common in late antique liturgy: cf. ApostolicConstitutionsVIII, 9:1-11, 35:2-36: 1,
38:1, in Les Constitutionsapostoliques,ed. Metzger, SC 336:162-67, 246-47,250-51. Furthermore, the Council
of Constantinople IV (870 A.D.)still refers to public penance (Acta ix, Mansi 16:152D-153A), and the patriar-
chal registers continue to record penitential legislation right until 1338: cf. V. Grumel, Les Regestesdu Patriar-
cat de Constantinople,I: Les actesdespatriarches,fasc. 1-3, Le Patriarcat byzantin, ser. 1 (Kadikoy-Istanbul, 1932,
1936; Bucharest, 1947); fasc. 4, ed. V. Laurent (Paris, 1971); fasc. 1 (2nd ed., Paris, 1972)-hereafter
RegPatr-with references to the documents, which are numbered consecutively throughout: 12,49, 540, 790,
982.5, 1037, 2007, 2180, 2183. So right until the end of Byzantium there were sinners in penance who were
excluded from the sacraments in some formal and more or less public manner. But how this discipline was
related to the older "public" or "canonical penance" is not clear. For by the time of the earliest liturgical
manuscript, the 8th-century Barberini 336, the liturgical prayers over and dismissal of penitents have already
disappeared from the liturgy (van de Paverd, Mefiliturgie,453-60), though there remains a prayer to be said
at the end of public(?) penance: S. Parenti and E. Velkovska, eds., L'EucologioBarberinigr. 336 (ff. 1-263),
Bibliotheca EphL, Subsidia 80 (Rome, 1995), ? 202.1; cf. J. Goar, E'Xoo6ytov sive Rituale Graecorum. . ., 2nd
It was destined for the nonmenstruating women permitted to attend the lit-
urgy (3). This pronaos must have been a narthex before one of the entrances
into the nave, and thus in direct communication with the main body of the
church and the performance of the liturgy there. Otherwise how could Bal-
samon consider the women there to be assisting at the liturgy, as he certainly
does (1-3)? The identification of this pronaos with such a narthex is further
strengthened by Balsamon's affirmation that this space was decorated with
iconography (1), and, indeed, was "liturgical space" used by the clergy during
the celebration of services (6-8). As for the women in menstruation, forbid-
den to attend church, they could stand only in a pronaos that did not commu-
nicate directly with the church proper (5); otherwise the bishop should set
apart another place for them (9).
If this attempt at terminological precision is valid-and nothing was more foreign to
the Byzantines than terminological precision-then Balsamon's text cited above seems
to be saying the following:
1. In the twelfth century a pronaos or inner narthex of some Byzantine churches
was the place assigned to women permitted to attend church (3).
2. Balsamon complains that it had become common for menstruating women
to stand there as well (1), on the pretext that they were "not attending
church" (2).
3. Balsamon insists that menstruating women are allowed only in a more distant
pronaos, separate from the church proper (5).
4. If a church is lacking such a separate pronaos, the bishop is to reserve some
other separate place for them to stand without condemnation (9), so that
during the singing of the Cherubicon, that is, during the Great Entrance, the
clergy can pass through the pronaos bearing the holy gifts (6), or incense the
tombs and sacred images there (7), without fear of "ritual contamination."
Balsamon must mean here the pronaos of the women allowed to attend
church, for it is hardly imaginable that the clergy passed through space re-
stricted to those considered "ritually impure" at one of the most solemn mo-
ments of the Divine Liturgy.
ed. (Venice, 1730; repr. Graz, 1960), 536. H.-F. Schmid, "P6nitentiels byzantins et occidentaux," Actesdu VIe
Congresinternationald'tudes byzantines(Paris, 1951), 359-63, shows that Byzantine penitentials, almost all
attributed to Constantinopolitan Patriarch John the Faster (582-595) but none of which are in fact earlier
than the end of the 8th century, are "des documents authentiques de la disparition de la penitence publique
dans l'Eglise byzantine" (ibid., 361; on the penitentials cf. also RegPatr 270). On the question of penance in
the Byzantine liturgical sources, see, most recently, M. Arranz, "Evolution des rites d'incorporation et de
readmission dans l'Eglise selon l'Euchologe byzantin," in Gesteset paroles dans les diversesfamilles liturgiques,
Conf6rences S.-Serge-XXIVe Semaine d'etudes liturgiques, Paris, June 28-July 1, 1977, Bibliotheca EphL,
Subsidia 14 (Rome, 1978), 68-75; idem, "Les sacrements de l'ancien Euchologe constantinopolitain," II: 1,
OCP 56 (1990), 283-322; 2.1-2, OCP 57 (1991), 87-143, 309-29; 2.3, OCP 58 (1992), 23-82; 3.1, OCP 58
(1992), 423-59; 3.2-3, OCP 59 (1993), 63-89, 357-86; 4, OCP 61 (1995), 425-76 (hereafter "Sacrements
II"); idem, I Penitenzialibizantini:II Protokanonariono Kanonarion Primitivodi Giovanni Monaco e Diacono e il
Deuterokanonariono "SecondoKanonarion"di Basilio Monaco, Kanonika 3 (Rome, 1993)-to be used, however,
with the corrections indicated in the reviews of S. Parenti, BZ 88 (1995), 474-81, and M. Kohlbacher, OC 79
(1995), 236-40.
5. Still, sections 6-8 are not altogether clear from a liturgical standpoint. Bal-
samon clearly states that the priests incense the tombs in the pronaos where
the women are (7), or pass through it bearing the gifts during the Great En-
trance procession (6)-which is one more reason why the women in menstru-
ation should not "directly occupy space in the churches" (5). But after the
Great Entrance the priests "complete the holy prayers" (8), which must mean
the preanaphoral rites, anaphora, and so on, that take place in the sanctuary,
and certainly not in the pronaos. Furthermore, though one can easily imagine
the ministers going into the traditional western inner narthex to incense the
tombs and sacred images there, it is by no means clear what the priests could
be doing passing through that narthex during the Great Entrance-unless
Balsamonmeansnot the narthexacrossthe westend of the churchbut a "women's nar-
thex"leadinginto thenorthaisle through which the clergy bearing the gifts might
pass when entering from an outside skeuophylakion (see below, B.II). Both
Hagia Sophia and the Nea Church, at least, had another narthex besides the
usual one at the west end (above, A.III.9.i; below, B.II.4).
12. Ignatius of Smolensk(1392)
Gallery curtains and their rationale are confirmed at the end of the fourteenth cen-
tury by the Russian pilgrim Ignatius of Smolensk, who attended the coronation of Man-
uel II (1391-1425) and his consort in Hagia Sophia on February 11, 1392. Here is how
he describes the seclusion of the women:
1. I went at daybreak,so I was there [for the coronation].2. A multitude of people were
there, 3. the men inside the holy church (BHyTpb CBaTbIaILepKBH),4. the women in the
galleries (HanojiaTax).5. [The arrangement]was very artful;all who were of the female
sex stood behind silken drapes so that none of the [male] congregation could see the
adornment of their faces, while they [the women] could see everything that was to be
seen.135
This is the only Byzantine text I know of that puts all the women in the galleries (5) in
Constantinople, with only the men in the nave (3), though Chorikios of Gaza (below,
A.III.14) witnesses to the same in Palestine much earlier (ca. 536-548).
13. PatriarchAthanasiusI (ca. 1309)
By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the placement of the women in the galler-
ies seems to have been the remnant of a deteriorating practice-or maybe the transpar-
ent silken curtains were added because of the situation stigmatized in the same
century
by twice-patriarch (1289-93, 1303-9) Athanasius I. Toward the end of his second patri-
archate, Athanasius' letter 45, written to invite the emperor to attend the traditional
August 15 Dormition festivities at Hagia Sophia,'36 speaks with approval of the emperor
assisting at the liturgy in the galleries, but discourages the presence of noblewomen there:
1. The piety of your God-guardedmajesty,which is motivatedby your love of God (and
on account of which I invite you to come to the shrine of the Great Wisdom of God), is
135Majeska, Russian Travelers,104-5 (text), 420-21 (commentary).

136In the 10th-century typikonof the Great Church, Blachernai is the station for this feast:
Mateos, Typicon,
II, 368-73.
a great honor for the Church of Christ.... 2. Thus <the Church> gladly throws open
all Her doors, joyfully receiving you Her son, even in the catechumena themselves, if
you should so bid (Kai 6fnCot)Kal xoit KCaTcriXo)uLeveiot; acOTote?iKe aXDGeta;). 3. But it
seems to me that we ought to refuse to receive the noblewomen there, 4. because they
do not take their place in the catechumena (ev toi; KaTcamriXovveiot;)from piety, as if they
eagerly seized upon the holiday and the ascent to the holy shrine as an opportunity for
prayer and consecration, but really for the sake of puffing themselves up and showing
themselves off (not to mention for the sake of a sensual appearance), not in a downcast
manner that would inspire mercy, but with a haughty and insolent attitude. Also they
bedeck themselves with gold and precious jewels, and make a display of their clothes,
failing to realize that embellishment from without rather than from within is not praise-
worthy, especially beautifying oneself with paints; 5. and in addition they try to find ways
to avoid standing with the other people that they might pray together, but stand high
above the crowd, above their very prosternations. But if perhaps they would be willing
to gather for worship together with the rest of the Orthodox, and to ask pardon for their
actions with a humble spirit... the Church will always open Her gates to these women,
if they behave in this manner, as worthy indeed to be called Her daughters.... 6. And
let not ancient custom be cast in my face by certain people as justification, if different
practice prevailed in the past, because there is nothing more fitting and hallowed by age
than piety and virtue and pure fear of God.137
From this we can glean the following:

1. In Hagia Sophia (1) the emperor sometimes-hence not always-assists at
services "even in the catechumena" if he so wishes (2).
2. Noblewomen are in the galleries too (3), if for less than pious motives (4).
3. Since Athanasius says it would be better were these noblewomen elsewhere
during the services, this must have been a realistic possibility. So women were
clearly not restricted to the galleries.
4. One can infer the same from the context of Athanasius' complaint. Since the
separation of the sexes at worship was still operative at this time, he could
hardly berate the noblewomen for separating themselves from the men, for
whereverthe womenwere they would be separatedfrom the men of the congregation.
So Athanasius' reproval of the noblewomen separating themselves from and
looking down from the galleries upon the rest of the praying community can
only mean theywereseparatingthemselvesfrom the otherwomenassistingat the service
below.
5. Athanasius implies as much when he asserts that reserving the galleries to the
women was a custom both ancient and different(6)-different, that is, from
the current usage then in force-and one he opposes for reasons not unlike
the motive for putting the women in the galleries in the first
place: cherchez
lafemme.
6. It would seem, then, that by Athanasius' time the galleries were reserved for
the imperial entourage and for noblewomen, while those Athanasius
literally
calls the hoipolloi (5) assisted in the nave and aisles below.
137Slightly modified from A.-M. Talbot, ed., The Correspondence

of AthanasiusI, Patriarchof Constantinople,
CFHB 7 = DOT 3 (Washington,D.C., 1975), 94-95 (text), cf. 353-54 (commentary).Numbers and Greek
interpolatedto facilitatereference.
14. Beyondthe GreatChurch

Beyond the capital we find no uniformity in the sources concerning the placement
of women in church. During liturgy in Antioch as described by presbyter John Chrysos-
tom before 398, it is clear that the women attended services from the ground floor to-
gether with the men-which is why, apparently, Chrysostom had a hard time keeping
them apart.138 Further south in Gaza, however, the arrangement was like what we saw in
Constantinople. Ca. 536-548 the rhetorician Chorikios of Gaza, in LaudatioMarciani II,
47, describes in the church of St. Stephen two tribunes for the women directly over the
ground-floor aisles, doubtless flanking the nave north and south:
Toi 65 JTl
To3t a&v6paot y)vaQXtKv
O)V LI ov That the female congregation should not
avaLi?yv'o60a, Kaitzot Trf
KIaTo 0g6oeCoS be mingled with the men, though there
nir0oS Xcopo6oyr eKtaTepOV o068?VOZ;nitrov- is room enough on the ground for both
TO;, ItTC7fv ?epya?6o yovatKcoviztv ; tiioou without crowding, you have constructed
RL?VTai; KYqaTco -v r E?t
:KDvovCLV oaL;S, ioov a double gynaeceum, its length and width
&1 Tal'cTat; o?p'volEtvrIv, g6OVO&e: X?eto- equal to those of the aisles below, but
TC
gLt?VqrV i6jDet, O6OV ariiq oi Tiv oTTyrlv somewhat inferior in height to the extent
avE%ovT?e Kiove? TOV TitOKKet?V(OV that the columns supporting the roof are
TTT(VTaI.139 shorter than the ones beneath them.140
This text-not a source for the liturgy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, how-
ever-agrees with the much later (1392 A.D.) Ignatius of Smolensk (above, A.III.12), the
only Byzantine text to affirm the complete separation of the sexes, placing all the women
in the galleries. Indeed, Chorikios makes it clear that segregation was the deliberate
intention, since there was enough space to accommodate both men and women on the
ground floor.
An Italo-Greek Byzantine liturgical manuscript shows that sexism extended even to
the dead. A rubric of the monastic rXqrLaTOok6ytov in the eleventh-century codex Grotta-
ferrata rF XLIII (fol. 108r-v) specifies:
Kat ei F'tZv i1YO?tE1vo;qi irCPaF3?r)Epo;n
i8t- And if the deceased is a hegumen or pres-
aKovo; 6 teFXF-tl)tK6;, TtfOat XcbXEiiavov byter or deacon, his bier is placed in front
rn5,Toiiiatcv6rn1ov roi OUYtaoypiolu ... et of the sanctuary ... but if he is a simple
& govaX6S; Eaxt ztfOF-at Itp6; To 6c5t6v monk it is placed on the right side of the
'tr6* i5figo;-ti
8v.'4'Vil
v.'4' i'oztv church, but on the left if it is a woman.
14
,To Fl)(OVI)goV.
This placement of the bier undoubtedly reflects the fact that the men and women stood
separately in church, men on the right, women on the left. A careful scrutiny of the
hundreds of extant Byzantine liturgical manuscripts would doubtless turn up numerous
instances of the same or similar practices right up to our own day.
IV. Gynaeceum,Catechumena,Curtains
The documentation thus far adduced-and I have tried to be as complete as pos-
sible-presents several obvious problems of nomenclature and interpretation that need
'38See D.II below.
'39R. Foerster and E. Richsteig, eds., Choricii Gazaei opera, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Ro-
manorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1929; repr. Stuttgart, 1972), 40.
40Mango, Art, 71.
141I owe this text to S. Parenti.
to be addressed before considering the place in church assigned to special categories

of women.
1. Gynaeceum,Catechumens,Catechumenate,Catechumena
The evidence for where women attended the liturgy in Byzantine churches has con-
fronted us with two terms, "gynaeceum," or "place of the women," and "catechumena"
(in Greek, KaTrxo1i'o?4va,KaTrlX%o0v?v?tia,KaTr|xo'ugc?vta), almost always in the plural, to
designate the galleries that typically ran around the Byzantine church on three sides,
west, north, and south. Why is a place in church often designated as being for the women,
and where women are actually sighted attending liturgy, called "catechumena" when no
single source ever actually places a catechumen there?
Though a resolution of this issue is beyond the scope of this study, the following
details emerge from a summary review of the available evidence:
1. In what seems to be the earliest extant reference to the church galleries as

