Zoe the Byzantine Empress. Byzantine Empress Zoe

Zoya is a Byzantine femme fatale of the 11th century. Part I September 26th, 2016

"Zoya's story is undoubtedly one of the most piquant,
which have only been preserved in Byzantine chronicles,
and one of the best known to us"
Sh. Dili

Hello dears.
It’s been a long time since we picked up checkers; we remembered favoritism, right? Especially in the Eastern Roman Empire... the topic is very broad :-)
2.5 years ago you and I had a series of posts about the frantic Feofano (,). The series is quite successful, and those who have not had time to get acquainted can do so now.
Today I want to start a conversation about an equally, if not more, interesting and pompous lady. Fortunately - the granddaughter of Theophano :-)) I'm talking about Empress Zoe Porphyrogenite, the second and last case in Byzantine history when a woman ruled the empire autocratically (with her sister Theodora). The first case is Empress Irina more than 2 centuries earlier. But that's for another conversation.
I became interested in Empress Zoya a long time ago, even when I wrote a post about Maniac (aka Georgy Maniak:), and having started to study her biography more intensively, I can say that she is very strange. Personally for me.
And this, despite the fact that her biography was written by her contemporary, who saw her with his own eyes - the famous monk and historian Michael Psellus. But more about weirdness a little later.

Empress Zoe, mosaic of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.

Simply, in essence, the life of a rare autocratic empress of the Eastern Roman Empire (which I already mentioned above), the last of the Macedonian (aka Armenian) Dynasty, the wife of 3 basileus (the nickname of the last of which is known to any person in our country :-))), personally who observed the last raid of the Rus on Byzantium, and whose personal bodyguard was the future Norwegian king Harald the Severe himself, cannot but arouse interest. But there are also oddities, legendary ones at that, that will especially appeal to the female part of the population.

Harald the Harsh.
So, let's get started. Zoe Porphyrogenita, or Porphyrogenita, made her first cry around 978. Porphyritic is a nickname that says that she was born in porphyry, that is, in the Crimson (Porphyry) Hall of the imperial palace, and is the official daughter of the ruling basileus and his legal wife with the title of Augusta.

This is what the basileus's domain looked like.

And so it was - her father Constantine VIII, the son of Roman II and Feofano (we talked about them in the story about Feofano) were the Byzantine emperor, but nominally. In fact, he never liked to do business, but shifted his responsibilities to others. For most of his life, he was only a co-ruler, including under his powerful brother Vasily II the Bulgarian Slayer (we talked a little about him here:), who ruled de facto. Konstantin was more interested in horse racing at the hippodrome, animal fights, circus performances and other spectacles. Well, Konstantin’s main passion was the game. He especially loved dice and could literally lose himself to the bone.

Nomism of the time of Constantine VIII. On the reverse he is - on the obverse Christ.

When Vasily II died, Constantine seemed to take the helm of power seriously, but....to no avail. In fact, neither the Bulgarian Slayer nor Constantine did the most important thing - they did not properly ensure the transfer of the throne. Vasily II was not married at all, and Constantine in his youth married the beautiful daughter of the first minister of the court, Elena Alipina, for whom he very quickly lost interest. However, Elena bore him 3 daughters. The first, Evdokia, was ill from early childhood and became a monk, but the father was not interested in the other two, Zoya and Theodora. Elena soon died, and the girls were completely abandoned.

As a result, neither Vasily II nor Constantine VIII bothered to marry off the porphyry-born princesses on time.
As a result, a year before his death, 67-year-old Konstantin suddenly realized that his middle daughter Zoya was already about 50, but she was not yet married. And he spent the whole last year trying to marry her to a worthy man.
And I must say that age did not deter me. Because it’s not entirely clear why, but Zoya looked... 25 years old. Here is what historian Mikhail Psell wrote about her: “she was not very tall, with wide eyes under formidable eyebrows and a nose with a barely noticeable hump, her hair was light brown, and her whole body sparkled white.” But this is still nonsense... this is how he described it in the last years of his life: " Having reached the age of seventy, she kept her face without a single wrinkle and bloomed with youthful beauty"really everyone at the same time" could not stop shaking in her hands, and her back bent".
And this is the first strange thing. I can't understand how or why.

Mikhail Psell

Not only Psellus, but everyone else spoke about her eternal youth and complete absence of wrinkles. The whiteness of her skin can somehow be justified - because according to legend, she never once in her life exposed her face and body to the open sun.
And even good appearance and grooming can be understood. The fact is that Zoya is the great-great-great-grandmother of all cosmetologists in the world. Her main hobby and entertainment was making up cosmetics. Her chambers were full of herbs, roots, flowers and various oils. She experimented, trying to change the nature of aromatic substances, prepare fragrant ointments and other healing compounds. As the chronicler used to say: “only one thing fascinated her and absorbed all her attention: changing the nature of aromatic substances, preparing fragrant ointments, inventing and making some mixtures, remaking others.” Surely she knew the serious secrets of this complex craft. It’s not for nothing that the recipe for one of her works is still with us, the so-called “ Queen Zoe's ointment"to preserve beauty.
But this does not explain her eternal youth. Doesn't explain it at all. if the same Psellus had not seen her personally and did not know her life well, I would have assumed that she was not 50 and 70, but, say, 25 and 40. But he saw and knew, and this secret is inexplicable.


But we digress. The father decided to marry Zoya. The prospective husband, and therefore the potential emperor, Constantine Dalassin, was located far from the capital, and therefore it was decided to find a spouse closer. He was found, but there was one hitch....
To be continued...
Have a nice time of day.

It would seem that a natural conclusion suggests itself that the emperor was a figure self-sufficient, not needing anyone next to her and, of course, irreplaceable. Of course, we are already talking about the period when the applicant became a full-fledged Roman (Byzantine) autocrat. However, such a conclusion would openly contradict historical reality, since next to the emperor, in many ways complementing and guiding him, and sometimes even replacing him, was the no less majestic Byzantine empress, whose status differed little (and at some points in time did not differ at all) from the status of her royal husband. This will be the subject of our scientific interest.

However, the difficulty of the study lies in the fact that, as in the situation with the Roman emperors, the status and powers of the Byzantine queens were never described legislatively in the form of a specific and closed list. What the queen was allowed to do and what she was obliged to do at one time or another was often determined not by written law or church canon, but by the general worldview and legal consciousness of the Byzantines (the carriers of which were the kings themselves), political tradition and state-church custom. There is nothing surprising here, since one of the features of Byzantine law (as well as canonical law) was its precedent.