"catechumena" (<-\ 'r*-.n,D), the Syriac Life ofJohn of Hephaestopolisin Egypt,
written in 586/8 by the Monophysite John of Ephesus (ca. 507-586/8), de-
scribes St. John at a church in Tralles secretly ordaining Monophysite clergy
in the galleries, which they "were given permission to occupy," John says,
"since we were a large party, and there were distinguished gentlemen among
us." 142 Tralles is inland east of Ephesus in the province of Asia, hence within
the orbit of Constantinople. John's secretly Monophysite party, clearly male
from the context (he was certainly not ordaining women), confers these ordi-
nations, the vita informs us, "while those [the Chalcedonian Orthodox] below
were performing the service," that is, during a liturgical celebration of some
sort. It is obvious, therefore, that in the sixth century, in a region not far
from the capital, the catechumena were the exclusive preserve of neither the
catechumens nor the women, since men of quality, at least, could be permit-
ted to use them even during the liturgical services.
2. Byzantine church galleries are commonly (though by no means exclusively)143
called "catechumena" from the sixth century on.144
142Lives of the Eastern Saints 25, ed. E. W. Brooks, PO 18.4:538. For the dates of this document, cf. PO
17.1:iv-vii. Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,92, says the Greek name "catechumena" for the galleries first
appears at the end of the 7th century, but the Syriac here is clearly a translation from the Greek.
143In addition to nine of the fourteen mostly Constantinopolitan documents already cited (A.III.2-8, 10,
12), cf. Vita S. Nicolai Sionitae (d. ca. 564), 80, ed. G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos:Der heilige Nikolaos in der grie-
chischenKirche,I: Texte(Leipzig-Berlin, 1913; repr. Hildesheim, 1965), 55.8-9 (= BHG 1347, cf. p. 151); Leo
VI (886-912), Novel 73 in the following note; Ps.-Nicephorus, canon 18, refers to the galleries as the yuvatii-
TrT;:J. B. Pitra, luris ecclesiasticiGraecorumhistoriaet monumenta,II (Rome, 1868), 329. Pitra translates this as
"atrium,"which is certainly mistaken: Ruggieri, "Katechoumenon," 390-91 n. 4.
144Inaddition to the sources cited in the previous note, see the vita of St. Theodore of Sykeon (d. 613),
55.14-15, 154.10, 161.38-63 (= BHG 1748-49, after 641 A.D.), ed. A.-J. Festugiere, Viede Theodorede Sykeon,
2 vols., SubsHag 48 (Brussels, 1970), I, 47, 124, 139-40; II, 50-51, 130, 144-45, 206; Maximus Confessor,
DisputatioBizyae = Acta, II, 25 (656 A.D.;for date: P. Sherwood, An AnnotatedDate-Listof the Worksof Maximus
the Confessor,Studia Anselmiana 30 [Rome, 1952], 56, 59), PG 90:161A; Council in Trullo (692 A.D.),canon
97, Nedungatt and Featherstone, Trullo, 179 = Joannou, Discipline,I. 1:234-35; Miracula S. Artemii31 (martyr
3. We see women in the galleries in Constantinople before this denomination

becomes current (see documents above, A.III.2-7).
4. Though by the end of the seventh century the catechumenate in Constantino-
ple seems to have stagnated, as we shall see shortly, the galleries continue to
be called "catechumena" (see documents above, A.III.9-10, 13).145
5. Nomenclature to the contrary notwithstanding, we have no evidence what-
ever, from either before or after this designation of the galleries as "catechu-
mena" became current, that the galleries were reserved for the use of the
catechumens.
6. In fact, we see the galleries employed for just about every imaginable pur-
pose,146legitimate or not, including even temporary lodgings147 and sexual
dalliance.148Women and the imperial party attend liturgy in the galleries and
have the sacrament brought to them there.'49 An abbess with a flow of blood
could attend services in the galleries of her monastery church.150Ordinations
to the priesthood,'15 loyalty oaths,152ghostly counsel, miraculous cures, and
exorcisms were all administered there.153 They were used for distributing
under Julian, ca. 331-363 = BHG 173), written under Constans II (d. 668), ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus,
VariaGraecasacra (St. Petersburg, 1909), 44.25; cf. C. Mango, "On the History of the Templonand the Mar-
in
tyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople," 3ozpa/ 10 (1979), 41; the cure of Blessed Martha, hegumena
Monembasia (9th-10th century?), as recounted by Paul, bishop of the same town in Peloponnesus (before
Dec. 15, 955-after 959): J. Wortley, ed., Les recits edifiantsde Paul, evequede Monembasie,et d'autresauteurs,
Sources d'histoire medievale (Paris, 1987), 14/XVI.1-3, pp. 110-13 (= BHG 1175)-I owe this reference to
Sharon Gerstel. Numerous later references to the use of the term "catechumena" are listed in Ruggieri,
"Katechoumenon"; cf. idem, ByzantineReligiousArchitecture(582-867): Its Historyand StructuralElements,OCA
237 (Rome, 1991), 247ff and n. 300; Du Cange, Glossarium,621-22; Lampe 733. By the 9th century, Leo VI
(886-912), Novel 73, condemning those who cohabit with women in the galleries, continues to call them
6irep4oabut says they "are called by many 'catechumena"': P Noailles and A. Dain, eds., Les Novelles de Leon
VIle Sage, Nouvelle collection de textes et documents (Paris, 1944), 261; cf. S. Troianou, "The Canons of the
Trullan Council in the Novels of Leo VI," in Nedungatt and Featherstone, Trullo, 195.
'45See also the literature and sources cited in notes 111, 143-44.
46Cf. Mathews, Early Churches,128-29; Ruggieri, "Katechoumenon."
147Cf. Theodore of Sykeon's vita, 161, ed. Festugiere, I, 139-40; II, 144; Miracula S. Artemii 44.25 (note
144 above). Canons forbidding this are incorporated into Byzantine legislation: The Rudder (Pedalion)... or
All the Sacredand Divine Canons, trans. D. Cummings (Chicago, 1957), 405-6.
148Leo VI, Novel 73 (note 144 above).
149Seedocuments below, A.III.9.
150Wortley, Recits, 14/XVI.1-3, pp. 110-13.
'51Above, note 142.
152Thescenario from an Annunciation (March 25) liturgy in Chalkoprateia during the first patriarchate
of Photios (858-867), recounted in the mid-1Oth-century Chronicleof Symeon the Logothete (see A. Kazhdan,
the imperial party in
"Symeon the Logothete," ODB 111:1982-83), has the patriarch bring communion to
the galleries, as was customary (see A.III.9). On this occasion the party included Michael III (842-867), his
uncle Bardas Caesar (d. 866), and Basil I (867-886), then still parakoimomenos,or guardian of the emperor's
bedchamber (see A. Kazhdan, "Parakoimomenos," ODB 111:1584). Michael and Basil take an oath not to
harm Bardas, and seal it with communion. The story is repeated in several redactions: Symeon Magister,
Annales, De Michaeleet Theodora40, and Georgius Monachus, Vitaeimperatorumrecentiorum,De Michaeleet Theo-
dora 26, in TheophanesContinuatus,ed. Bekker, 676-77; Leo Grammaticus, Chronographia,ed. I. Bekker, CSHB
(Bonn, 1842), 243; cf. Mathews, Early Churches,31-32. I owe most of these references to Jeffrey Featherstone.
'53Theodore of Sykeon's vita, 154, 161, ed. Festugiere, I, 124, 139-40; II, 130, 144-45; Wortley, Recits, 14/
XVI, pp. 110-15.
clergy stipends (roga),154for imperial receptions and dinners,'55 for sessions

of every sort of ecclesiasticaltribunal and meeting of the standing synod,
and so on.156Oratories and the imperial apartment, refectory, and loge-
metatorion could all be located there.'57
In short, we are faced with a collision of nomenclature and fact: the galleries may be
called "catechumena,"but they seem more the place of the women than of the catechu-
mens-and indeed, the place of much more besides.
Is there any way out of this impasse? As Mathews said, there must have been some
reason for the name "catechumena."'58And in fact the Constantinopolitangallerieswere
ideally suited for a category like the catechumens that was once dismissed from church
halfway through the service. Their system of stairs exiting outside the nave made it pos-
sible for those in the galleries to leave without having to pass through the main body of
the church.159
In this whole discussion, no one has yet taken adequate account of the history of the
catechumenate in Constantinople.'60 The Council in Trullo (692) is the last time catechu-
mens appear in Byzantine synodal legislation.'16 Later canonical collections may incorpo-
rate previously existing legislation regarding the catechumenate, but such anthologies
continue to reproduce earlier texts long after they had lost all force. Furthermore, it is
not altogether clear how effective an institution the catechumenate had remained even
at the time of Trullo. The ambiguity of other seventh-century witnesses already shows a
weakening of the tradition.As late as 628-630, MaximusConfessor,in Mystagogia14-15,
seems to speak of the dismissalof the catechumens at the Byzantine Divine Liturgyas if
it were an effective reality,162and his vita still refers to "the prostration of the unbaptized
in the pronaos" (ad*)ritzvFiv Tc pov6
tOV ip6OTCzox ).'63 But in his Scholiain librumDe ecclesi-
'54According to the early 12th-century Praxapostolos manuscript Dresden A 104; see A. A. Dmitrievskij,
,4pesHezuluenampuapiuuemunuKOHbl c6smozpo6cKuu, uepycaiuMclcuuu BeiUKcou KoHcmaumuHonoObcKou IfepK6u.
KpumuKo-6u6iuozpafuuecKoeu3cieoe6aHue(Kiev, 1907), 144, 159-60; cf. Darrouzes, Recherches(as in note 70
above), 47.
'55Above,A.III.9.a, c-f; also the reception for Patriarch Ignatius on Nov. 23, 867: Nicetas Paphlago, Vita
S. Ignatii archiepiscopiConstantinopolitani,PG 105:544D; Pseudo-Kodinos, De officiis 7, in Traitedes offices,ed.
J.
Verpeaux (Paris, 1966), 269.
156Between 1019 and 1192, there are fully twenty-five references in RegPatr 826, 844, 869, 896, 925-27,
1000, 1007, 1014-15, 1055, 1063, 1065, 1067, 1068, 1073, 1077-78, 1085-86, 1111, 1119, 1179-80. Cf.
Darrouzes, Recherches,429.
157Textsabove, A.III.5, 7-9.
58Mathews, Early Churches,129-30.
l59Ibid., 23, 49-51, 83, 87, 91-94, 108, 129, 152.
160We need a new history of the catechumenate in Byzantium. Meanwhile, in addition to Arranz's massive
work on the liturgical documents-M. Arranz, "Les sacrements de l'ancien Euchologe
constantinopolitain,"
I: 1, OCP 48 (1982), 284-335; 2, OCP 49 (1983), 42-90; 3, OCP 49 (1983), 284-302; 4, OCP 50 (1984), 43-64;
5, OCP 50 (1984), 372-97; 6, OCP 51 (1985), 60-86; 7, OCP 52 (1986), 145-78; 8, OCP 53 (1987), 59-106;
9, OCP 55 (1989), 33-62; 10, OCP 55 (1989), 317-38 (hereafter "Sacrements I")-the older study of A.
Almazov, Hcmopu, uuHonociebo6aHun KpeuleHuuu MuponoMa3aHuq (Kazan, 1884), remains useful.
161Canons 78 and 95, Nedungatt and Featherstone, Trullo, 159, 174-77 = Joannou, Discipline, 1.1:215,
230-33.
62PG 91:692-93; date from Sherwood, AnnotatedDate-List, 32, 61; cf. Mathews, Early Churches,128, 152.
'63R.Devreesse, "La vie de S. Maxime le confesseur et ses recensions," AB 46 (1928), 22, line 6 (= BHG
1234).
ROBERT F TAFT,S.J. 61
astica hierarchia of Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus calls the dismissal of the catechumens a

dead letter (o<) yivrat).l64 And neither Procopius nor the Silentiary ever mention cate-
chumens in Hagia Sophia,165though they go on and on about the galleries.
Similarly, continued reference to the catechumenate in liturgical texts of itself proves
nothing. Liturgies are (or were) notoriously conservative, continuing to go through the
motions of a ritual long after it has lost any relevance to reality. Though catechumens
have not been dismissed for a millennium, the text of their dismissal by the deacon con-
tinues to be printed in Byzantine liturgical books, and in some places is still proclaimed.
If one could take the typikonof the Great Church as a mirror of actual practice, it would
seem that a vestigial catechumenate for children of Orthodox parents and for converts
continued to exist in Constantinople as late as the tenth century,'66 when the Prayer
over the Catechumens began to disappear from the liturgical manuscripts of the Divine
Office.'67 Since the tenth-century typikon still provides a catechesis for the catechumens
before Easter baptism,168M. Arranz proposed that at that time the Great Church was
probably baptizing Orthodox progeny when they had attained the age of reason.'69 De
cerimoniis I, 21 (12), would seem to recommend this interpretation. On Wednesday after
Easter the emperor receives in the palace six of the newly baptized accompanied by six
orphans,'70 and it is hard to imagine why the orphans would be escorting adult neo-
phytes. But I suspect this is an instance when the ceremonial books are anachronistic.
For Byzantine sources from the sixth to tenth centuries show that baptism on the fortieth
day after birth had long been normal,17' though previously children were baptized at age
three.172So when the Praxapostolos manuscript Dresden A 104 at the beginning of the
twelfth century has the deacons and godparents "take the children from their mothers"
(6epyT aeTei OT HX MaTepen),'73 we can probably infer that they were still infants in their
mothers' arms.
At any rate, these Orthodox children (along, doubtless, with some adult converts from
the various categories that continue to be mentioned in the liturgical manuscripts, such
'64PG4: 141c. This text is not among those whose authenticity has been challenged: see H. U. von Baltha-
sar, "Das Problem der Dionysius-Scholien," in idem, KosmischeLiturgie:Das WeltbildMaximus'des Bekenners,
2nd ed. (Einsiedeln, 1961), 644-72.
165Mathews, Early Churches,128-29.
'66Mateos, Typicon,II, 31-33 n. 2, 38-39, 78-79 and n. 6, cf. index, 300; Arranz, "Sacrements I," esp. 1-8;
idem, "Evolution des rites d'incorporation et de readmission dans l'Eglise," 37-53.
167G. Hanke, "Das Kathedraloffizium der Hagia Sophia im Kontext der Liturgiegeschichte Konstantino-
pels" (doctoral diss. in preparation under my direction), chap. 5. Note, however, that the Litany, Prayer, and
Dismissal of the Catechumens have remained to this day in the Byzantine eucharist: E E. Brightman, Litur-
gies Easternand Western(Oxford, 1896), 374-75, 400.
'68Mateos, Typicon,II, 31-33 n. 2, 38-39, 78-79 and n. 6, cf. index, 300; Dresden A 104, in Dmitrievskij,
TunUKOnbl,154-56; cf. Arranz, "Sacrements I," 4-5:43-49, 64, 377-97.
'69Arranz, "Sacrements I," 2:44-47, 89-90; cf. Almazov, Hcmopua, chap. 24, esp. 592-96.
170VogtI, 82.
171 Vita of Abbess St. Elizabeth of
Constantinople (before 591): E Halkin, "Sainte Elisabeth d'Heraclee,
abbesse a Constantinople," AB 91 (1973), 255-56 (= BHG 2121); and RegPatr 592 (886-893 A.D.)and 972.1
(1094 A.D.); J. Baun, "The Fate of Babies Dying before Baptism in Byzantium," Studies in ChurchHistory 31
(1994), 115-25. I owe these references to Stefano Parenti and Alice-Mary Talbot.
172RegPatr3:972.1.
173Dmitrievskij,TunuKoHbl, 156; cf. Arranz, "Sacrements I," 5:375.
as pagans, Jews, Arians, Macedonians, Manicheans, Nabatians, Armenians, etc.)174 con-