No one in Byzantium formulated a law for the future in advance, but every time there was a need to resolve this or that conflict (or dispute), to resolve a certain situation, the authorized authority issued the appropriate legal act according to a specific precedent. It could take the form of a state law, a church canon, or a court decision. Very often he acted next to them and besides them legal custom, which was far from being of minor importance.

According to the algorithm that has developed since the times of classical Roman law, precedents born of the specific demands of the time and the needs of people, as well as the rules of customary law, were subsequently consolidated in various system collections, some of which have survived to this day. Let's name the book “On Ceremonies” by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913–959), manuals on military affairs of the emperors St. Mauritius (582–602), Leo VI the Wise (886–912) and the commander Kekaumen, “Code of Theodosius” by Emperor St. Theodosius II the Younger (408–450), “Code of Justinian”, “Institutions” and “Digests” of the emperor Saint Justinian the Great, “Eclogue”, “Agricultural Law” and “Book of the Eparch” of the emperors Leo III (717–741) and Constantine V the Isaurians (741 –775), “Prochiron” of Emperor Basil I the Macedonian (867–886) and “Basiliki” of Emperor Leo VI the Wise.

In addition to them, there were many more collections of canonical acts, which were also subject to mandatory application. In particular, the Apostolic Decrees, the Rules of the Ecumenical Councils and individual Local Councils, the canons given by individual ascetics of the faith - the holy fathers and teachers of the Church, the “Code of Rules” of John Scholasticus, the “Alphabetical Syntagma” of Matthew Vlastar, the “Nomocanon” of Patriarch Saint Photius (858– 867; 877–886), canonical synoptics and scholia, penitential nomocanons, etc. Not to mention the comments of canonists and civilists, which, referring to the “law of lawyers,” were also official legal acts that acted on a par with written laws.

And all this diversity of legislative acts and their collections was closely intertwined with the institutions of classical Roman law that survived and operated in Byzantium, as well as the political and religious traditions of ancient Rome. This seemed sufficient to contemporaries of those distant events to understand quite clearly that O represents the status of a Roman basilissa. But it is not enough for us today to refer to a specific act or law that fully reveals it. Therefore, to solve this problem, we are left with the only option, willy-nilly: relying on ancient traditions, looking for specific precedents that are directly related to the status of the Byzantine empress. And, summarizing your observations, adjust them taking into account the historical context of events.

Of course, the study of the status of the Byzantine empress should begin not with the times (306–337) or of Saint Justinian the Great, but much earlier. After all, it is primarily the result of the development of an ancient political tradition - the Byzantine queen was none other than the Roman empress. Therefore, let us pay attention to the precedents created by Roman legal consciousness even before the time when Christianity became the dominant religion in the empire.

Messalina, the third wife of Emperor Claudius (41–54), although she did not become Augusta (her own husband categorically objected to this), but received the unprecedented right to sit among the Vestals during theatrical performances and ride through the streets in a carriage carpentum- also an integral prerogative of the Vestals. It is obvious that her proximity to aristocratic virgins, priestesses dedicated to the goddess Vesta, and guardians of the sacred fire, emphasized the sacred segment of her status. In addition, contemporaries clearly focused on its political component. For example, some Greek cities began minting coins with her image, which was only allowed for emperors.

Agrippa, the fourth and last wife of Emperor Claudius, also received the title "Augusta", and coins with the queen's image were minted in Rome. They swore by her name as the name of the emperor, which was an open recognition of the empress co-ruler of the king. Finally, in honor of Agrippa, her hometown received the status of a colony. It was considered very important and honorable for a rural settlement, since it implied many additional rights and privileges for its residents. For example, the municipal system of the colony completely copied the system of power in Rome itself. Local colonial magistrates were elected by general law and received funds from the state treasury for their maintenance and travel expenses (ornatio). And each colonist received a plot of land (bina jugera) and the full right of Roman citizenship.

Very soon the empresses, like all members of the imperial family, were recognized as having the right personal integrity, which was secured by the sacramento oath taken by all citizens of the Roman state. The subtlety here was that personal immunity passed to the emperors after they assumed the powers of the people's tribune, who by law had this exclusive prerogative (sacrosanctus magistratus). But a woman could not be a tribune of the people. And by giving her such a high right, the Romans thereby distinguished the empress from the general mass of women of the Roman Empire. However, men too.

Faustina, wife of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161–180), was given the title “mother of the camps” (mater castrorum). The same title was given to Julia Domna, the wife of Emperor Septimius Severus (193–211). She began to be called “the mother of Caesar” (mater Caesaris), from 209 - “the mother of August and Caesar” (mater Augustorum et Caesaris), and from 211 - “the mother of the camps, the Senate and the fatherland” (mater castrorum et senatus et patriae ).

Subsequently, many types of worship and titles became familiar to royal women. Altars and statues were already erected in honor of the empresses, they were ranked among the host of gods by the decision of the Senate, and coins with their image were minted throughout the Roman Empire. And in 241, Empress Tranquillina, the wife of Emperor Gordian III (238–244), began to be called the “most holy empress” (sanctissima Augusta). Finally, the mother of Saint Constantine the Great, Saint Helena, received the title of “most noble woman” (nobilissima femina), “most pious Augusta.” Throughout the Roman Empire, inscriptions of gratitude were carved on stones and statues were erected.

And yet a Roman woman, even if she was an empress, was far from equal in rights to a man. Not to mention the fact that the moral side of their lives often did not provide examples of piety. However, following the Christianization of the Roman Empire, society’s attitude towards women in general and empresses in particular changed; she herself changes. Byzantium assigned its queen a far from secondary role. The empresses not only openly used their natural feminine influence on the royal spouses, but also carried out many important political functions themselves. They, like the emperor, had their own chambers, retinue and courtiers. Many of those who served under the queen’s person were appointed to positions by the basilisses themselves. In addition, all the queens had their own fortune, which they disposed of at their own discretion (often spending it on charity), and also carried out special assignments for their spouses or generally acted according to their own judgment, actively participating in solving state problems.

Of course, the III and IV Ecumenical Councils, which put an end to the heresy of Nestorianism, which humiliated and belittled the feat of the Mother of God, had a great influence on determining the content of the status of the Byzantine empress. Of course, in a theocratic society this had a direct bearing on the social and legal status of women. When she is considered an instrument of sin, seduced by the forbidden fruit and the temptress of Adam, it is difficult to talk about her dignity. And the term “Christ Mother”, which the heresiarch Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople in 428–431, “awarded” the Most Holy Virgin Mary, did not allow us to reveal the high significance of Her spiritual feat. And it’s another thing when the whole Church sings to the Woman-Theotokos: “It is impossible for a man to see God, the angels of the Angels do not dare to look upon the Worthless One; By You, O All-Pure One, having appeared as a man, the Word Incarnate, Who magnifies Him, with the heavenly howls we please You.”

A typical portrait of the Byzantine queen is given to us by Empress Irene Ducas, wife of Basileus Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118). Educated and incredibly pious, the mistress of her female half and in fact the manager of the royal property, she saw her duty as raising children and being her husband’s assistant. The patroness of the arts, writers and poets, a woman whose hand never tired of giving alms to those in need, going out into the world exclusively according to the ceremony established at the royal court, wise, modest and thrifty, patient and quick-witted, she became a real ally of the royal spouse in the days of trials. Modesty and domestic concerns did not, however, prevent the queen from actively participating in politics, in which she clearly succeeded. Soon, Irina began to accompany her husband on numerous campaigns, and the king valued her attention and advice very much. And at the end of Alexei I’s life, the queen exerted an unprecedented influence on him. She followed her husband everywhere and, maintaining natural restraint, quickly understood the intricacies of political combinations and invariably gave the king the best advice.

Since, as the Roman Empire became Christianized, the royal status more and more took on sacred features in the eyes of citizens, the reflection of the imperial radiance began to fall on his faithful life partner. Starting from the 6th century, group portraits of kings appeared, among which the empress occupied a worthy place. As researchers note, her presence next to her crowned husband is explained not by the expansion of the basilissa’s legal rights, but the fact of introducing her to the holiness of the emperor, including honors resulting from it.

Although, as we will see from the examples given, this almost automatically in a number of cases led to the expansion of the empress’s legal capacity. In Byzantium, in an amazing way, piety and the moral component became a reliable basis for the political power of a particular person. And on the contrary: no matter how high a person was endowed, the lack of moral trust among citizens in him almost automatically led to a refusal to recognize his legal and political powers. As we will see, the empress’s person was no exception.

The sacred origin of imperial power was the subject of numerous depictions in Byzantium. On all occasions, the emperor and his royal wife are crowned either by Christ, or by the Virgin Mary, or by some saint. A miniature in a 12th-century Psalter shows the king, queen and their son, each of them being crowned by a messenger of Christ flying from the sky. This detail clearly indicated that royal power had its Source directly in Christ. Including the status of empress, who also received her power from God, not from her husband. It is quite natural that, like the Byzantine emperors, from the 11th century empresses began to be depicted with a halo on their heads, like holy rulers.

The wedding of the emperor was a church sacrament, and its result was the recognition of his priestly dignity - although, as was traditional in Byzantium, without any specific content. With equal grounds, the basileus could be compared with a clergyman, deacon or priest - but not with a layman: this was categorically impossible. The wedding took place in one of the halls of the Grand Palace, called “Augustea”. There, on the table, the royal clothes and crown were laid out, and the patriarch and bishops were heading there. During the sacred rite, the emperor dressed in priestly robes, like a priest, held savages in his hands, like a patriarch, and blessed the people.

The wedding of the queen was also one of the most important ceremonies in Byzantium and a church sacrament comparable to the wedding of the basileus. Near the pulpit, covered with porphyry cloth, stood two thrones with four or five steps, along which the king and queen ascended. The Gospels and the Apostle were read, then the second part of the procedure began under the prayers of the patriarch. The bishop of Constantinople read a prayer over the purple, while the empress held burning candles in her hands. The emperor himself placed a crown on her head, and at the end of the procedure they went together to the Church of St. Stephen adjacent to the palace, where they received congratulations from the dignitaries. There is no doubt that, by bringing the empress to the altar, the basileus thereby introduced her to their dignity. With the royal crown on her head, she walked, accompanied by her courtiers and retinue, to the people, and her husband remained behind; The banners of the military units bowed before her, and the Byzantines greeted her with loud shouts.

It is very important that if the king and queen were not married before their accession to the throne, then the marriage followed for the coronation ceremony, and did not precede it. This detail again clearly demonstrated that the empress became omnipotent not because she became the emperor’s wife. She did not receive supreme power from her husband, but as a result of the act of marriage, which preceded the marriage and did not depend on it. Thus she admitted chosen one of God, and her power was considered similar to the power of the marital, royal.

Since the 13th century, under Western influence, a significant change in the procedure for crowning the kingdom took place in Byzantium - now it began to include as its most important component anointing Basileus the bishop or the patriarch himself. There are also some subtleties that need to be outlined here. In the West, anointing has traditionally been perceived as a rite of passage into the “royal priesthood,” as a process of becoming like Christ. It was Christ, according to the Apostle John, who created His faithful followers “kings and priests” (Rev. 1: 6). According to Isidore of Seville, initially the anointing was performed only on priests and kings, and the fact that subsequently All Christians began to be anointed during the sacrament of Baptism, which was supposed to clearly show that they were from now on “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9). However secondary the anointing of the king falls out of this logical series and is already directly associated only with the idea of ​​the priesthood.

This idea was textbook expressed in one act of the Parisian bishops of 1143: “We know that, according to the instructions of the Old Testament and the current church law, only kings and priests are anointed with the sacred chrism. It is appropriate, therefore, that both of them, the only mortals on whom Chrismation is performed, should stand at the head of the people of God, delivering worldly and spiritual benefits to their subjects, as well as to each other.” It is remarkable that the bishops recognized the emperor’s ability to like a priest, to deliver spiritual gifts to subjects, is an eloquent text. The sovereign, anointed upon entering power, became a new person, a reborn man. As with tonsure as a monk, he died to the old life and began a new life after confirmation.

This was considered so in the West; this tradition was also borrowed by the East in the 13th century, although for entirely political reasons. Wanting to confirm, at a minimum, their equality with the Latin emperors who sat in Constantinople captured by the crusaders, the Byzantine kings, who were forced to stay in Nicaea for half a century, adopted this ritual. But it is important for us to emphasize in this case that this sacrament additionally focused attention on the priesthood of the king, the sacred nature of his power. And since confirmation was also performed on the empress, her status, thus, also took on priestly features - and, in any case, was recognized as sacred.