tinued to be processed toward baptism via a drastically reduced "catechumenate," the
details of which are not our concern here.175 These "infant-catechumens" doubtless at-
tended church services in the galleries with theirmothers,and this might possibly be the
source of the gynaeceum-equals-catechumena conflation.
theecsthat to put the women
Mathews objects women in galleries would impede their access to
the sacrament. But if the imperial party had communion brought up the stairs to them
in the galleries (see above, A.III.9.a, g), the women communicants could certainly have
been served the sacrament at similar antimensia set up for that purpose, as Strube sug-
gests.'76 Besides, frequent communion had declined so drastically by the end of the
fourth century that the problem Mathews raises would have been acute only at Easter
and a few other major feasts.'77
At any rate, the overwhelming evidence for the presence of women and others like
the sovereigns and their retainers in the galleries during the Divine Liturgy throughout
this period when the galleries were called "catechumena," and for the fact that the galler-
ies were used for a bewildering variety of activities, both legitimate and less so, precludes
from the outset any notion that the upper-level tribunes were reserved for the exclusive
use of either catechumens or women.
By the time of Patriarch Athanasius I (ca. 1309), the placement of women in the
galleries seems to have been the remnant of an already deteriorating practice: noble-
women attended liturgy from the galleries, but Athanasius says they should be elsewhere,
which clearly means they could have been elsewhere, and that elsewhere can only have
been on the ground floor.
2. Gallery Curtains
One final point. Two sources from the tenth and fourteenth centuries respectively,
Symeon Metaphrastes' vita of Chrysostom (above, A.III.10 ? 4) and Ignatius of Smolensk
(A.III.12 ? 5), refer to curtains or drapes hiding the women in the galleries. Though I
have no reason to challenge these witnesses, the practice cannot have been in continuous
use, since numerous other texts, early and late, refer to the women in the galleries being
174P. Eleuteri and A. Rigo, Eretici, dissidenti,musulmanied ebreia Bizanzio: Una raccolta
eresiologicadel XII
secolo, Ricerche (Venice, 1993), all post-Iconoclast liturgical texts (ibid., 36) concerning these categories (I
am indebted to Stefano Parenti for this reference); Arranz, "Sacrements I," 3:48-84.
75Details in the
manuscripts examined by Arranz, "Sacrements I," esp. 2, 4.
176Strube, Die westlicheEingangsseite,91-92. She proposes (p. 91) that the "FuBbodenmosaik der Westem-
pore" may have been the place of the women's communion. I presume she is referring to the rectangle in
the pavement of the center of the west gallery directly opposite the sanctuary (Van Nice, St. Sophia,
pls. 2, 17;
Mainstone, H. Sophia, fig. 73), since I know of no floor mosaic in the west gallery: see C. Mango, TheMosaics
of St. Sophiaat Istanbul, DOS 8 (Washington, D.C., 1962), 40-46 and diagram II. I have found no Byzantine
evidence for the Slavic usage that I. Muretov, MumpononumKunpuan6 ezo iumypezuecKou0eameilbHocmu
(Moscow, 1882), 142, cites from the Bulgarian Cyprian Tsamblak, metropolitan of Kiev (1381-82, 1390-
1406), according to which the women, considered unworthy to communicate before the central Holy Doors
of the iconostasis in view of the altar like the men did, received communion after the men, before the north
door to the prothesis; cf. N. Teteriatnikov, "The Place of the Nun Melania (the Lady of the
Mongols) in the
Deesis Program of the Inner Narthex of Chora, Constantinople," CahArch43 (1995), 177-78 and n. 69.
Muretov (p. 143) says we do not know how widespread this usage was in Rus'.
1771 treat this in R. F Taft, A History of the
Liturgyof St. John Chrysostom,V: The Communionand Final Rites
(forthcoming in OCA), "Excursus to Chapter XII: The Frequency of Communion in Byzantium."
spotted from below. And Patriarch Athanasius I (ca. 1309) accuses the noblewomen of
going to the galleries to show off their finery (A.III.13 ? 4), surely a pointless vanity if
they were hidden behind curtains, unseen.
3. Segregation?
Though two sources clearly affirm the complete separation of the sexes in church by
relegating all women to the galleries (A.III.12, 14), only the first of them, Ignatius of
Smolensk (1392 A.D.), is a witness to the rite of Constantinople. Many other sources affirm
the presence of a gynaeceum space in the ground-floor side aisles, and the concern ex-
pressed again and again in patristic homilies over the interaction of men and women in
church (below, D.II) makes it unlikely that originally, at least, the sexes were so separated
that they could not get at each other if they wanted to.
B. SPECIAL WOMEN, SPECIAL SPACES
In addition to the ordinary laywomen, there was the order of deaconesses, with a
special role and place in the Byzantine church.
I. The Ordinationof Deaconesses

The third-century institution of a female diaconal ministry is beyond the scope of this
paper.178The single issue of interest to us is the place these ordained women occupied in
the Byzantine church building.179
1. The CheirotoniaRite
In the earliest extant rite for the cheirotonia of deaconesses in Byzantium,'80 the
detailed rubrics of the mid-eighth-century euchology codex Barberini Gr. 336 show an
almost exact parallelism between the rite for instituting deacons and deaconesses.181Both
were ordained in the bema, that is, within the sanctuary, inside the templon or chancel
barrier, an area of the church from which the laity-and afortiori all laywomen-except
the emperor were normally barred.182This is especially significant in the
light of Byzan-
tine liturgical symbolism, in which the altar symbolizes the divine presence.
Only major
orders (diaconate, presbyterate, episcopacy) are conferred at the altar within the bema,
and the ritual "approach to the divine altar"--i . ..?T/i TOv Oetov 0uoaaoTpltov t7pooa-
'78They appear for the first time as an order distinct from widows and virgins in the 3rd-century Dida-
skalia, II, 26.3-8, with a fixed (III, 12-13), if limited (III, 6.1-2; 9), ministry; cf. also II, 4.2; III, 4.1-2; III,
5, etc., in Funk, Didascalia, I, 34-36, 102-4, 186, 188-90, 198-200, 208-16.
'79The bibliography on deaconesses is considerable. The best recent overview, with the more important
earlier bibliography indicated, is A.-A. Thiermeyer, "Der Diakonat der Frau,"
ThQ 173 (1993), 226-36. To
the literature cited there, add S. Elm, "Vergini, vedove, diaconesse: Alcuni osservazioni sullo
sviluppo dei
cosidetti 'ordini femminili' nel quarto secolo in Oriente," CodexAquilarensis5 (1991), 77-90.
'80On the ordination rite, see C. Vagaggini, "Lordinazione delle diaconesse nella tradizione greca e bizan-
tina," OCP 40 (1974), 177, 179, 181; E. D. Theodorou, "'H 'XitpoTovta' il 'XetpoO?oia' t6v AlaKovto ov,"
OeoFoy?a 25 (1954), 576-601; ibid., 26 (1955), 57-76.
18Parenti and Velkovska, Barberinigr. 336, ?? 161-64.
182TheRudder (Pedalion), 372-73, 560. Nuns, however, could enter
(presumably in their monastic church)
to clean the sanctuary or light the candles: ibid., 372.
yoCyii,Pseudo-Dionysius calls it183-in which the candidate for major orders is conducted
from the nave through the chancel doors to the altar, signifies approaching the font of
the "divine grace" of ordination for which the bishop prays.
Vita 14 of the ninth-century St. Athanasia of Aegina describes a scene apparently
modeled on this ritual. At the convent eucharist on the fortieth-day memorial of the
saint's death, her fellow nuns saw the following vision:
When it was morning and the divine liturgyhad begun, two of the leaders of that sacred
group of nuns ... observed two men, awe-inspiringin appearance and with flashing
bright robes; and they had the blessed Athanasiabetween them. And leading her and
making her stand in front of the holy sanctuary,they brought out a purple robe decor-
ated with gems and pearls.They dressed her like an empressand crownedher head with
a crownthat had crossesin the front and back.They placed in her hand a jewel-studded
staff and escorted her into the divine sanctuary (ei; TO6eiovrTaro v OtvaoTrpltov
fiyayov).184
Though the angelic visitors invest Athanasia with imperial insignia, imperial rank did
not grant women entry into the earthly sanctuary (see below, B.III.1). Rather, it seems
Athanasia was a deaconess,l85 and the scenario imitates the ritual approach to the altar
of the Byzantine diaconal ordination rites.
2. The Communion Ritual

The diaconal prayers and rubrics assign male candidates a more intimate eucharistic
ministry, however, referring to the deacons as "ministers at your immaculate mysteries"
and having them distribute the chalice at communion. The deaconess, though she re-
ceives the chalice in the hand and drinks from it, puts it back on the altar without distrib-
uting it to others.
3. Balsamon(ca. 1130/40-d. after 1195)
By the twelfth century, however, women ascetics were called "deaconesses" abusively
(KaTaXpr|ltKd);),'86according to Balsamon, who strongly opposed the ordination of
women to any grade. The order of deaconess no longer exists, he tells us, and women
are barred from the sanctuary. The reasoning in his commentary on canon 15 of
Chalcedon (451 A.D.), which ruled that women not be ordained deaconess before the age
of forty, is pure petitioprincipii:
o6t KXavOVeot 8topti6gevo; giq EioePXe- For there is a canon ruling that women
o9at yuvadiKas; v Txcayiop PriLaxt.'H yo,ov cannot enter the holy bema. How can one
gi UvageVrn :v TOZ yipwOitaoTinpi? unable to enter the holy sanctuaryexer-
eioeOeXiv, n65g Ta TCOV t&aK6OVV evep- cise the ministry of the deacons?
yGe;i;187
183Deeccles.hierarchiaVII, 3.2, PG 3:509D; full discussion of this key liturgical concept in Taft, GreatEn-
trance, 279-83 (and see index under "accessusad altare").
184
Vita 14, ed. F Halkin, "La vie de sainte Athanase d'Egine" (= BHG 180), in idem, Six ineditsd'hagiologie
byzantine,SubsHag 74 (Brussels, 1987), 191; "Life of St. Athanasia of Aegina," trans. L. F Sherry, in Talbot,
Holy Women,153. The vita is found in a single manuscript dated 916 (ibid., 138-39).
185
Vita 18, in Talbot, Holy Women,156 and n. 75.
186PG 137:441D.
87Ibid.
II. TheNarthexand Gynaeceumof the Deaconesses
By the tenth century, in the Great Church we find a special place set aside for the
order of deaconesses, which at that time had not yet degenerated into a purely titular
grade awarded nuns, but was an order of pious women directly dependent on the bishop
and attached to Hagia Sophia.188
1. De cerimoniis
The tenth-century De cerimoniisI, 44 (35), describes the imperial ceremonial for Holy
Saturday and Annunciation.l89 At the third hour the emperor begins his progress toward
Hagia Sophia. Going first to the Holy Well located near or in the porch south of the apse
at the east end of the church,190he enters and is greeted by the patriarch. Then both
enter the basilica, doubtless by the door leading into the south aisle at the east end of
the church, and go into the sanctuary via the central or Holy Doors of the chancel. After
incensing the sanctuary, the emperor and the patriarch go off to the skeuophylakion,
where they continue their devotions. The account continues:
1. Kai ei0' oixtO;avioarTaTa6 paote5, Kai 1. Then the emperor rises, and going out
?'EO6vT0oDd7C6 6oK?VOnX,aKio), 8tIp- of the skeuophylakion, he passes through
Xrcat 8txa TOD yDvalcKiTO vap0rlKcoS,?v o the narthex of the gynaeceum where the
Kai TilV7Dvrri oGTa(otv Kc?KTqvTat ai Tfi;ai- deaconesses of the Great Church have
Tfi; MeyaXrlg;'EKKcroiaSqa aKo6vtooat, 2. their customary place, 2. and goes out by
Kai ; epX?eat bta TiS dptE?pd; t 5rlSq; rtoD the left door of the sanctuary and the
pflaTro; Kai actif6otxnv aoDTci6 inaptpaprc patriarch gives him the eulogia. 3. And
?O)XoyiaS. 3. Kai 6teX6vT?; adtLo6cpttp6 going via the narrow passageway of St.
'o iiO toe0v TzoD og?Evo
Paoxo &tap3aTKo) Nicholas located behind the sanctuary,
toi 'Ayfov NtIKOXOo,dcirpXovTat LX%pl Toi both of them go off to the Holy Well.
'Ayio Op(D'aroS;.191
In attempting to divine where the Narthex and Gynaeceum of the Deaconesses were
located, and how the to and fro described took place, recall (see above, A.II.3) that the
sanctuary of Hagia Sophia was separated from the nave by a H-shaped, three-sided tem-
plon or chancel barrier jutting into the nave with doors on all three sides: in front (west),
the central or "Holy Doors," and side doors right (south) and left (north) as one faces the
altar. According to the De cerimoniis account:
1. The emperor reenters the sanctuary (1), and again leaves it (2) via its north
side, that is, the left side as one faces east.
2. Since the text has him use the left chancel door only when leaving the sanctu-
ary for good (2), it is possible that in going to and from the skeuophylakion
(1) he used the passage between the northeasternmost pier and the east wall
of the church, just in front of the apse, which leads from the sanctuary to the
eastern extremity of the north aisle.192Otherwise he would have exited the
'88G. Dagron, "Les moines de la ville: Le monachisme a Constantinople jusqu'au Concile de Chalcedoine
(451)," TM 4 (1970), 265 n. 169.
189ForAnnunciation, see Vogt I, 172.
90Mango, Brazen House, 60-72; Mainstone, H.
Sophia, 113.
19'Vogt I, 170-71.
92Van Nice, St. Sophia, pl. 11.
north door of the bema and passed between the columns of the northeast
exedra to the easternmost bay of the north aisle.
3. How did the patriarch and imperial party exit the northeast bay and enter
the skeuophylakion? It is possible, though not certain, that they passed via
the now bricked-in small door in the center of the easternmost bay of the
north aisle a scant 4.7 meters across from the south side of the skeuophy-
lakion.193
4. They could have returned the same way or by a different route. One could
perhaps infer the latter from the fact that only on his return, according to
the text, does the emperor pass through the Narthex of the Gynaeceum of
the Deaconesses (1). If by a different route, there are two options: via the
central door of the north aisle or via the door at the east end of the same aisle.
5. At any rate, on its return the procession passed through the Narthex of the
Deaconesses, and that can only have been located outside one of the three
church doors within easy range of the skeuophylakion, that is, (1) in the rela-
tively narrow (5 m wide) strip between the skeuophylakion and the small door
directly across from it in the north wall of the church;'94 (2) in front of the
main doors in the center of the north aisle; or (3) in the forehalls outside the
door at the east end of the north aisle. I return to this point in the following
sections (B.II.2-4).
2. Anthony of Novgorod (1200 A.D.)
The De cerimoniisaccount is corroborated by the Russian pilgrim Anthony of Nov-
gorod, who visited Hagia Sophia in 1200 and describes his tour of the relics kept there:'95
1. Firstof all we venerated Saint Sophia ... and the icon of the most holy Theotokos
holding Christ,which aJew had stabbedon the throatwith a knife and blood flowedout.
2. And the blood of the Lord that issued from the icon we kissed in the prothesis
(BOOJITapHI MaJIOMb)... [here a series of relics and other objects in the prothesis-i.e.,
skeuophylakion-are listed].
3. And at the outside of the door of the prothesis (BE Hei ZBepHOJIrTapa MaJIaro)
stands the cross the same size that Christ on earth in the flesh was in height.196 4. And
193Ibid., pls. 1, 11; Antoniades, 'EK(paot;,II, 146-53; E Dirimtekin, "Le skevophylakionde Sainte-
Sophie,"REB 19 (1961), 393.
194Thepresentdifferencein floor level between the basilicaand the skeuophylakion,as well as the present
outside entranceto the skeuophylakionat the actualground level, well above the rotunda'soriginalground-
floor level, can be discounted. The door dates from Turkish times (Mainstone, H. Sophia, 137, 138,
pl. 161),
and neither it nor the present ground level has anything to do with the original Byzantine
building and its
use, as has been shownby the latest excavationsreported in S. Tiirkoglu,"AyasofyaSkevophilakionukazisi,"
AyasofyaMuiizesiYilligi-Annual of AyasofyaMuseum 9 (1983), 25-35, plans 1-3 and pls. 1-9, at the end of the
volume. Cf. also Van Nice, St. Sophia,pl. 4; Mainstone, H. Sophia, 129, 133-38, pl. 161; 277,
plan A8; Majeska,
Russian Travelers,219, cf. 182-83. I review the whole question of the skeuophylakion and access to it in
"Quaestionesdisputatae:The Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia and the Entrances of the Liturgy Revisited,"
part 1, OC 81 (1997), 1-35.
'95Text in Loparev, 2-9.
'96 How many doors does the skeuophylakion have in Anthony's account? His reference to "Bb Hei ABepH
OJITTPAsMajiaro"(3) has been taken to mean there must have been two doors, an outside one and an inside
one. But there is no mention of a second, "inside door," and since gsepHcould be genitive as well as
preposi-
tional, the text could be interpreted to mean either "at the outside door of the prothesis" or "at the outside
behind that cross is buried Anna, who gave her house to St. Sophia (and on which [prop-
erty] the prothesis is built) and for that reason she was buried there.197
5. And not far from this prothesis the Myrrhbearers sing, and there stands before
them a great icon of the most pure Theotokos holding Christ ...
6. And from there, on the same side, is the Church of the Holy Apostle Peter (14
OTTOJIA HaTOii)KbCTpaHi uepKBH[variant: uepKoBb]ecTbCBsTaroanocToJiaIeTpa), where
St. Theophanides is buried, the one who kept the key of Hagia Sophia; and they kiss
these very keys ...
7. Near to the Myrrhbearers in St. Sophia is the small tomb of the child of St. Athino-
genos. And there are no other tombs in St. Sophia save that one.
8. And from there, going toward the doors, is the column of St. Gregory Thauma-
turgus.198
It is not difficult to trace the pilgrim's route through the basilica:
1. Approaching the Great Church complex from the southeast, by the Holy Well
where the icon of Christ stabbed by the Jew was located (1),199Anthony
crosses over to enter the skeuophylakion situated just off the northeast side
of the church and venerates the relics kept there (2). Anthony does not say
how he arrived at or entered the skeuophylakion, though he refers to its door
(3). But it is clear that the "prothesis" is a separate building, since Anna is
buried there (4), and Anthony tells us explicitly that the only tomb inside
Hagia Sophia is that of the child-saint Athinogenos (7). We can safely assume,
then, that Anthony's "prothesis" was the extant rotunda traditionally identi-
fied as the skeuophylakion.
of the door of the prothesis."At any rate, the point the text is trying to makeis clear: the Christ-sizecross is
located on the outside wall of the rotunda by the one door of the prothesis rather than inside it. So the text
is no proof of a second door. An earlier Latin text, the "Anonymus Mercati," provides independent confirma-
tion of Anthony's account: K. N. Ciggaar, "Une description de Constantinople traduite par un pelerin an-
glais," REB 34 (1976), 211-67. The Greek original, dating 1063-81, was translated into Latin ca. 1089-96
by a western, most likely English, pilgrim (ibid., 214-15, 219, 221, 225-32). The text describes the skeuophy-
lakion door with its cross the height of Christ, as well as the stones from the Holy Sepulcherthat Anthony
mentions:
Et fecit de longitudine Christi Iustinianus And the emperor Justinian made a cross the
imperator crucem et ornavit eam argento et height of Christ, and decorated it with silver
aureo et lapidibus preciosis et deauravit and gold and precious stones, and gilded it.
eam. Et statuit eam iuxta ostium gazophi- And he placed it beside the door of the gazo-
lacii ubi sunt omnia sacravasa et thesaurus phylakionwhere all the sacred vessels and
magnae aecclesiae similiter et omnia pre- treasureof the GreatChurchare, and all the
dicta sanctuaria. In dextera autem parte above mentioned relics. And on the right
altaris templi extra in pariete est hostium side of the altarof the church,outside in the
monumenti Domini ... (ibid., 246-47, wall, is the door of the Lord'ssepulcher.
lines 14-20).
A bit later the same text also recounts the story of the Jew stabbing the throat of Christ in the image
Anthony locates at the southeast extremity of the church (ibid., 248-49, lines 82-102). It says nothing, how-
ever,of a second door into the treasury.
'97Thata widow Anna owned the property is confirmed by Preger, Scriptores,78; cf. Mathews,Early
Churches,160.
198See above, A.III.8.
'99Majeska,Russian Travelers,136-39 and n. 31, 304; Mainstone, H. Sophia, 271, plan A2.
2. Near the skeuophylakion, Anthony continues, is the place where the