Just as Christ is inseparable from His Mother, so the emperor is unthinkable without the empress. Without her, he was considered almost defective, not fitting into the etiquette of the Byzantine court. And since in Byzantium the forms of ceremonies and veneration of the basileus had an organic connection with the royal status itself, as segments inseparable from it, a violation of etiquette directly or indirectly cast a shadow on the sacred dignity of the emperor. Which was, of course, unacceptable if there were no satisfactory explanations. In particular, Emperor Vasily II the Bulgarian Slayer (976–1025) did not bother to find a wife for himself - spending day and night caring for the Roman state, he did not find time for this. But what was secretly allowed by society to the emperor, known for his self-sacrifice and great exploits, was not allowed to the average basileus. One day it got to the point that Tsar Leo VI the Wise was forced to crown his young daughter Anna from Zoe Zautza as Augusta, that is, empress (the emperor’s wife had already died by that time, and he remained a widow), because he could not organize royal receptions.

And the Emperor Saint Nikephoros I Phocas (963–969), a strict ascetic and lover of monasticism, was forced to marry Theodora, the widow of Emperor Romanus II (959–963), because, as his spiritual mentors convinced him, it was indecent for a king to be alone.

When Emperor Justin II (565–574) announced Tiberius (574–582) as his successor, the people of Constantinople considered that a king without an Augusta was something incongruous. And therefore they immediately demanded that a new queen be presented to them. “We want to see, we want to see the Augusta of the Romans!” - the hippodrome parties roared. As a result, Emperor Tiberius immediately ordered his wife Anastasia to be crowned king.

When emperors remained widowers, the political elite and the patriarchs themselves usually insisted that they remarry. The king dealt with men, and the queen acted as the representative of all women of the Roman Empire. Accordingly, palace ceremonies were organized, where empresses played a significant role.

On Palm Sunday, the Empress, together with her royal husband, received high-ranking dignitaries without fail, and on ordinary days she was near him at the hippodrome for festivities and in the Grand Palace for official events. Moreover, empresses often appeared before their subjects without the emperor at all, and during the absence of their husbands they even led the ceremonial entrance to the Church of Hagia Sophia on Sundays.

In 408, the Eastern Empire found itself under the control of two young children of Emperor Arcadius - Saint Pulcheria and Saint Theodosius II. While the younger brother was growing up, Saint Pulcheria, still just a girl, began to rule the state. In church politics, she continued the course of her grandfather, Saint Theodosius the Great: the princess actively persecuted heretics and ensured preferences for the Orthodox party. In 415, two of her decrees were issued against the Montanists and Eunomians, prohibiting their meetings under threat of criminal prosecution. In 416, she issued a decree on pagans, who were henceforth prohibited from entering the public service and filling the positions of provincial rulers. In 418, civil service was also closed to Jews, whose representatives were subject to dismissal from the army.

All chroniclers unanimously assert that in state affairs Saint Theodora, the wife of Saint Justinian the Great, was the first colleague of the emperor and enjoyed authority almost O greater than himself. The Empress was an excellent organizer, and her court actually became the “intellectual department” of the Roman Empire. Saint Theodora knew everything or almost everything that was happening in the state, and at the same time there is no certainty that she shared all her secrets with her husband. The queen herself said that the emperor did not decide anything without consulting her, and Saint Justinian the Great, in fact, often wrote that he made his decision after consulting “with our most reverend and most pious wife, whom God has given to us.”

The strength of her spirit was unprecedented - many men could safely follow her example. It was she who, during the critical days of the Nika riot, uttered a phrase to the dignitaries that became historical: “If you want to save yourself, then no one, not even the emperor, will stop you. The sea is in front of you, the ships are ready, and you have enough money to pay for a voyage in any direction. As for me, I adhere to the old saying: the best shroud is the purple imperial robe!” .

Her orders were carried out immediately, and if it happened that the order of the emperor went against the opinion of the empress, the woman’s point of view often won. She personally received the ambassadors, and many wanted to be received first by her, and then introduced themselves to the emperor. During an audience, the guest would also prostrate himself before her and kiss her shoe. Without any reservations, she was considered a figure equal to the emperor. Officials and patricians, generals and soldiers swore allegiance to her, just like to Saint Justinian. They swore that they would serve well “the most pious and holy sovereigns Justinian and Theodora, the wife of his imperial majesty, and work unfeignedly for the success of their autocracy and rule.”

The empress's receptions, although rare, were extremely crowded. She became a real protector of the weaker sex in Byzantium, and any woman could turn to her with a complaint about her husband or with a request for help. When she traveled, she was accompanied by a retinue that included the highest dignitaries of the Roman Empire and the provinces she visited. Saint Theodora was engaged in extensive charitable activities and allocated enormous personal funds to hospitals, monasteries and churches.

And here is how a contemporary describes the character of Empress Eudokia (1067), the widow of Constantine X Duca (1059–1067): “Having come to power at the behest of the royal husband, Empress Eudokia did not entrust the kingdom to anyone else, did not choose home life as her destiny and did not entrust affairs to anyone a nobleman, but began to run everything herself and took power into her own hands. At the same time, she behaved modestly, not allowing unnecessary luxury either in clothes or in appearances. A sophisticated and experienced woman, she was able to deal with any matter: appointments to positions, civil proceedings and collection of government taxes, and when the opportunity presented itself, she knew how to speak like a king - such a great mind was hidden in the queen.”

If in a royal couple a woman had b O With greater talents and willpower, her husband, despite his rank and titles, became a secondary figure with her. This happened in the last years of the reign of Tsar Justin II (he was already seriously ill), whom his wife Sophia convinced to marry Tiberius to the kingdom, hoping to become the second wife of the new basileus of the Romans, divorcing him from the first. Fortunately, this combination did not work out for the ambitious queen.

This was the case under Michael I Rangava (811–813), whose wife, Queen Procopia, was distinguished by great ambition and strength of character. The emperor made many decisions under her pressure. And only with great difficulty did he manage to overcome his wife’s resistance when, on June 24, 813, the king, due to forced circumstances, announced that he was laying down the imperial mantle and taking monastic vows.

As is known, Emperor Alexius III Angelus Komnenos (1195–1203) was little involved in public affairs, devoting his energy to magnificent events and amusing himself with frequent changes of golden clothes. It got to the point that his wife Euphrosyne, who could well have adequately replaced her husband, openly scolded him for laziness and insane extravagance. However, soon she really had to take control of the state into her own hands. Unprecedented paintings appeared before the eyes of the amazed Byzantines: by order of the queen, two identical golden chairs on which she and her husband sat as equals during official receptions. Often ambassadors were forced to make two visits: one to the queen, the second to the king; and the further, the more often the empress canceled her husband’s senseless orders and gave her own.

If the empress was personality, she always actively participated in the affairs of the Roman state. Irina, the crowned wife of Emperor St. John Dukas Vatatz (1222–1254), even despite a serious injury that led her to a long illness and then death, actively and constantly co-reigned with her husband. “Both of them ruled the kingdom in an excellent and dignified manner,” the chronicler writes, “taking every measure to ensure that justice and legality flourished in the cities and that selfishness and predation were eliminated. Both of them also created temples that were distinguished by rare grace, sparing no expense to ensure that they were both great and beautiful. Having assigned many estates and large annual incomes to the churches, they built monasteries for monastics and ascetics, full of grace and spiritual joy. Not content with this, they opened hospitals, almshouses and many other things that clearly showed their love for God.”

The empresses actively participated in the selection (or resignation) of the patriarchs, and not secretly, with feminine affection, persuading the crowned spouse in favor of their candidacy, but publicly as having power. The first precedents were given by Saint Pulcheria, but this competence of queens manifested itself even more actively during the reign of Saint Theodora, the wife of Emperor Justinian the Great. Saint Irene (797–802) also did not doubt her rights when she appointed Saint Tarasius (784–806) to the see of Constantinople. Then Saint Theodora (842-856) did the same, choosing Saint Methodius (842-846) as patriarch, and other empresses, if they had to make this choice.

To summarize, we can say that, perhaps, with the exception of conducting military operations, the royal wives exercised all the imperial powers: they ensured a fair and speedy trial, were engaged in extensive charity and social activities, built up the Church and pleased God in every possible way, hoping for His mercy to the Roman Empire. .

In 451, the Hun ruler Attila (434–453) demanded that the emperor of the Western part of the Holy Roman Empire, Valentinian III (423–455), marry off Princess Honoria, the royal sister, who frivolously fell in love with a barbarian, and declare himself heir to the Eastern part of the Roman Empire according to lines of the future wife. To this demand he was told that women of the royal family of the Romans would not inherit the empire. But that was only at first existence of Orthodox Roman statehood. In the near future, women not only began to determine the name of the next king, but also to individually inherit the highest political power.

The first precedent was created by Saint Irene, becoming the sole queen of the Roman Empire in 797 (although to do this she had to remove her son from power - a tragic story in all respects). She strictly observed the rules of royal etiquette and appeared before the people in magnificent clothes, like an emperor, and ordered the coins to be minted: “Irina, great basileus of the Romans, autocrat.”

At the end of the glorious Macedonian dynasty, after very turbulent events, two women at once - sisters Zoe (1042-1050) and Theodora (1042-1056) - ruled the Roman state. The old palace ceremony had to be rebuilt to suit new trends. And now both empresses sat together on the royal thrones, located in one line, slightly deviating towards the younger sister. Next to them stood warrior-bodyguards, behind them were the courtiers closest to the sisters. Even further away was the second guard of guards and then the synclit (senate). The sisters decided all state affairs together in the presence of dignitaries.

A little later, they were joined by Constantine IX Monomakh (1042–1055), whom the sisters chose as Zoe’s husband - she was the eldest among them and secretly had more rights to the kingdom. Now in the throne room there were three thrones for all three emperors of Byzantium. Constantine IX Monomakh remained true to the word he gave before his crowning. He did not embarrass the royal sisters in any way, and official documents included not only his name, but also Zoe and Theodora. In addition, laws were signed everyone emperors, so as not to violate the rights of the last representatives of the Macedonian dynasty. Each of the empresses enjoyed a certain freedom of action and, by tacit agreement, could give orders that were binding on all persons. This continued until 1050, when Zoe died. But Constantine IX continued to rule together with Theodora.

Eventually Monomakh also died, and Theodora became the sole queen of the Roman Empire. Surprisingly, all historians agree that Theodora’s short reign was marked by the complete absence of any conspiracies and rebellions; no one plotted against the supreme power. The queen ruled the Roman Empire in truly masculine style, issuing orders with a firm voice and subduing aristocratic opposition. And when I heard about the dissatisfaction of some dignitaries, I rightly reminded that not the first time occupies the sacred throne, and continues reign. Under her, as if by magic, harvests were very good, wars stopped, borders became secure, which had a positive effect on trade. The state treasury quickly replenished.

Convinced of their duty to bring peace to the Church, the Byzantine empresses had no doubt that they should also deal with the affairs of church administration and the preservation of the faith. In this they were in no way inferior to male emperors. At least three times, holy empresses predetermined the victory of Orthodoxy over heresies: Saint Pulcheria, Saint Irene and Saint Theodora. Moreover, two of them at that moment in time reigned alone, widowing the young heirs to the throne.

Saint Pulcheria actively opposed the heresy of Nestorianism, and it was largely through her efforts that the IV Ecumenical Council was convened in Chalcedon in 451. It is noteworthy that, having formulated the cathedral oros, the fathers of the Council unanimously and warmly greeted the empress upon her appearance: “Pulcheria is the new Helen; You showed Elena’s jealousy! Your life is the protection of everyone! Your faith is the glory of the churches! May your kingdom endure forever! Many summers in August! You are the luminaries of Orthodoxy; from this there is peace everywhere. Lord, save the lights of the world! Lord, save the luminaries of the Universe!” .

And Saint Irene dealt the first serious blow to iconoclasm, which had filled the entire East. Despite the large number of iconoclasts, including bishops, the empress one day in a meeting of the people declared Saint Tarasius (784–806), her secretary, the new Patriarch of Constantinople. And he, in turn, according to the scenario played out in advance with the queen, agreed with her choice only on the condition of convening an Ecumenical Council to restore the veneration of icons.