myrrhbearing women sing (5). From his initial description (5-6) this would
seem to be located outside the church, somewhere between the skeuophylak-
ion and the church of St. Peter which Anthony passes next, on the north side
of Hagia Sophia (6).200But then he tells us the Myrrhbearers are near the
tomb of St. Athinogenos, which was inside the church (7). The seeming confu-
sion probably results from the fact that Hagia Sophia had both a narthex
(outside) and a gynaeceum (inside) of the deaconesses. I shall return to this
below (B.II.3-4). Anthony tells us there is a large icon of the Theotokos with
child in front of the Myrrhbearers (6), and the later Russian post-Crusader
anonymous pilgrim account places what may be the same Marian image un-
der a ciborium in the eastern half of the north aisle.201
3. Since Anthony had to be outside the basilica to visit the skeuophylakion and
St. Peter's, he probably reentered the basilica via the doors in the center of
the north aisle. At any rate, we next see him inside the church, progressing
westward down the north aisle past the "column of St. Gregory Thaumatur-
gus" at the northwest end of the aisle (see above, A.III.8).
3. The Gynaeceumof the Deaconesses

Are the Narthex and/or Gynaeceum of the Deaconesses to be identified with Antho-
ny's place where "the Myrrhbearers sing" (5)? Presuming that Anthony's Myrrhbearers
are the deaconesses, they doubtless assisted at the liturgy in a section of the gynaeceum
reserved for them. As members of the clergy, they were certainly not constrained to at-
tend services in some narthex. This would be not only incongruous with the deaconesses'
rank, but also pointless: what could possibly be the purpose of having the women singing
200OnSt. Peter's church, which has disappeared without a trace, see Janin, Eglises, 398-99; Mateos, Typicon,
I, 104, 128, 194, 198, 232, 272, 278, 310, 322, 378; II, 104; Dmitrievskij, TunUKOubl, 161-62, 327 n. 2;
Majeska, Russian Travelers,210, 216, 223. In Taft, "Quaestionesdisputatae,"part 1, sec. A.I.6, I review the
evidence for St. Peter's, concluding that it was a separate church, somewhere in the clutter of structures
within the Great Church complex occupying the slope between H. Sophia and H. Eirene (cf. F. Dirimtekin,
"Les fouilles faites en 1946-1947 et en 1958-1960 entre Sainte-Sophie et Sainte-Irene, a Istanbul," CahArch
13 [1962], 161-85; Mathews, Early Churches,83 and fig. 43), and not a small rectangular
chapel built into the
north wall of the basilica just west of the skeuophylakion rotunda, as in Antoniades, "EK:paot;,II, 161-63,
and I, pl. 17 between pp. 48 and 49. This is confirmed by Anthony, who informs us that St.
Theophanides
was buried in St. Peter's (6), and that the only tomb in H. Sophia was that of St. Athinogenos (7). It is true
that one text of the typikonof the Great Church (Mateos, Typicon,I, 198) refers to St. Peter's "inside the Great
Church" (Fv65ovTr; Mey6;S 'EKKXrCoiaTa). But St. Peter's was too near H. Eirene, the latter lying 10 m higher
than and 110 m to the north of H. Sophia (Janin, Constantinople,map 1: Carte
archeologique et topogra-
phique; Mathews, Early Churches,78), to be a part of H. Sophia: Dresden A 104 (Dmitrievskij, TunuKOHbl,
138) says one could descend from St. Peter's via a spiral staircase and enter H. Eirene (Sxd Toi KO%Xxtou TOD
aytio) IIrtpoV KatrepX6ervoS,
X dv:pXeait ?v rntyiz Eipifivn).The Easter baptism rubrics of the early-12th-
century patriarchal "Bessarion Euchology," Grottaferrata rp I, confirm Anthony's location of St. Peter's on
the north side of H. Sophia, beyond the skeuophylakion: M. Arranz, L'Eucologio
costantinopolitanoagli inizi del
secoloXI: Hagiasmatarione Archieratikon(Ritualee Pontificale)con l'aggiuntadel Leiturgikon(Messale)(Rome, 1996),
182; idem, "Sacrements I," 6:74-75; Goar, E5xo6oyltov, 291bis; cf. Mateos, Typicon,II, 84-85; G. Majeska,
"Notes on the Skeuophylakion of St. Sophia," VizVrem55 (1998), 212-15; Taft, GreatEntrance, 199 n. 68.
201Majeska,Russian Travelers,132-33, 215-16. Majeska locates Anthony's icon outside the basilica, near St.
Peter's, but I see no need to interpret Anthony's text in that way.
outside the church?202So I would infer that Anthony's place where "the Myrrhbearers
sing" is identical with the "gynaeceum where the deaconesses have their customary
place" in De cerimoniisI, 44 (35).
Second, it is clear in De cerimoniisI, 44 (35), that the deaconesses' narthex and gynae-
ceum are two different but contiguous locales, one presumably outside, the other inside
Hagia Sophia's north aisle. Since De cerimoniisI, 1 (10), identifies this same left (north)
ground-floor aisle of Holy Apostles and Chalkoprateia (above, A.III.9.b-c) as the gynae-
ceum, one may conclude that the north aisle was also considered gynaeceum space in
Hagia Sophia, and that the Gynaeceum of the Deaconesses most likely occupied the east-
ern half or at least the easternmost bay of the north aisle, opposite the imperial metato-
rion on the other side of the church in the corresponding east bay of the south aisle.203
Since Justinian limited to forty the deaconesses ministering (though probably not all
together in the same shift) at Hagia Sophia and the three other patriarchal churches
served by the clergy of the Great Church (Hagia Eirene, Chalkoprateia, and Hagios
Theodoros of Sphorakios),204 the space reserved for their use must have been large
enough to hold a fair number of people.
4. TheNarthexof the Deaconesses
Since it is logical to suppose that this Gynaeceum of the Deaconesses was just inside
the church from the Narthex of the Deaconesses, the latter must have been a forehall or
chamber located outside the main body of the church: De cerimoniisI, 44 (35), calls it a
"narthex" (above, B.II. ? 1); Anthony, a npHTBOpb or "porch."Just where this "porch"
or "narthex" was located is not certain, but we may safely infer it was located at the
entrance to the Gynaeceum of the Deaconesses, that i, somewhere just outside the east-
ern half of the north aisle of the basilica. Though Anthony's description could be taken
as implying it was either between the skeuophylakion and the door right across from it
in the middle of the southeast bay of Hagia Sophia, or just outside the north-central
doors (see above, B.II.2 ?? 5-7 and commentary), F. Dirimtekin would locate it in the
outbuildings that once surrounded the northeast entrance of the church just north of
the apse, proposing, on the basis of his excavations there, one of the forehalls one had to
pass through to go from outside into the northeast bay of the church via the northeastern
door.205The available evidence does not permit a definitive resolution of this issue.
Perhaps we may draw a parallel from a text not long before Anthony of Novgorod's
visit to the capital in 1200. Byzantine canonist Theodore Balsamon (ca. 1130/40-d. after
1195), commenting (above, A.III.11) that women in menstruation are allowed to pray
but should not enter the church proper (?i; vaov Oeoi5e?itcnvat ... oi 68et), testifies that
202Indeed, since Sozomen, Hist. eccles.VII, 16.11-15 (GCS 50:324), informs us that women in the ministry
should be at least sixty years old, one might ask what was the point of having them singing at all. On the
question of women's choirs in Christian worship in late antiquity, see J. Quasten, Music and Worshipin Pagan
and ChristianAntiquity,National Pastoral Musicians Studies in Church Music and Liturgy (Washington, D.C.,
1983), 75-87. N. K. Moran, Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting, Byzantina Neerlandica, fasc. 9
(Leiden, 1986), does not discuss the choir of deaconesses or the singing of women in church in Byzantium
(indeed, there is no entry for either "deaconess" or "women" in the index).
204SeeCIC, Nov 2021; cf. Taft, GreatEntrance, 200-201 n. 71.
205Dirimtekin,"Skevophylakion," 396-98 and plan 3. Majeska, Russian Travelers,228, conflates both spaces
and locates them in the northeast exedra.
in the twelfth century, at least, some Byzantine churches had a 7p6vaos distinct from the
gynaecea and nave, and destined for use by the women not prevented by menstruation
from attending church. Balsamon's description would fit in perfectly with the idea of a
vestibule by one of the doors at the northeast end of the church near the skeuophylakion,
a vestibule through which the Great Entrance procession would also have passed
(A.III. 11 ? 6).
III. ImperialWomenin the Sanctuary?
1. AugustaPulcheria(399-453)
Pulcheria (399-453), sister of Emperor Theodosius II (408-450) and augusta from
July 4, 414,206seems to have had pretensions beyond the merely imperial. She compared
herself to Mary and considered herself the bride of Christ.207On that basis, and not
because of her dignity as augusta, she inveigled Patriarch Sisinnius I (426-427) to let her
communicate at Easter within the sanctuary. But when she tried the sameeenext
again the
Easter, on April 15, 428, Sisinnius' successor Nestorius (428-431) stopped her in her
tracks.208The Letterto Cosmas8, written in Greek after 435 A.D.and preserved in Syriac
translation, recounts the incident:
Furthermore,on the great feast of the Pasch it was customaryfor the emperor to
receive communion within the Holy of Holies. Pulcheriawanted (to do the same). She
had convinced the bishop Sisinniusand received communion with the emperor within
the Holy of Holies. Nestorius did not allow that, but when she approachedthe Holy of
Holies as was her custom, Nestoriussawher and asked whatthat meant. The archdeacon
Peter explained the situation to him. Nestorius hastened to meet her at the door to the
Holy of Holies and stopped her and did not permit her to enter.
Queen Pulcheriawas irritatedwith him and said to him, "Letme enter accordingto
my custom." But he said, "This place should not be trodden on except by the priests."
She said to him, "Why?Have I not given birth to God?"He said to her, "You?You have
given birth to Satan!"And he chased her awayfrom the door to the Holy of Holies.209
Since Pulcheria tried to justify herentrance into the sanctuary not as augusta but as
imitator of Mary Theotokos210-hardly a recommendation for Nestorius-the Byzan-
tines apparently thought that Mary, at least, had a right to be within the sanctuary.
206SeeK. G. Holum, TheodosianEmpresses:Womenand ImperialDominionin Late Antiquity,The Transforma-

tion of the Classical Heritage 3 (Berkeley, 1982), 79-111, 147-228; T. E. Gregory and A. Cutler, "Pulcheria,"
ODB 11:1757-58; V. Limberis, Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople
(London-New York, 1994), 54-55 (I owe this reference to F. van de Paverd).
207See F Nau, ed., L'Histoirede Barhadbesabbha 'Arbaia 27, PO 9:565-68; Nestorius, The Bazaar
of Heracleides,
trans. G. K. Drower and L. Hodgson (Oxford, 1925), 96-97; cf. Holum, Theodosian
Empresses, 141-45,
153-54; Limberis, Divine Heiress, 54-55.
2080n the date, see ODB 111:1757.
209. Nau, ed., Histoirede Nestoriusd'apresla lettrea Cosme,PO 13:279.
2'0To depict Mary in the sanctuary apse seated on the throne, where only the bishop can sit, is a common-
place in Byzantine iconography: see examples in I. Kalavrezou, "Images of the Mother: When the Virgin
Mary Became Meter Theou,"DOP 44 (1990), 168 and figs. 5, 8-9. Similarly, Mary is depicted in the sanctuary
in visions: Wortley, Recits, 14/XVI.3, pp. 112-13; Ryden, Life of St. Andrewthe Fool, II, lines 3732-58.
2. TheEmpress'Communion
One later text seems to imply that not only the deaconesses but also the empress
received communion inside the sanctuary. The Russian pilgrim Ignatius of Smolensk was
present at the coronation of Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (1391-1425), which he says
took place on February 11, 1392.211 Here is his eyewitness description of the imperial
communion:
1. When the time for holy communion had arrived,the two chief deacons went and
bowed to the empress. When she had descended from her throne, the people standing
there tore apart all the drapes on the chamber,each wanting as large a piece as possible
for himself. 2. The empress entered a wing of the sanctuary (KpIunooJITapa) by the south
doors, and was given holy communion there. 3. The emperor,however,receivedcommu-
nion from the patriarchat the altar of Christtogether with the priests.212
This text contains some surprises:
1. It seems to say the empress actually entered the sanctuary to receive commu-
nion (2). This is highly unusual in the light of the traditional prohibition
against women and, indeed, any layperson but the emperor, entering the
altar enclosure, a taxis already well entrenched by the end of the fourth cen-
tury (see above, A.III.1, and below, D.I). Furthermore, Byzantine canon law
codifies the emperor's privilege but makes no such provision for the em-
press.213So Majeska may be right that the empress did not actually enter the
enclosure but communicated at the south door of the n-shaped chancel
barrier.214
2. On the other hand, even among the Byzantines there were exceptions to this
rule. Initially, at least, deaconesses, as we saw above (B.I), were considered
part of the clergy and were ordained and communicated at the altar, inside
the sanctuary, just like the male recipients of major orders.
3. At any rate, that the empress' dignity was not equivalent to the emperor's can
be seen in the imperial communion ritual. Ignatius simply says that the em-
press "was given holy communion" (2), whereas the emperor receives com-
munion from the patriarch at the altar like the priests do (3), that is, being
given first the bread, then the chalice, separately and in his own hands. This
communion of the emperor at the altar with the clergy is an innovation in
the later Greek sources, which Majeska is correct in seeing confirmed by the
same custom in the crowning of the Russian tsar.215
211Onthe date, Ps.-Kodinos, Traitedes offices,ed. Verpeaux, 351-52; and esp. P. Schreiner, "Hochzeit und
Kr6nung Kaiser Manuels II. im Jahre 1392," BZ 60 (1967), 70-85; and Majeska, Russian Travelers,416-20,
who review thoroughly and competently the event itself, its sources, and the relevant literature and argu-
ments. Schreiner (pp. 76-79) also edits the text.
212Majeska,Russian Travelers,110-11.
213TheRudder(Pedalion), 372-73.
214Majeska,Russian Travelers,432. On the chancel barrier of H. Sophia, see A.I.3 above.
215Majeska,Russian Travelers,433 n. 114. On the relationship between the Greek and Slavonic coronation
rituals, see the remarks and literature cited in Arranz, "Les sacrements de l'institution de l'ancien Euchologe
constantinopolitain," III: 1, OCP 56 (1990), 85-87; also B. A. Uspenskij, "JIhTyprniqecKHciiCTaTycuapA B
pyccKOli uepKBH4: npHo6eueHHe CBITbIMTaHHaM(HCTOpHKo-JnHTyprimeCKHii 3TiOA)," in press. I am grateful to
Prof. Boris Uspenskij for providing me a prepublication copy of his study.
IV WomenSaints in the Sanctuary?