After this, the empress, on her own behalf and on behalf of the son of the young emperor Constantine VI (780–797), sent a letter to the Bishop of Rome Hadrian (772–795), in which she declared her intention to convene an Ecumenical Council. On August 17, 786, the cathedral opened, but guards soldiers entered the temple along with the iconoclastic bishops and closed the meeting. There was nothing to be done - the empress ordered to obey their demand, and the bishops went home. A year later, in 787, the queen announced her order to convene the Ecumenical Council again, but this time, out of harm’s way, in Nicaea, and not in Constantinople. As is known, it ended in a brilliant victory for the icon-worshippers.

The feat of the young royal widow was majestic: at this time the iconoclasts had widespread support in the army, as well as among the episcopate and high dignitaries. The Patriarch of Constantinople Paul (780–784), who did not want to be known as an iconoclast, but was afraid to speak out against them, voluntarily resigned and retired to a monastery. Having decided to convene the council, the empress had to not only demonstrate her character, but also calculate subtle diplomatic combinations. In particular, the convening of the Ecumenical Council was impossible without the help of Rome, and the pope would almost certainly have made (and in fact made) his own demands on St. Irene. For example, to return those metropolises that Emperor Leo III the Isaurian had previously transferred to the See of Constantinople.

In other words, it was necessary to show courage, cunning, and the ability to compromise or defend one’s opinion in spite of everything. Moreover, according to the “Acts” of the Council, as it turned out, almost all the bishops secretly sympathized with the icon venerators, but did not dare to express their thoughts out loud. And it turns out that one fragile woman, any careless step of which could lead her and her son to death, was not afraid to do what hundreds of bishops, dignitaries and the patriarch himself could not do. As we see, Saint Irene belonged to those powerful figures who are capable, defying time, of changing the course of historical events, without fear of taking responsibility for their actions.

But iconoclasm had not yet been completely defeated, and in the spring of 843 another empress, Saint Theodora, widow of Emperor Theophilus, convened a council in Constantinople to solemnly and according to old traditions announce the final victory of truth over heresy. This council was far from formal in nature, and its decisions still had to be defended before the iconoclasts. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Methodius (842–846), later wrote about this: “Realizing that nothing would contribute more to the security of the Roman Empire than the end of church unrest, Queen Theodora, having talked with the highest dignitaries of the state, called on the most influential among the monks and offered them discussion of the issue of restoring icon veneration. When she found that they all agreed and burned daily with the same desire and were heartbroken about changing religion, she demanded that they choose passages from the patristic books to confirm the truth, indicated the place in the palace where it was supposed to convene the council, and addressed the manifesto to to the people. Such a great multitude gathered that it was impossible to count them, for they arrived not only those who had maintained a pure mind during the time of wickedness, but very many of those who shared heretical opinions and were appointed to church positions by the iconoclasts. Having changed their thoughts, they cursed the enemies of the holy icons.”

As we see, neither the hosts of dignitaries, nor the army, nor the heretical bishops could stop the empresses. All the greater is the feat of these amazing ascetics of Orthodoxy and the rest of the royal wives, who shared with their husbands the responsibility for the fate of the Christian Universe.

What a relationship! Very often even opinion the empress turned out to be decisive in choosing the next king. It is not difficult to imagine this picture: the throne is empty, the court parties are actively nominating their candidates, the all-powerful dignitaries of the palace are making titanic efforts in the hope of ensuring victory for their own chosen one, bargaining, fighting (sometimes to the point of death and injury). The army is also not far behind: legions gather around the Great Imperial Palace or at the Hippodrome, crowds of Constantinople follow them. Patriarchal clergy are rushing from Hagia Sophia to find out the situation and report to the Bishop of Constantinople. The patriarch himself, dressed in festive clothes, slowly walks to the royal residence in order to sanctify the choice of the people or to take an active part in the fate of the crowned persons. Everything is noisy, boiling, agitated.

And then the empress appears in front of this motley crowd of thousands - a widow or a mother, that doesn’t matter - and everything falls silent. She is greeted with loud cries: “Augusta, queen! Winner, your victory! Give an Orthodox Tsar for the Universe!” The standard-bearers of the legions bow their standards before her, the army gives the highest honors, the dignitaries bow in obeisance. Finally she begins to say something, and her words are immediately passed along the rows, they are heatedly discussed and retold. The Empress pronounces someone's name - this is the name of the new Emperor of the Roman Empire, and almost immediately the Empress's chosen one appears on the proscenium. He is immediately loudly and joyfully greeted as the new ruler of the Universe, dressed in royal clothes, the army bows their spears before him, a gold chain is placed around his neck and taken to the temple to perform the sacrament of crowning the kingdom. What an amazing balance: one fragile woman - and the entire Roman world, submissive to her will and accepting her choice!

Of course, this external idyll did not always exist. Moreover, it was often prepared in the silence of the palace chambers, so that the election of the new emperor would become more spectacular - the Byzantines were deep experts and admirers of the form. But in essence, the picture described above was textbook for Holy Byzantium. And ignoring the empress’s opinion turned out to be more expensive for oneself. Michael V Calafat (1041–1042) tried to do this once, and paid not only with royal power, but also with his life. Having dared to go against the legitimate, porphyry-born Empress Zoe of the Macedonian dynasty, he was overthrown from the throne and blinded. On April 21, 1042, Calafates was carried on a mule through the streets of Constantinople and then sent into exile in the monastery of Elegmon, where he later died in complete obscurity.

Thus, it was Saint Ariadne, the widow of Emperor Zeno, who decided on the candidacy of Anastasius I, creating the first precedent. Empress Zoe demanded that her lover Michael IV Paphlogon (1034–1041) be crowned king after the death of Romanos III's husband Argyres (1028–1034). Urgently summoned at night to the imperial chambers, the patriarch did not dare to contradict Basilissa, and on April 12, 1034, on Good Friday, a public solemn procedure for the elevation of Michael IV to the royal throne took place in the presence of the synclite and representatives of the army.

Zoya, by agreement with her sister, appointed Constantine IX Monomakh as her husband and emperor. On June 11, 1042, the protopresbyter of the Church of Hagia Sophia performed the solemn wedding of them as husband and wife. And already on June 12, 1042, the Bishop of Constantinople Alexei the Studite (1025–1043) himself crowned Constantine IX Monomakh as king.

After the death of the royal sister, Theodora became the Byzantine empress. But the state needed a man's hand; in addition, the empress was no longer young and was preparing to go to God. On August 31, 1056, Theodora personally placed the imperial diadem on her chosen one, commander Michael VI Stratioticus (1056–1057), declaring him basileus. The Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerullarius (1043–1059) had no choice but to perform the sacrament of crowning the king over Michael VI. Literally three days later, Theodora died.

On January 1, 1068, thanks to the choice of Empress Eudoxia, widow of Constantine Ducas, Byzantium had a new emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes.

On the day of the death of Emperor John VIII (1425–1448), his future successor, Saint Constantine XI Palaiologos (1448–1453), was far away - in Mystras. And this circumstance created the preconditions for two persons to simultaneously claim the vacant throne (the second was Demetrius, the brother of Constantine XI). But everything was decided by the elderly Empress Elena, by that time already a nun Ipomonia, to whom, according to the established legal tradition, the unwritten rights to the kingdom were transferred. And without hesitation she transferred power to her eldest son, Saint Constantine XI Palaiologos.

But Byzantium also demonstrated the opposite examples. If Vasilisa turned out to be unworthy of her royal status, then her capabilities were sharply devalued, and she herself did not retain power for long. The first example of this was given by Queen Martina, the wife of Emperor Heraclius the Great. The Byzantines did not forget that she was the niece of the basileus, and clearly did not approve of this incestuous marriage. But since the king himself was very loved, during his life Martina enjoyed all the benefits of power (and hardships too, we add, since she often accompanied her husband on difficult military campaigns against Persia). But as soon as Heraclius died, the situation changed dramatically, and the Romans took revenge on Martina, who, as it was believed, was responsible for the emperor’s fall from grace. When the royal widow and her children made a festive appearance, an unpleasant surprise awaited her. The people of Constantinople themselves built a hierarchy in the royal family, giving preference to the eldest son of the late Heraclius, Saint Constantine the New (641), since he was dressed in purple almost from birth. The Byzantines rejected Martina herself, and in a very offensive form: “You are only the mother of kings! - shouts came from the crowd. – They are our kings and rulers! When barbarians and foreigners come to our kingdom, you cannot accept them and negotiate with them. God forbid that the Roman power should come to such a state!” . As you might guess, soon Martina was finally removed from the throne.

The second example is the story of the frivolous and unhappy widow of the brilliant Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180), Princess Maria of Antioch, and their son, the young king Alexios II Komnenos (1180–1183). She was a beautiful woman, even extremely beautiful. “In comparison with her,” wrote a contemporary, “the always smiling and golden Venus, and the blond and hair-eyed Juno, and Elena, famous for her high neck and beautiful legs, whom the ancients idolized for their beauty, and indeed all women in general, meant absolutely nothing. whom books and stories pass off as beauties.” In December 1160, Mary was brought into the Church of Hagia Sophia, where the Patriarch of Constantinople Luke Chrysoverg (1156–1169) solemnized their marriage with Manuel I, and the bride’s head was also decorated with a royal crown.

Alas, neither beauty nor dignity saved her. In 1180, the emperor died, and Maria remained a widow. She did not subdue her flesh for long and soon became infatuated with a young aristocrat, as a result of which her reputation, especially since she was a foreigner, fell sharply. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the queen gave clear preference to the Latins to the detriment of the natural Byzantines. Almost every European without rank or status could come to her and receive a high position in government. Disdainful of her compatriots and not trusting them, the queen entrusted important matters to the Latins, generously paying for the most insignificant services. Naturally, they began to treat the Byzantines as “second-class” people, and they hated them to the extreme.

At first, Caesarissa Maria, the daughter of Emperor Manuel I from her first marriage, rose up against the queen. She organized a conspiracy against her hated stepmother, and the conspirators included representatives of the most famous families of Byzantium. True, the plot was unsuccessful. But the people of Constantinople unanimously stood up for the daughter of the great Manuel I, who acted under the banner of defending national interests, and demanded her release from trial and arrest. An angry crowd flooded Constantinople, plundering the palaces and houses of people close to Queen Mary and her admirer. “It was a holy war,” said Eustathius of Thessalonica, an eyewitness to those events, “not because church people took part in it or that it began in the fence and vestibule of the Church of Hagia Sophia, but because of the thought that inspired the Constantinople mob.”

Only with enormous difficulty did the Patriarch of Constantinople Theodosius Voraditus (1178–1183) manage to stop the bloodshed. However, for the queen this no longer mattered. Soon, in 1183, the future emperor Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) falsely accused her of secret relations with the Hungarian crown and ordered her death. The queen was strangled and her body was buried on the seashore. Then the young king also died, vilely killed on the orders of Andronikos I.

How high the status of the Byzantine empress was and at the same time did not guarantee against problems is evidenced by two stories separated by three centuries. Constantine VII the Porphyrogenitus was only 7 years old when, after the death of his father, Emperor Leo VI the Wise, and his uncle, Emperor Alexander (912–913), he remained the only legal heir to power in the Roman state. The uncle left an order according to which a guardianship council was appointed under Constantine VII the Porphyrogenitus. To the indignation of the widow queen Zoya Karbonosina, she was not included in the guardianship council, since her authority among the people was low. Everyone believed that it was Zoya who encouraged Leo VI to enter into a fourth marriage, which was not approved by the clergy. Moreover, the first hater of the empress, Patriarch Nicholas of Constantinople (901–907; 912–925), issued an unprecedented decree on behalf of the guardianship council. This document Zoya was deprived of her royal dignity(!) and she was forbidden to enter the royal palace under any pretext. To top it all off, by threatening her son, the patriarch forced the empress to take monastic vows and retire to a monastery.

Luckily for her, the queen's opponents acted carelessly and overly aggressively, hoping to seize power into their own hands. Cleverly taking advantage of the mistakes of her enemies, Zoya Karbonosina freed herself from the monastic rank in October 913, managed to return to the palace, restore and even strengthen her position. Both parties found themselves in a stalemate, from which it was possible to get out only through mutual concessions, negotiations and not entirely sincere mutual obligations. Zoya promised not to encroach on the status of Nikolai the Mystic. In return, the patriarch gave his word not to intrude into the sphere of politics, not to appear in the royal palace without the permission of the empress, and to remember the name of the queen at the liturgy along with the name of Constantine VII, which happened for the first time in February 914.