St. Gregory Nazianzen (329/30-ca. 390), bishop of Constantinople from 379 to 381,
describes in Epitaphia 88-89 how his dying mother, St. Nonna (t ca. 373), grasped the
altar (iepa xTpa6eSa)with one hand while raising the other in prayer; and his Oratio 8 in
laudem sororis suae Gorgoniae 18 tells how his sister, St. Gorgonia (t ca. 370), seriously ill
and despairing of any earthly cure, rose from her sickbed at night and laid her head on
the altar (Tc 0uotaxrpicpTlv
K?paPc hV /awTq
i;poE0tia).215a The term 6otaoiflptov can
also commonly refer to the entire sanctuary area, but there is no ambiguity in the previ-
ous text: ie'p Tp&arcea
can only mean the altar table.
Gregory is the only source in which I have found such a reference, and the context,
which in both instances seems to suit a private domestic chapel, is not clear. Still, what
Gregory narrates is certainly contrary to the general rule.
C. WHEN? RESTRICTIONS ON WOMEN'S ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH SERVICES
Byzantine canonical sources say very little about women except with regard to mar-
riage, and marriage law is not gender-discriminatory: it concerns men as well as
women.216 Indeed, one searches in vain for any body of restrictive canonical legislation
concerning where women can go in church-there is in fact remarkably little juridical
evidence of spaces in church forbidden to women217-and what they can or cannot do
while there. The only restrictions on church attendance directed solely at women con-
cern vigils and "ritual purity," that is, menstruation.
I. Vigils
Chrysostom, still a presbyter in Antioch in 390 A.D.,writing in his De sacerdotioIII,

13.69, on the surveillance of virgins, says a virgin should be made to stay at home, should
go out only rarely in the course of the year, and above all, "It is necessary to keep her
away from funerals and night vigils (6Ei 6? Kai
?Kait opov Kait TavvUXic&ov alcEipyelv). For he
knows, the serpent of a thousand ruses knows how to spread his poison even in laudable
occupations."218 Earlier, canon 35 of the Council of Elvira in Spain (305 A.D.) had prohib-
ited women from vigils in the cemeteries because of the well-known abuses accompanying
mourning rituals.219
215aPG 38:55A-56A=CPG 3038; PG 35:809c=CPG 3010. Both Epitaphia and Oratio 8 are cited in F.J.
Dolger, "Die Heiligkeit des Altars und ihre Begriindung im christilichen Altertum," Antikeund Christentum2
(1930), 169-70. I am grateful to my colleague Prof. Maria Giovanna Muzj for bringing this reference to
my attention.
216See The Rudder(Pedalion), "marriage" in the index, 1026.
217One case is St. Theodore of
Sykeon's retreat in the side chapel of St. Plato, a special case derived from
the saint's desire for monastic seclusion and privacy: Vita 60.8, ed. Festugiere, I, 51; II, 54. And in 787,
Nicaea II, canon 18, rules, understandably, that women should not reside in (men's) monasteries or episcopal
residences: Joannou, Discipline, II, 276-77.
218JeanChrysostome, Sur le sacerdoce(Dialogueet homdlie),ed. A.-M. Malingrey, SC 272 (Paris, 1980), 217.
219Mansi2:11: "Placuit prohiberi ne feminae in coemiterio pervigilent; eo quod saepe sub obtentu ora-
tionis latenter scelera committant." On funeral vigils and the attendant abuses, see Chrysostom, De Lazaro
concio, V, 13, PG 48:1022; Quasten, Music and Worship,160ff; Angold, Churchand Societyin Byzantium,453-57;
A. Karpozilos, A. Kazhdan, N. Teteriatnikov, and A. Cutler, "Funerals,"ODB 11:808-9; M. Alexiou, TheRitual
Lamentin the GreekTradition(Cambridge, 1974), 24ff.
Later, in Constantinople from 398 until his definitive exile in 404, Chrysostom wit-
nesses to the exclusion of women from attending vigils there too. Waxing eloquent on
the consolations of nocturnal prayer in his Homily26 on Acts 3-4, he tells us that on nights
of public vigil the women, forbidden to go out to them, kept watch at home.220Palladius'
Dialogue on the Life ofJohn ChrysostomV, 146-49, also reports that attendance at vigils in
Chrysostom's time was restricted to men: Chrysostom told the wives to stay at home
and pray.221
This stricture, though not unknown elsewhere,222was not general.223Even in Byzan-
tium it seems to have been a metropolitan precaution, for in the provinces things seem
to have been less strict than in the capital. In Cappadocia, Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394)
describes the participation of women at the vigil for the wake of his sister St. Macrina in
379.224 And the vita of St. Matrona, from Perge in Pamphylia and later abbess in Constan-
tinople at the end of the fifth century, says she frequented the vigils along with other
pious women, despite the fact that her husband Dometian forbade it.225
Even in Constantinople the prohibition was probably not observed consistently.
Twenty-five years after Chrysostom the ill-fated Patriarch Nestorius (428-431) again
"prohibited and prevented women from assembling at night together with the men for
prayer and singing the hymns and chants."226Barhadbeabbha 'Arbaia, in his History 21,
tells why: in Constantinople, virgins engaged in the service of the church were guilty of
promiscuity at the vigils (Syriac ZlIs), so Nestorius forbade them to attend-for which
they and their companions in revelry almost stoned him!227By the time of Iconoclasm
the exclusion of women has clearly fallen into desuetude: ca. 807, Stephen the Deacon's
Life of St. Stephenthe Younger,martyred in 765, tells how the latter used to attend night
vigils with his mother (cited above, A.II.4). And St. Thomais of Lesbos, a married lay-
womani of the first half of the tenth century who spent most of her life in Constanti-
nople,228 is described in her Vita 10 as moving freely about the capital alone, day and
night, visiting shrines and participating in processions:
220PG 60:201-4. On Constantinopolitan vigils in general, see R. F. Taft, The Liturgyof the Hours in East and
West:The Originsof the Divine Officeand Its Meaninfor Today,2nd ed. (Collegeville, Minn., 1993), 171-74.
221Palladios,Dialogue sur la vie dejean Chrysostome,ed. A.-M. Malingrey, 2 vols., SC 341-42 (Paris, 1988), I,
124 = PG 47:20.
222Quasten, Music and Worship,163ff.
223For evidence of women at vigils, see Taft, Hours, 166-87.
224Lifeof St. Macrina 33: "While we were busy with these [preparations of the body of Macrina], and the
psalmody of the virgins mingled with lamentations filled the place, the news somehow had quickly spread
throughout the whole surrounding area, and all the neighbors began to hurry there in such numbers that
the vestibule could not hold them. At dawn (iopOpo;)after the all-night vigil (tnavvuXt;)by her [bier], with
hymnody as at martyrs' panegyrics, the crowd that had flocked in from the whole surrounding countryside,
both men and women, interrupted the psalmody with their grieving." Gregoire de Nysse, Vie de Sainte Ma-
crine, ed. P. Maraval, SC 178 (Paris, 1971), 246-51; trans. from Taft, Hours, 168.
225Vita 2-3, 8, AASS, Nov.
3:791, 794 (= BHG 1221); "Life of St. Matrona of Perge," trans. J. Featherstone,
in Talbot, Holy Women,20-21, 27; I am indebted to Jeffrey Featherstone for bringing these references to
my attention.
226E.Goeller, ed., "Ein nestorianisches Bruchsttick zur Kirchengeschichte des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts,"
OC 1 (1901), 94-95.
227pO9:528; cf. Limberis, Divine Heiress,54. There is no basis for the parenthetical gloss on vigils-"(repas
pour les defunts)"-in Nau's French translation (loc. cit.). Sahrd in Syriac simply means "vigil."
228"Lifeof St. Thomais of Lesbos," trans. P Halsall, in Talbot, Holy Women,291-322; cf. 291-92 for the
dates of the saint and of her vita.
<Thomais>constantlyvisited the divine churchesand most frequentlyattended<services

at churches>where all-nighthymnody (navvvXoStvLvt6ia)to God was being performed.
She used to go regularly to the most divine church at Blachernai,and would walk the
whole way at night (6trveKK; ineptjpet VDKTOpTiv 6XOrlv
686v) sending forth hymns of
supplicationto God and entreatinghis all-pure Mother.229
Thomais, a middle-class woman not of the nobility, may have had more latitude because
of her lower social status, Halsall remarks, "but her excursions into the streets and mar-
ketplaces may also reflect the security and stability of life in tenth-century Constanti-
nople." 230
II. "RitualPurity"
1. Menstruation
The second restriction concerns feminine hygiene and "ritual purity." Only those
totally innocent of sociocultural history could be surprised by this. In all premodern
societies, questions of alimentation, digestion, elimination, reproduction, childbirth, in-
fant mortality-in a word, life-death issues of hygiene, health, sanitation, and the survival
of the species-were automatically religious concerns too. At a time when other social
structures to regulate such issues were wanting, myth and ritual inevitably filled the gap.
And since the stereotypical role of women has always been central in such issues, from the
bearing, nursing, and rearing of offspring to food preparation, cleanliness, and general
hygiene, much of the regulating of these matters has affected or been inflicted on women
in particular.
Such attitudes, some of them clearly sex-discriminatory, go back to long before any-
one ever heard of Christianity. We do not get beyond the third chapter of the Bible
before Adam and Eve are covering their private parts in embarrassment (Gen. 3:7), and
from then on we are off and running. A whole chapter of Leviticus (12) is dedicated to
reproduction and related matters, including various forms of what was considered fe-
male uncleanness. And if the Levitical view of menstruation as unclean (Lev. 15:19-30)
receives more attention in our era of feminist consciousness, the fact of the matter is that
all human bodily emissions, voluntary or involuntary, male or female, including male
semen, were stigmatized as unclean (Lev. 15:1-18), though the Hebrew abhorrence of
blood (Lev. 17:10-16) made the menses especially repugnant to the Jews.
These Old Testament strictures were adopted by the early Christians from the
start.231 Not even Mary's exalted rank could dispense her from the demands of ritual
purity, at least before becoming Theotokos: the mid-second-century apocryphal Protoe-
vangeliumofJames, VII.2-IX.2, has Mary reside in the Temple from age two until twelve,
when the priests' council betroth her to Joseph and send her to live in his house, "Lest
she pollute the sanctuary of the Lord" (VIII.2).232
Around 247/8 A.D., Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 195-264), in his Letter to Basilides 2,
Nov. 4:237 (= BHG 2454); Halsall,"Lifeof St. Thomais,"308-9.

229AASS,
230InTalbot, Holy Women,292.
231Thebasic study is D. Wendebourg,"Die alttestamentlichenReinheitsgesetzein der frtihen Kirche,"
95 (1984), 149-70.
ZKircheng
232M.R. James, TheApocryphal
NewTestament(Oxford, 1926), 42.
says menstruating women should not receive communion or even enter the church (si;
bTVolcKOV e?iotvat TO) 0eoi), because "one who is not entirely clean in soul and body is
forbidden to approach the holy things or the Holy of Holies" (ei; 6e TzXa6yta Kai ta 6yta
Tv ayticv 6 jO t 6vna'
V9 Ka0ap ii KXviA
K-Ka6,pt o6 Tpotvat at). 233 Timothy of
Alexandria (381 A.D.) repeats the restriction on communion, and adds that during her
period a woman was not even to be baptized, "until she is purified" (iEc;av Ka0apto f),234
a restriction understandable at a time when candidates were immersed in the font
naked.235
The fifth-century Syriac TestamentumDomini I, 42, in its list of ascetic practices for
widows who served at the altar (see below, D.I.2), prescribes: "If she is menstruous, let
her remain in the temple and not approach the altar, not because she is polluted, but
[so] that the altar may have honor. Afterwards, when she fasts and bathes, let her be
constant [at the altar]."236Chapter I, 23, of the same document excludes them and other
menstruating women from communion.237 As Sperry-White remarks in his commentary,
there is no need to postulate aJudaeo-Christian provenance for such texts.238Old Testa-
ment themes are "rediscovered" and enter Gentile-Christian writings massively from the
third century on.
As we saw above (A.III.11), the twelfth-century Byzantine canonist Theodore Bal-
samon, commenting on Dionysius of Alexandria's ruling just cited, confirms the same for
Byzantium: women in menstruation are allowed to pray but should not enter the church
proper or receive communion (t?; vaov eo0 ettioval L?Taapav?v auav a T-v
ya;TOV aytac-
anTov,oD 6et).239 Even in convents (though the place of nuns in their own churches is
beyond the scope of this paper), apparently, some sort of segregation was imposed, to
judge from the miraculous cure of Blessed Martha (9th-10th century?), hegumena of the
233C.L. Feltoe, ed., TheLettersand OtherRemains inof Dionysiusof Alexandria,Cambridge Patristic Texts (Cam-
14),102-3
bridge, 1904), annou, Discipline, II, 2 (cf. p. 2 for date and authenticity). Cf. F van de Paverd,
"'Confession' (exagoreusis)and 'Penance' (exomologesis)in De lepra of Methodius of Olympus," II, OCP 45
(1979), 51-53.
234Timothyof Alexandria, CanonicalReplies 6-7, in Joannou, Discipline, II, 243-44, 264 (cf. p. 238 for date
and authenticity); TheRudder(Pedalion), 718-20.
235See the numerous references to stripping at baptism in the 3rd-4th-century sources: ApostolicTradition
21, in La Traditionapostoliquede S. Hippolyte:Essai de reconstitution,ed. B. Botte, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quel-
len und Forschungen 39 (Miinster, 1963), 44-45; Cyril/John II of Jerusalem, Catechesis2, 2, in Cyrille de
Jrusalem, Catchses mystagogues, ed. A. Pidagnel, trans. P Paris, 2nd ed., SC 26bis (Paris, 1988), 104-6;
Chrysostom, Baptismal Homily, II, 11, 24, in Jean Chrysostome, Huit catechesesbaptismalesinedites, ed. A.
Wenger, SC 50bis (Paris, 1970), 139, 147; idem, Ep. 1 ad Innocentium,line 154, ed. Malingrey, SC 342:84, cf.
52, and further Chrysostom references in H. M. Riley, ChristianInitiation, Catholic University of America
Studies in Christian Antiquity 17 (Washington, D.C., 1974), 160-70; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hom. 14, 8,
ed. R. Tonneau and R. Devreesse, Les homeliescatechetiquesde Theodorede Mopsueste, ST 145 (Vatican City,
1949), 401, 417-19; Ambrose, In Ps. 61 enarr.32, PL 14: 1180A; cf. F.J. Dolger, Der Exorcismusim altchristlichen
Taufritual:Eine religionsgeschichtliche
Studie, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 3.1-2 (Pader-
born, 1909), 107-18; E. Yarnold, The Awe-InspiringRites of Initiation: BaptismalHomilies of the Fourth Century
(Slough, 1971), 20-21, 74-75, 162, 163 n. 21, 167, 188-89, 194, 265.
236Testamentum Domini, ed. Rahmani, 100; trans. from Sperry-White, "Daily Prayer" (as in note 20 above),
59.
237Sperry-White,"Daily Prayer,"46.
238Ibid., 60, against M. Arranz, "Le 'sancta sanctis' dans la tradition liturgique des eglises," ALw 15
(1973), 60.
239Inepist. S. DionysiiAlexandriniad Basilidemepiscopum,canon 2, PG 138:465c-468A.
Theotokos monastery in Monembasia, as recounted by Paul, bishop of the same town in

Peloponnesus (before Dec. 15, 955-after 959). Because she was hemorrhaging, even dur-
ing the celebration of the offices she remained in the catechumena of the monastery
church (mvV?fprov azlgoppitv Kal 86a rTv toItawrv aC0ev6eav, ?v TObtqKxar)xouD'LeVOt;
?6XO-
kae?v TOiavw5oi5 a'yioi vaoi), where she was visited and miraculously cured by St. John
the Evangelist in the guise of an aged monk.240
2. Sex
But questions of "ritual purity" went far beyond issues of feminine hygiene to include
the whole gamut of human sexuality, female and male, alone or in marriage.241The
only male parallel to the wholly natural and guiltless phenomenon of menstruation was
involuntary nocturnal seminal emission, considered "pollution" and cause for exclusion
of laymen and clergy from communion (but not from attending church, as with the
women in menstruation) and clergy from celebrating the eucharist.242As for sexual rela-
tions, the issue was marital sexual relations, of course, since any other kind were simply
anathema and beyond discussion.243
These attitudes, too, have roots deep in human religiosity long before the Christian
era. In Exod. 19:15, Moses on Sinai prepares the Chosen People to meet God in three
days with the peremptory command: "Do not go near a woman" (cf. also 1 Sam. [= LXX
1 Kings] 21:4-6). Far from being aJudaeo-Christian specialty, the same taboos prevailed
in Graeco-Roman paganism, as reflected in the devotional practices attributed to the
pagan Roman emperor Severus Alexander by the HistoriaAugusta,AlexanderSeverus 29,
2: "His manner of living was as follows: First of all, if it were permissible, that is to say, if
he had not lain withhis wife, in the early morning hours, he would worship in the sanctuary
of his Lares, in which he kept statues of the deified emperors." 244
Such attitudes were of course not foreign to Christians in Byzantium and beyond.
Around 341 A.D., canon 4 of the Council of Gangra ((ankinr, 105 km northeast of An-
kara), capital city of the province of Paphlagoniaon the northern coast of Asia Minor,
has to anathematize those who refuse to communicate at a eucharist celebrated by a
married priest245-this at a time and place when even bishops were still married: recall
that the father of Gregory Nazianzen (ca. 330-390), also a Gregory, had been bishop of
Nazianzus in Cappadocia (329-374). Not far away there were strong currents favoring
celibacy in some strains of early Syriac Christianity.246So certain Christian attitudes-in
this early case, fallout from the extreme asceticism fostered by the teaching of Eustathius
40Wortley, Recits, 14/XVI.1-3, pp. 110- 13.
241
On the entire question, see P Brown, TheBodyand Society:Men, Women,and Sexual Renunciationin Early
Christianity,Lectures on the History of Religions 13 (New York, 1988).
242See,e.g., Basil the Great (d. 379), Regulae breviustractatae309, PG 31:1301c-1303A; 5th-century Syriac
TestamentumDomini 1.23, ed. Rahmani, 46; other sources in van de Paverd, "'Confession' and 'Penance,"'
52-53.
243ForByzantium, see Laiou, "Sex, Consent, and Coercion," 130-32.
244E. Hohl, ed., ScriptoresHistoriaeAugustae, I, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teub-
neriana (Leipzig, 1965), 272-73: "usu vivendi eidem hic fuit: primum ut, si facultas esset, id est si non cum
uxore cubuisset, matutinis horis in lar<ar>io suo, in quo et divos principes ... habebat ac maiorum effigies,
rem divinam faciebat"; English trans., D. Magie, The ScriptoresHistoriaeAugustae, II, Loeb (London, 1924),
235 (emphasis added).
245Joannou,Discipline,1.2:91. A small gathering of thirteen bishops, the synod promulgated twenty canons.
246G. Nedungatt, "The Covenanters of the Early Syriac-Speaking Church," OCP 39 (1973), 191-215,
419-44.
of Sebaste (ca. 300-d. after 377)247-far from being always the result of official church
policy, were prejudices the church was at pains to control. In fact, orthodox Christianity,
though unalterably opposed to extramarital sex, and at times only grudging in its accep-
tance of its marital exercise, consistently defended the sanctity of the married sexual
union against all comers of the dualist and spiritualist camps.
Nevertheless, negative attitudes toward sex even in marriage continued to afflict Byz-
antine Christians too.248Marital relations on Sunday defiled the Lord's Day.249Early can-
ons exclude spouses from the sacrament if they had had intercourse the night before,250
a rule that had passed into Byzantine legislation by the time of the Council of Trullo in
692: canon 13 requires continence of the clergy the eve of a day they are to officiate at
the altar, "for those approaching the altar when the holy gifts are handled must be wholly
continent (,yKpaze^t etvat ? v aotv), that they may obtain what they ask sincerely of
God." 251
The rule of continence before communion also applied to the laity, as we see in the
synodal response of September 1168 that married people should abstain from sexual
intercourse for three days before going to communion, and-astonishingly-even re-
main continent the day of their marriage, under penalty of canonical sanctions.252On
the outskirts of the empire this sort of thing could evolve into some surprising views,
as well as provoke, by way of reaction, a dose of common sense. In the Bbnpauwalue
KwopuKoeo,or Kirik' Inquiry, a series of moral "casus conscientiae" posed by Hieromonk
Kirik to Bishop Nifont of Novgorod (1131-56), the bishop ridicules Kirik for asking if
marital intercourse during Lent bars one from communion. And he shrugs off the ques-
tion of sexual relations between two girls with the startling comment, "Better than doing
it with a man." But even this in many ways astonishingly "liberal" document deals nega-
tively with issues of female "uncleanliness."253
Needless to say, there is nothing peculiarly "oriental" or "Byzantine" about any of
this.254In the West, analogous restrictions were once found in any traditional Latin man-
247Cf. J. Gribomont, "Eustathe de Sebaste," DSp 4.2:1708-12, and DHGE 16:26-33; idem, "Le monach-
isme au IVe s. en Asie Mineure: De Gangres au messalianisme," Studia Patristica 2, TU 64 (Berlin, 1957),
400-415; idem, "S. Basile et le monachisme enthousiaste," Irenikon53 (1980), 123-44.
248SeeP. Viscuso, "Purity and Sexual Defilement in Late Byzantine Theology," OCP 57 (1991), 399-408.
249Ryden,Life of St. Andrewthe Fool, II, lines 2869-92.
250Timothyof Alexandria (381 A.D.),CanonicalReplies 5, in Joannou, Discipline, II, 242-43.
251Nedungatt and Featherstone, Trullo, 84-87 (trans. modified).
252RegPatr1083; cf. Viscuso, "Purity."See also note 260 below.
253Citedextensively in J. Fennell, A Historyof the Russian Churchto 1448 (London-New York, 1995), 74-76,
from HaMHmnuuKu peHee-pyccKozo cKanoHuuecKazonpaea, part I: H1aMimHuKuXI-XII s., 2nd ed., Bonpocbl
KupuKa,Caeeblu Hsuu, c omeemaMuHu6fonma, enuccona noesopoacKaeo,u Opyzuxuepapxuueccux uiut, 1130-
1156 e., PyccKaq HcTOpnHIecKaaBH6JiHOTeKa6 (St. Petersburg, 1908), 21-62. On the same topic, see E. Levin,
Sex and Societyin the Worldof the OrthodoxSlavs, 900-1700 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1989), esp. 163-72, 250-60.
254Onsexuality in Byzantium, see J. Herrin, "Sexuality," ODB III:1185 and the references given there; L.
Garland, "'Be Amorous but Be Chaste ... ': Sexual Morality in Byzantine Learned and Vernacular Ro-
mance," BMGS 14 (1990), 62-120; A. Kazhdan, "Byzantine Hagiography and Sex in the Fifth to Twelfth
Centuries," DOP 44 (1990), 131-43. The much-discussed book of J. Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern
Europe (New York, 1994), esp. 162ff, 199ff, also deals with issues of sexuality in Byzantium, since Byzantine
Orthodox rituals of "brotherhood" (da68eo07orlot;) and "adoption" (TeKvooir(loT;)form the backbone of his
argument. I find Boswell's study tendentious and inadequate, both in argument and in its translations from
the Greek. Cf. my remarks in Newsweek(June 20, 1994), 76-77; the review of B. D. Shaw, "AGroom of One's
Own? The Medieval Church and the Question of Gay Marriage," New Republic
(July 18 and 25, 1994), 33-41;
and the ensuing discussion ibid. (October 3, 1994), 39-41. These rituals, which the U.S.
press breathlessly
ual of moral theology. And in the time of Gregory of Tours (d. 594), early Merovingian
superstition held that spouses who engaged in sexual intercourse on Sundays would be-
get deformed progeny.255
In the case of married Christian clergy, matrimonial relations were complicated by
the requirement of sexual abstinence on the day preceding the celebration of the lit-
urgy.256 We find it, for instance, as early as 692, in canon 13 of Trullo.257 It reappears in
the so-called Constitutionesecclesiasticae156, a canonical anthology of doubtful authorship
attributed to Patriarch Nicephorus I (806-815).258 Canon 7 of the Nomocanonof Manuel
Malaxos259included in the collection reads: "It is not necessary that a priest celebrate the
liturgy each day(iepoupy6iv KaO' s?KaoTrV). For it is suitable that a priest not celebrate on
a day of union with his wife. Let a priest perform the unbloody sacrifice only on those
days when he completely abstains from worldly sexual intercourse with his wife, for thus
the canons of the Holy Fathers wish."260The text goes on to cite as its authorities Exod.
19:15 and 1 Sam. [= LXX 1 Kings] 21:4-6.
This abstinence from marital relations, which Matthew Blastares (1335 A.D.)extends
for three days,261was codified in the very first rubric of the diataxis of Philotheus Kok-
kinos, an Athonite rubric book composed while Philotheus, later patriarch of Constanti-
nople (1353-54, 1364-76), was still hegumen of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos, as the
incipit of the text itself informs us-thus before he become bishop of Heraclea in 1347:
M_XXov 6 i?ep?ei;Tiv Oeiav EmTe?ie1ivjR.(T- The priest who is going to celebrate the
traycyiav 6e,itxei .i. . T KapGiavor6n )- Divine Liturgy should .. . keep his heart
va;lS anso 7ovrpcv ri rlpatnal Xoytogv,ny- free of impure thoughts as far as possible,
KpaTemar a ai T v
aiKpt ab' ieancpaq Kat remaincontinentfrom the evening before,and
eyp"ryopevat gexpt tot TiS; iepovpyias be vigilant until the time of the divine
Katpo,.262 service.
acclaimedas shocking"discoveries,"are old hat to anyone even superficiallyacquaintedwith the Byzantine

ritual and its relevant literature: cf., for example, the standard handbook by P. de Meester, Liturgiabizantina,
book 2, part 6: Rituale-benedizionale bizantino(Rome, 1929), 357-71.
255Gregory of Tours, Libri octo miraculorum:Liberde virtutibussancti Martini episcopi,II, 24, ed. B. Krusch,
MGH, ScriptRerMerov,I (Hannover, 1885), 617; cf. I. N. Wood, "Early Merovingian Devotion in Town and
Country,"in TheChurchin Townand Countryside,
ed. D. Baker,Studiesin ChurchHistory 16 (Oxford, 1979),
62-63.
256Viscuso,"Purity,"403-4.
257Nedungatt and Featherstone, Trullo,85-86.
258Cf. H. G. Beck, Kirche und theologischeLiteraturim byzantinischenReich, Handbuch der Altertumswis-
senschaft 12, ByzantinischesHandbuch,I (Munich, 1959), 490.
259Cf.ibid., 147.
260J. P. Pitra, ed., SpicilegiumSolesmense,4 vols. (Paris, 1852-58; repr. Graz, 1963), 4:413-14. Nor was this
an exclusively clerical regulation. Canon 6 of the Quaestioneset responsain the same collection, ? 145,
imposes
on the married laity abstinence on Saturdays and Sundays, so as "to offer themselves to God
spiritual sacri-
fices"-doubtless, because those were the traditional days of eucharistic celebration (ibid., 410-11); and
Nomocanon18 says women should not communicate during their period (PG 104:1054). Similar sexual taboos
are found in the Testamentum Domini 1.23, ed. Rahmani, 46-47.
261Viscuso,"Purity,"414.
262Thebest edition is P. N. Trempelas, Ai TpeiSAevrovpyfia Kaca TooS;Ev 'A9Ovaot;KcOitIKa;, Texte und
Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie 15 (Athens, 1935), 1-16, here 1. On Philotheus'
diataxis(and on diataxeisin general), see R. F Taft, "MountAthos: A Late Chapter in the History of the
'Byzantine Rite,"' DOP 42 (1988), 192-94; idem, GreatEntrance, xxxv-viii; idem, ByzantineRite, 81-83.
From Philotheus' diataxis the rubric made its way into the printed euchologies via the
1526 editio princeps of Demetrios Doukas, where it (or some variant of it) remains to
this day.
Such sexual taboos, reflecting age-old pre-Christian notions of sexuality and ritual
purity, confirm once again what I said at the beginning of this paper: that religion and
sex have always been intertwined as major drives of humankind and as two of the most
important components of human culture and history.
3. TheRite of "Churching"
Negative attitudes toward sex and feminine hygiene perdured well into "Byzance
apres Byzance,"263even affecting church ritual.264One later refinement concerns the
"churching" or "purification" of a mother from her "uncleanness" forty days after child-
birth.265Though the later (but not the earliest)266ritual contains a petition to "purify [the
mother] of all uncleanness" (Kacaptoov ... aino navToSpirno),267 my colleague Arranz has
shown that the original intent of the fortieth-day ceremonial in the pre-iconoclast rite
concerned the "churching" not of the mother but of the newborn child.268The later ritual
is derived from the Purification of Mary in Luke 2:22-39 as prescribed in the Mosaic
Law (Lev. 12:2-8; cf. Exod. 13:2, 12). Note also that the earliest manuscripts of the rite
do not preclude the introduction of a female child into the sanctuary during the
"churching," as does the later ritual.269
D. WHY?
One must resist the impulse to presume that women were treated as they were in
church simply because of the systematic relegation of women to second place in the male-
dominated culture of the times.270While such discrimination was of course operative, it
was by no means the only factor, nor even always the main one.
What, then, were some of the other reasons for the place assigned to women in the
Byzantine church? I would identify three principal ones, all related: order, or T4tS;, deco-
rum, and security.
L. Tdtl
In late antiquity-indeed, until after World War II-our contemporary western
youth-culture casualness and breezy informality would have been an unimaginable af-
front to accepted mores. The very first witness to the eucharist, St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11:17-
263See,for example, Viscuso, "Purity."

264Levin,Sex and Society, 169-72.
265Seethe new study by S. Roll, "The Churching of Women after Childbirth: An Old Rite Raising New
Issues," Questionsliturgiques76 (1995), 206-29, though there is not much on eastern or Byzantine sources.
266Cf.8th-century Barberini gr. 336, in Parenti and Velkovska, Barberinigr. 336, ? 113.2; Arranz, "Sacre-
ments I," 3:292.
267Goar,Ezo.6ooytov,267. The prayer appears in the earliest codices: ibid., 269-71: Parenti and Velkovska,
Barberinigr. 336, ? 113.2; G. Passarelli, L'eucologioCryptenseFp VII (sec.X), Analekta Vlatadon 36 (Thessalonike,
1982), ?? 128, 178; cf. Arranz, "Sacrements I," 3:292-301.
268On the whole question, see Arranz, "Sacrements I," 2:44-45, 89-90; 3:292-301.
269CompareGoar, EDXoM6ytov, 268-69; Arranz, "Sacrements I," 3:293-94 and n. 10.
270Seereferences in note 1, esp. Beaucamp, Le statutde lafemme t Byzance.
34, is preoccupied not with doctrine but with order. It was equally a concern of Clement
of Rome during the last decade of the first century. His FirstLetterto the Corinthians,the
earliest Christian document to use the terms rat;5 and "laity" (XaiKO6;)(40:5), exhorts all
to strive to be pleasing to God "each according to his own rank" (KaCaXTo; ?V rt i6fti
,ra ct) (41:1).271 Canon 18 of the first ecumenical council, Nicaea I in 325 A.D., is also
about order, forbidding deacons to give communion to presbyters, as was customary in
some places like Alexandria, or to receive the sacrament before the bishops and pres-
byters.272
Hence not every restriction of access or limitation of place in church an be inter-
preted as gender-discriminating. Such prohibitions were general: canon 69 of Trullo ex-
plicitly forbids not just women but all the laity to enter the sanctuary.273To subject such
ordinances to a critique that might be "politically correct" in today's terms would be
anachronistic in the framework of the culture we are trying to understand.
So Taft;, "a place for everyone and everyone in his/her place," was a rule of thumb
no one would have imagined challenging in the culture with which we are dealing. Lest
we be tempted to think this is an anachronism, ask anyone familiar with the intricate
minuet that protocol officers must still go through in arranging precedence in diplomatic
or ecumenical meetings today.
1. TheApostolicConstitutions(ca. 380)
By the third to fourth century this concern for order is formulated in a new Christian
literary genre appropriately entitled "church orders."274The longest of them, from the
region of Antioch ca. 380, the Apostolic ConstitutionsII, 57:2-4, 10-13, compares the
church to a well-ordered ship in which everyone has a fixed place, "the women sepa-
rately," of course, according to age and status, with separate places for married women,
elderly women and widows, young women and virgins. And "if anyone be found sitting
out of place, let him be rebuked by the deacon .. . and removed to his proper place."275
Similarly, book VIII, 13:14, establishes a fixed order for communion and gives detailed
instructions for its execution.276
2. The Testamentum Domini (5th century)
The fifth-century Syriac Testamentum Domini I, 23, enjoins a similarly detailed order
of precedence at communion: "Let the clergy receive first, in the following order: the
bishop, then the presbyters, after them the deacons, next the widows, then the readers,
271Clementde Rome, Epitreaux Corinthiens,ed. A. Jaubert, SC 167 (Paris, 1971), 166-67.

272Joannou, Discipline, 1.1:39-40; N. P Tanner, ed., Decreesof the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London-
Washington, D.C., 1990), I, 14-16.
273Nedungatt and Featherstone, Trullo, 151. The same canon makes an exception for the emperor who
could enter the sanctuary when making his offering (see D.I.3 below), an exception later
Byzantine sources
will maintain: e.g., Nicetas Stethatos of Stoudios (d. ca. 1090), Ep. 8, 3, in Nicetas Stethatos,
Opusculeset lettres,
ed. J. Darrouzes, SC 81 (Paris, 1961), 282-85; cf. Cabasilas, Commentary24.2, in Nicolas Cabasilas, Explication
de la Divine Liturgie, trans. and notes by S. Salaville, 2nd ed. with the Greek text, reviewed and
augmented
by R. Bornert, J. Gouillard, and P. P6richon, SC 4bis (Paris, 1967), 162-63.
2740n this genre, see most recently B. Steiner, VertexTraditionis:Die Gattung der altchristlichenKirchenord-
nungen, Beihefte zur ZNW 63 (Berlin-New York, 1992).
275SC 320:310-17; translation adapted from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A. Roberts and
J. Donaldson
(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1969-), 7:421. Cf. also book II, 58:1, 5-6, SC 320:320-23.
276SC 336:208-10.
then the subdeacons, and finally those with special charisms and the newly baptized and
the boys. The people, however, [receive] in this order: the elderly men, the celibates, then
the rest. From among the women, first the deaconesses, then the others."277
3. Ambroseand TheodosiusI (390 A.D.)
The assignment of places in church evidenced from these early church orders is but
one more symptom of the concern for good order so characteristic of late antique culture
in general, and hence, inevitably, of matters ecclesiastical too. Not even the emperor was
exempt from this discipline, as we see in the oft-repeated story of St. Ambrose (d. 397),
bishop of Milan, and Emperor Theodosius I (379-395) as told by Theodoret (ca. 393-ca.
466), bishop of Cyrrhus from 423, in his ChurchHistoryV, 18.19-23, written between 444
and 450. The scene takes place during the liturgy of Theodosius' restoration to commu-
nion after Ambrose had excommunicated him and forced him to do penance for the
massacre of Thessalonike in 390:
When the moment had come to offer the gifts at the holy altar ... [Theodosius]rose and
ented [the sanctuary].
s,stayed After offering, however,he inside [the sanctuary],by the
chancel, as he was wont to do [in Constantinople].But again the great Ambrosedid not
remain silent, but taught him the distinction of places. First he asked him if he
wantedhi t
something. But when the emperor said he was aiting for communion in the holy mys-
teries, Ambrose sent word to him by the head deacon that "The interior,0 emperor,is
open to the priests alone. To all others it is closed and inaccessible.Go out, therefore,
and take your place with the others. For the purple makes emperors, not priests."This
advice, too, the most faithful emperor received gladly, indicating in reply that he had
remained within the chancel not from presumption, but because he learned this custom
in Constantinople.... On returning to Constantinople, Theodosius kept within the
bounds of piety he had learnt from the great bishop. For when a divine feast brought
him once again into the divine temple, after offering his gifts at the holy altar he went
out forthwith. But the head bishop of the church (at that time it was Nectarius)remon-
strated, "Why didn't you stay inside [the sanctuary]?"278
So in Constantinople the emperor used to remain in the sanctuary from the moment
he offered his gifts at the altar until communion, that is, during the entire
liturgy. For in
the rite of the Great Church the emperor offered his gifts at the altar during the Introit
at the beginning of the service.279 According to the Milanese usage, the emperor offered
his gifts at the altar but did not remain there until communion, as Theodosius learned
the hard way. That the latter was the custom at Constantinople is confirmed by the reac-
tion of Patriarch Nectarius (381-397), whom Theodosius surprised by introducing the
usage of Milan upon his return to Constantinople. From then on the Ambrosian rule was
observed in the Great Church too, as another fifth-century Byzantine historian, Sozo-
men, informs us in his account of the same incident.280
277Testamentum
Domini, ed. Rahmani, 46-47.
278Theodoret,Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier, GCS 44 (Leipzig, 1911), 312.13-313.11 = PG
82:1236c-37B. On this story and its liturgicalimplications,see also Taft,GreatEntrance,26-28.
279Decerim.I, 1, 9, 10, 32 (23), 35 (26), 39 (30), 44 (35): Vogt I, 10-13, 58-60, 69, 122-23, 134-35, 154-55,
170; cf. Mathews,EarlyChurches, 146-47; Taft, GreatEntrance,30. See also note 273 above.
280Hist.eccles. VII, 25.5-13: "It was the custom for the emperors to attend church services (nKKnXrot4ettv)
in the sanctuary (?v rTOiEpaueiq))separately, beyond the barrier set for the rest of the
people. Considering
this custom flattery or indiscipline, he [Ambrose] caused the place of the
emperors in the churches to be
II. Decorumand Security
Apart from the fact that in some cultures and periods it was not socially acceptable
for the sexes to mingle freely, a concern for decorum in rough-and-tumble late antiquity
was doubtless a further motive for their separation in church. The admonition of Apostolic
ConstitutionsVIII, 13:14, to avoid all commotion at communion, approaching "in order
(Katra r4tv), with respect and piety, and without disturbance (ave? Oopipo)u),"281is not to
be taken lightly. In late antiquity, comportment in church left more than a little to be
desired, and discipline and decorum were insisted on with reason. Chrysostom's De
baptismo Christi 4 depicts the distribution of communion in Antioch as very rough and
tumble: "We don't approach with awe but kicking, striking, filled with anger, shoving our
neighbors, full of disorder."282 In such circumstances, having men and women receive
communion separately was based on more than gender discrimination.
The fact that baptism was administered to adult neophytes stark naked was an obvi-
ous reason for keeping the sexes apart at baptism.283 The kiss of peace provided a further
motive. As I have shown elsewhere, normally women in church in Byzantium did not
exchange the kiss with members of the opposite sex, for equally obvious reasons.284 This
was true even of the imperial party, as we see in De cerimoniisI, 9.285
Security, though admittedly involving a certain paternalistic care that placed women
and children on more or less the same level, was another real preoccupation that recom-
mended the separation of men and women. For anyone who reads the documents instead
of being mesmerized by the romantic myth of the "Golden Age of Patristic Liturgy," it is
not hard to imagine why it was not prudent for respectable women to mingle with the
men in public assemblies, or to be out at night in a metropolis like Antioch or Constanti-
nople.
In 379, the largely Arian citizenry of the capital stoned the Orthodox bishop, Gregory
Nazianzen, during the Easter Vigil in the Anastasia church of the Orthodox, an outrage
in which even the virgins and monks took part.286 A few years later, Chrysostom's Homily
on the Martyrs,preached in Antioch before 398, testifies to the fact that his flock tended
placed before the sanctuary rails (ipodT,v 5pu&KTciv ToDiepateiou)), so that he held the place of precedence
in front of the people, but the priests held precedence over him. The emperor Theodosius approved of this
excellent tradition, as did his successors, and we see that it has been observed from then until now" (GCS
50:340 = PG 67:1496B-97A). This is confirmed by the Byzantine imperial ceremonials: after offering their
gifts the sovereigns leave the sanctuary and assist at the liturgy from the metatorion, though in some of the
later sources they enter the sanctuary again to receive communion. On the whole question see my "Excursus
to Chapter X: The Emperor's Communion," in Taft, Communionand Final Rites.
281SC 336:208-10.
282PG49:371 (= CPG 4335); cf. also idem, In diemnatalem 7, PG 49:360-61 (= CPG 4334).
284Taft,GreatEntrance, 389-92; Featherstone, "Life of St. Matrona," 26, chap. 7. See, however, a contrary
witness in the "Life of St. Mary of Egypt," 35, trans. Kouli, 90: "according to custom she gave the monk
[Zosimas] the kiss of love on his mouth."
285VogtI, 56-57, 60-62.
286Gregory Nazianzen, Ep. 77, 1-3, in Saint Gregoire de Nazianze, Lettres,ed. P. Gallay, 2 vols., Collection
des Universites de France (Paris, 1964, 1967), I, 95 = Gregor von Nazianz, Briefe, ed. P. Gallay, GCS 51
(Berlin, 1969), 66 = PG 37:141-44; idem, Carmendeseipso1, 660ff, PG 37:1074-75 (= CPG 3036); cf. Dagron,
"Les moines," 262. The monks of Constantinople were a troublesome lot: cf. J. N. D. Kelly, GoldenMouth:
The StoryofJohn Chrysostom-Ascetic,Preacher,Bishop (London, 1995), 123-24.
to conclude their pious all-night vigils with carousing in the taverns. The scene describes
a typical late antique all-night cathedral vigil concluded by a morning eucharist:287
You have turned the night into day by means of holy vigils (6ta Tov cavvuX%itcv Tov
iepCov).Don't change day into night with intemperance and gluttony ... and lascivious
songs. You honored the martyrs by your presence [in church], by hearing [the lessons]
... honor them also by going home.... Think how ridiculous it is after such gatherings,
after solemn vigils, after the reading of Sacred Scripture, after participating in the Holy
Mysteries ... that men and women are seen passing the whole day in the taverns.288
Then as now, in East and West, alcohol made the nights less than safe for those inter-
ested in staying out of trouble. Ambrose in Milan (339-397),289 Augustine (d. 430) in
North Africa,290 and Caesarius, bishop of Arles (503-542) in southern Gaul,291 all witness
to the bibulous vigils of their flocks (according to Caesarius, Sermo 55, 4-5, even the clergy
took their draughts). Alcohol abuse on feast days was such a problem in Latin North
Africa292 that Augustine had to admonish the newly baptized children not to show up
drunk at vespers Easter evening.293 His congregation, he tells them, seems like "a few
grains of wheat" among the chaff of "many thieves, drunkards, blasphemers, and theater-
goers."294 Basil the Great (d. 379)295 and Caesarius296 are among many other bishops of
late antiquity who complain that even during the holy season of Lent their flocks passed
the night in pleasures quite other than thepannychis. In Constantinople, Barhadbesabbha
'Arbaia, in History 21, recounts how Patriarch Nestorius had to take measures against
even the monks of Constantinople carousing in taverns.297
Things wereinenot much better daylight. Ca. 501 Zosimus, New History V, 23, recounts
what Dagron calls Constantinople's own "St. Bartholomew's Massacre" in 403,298 during
the troubles in Constantinople surrounding Chrysostom, when the monks occupied the
Great Church. "This enraged the commoners and soldiers, who, anxious to humble the
monks' insolence, went out when the signal was given, and violently and indiscriminately
killed them all, until the church was filled with bodies."299 For women, a worst-case sce-
nario is recounted by Sozomen, ChurchHistoryVII, 16.8, which details the uproar caused
in Constantinople when a woman was raped in church by a deacon.300
287On vigils in late antiquity, see Taft, Hours, 165-90.

288PG 50:663-64 (= CPG4359); trans. Taft, Hours, 170.
289DeHelia et ieiunio 62, CSEL 32.2:448-49 = PL 14:719AB.
290Confessions VI.2:2, CSEL 33:114-16.
291Sermo55, 1-5, CCSL 103:241-44 = SC 243:476-85. The best work on Caesarius and the liturgy is K.
Berg, Cdsariusvon Aries: Ein Bischof des sechstenJahrhundertserschliefitdas liturgischeLeben seiner Zeit, Friihes
Christentum, Forschungen und Perspektiven 1 (Thaur, 1994).
292Cf.Sermo252, 4, PL 38:1174; In ep.Joh. tract. 4, 4, PL 35:2007.
293Sermo225, 4, PL 38:1018.
294Sermo252, 4, PL 38:1174.
29Homily 14 on Drunkards, 1, PG 31:444 45.
296Sermo6, 2-3, CCSL 103:31-32.
297po 9:528-29.
298Dagron, "Les moines," 264-65.
299Zosimus, Historia nova, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB (Bonn, 1837), 278-79 = L. Mendelssohn
(Leipzig, 1887),
244-45; English from New History, translated with a commentary by R. T. Ridley, Byzantina Australiensia 2
(Canberra, 1982), 111.
300GCS50:323 = PG 67:1461B. Socrates, Hist. eccles. V, 19.5-10, gives a variant version of the same inci-
dent: GCS, n.s., 1:293-94 = PG 67:616-20A.
Even when things were not violent, they were hardly orderly.301 Chrysostom in Con-
stantinople (398-404) accuses his congregation of roaming around during church ser-
vices;302of either ignoring the preacher303or pushing and shoving to hear him (above,
A.II. 1), when not bored or downright exasperated with him;304of talking, especially dur-
ing the Scripture lessons;305leaving before the services are over;306and, in general, caus-
ing an uproar and acting (the words are Chrysostom's) as if they were in the forum or
barbershop-or worse still, in a tavern or whorehouse.307The women cause distractions
(even for the ministering clergy)308by the way they deck themselves out in finery,
makeup, and jewelry.309The youth, whom Chrysostom calls "filth (KaOdparta) rather
than youth," spend their time in church laughing, joking, and talking.310The large crowd
at the Easter Vigil is more a mob than a congregation. They come to church like they go
to the baths or the forum, without devotion or spiritual profit. "It would be better to stay
at home," Chrysostom concludes.311
301Tobe fair, of course, one can cite other texts in which the church fathers praise the people for their
devotion and participation in church services: several examples in T. K. Carroll, Preachingthe Word,Message
of the Fathers of the Church 11 (Wilmington, Del., 1984), esp. chap. 3. On this and other questions concern-
ing preaching in this period, the best study, with extensive bibliography, is Olivar, Predicacion,esp. chap. 9
and, concerning Chrysostom and his hearers, 774-76. Cf. idem, "La duraci6n de la predicaci6n antigua,"
Liturgica3, Scripta et documenta 17 (Montserrat, 1966), 143-84; R. E Taft, "Sermon," ODB 111:1880-81,
and the bibliography there. For the West: V. Monachino, La curapastoralea Milano, Cartaginee Romanel secolo
IV, Analecta Gregoriana 41 (Rome, 1947); idem, S. Ambrogioe la cura pastoralea Milano nel secoloIV (Milan,
1973); H. G. Beck, ThePastoralCareof Souls in South-EastFranceduring the Sixth Century,Analecta Gregoriana
51 (Rome, 1950); F van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop: The Life and Workof a Fatherof the Church(London,
1978), 168-77; P. Brown, AugustineofHippo: A Biography(London, 1967), esp. chaps. 22-23.
302InMt. hom. 19, 7-9, PG 57:283-85.
303In Mt. horn.32/33, 6, PG 57:384-85.
304DesacerdotioV, 8: Jean Chrysostome, Sur le sacerdoce,ed. Malingrey, 302-5 = PG 48:677. Again, to be
fair, preachers in late antiquity were applauded as well as booed: see the works cited in note 301, esp. Olivar,
Predicacion;also idem, "Sobre las ovaciones tributados a los antiguos predicadores cristianos," Didascalia 12
(1982), 13-43; A. Quacquarelli, Retoricae liturgiaantenicena(Rome, 1960), 89-93; Th. Klauser, "Akklamation,"
RAC 1:226-27; A. Stuiber, "Beifall," RAC 2:91-103, esp. 99-102; F.J. Dolger, "Klingeln, Tanz und Hande-
klatschen im Gottesdienst der christlichen Melitianer in Agypten," Antikeund Christentum4 (1934), 245-64,
esp. 254ff; J. Ernst, "Beifallsbezeugen zur Predikt," Theologisch-praktischeMonatsschrift27 (1917), 568ff.
305Seethe citations in this section. Origen had made the same complaint more than a century earlier: see
In Gen. horn.10, 1; In Ex. horn.12, 2, in OrigenesWerke,ed. W A. Baehrens, VI.1, GCS 29 (Leipzig, 1920), 93,
263-64. And Caesarius of Arles complains of the same abuse repeatedly: see Sermones55, 1, 4; 72, 1; 73, 1-5;
78, 1; 80, 1; CCSL 103:241-44, 303, 306-9, 323, 328-89 = SC 243:476-85; 330:180-81, 190-99, 237-44,
256-57. Though what today we would call "patriarchy"was certainly behind such prescriptions as canon 70
of Trullo (692 A.D.), stating that women should not talk during the liturgy (Nedungatt and Featherstone,
Trullo, 152), adumbrated long before in 1 Cor. 14:34, the problem was a real one.
306Theydo the same in Antioch: Chrysostom, De baptismoChristi4, 1, PG 49:370-71 (= CPG 4335), and in
Egypt, at least according to Ps.-Eusebius of Alexandria (5th-6th century), Sermo16, De die dominica,PG 86:416
(= CPG 5525); cf. F Nau, "Notes sur diverses homelies pseudoepigraphiques, sur les ceuvres attribuees a
Eusibe d'Alexandrie et sur un nouveau manuscrit de la chaine contra Severianos,"ROC 13 (1908), 406-34.
In Aries, Caesarius even ran out of church after them, according to his Vita I, 27: Passiones
vitaequesanctorum
aevi Merovingiciet antiquiorumaliquot, ed. B. Krusch, MGH, ScriptRerMerov,III (Hannover, 1896), 466-67.
307Seethe Chrysostom citations below.
308Seethe anecdote recounted above, A.III.10.
309InMt. horn.73/74, 3, PG 58:67; In 1 Tim. 2, horn.8, 1-3, PG 62:541-44.
30In Acta horn.24, 4, PG 60:190.
31'In Acta horn.29, 3, PG 60:218; cf. also In Mt. horn.19, 7-9, PG 57:283-85.
The way the sexes behave in church just exacerbated the general scandal of
churchgoing in Constantinople, according to as Chrysostom, In 1 Cor.Hornm.
36, 5-6. The
presider greets those in church with "peace," but the reality he has to face is more like
"all-out warfare everywhere" (nooXk;6 cO6?0ot; ntcavtaXoi), as Chrysostom says with his
customary frankness:
Great is the tumult, great the confusion here in church. Our assemblies differ in nothing
from a tavern, so loud is the laughter, so great the disturbance, just as in the baths, in
the markets, with everyone shouting and causing an uproar.... The church is not a
barbershop, a perfumer's, nor any other shop in the forum.... [In church] we behave
more impudently than dogs, and pay as much respect to God as to a whore.... The
church is not a place of conversation but of teaching. But now it is no different from the
forum ... nor probably even from the stage, from the way the women who assemble
here adorn themselves more wantonly than the unchaste ones there. Hence we see that
many profligates are enticed here by them, and if anyone is trying or intending to corrupt
a woman, I suppose no place seems better than the church.312
And on, and on. Rich Antiochenes in their finery make churchgoing a fashion parade,
Chrysostom tells us.313 As for the sexes, they have turned the church from a sheepfold
into a stall full of manure, "For indeed if one could see what is said by men and women
at each synaxis, you would see that their talk is filthier than excrement" (Ko6tpoS).314
An
exasperated Chrysostom's sermon In Mt. hornm. 73/74, 3-he was probably preaching at
Vespers since he cites Ps. 140, the classical vesperal psalm-says they need a wall in
church to keep the men and women apart:
Listen first to what you say in the psalm, "Let my prayer rise like incense before you"
(Ps. 140/141:2). But since it is not incense but stinking smoke that rises from you and
your actions, what punishment do you not deserve to undergo? What is the stinking
smoke? Many enter [the church] to gape at the beauty of the women, others curious to
see the blooming youth of the boys.... What are you doing, man? Do you curiously look
for female beauty, and not shudder at insulting in this way the temple of God? Does the
church seem to you a whorehouse, less honorable than the forum? In the forum you are
ashamed to be seen giving women the once-over, but in God's temple, when God himself
is speaking and warning you about these things, you are committing fornication and
adultery at the very time you are hearing not to! ... Indeed, you ought to have an
interior wall (xeiXo;) to separate you from the women, but since you don't want to, our
fathers thought it necessary to wall you off with these boards (Tact oaviotv aS&; ratUat;
&aetitiat).315 For I hear from elders that formerly there were not these barriers
(tettia), "Since in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28). In the time
of the apostles the men and women were equal, for the men were men and the women
women. But now it is completely different: the women have taken on the habits of courte-
sans, and the men are no different from frantic stallions.316
312PG61:313-14; trans.adapted from NPNF,ser. 1, XII:220-21.

313In2 Thess.hom.3, 4, PG 62:483-84.
314InMt. horn.88/89, 4, PG 58:780-81.
315Such a separationwas apparentlynot in force in North Africa:
Augustinecomplainsthat in church the
men move in and out, chatteringand makingdates with their lady friends (Enarr.in Ps. 39, 8, CCSL38:430-
31), as indeed he himself did before his conversion,accordingto his Confessions
III, iii.5, CCSL27:29.
316PG58:676-77.
Even allowing for rhetorical hyperbole,317in those days things were obviously some-
what less sedate in church than they are today. No one should be surprised, then, at
the peremptory diaconal commands in early Greek liturgy: "Get up!" ('OpOof),"Stand
aright!" (1ZTC?6EV "Keep quiet!" (nIaz5aezo),"Pay attention!" (rIp(OYXjWiV)-to
K1aXC;),318
which Chrysostom, doubtless, would like to have added: "Leave the women alone!"
E. CONCLUSIONS
The weight of the earliest Byzantine evidence clearly tilts more in favor of considering
the galleries or catechumena a preferred "women's space" during times of worship. But
there is nothing to prove that women wererestrictedto thegalleries, nor that this space was
reservedfor theirexclusiveliturgicaluse, that is, that during services only the women were in
the galleries, that they were nowhere but in the galleries, and that no one else was there
with them. Procopius (above, A.III.6) and the Narratio de S. Sophia (A.III.8) put the
women in both the galleries and the ground-floor aisles. De cerimoniis(A.III.9) has the
emperor and empress and their retinues assisting at the liturgy in the galleries, and iden-
tifies a gynaeceum in the ground-floor aisles. So in the fifth to sixth centuries, at least,
the women were free to attend services downstairs, though some of them continued to
maintain what may have been the older usage of going to the galleries.
Furthermore, apart from the text of Balsamon discussed above (A.III.11), the com-
plete absence of Byzantine canons or other texts forbidding women from entering certain
parts of the church building except the sanctuary, or of any legends or anecdotes in the
homiletic, hagiographical, or historical literature about women being expelled from
places forbidden to them, recommends caution in exaggerating separation of the sexes
or the segregation of laywomen in church during the Byzantine period.319
Why, then, do authors from Chrysostom on systematically draw attention to the
women up above in the galleries? If women were there not alone but together with at
least some men (the imperial retinue, for instance); and if women attended liturgy on
the ground floor too; then what was so distinctive and notable about their presence in
317On the question of veracity vs. rhetorical convention in these accusations, see the discussion in A. Natali,
"Tradition ludique et sociabilite dans la pratique religieuse a Antioche d'apres Jean Chrysostome," Studia
Patristica 16, TU 129 (Berlin, 1985), 463-70. On the circumstances and contretemps of Chrysostom's preach-
ing in general, see Ch. Bauer, Der heiligeJohannesChrysostomus und seine Zeit, 2 vols. (Munich, 1929, 1930), I,
166-212; II, 72-83; R. Kaczynski, WortGottesin Liturgie und Alltag der GemeindendesJohannes Chrysostomus,
Freiburger theologische Studien (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1974), esp. 271-306; O. Pasquati, Gli spettacoliin S.
Giovanni Crisostomo:Paganesimoe cristianesimoad Antiochiae Costantinopolinel IVsecolo, OCA 201 (Rome, 1976),
chap. 7: "Spettacoli e liturgia"; and most recently, Kelly, GoldenMouth, passim.
318Anastasius of Sinai (d. after 700) expatiates on this command in the context of church order in Oratio
de sacrasynaxi, PG 89:837ff (= CPG 7750).
319The only instance I know is the A.D.390 order of Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius to eject
from church women who have shaved their heads: CTh 1.2:843-44, ? XVI, 2.27; P. R. Coleman-Norton,
Roman State and ChristianChurch:A Collectionof Legal Documentsto A.D. 535, 3 vols. (London, 1966), II, 430,
? 225; Sozomen, Hist. eccles. VII, 16.13-15, GCS 50:324 = PG 67:1464A. Shaving the head was a sign of
disgrace (Coleman-Norton, II, 431 n. 13) or mourning (Quasten, Music and Worship,163-64). Then there is
the complaint in 518 A.D.about Bishop Peter of Apamea, apparently something of a hierarchical lecher, who,
inter alia, allowed a disreputable unbaptized woman to stand in a place of honor in church: ACO III, 92ff;
cf. L. R. Wickham, "Aspects of Clerical Life in the Early Byzantine Church in Two Scenes: Mopsuestia and
Apamaea,"JEH 46 (1995), 3-18, esp. 14-17.
the galleries that it attracted so much comment? Apart from the fact that the writers in
question are all men, for some of whom, at least, women would presumably be of more
interest than other men, I really have no answer to that question. But if we can take the
word of Chrysostom and others for how some men behaved in church (see above, D.II),
it is quite plausible that even after the system had begun to break down, respectable
women continued to take refuge in the galleries to avoid being annoyed while at their
devotions. In other words, even if women were not strictly obliged to attend services only
in the gynaecea, it is quite possible that during services, at least, access to the galleries
was restricted to women with their children and to the imperial party and their retainers.
In summary, then, in the churches of Constantinople:
1. Women assisted at liturgy from those sections of the galleries that were not
cordoned off in some way and reserved for imperial use.
2. The imperial party also attended liturgy in the galleries and was brought
communion there.
3. Apart from this imperial retinue, only women are reliably attested attending
liturgy from the galleries, though I have presumed that their children, both
male and female, were there with them too.
4. From the sixth century on, sources also witness to gynaecea in both ground-
floor aisles flanking the nave.
5. Though no source ever places women in the central nave, no source excludes
them from it either. But if the women were in the second-story galleries and
ground-floor aisles, it is safe to infer that the central nave area, the only space
left, was for the men.
7. By the end of Byzantium the galleries had apparently become a refuge for
noblewomen, and their presence there during liturgy is stigmatized as di-
visive.
8. Since it is not attested to elsewhere until "Byzance apres Byzance," one may
question whether Balsamon's relegating women to the pronaos (above,
A.III.11) is representative. At any rate, there is certainly no evidence for it
before Balsamon.
9. The reasons for segregating women in church or forbidding their attendance
at night services can be considered a combination of church order, decorum,
gender discrimination, and paternalistic protection.
Pontificio Istituto Orientale

Women at Church in Byzantium Where, When-And Why

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women at Church in Byzantium Where, When-And Why

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women at Church in Byzantium Where, When-And Why

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where were women located during church services in Byzantium?

Where were women located during church services in Byzantium?

What reasons are given for segregating women in church?

What reasons are given for segregating women in church?

Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When-And Why?

Author(s): Robert F. Taft

A. WHERE? THE PLACE OF LAYWOMEN IN CHURCH

II. The LiturgicalSpaceof the Laity

2. The Synodof Constantinople(518)

2ACOIII, 71-76 (citation 76).

III. The Women'Place in Church:TheDocuments

Ai 8' ip' a'' UiTrxqMv

'QS 65 TtvCovadkr-0Qry?iv iXoVptoCEvo0v As I have heard, some insist it is true that

4. John Rufus of Maiouma(ca. 512)

SC 329:132-35, 142-45; resuming and expanding the 3rd-century Didascalia 15, in R. H.

The Silentiary's ekphrasisis perfectly straightforward:

The cruxinterpretur,by general agreement, is ? 55: Tctocact eknctv ?KQtKapoei io,

1. If Procopius means, as Strube seems to think possible (though less plaus-

means. Furthermore, as Strube recognizes, this interpretation would contra-

7. Evagrius Scholasticus(6th century)

8. The Narratio de S. Sophia (8th-9th century)

[26] 3. ...'Ev 8 tF'6ErPi

1. The text in ? [5] describes two properties, formerly occupied

40T Preger, ScriptoresOriginumConstantinopolitanarum, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum

60Vogt I, 1-2; cf. M. McCormick, Eternal Victory:TriumphalRulershipin Late Antiquity,Byzantium,and the

76See note 30 above, and De cerim.I, 1 and 9: Vogt I, 12-13, 59-61.

liturgy on Annunciation (March 25), according to De cerimoniisI, 1, 39 (30), 44 (43).84In

When the devotions are completed,

84Vogt I, 24-25, 154-55, 173.

h. St. John Prodromos at Stoudios

94Vogt I, 102-5. Cf. C. Mango and N. P. Sevcenko, "Pege," ODB 111:1616.

i. The Nea Ekklesia

99Cf.C. Mango,"GreatPalace,"ODB11:869-70,and the literaturethere, especiallyidem, BrazenHouse;J.

j. Conclusions from De cerimoniis

a'calxtoyv g'iFv citco'opyov a?uTfKa gctaictvrj- thereby driven away. 3. He [Chrysostom]

atrium fountain.122Pseudo-Sophronius, Life of St. Mary of Egypt 22-23, is best

So the pronaos where nonmenstruating women can stand is part of the

131The 12th-century Ekphrasis(lines 34-35) also distinguishes between "enclosure" (cEpifpoXov)

135Majeska, Russian Travelers,104-5 (text), 420-21 (commentary).

From this we can glean the following:

137Slightly modified from A.-M. Talbot, ed., The Correspondence

14. Beyondthe GreatChurch

to be addressed before considering the place in church assigned to special categories

1. In what seems to be the earliest extant reference to the church galleries as

3. We see women in the galleries in Constantinople before this denomination

clergy stipends (roga),154for imperial receptions and dinners,'55 for sessions

astica hierarchia of Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus calls the dismissal of the catechumens a

as pagans, Jews, Arians, Macedonians, Manicheans, Nabatians, Armenians, etc.)174 con-

B. SPECIAL WOMEN, SPECIAL SPACES

I. The Ordinationof Deaconesses

2. The Communion Ritual

II. TheNarthexand Gynaeceumof the Deaconesses

It is not difficult to trace the pilgrim's route through the basilica:

2. Near the skeuophylakion, Anthony continues, is the place where the

3. The Gynaeceumof the Deaconesses

III. ImperialWomenin the Sanctuary?

206SeeK. G. Holum, TheodosianEmpresses:Womenand ImperialDominionin Late Antiquity,The Transforma-

IV WomenSaints in the Sanctuary?

C. WHEN? RESTRICTIONS ON WOMEN'S ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH SERVICES

Chrysostom, still a presbyter in Antioch in 390 A.D.,writing in his De sacerdotioIII,