Thus, the recently disgraced queen became virtually the sole ruler of the Roman Empire with a nominal son. Although not for long: her authority was still not so high that the Byzantines saw in her an adequate replacement for the royal husband. As a result, after a short time she was deprived of her royal dignity at the request of her own son, she was again tonsured a nun under the name of Anna and sent to a monastery.

The second story also has interesting details. After the death of Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (1328–1341), Kantakouzenos, the future Emperor of Byzantium John VI (1347–1354), was declared the guardian of his young son John V (1341–1391). But the widow-empress Anna of Savoy, Patriarch John Kaleka (1334–1347) and the Minister of Finance Alexei Apokavko immediately stood in opposition to him. A civil war broke out, during which the parties took actions to legalize their status.

On October 26, 1341, in Didymotychos, Kantakouzenos was proclaimed Byzantine emperor, and the local bishop crowned him with the imperial crown. Almost simultaneously, on November 19, 1341, John V Palaiologos was crowned king, and Anna of Savoy was declared co-ruler. And yet, observing political traditions, John VI Cantacuzene himself ordered his name to be remembered during the magnification at the liturgy after John V Palaiologos and Empress Anna of Savoy - thereby recognizing Anna's royal status as the current empress.

After her faithful ally Alexei Apokavkos died, and the patriarch compromised himself and was deposed, Anna found herself practically autocratic ruler of the Roman Empire. Finally, the civil war, which had weakened the state, came to an end. Cantacuzene and Anna of Savoy found a compromise solution that was of interest to us. Anna of Savoy swore an oath not to plot anything against John VI Kantakouzenos, and he, who was crowned king for the second time by the Patriarch of Constantinople, in turn gave his daughter Helena in marriage to Emperor John V Palaiologos. Now for some time the empire found itself five kings: John V Palaiologos, his wife Helena Cantacuzene, Empress Anna of Savoy, John VI Cantacuzene and his wife Irene.

Instead of an epilogue

It is hardly justified to demonize the Byzantine empresses, seeing in the above examples only the struggle of passions, court parties and the manifestation of insatiable female ambition. As a rule, the queens themselves were not eager to shoulder state concerns on their shoulders, realizing that what it is. For single and young women (widows or orphans), the sole reign was far from a sinecure, as the story of the above-mentioned Empress Eudokia Duca clearly demonstrates. In public, always so self-possessed and calm, once “in her hearts” the queen let slip about the severity of her burden: “I don’t need such a long reign, I don’t want to die on the throne!” .

To summarize, let’s say that, like the Byzantine basileus, the Byzantine queens were the first defenders of Orthodox statehood, that moral wall against which, during the incredibly difficult and bloody millennium of Byzantium’s existence, Christian The Roman Empire was broken by both waves of enemies and streams of heresies.

There is a beautiful mosaic icon dating from the 11th century. In the center of the composition is Christ, in a blue robe, sitting on a throne with a large Bible in his left hand. On the left is Constantine IX Monomakh, in luxurious ritual attire, holding a bag of gifts for the temple. Above his figure is an inscription in Aramaic: “Constantine Monomachus, pious ruler of the Romans and servant of the God Jesus.” On the right side of the mosaic, no less smartly dressed Empress Zoe, with a scroll in his hands. On the scroll one can hardly discern the words “Konstantin Hotovopistos...”, and above her head the inscription “Very pious Empress Zoe" Without taking the name of God in vain, let us recall some interesting episodes from the lives of the historical characters in this mosaic.

The last male-line scion of the Macedonian dynasty, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VIII (1025-1028), had three daughters - Evdokia, Zoya and Theodora. The elder sister, who had suffered from smallpox in childhood, went to a monastery, and Zoya and Theodora, taking advantage of the patronage of their uncle, Emperor Vasily II the Bulgarian Slayer (976-1025), lived happily at court. Their father Constantine VIII, being a monarch of a very carefree disposition, only just before his death began to look for an heir, to whom he decided to marry his middle daughter, who by that time had already celebrated her 48th birthday. His choice fell on the noble and educated 60-year-old nobleman Roman Argir. True, he was married, but this did not prevent anything. Roman's wife was quickly shaved and sent to a monastery, and he himself was offered a simple choice - either lose his eyes or be led down the aisle. Zoya. He did not doubt for long, and since Constantine VIII died shortly after the wedding, a new emperor Roman III Argir (1028-1034) appeared in Byzantium. As a monarch, he did not show himself to be anything outstanding, but this is not so bad, because the most important thing is that he could not satisfy the ardent sexual fantasies of his crowned wife.

But “a holy place is never empty” and one ambitious palace eunuch, named John, introduced empress his 20-year-old sexy brother Mikhail. The heart of the voluptuous Zoey was instantly subjugated, and the young lover, although he did not feel any sexual attraction to the overripe madam, was ready to do anything for the sake of power. Roman Argir, disgusted with maddened passion empress, was clearly in the way, and they had to get rid of him by drowning him while swimming in the bathhouse. On the same day, the new emperor Michael IV Paphlagon (1034-1041) ascended the throne, who became the customer of this mosaic. However, it soon became clear that the new emperor suffered from epilepsy and was unlikely to live long. Then the cunning eunuch John, who wanted to maintain his influence at court, convinced empress make their nephew heir.

A young man adopted softened by passion Zoey, kissed her hands and with tears in his eyes swore eternal devotion, but immediately after the death of his epileptic uncle, becoming Emperor Michael V Calafat (1041-1042) he repaid the “despicable for the good.” He made her a nun, exiled her to the island of Prinkipo (now) and ordered the destruction of the mosaic in the temple. But just four months later, a three-day popular rebellion swept away the usurper, whose eyes were gouged out, and rescued mother empress from captivity. Tireless Zoya She quickly came to her senses and at the age of sixty-two she got married again. After that empress ordered the restoration of the mosaic, on which her image was restored, and the place of the second husband was taken by the third.

Last husband Zoey became her old intimate friend since the time of Roman Argir, the dissolute Constantinople aristocrat Constantine IX Monomakh (1042-1055), who moved to the royal palace with his young official mistress. He is depicted on the mosaic wearing a headdress called the Monomakh cap. After making peace with Kievan Rus, which was defeated during the Russian-Byzantine War (1043), Constantine married his daughter to the son of Yaroslav the Wise, Vsevolod. And this famous hat, allegedly given by him to his grandson, Vladimir Monomakh, as a sign of royal rights, served as the basis for the great-power concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” and is now kept in the Armory Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin.