Constructing the ‘theatre of power’: the performance of speeches of Emperor Leo VI the Wise

Abstract

Emperor Leo VI the Wise made speeches on various occasions, and the surviving texts have attracted numerous philological and historical studies. However, delivering a speech was never merely a monologue, especially in the court milieu where life was highly ritualized. It combined text-reading and multiple ceremonies and thus became a theatrical performance. In this ‘theatre’, the emperor's elegant appearance, the audience reaction to the orator's words following a set of conventions, and the venue decorated with torches, candles, and many other objects all played an indispensable role.

According to the Book of Ceremonies, while sometimes uttering a few ritualistic words, the Byzantine emperor generally remained silent and unapproachable. This maintained a majestic public image and thus embodied the eternal and unchanging celestial power. Liudprand of Cremona also bears witness to a court marked by solemn silence.¹ The only exception was the Monday of the first week of Lent when the emperor delivered an address at a silention at the Magnaura.² Some chroniclers attest that Leo VI continued to preach at the beginning of Lent until his death.³ But contrary to affirmations of this ceremonial manual, Leo VI delivered many other speeches. Except for the funeral oration dedicated to his parents, all these pieces are religious.⁴ Although other emperors, such as Constantine VII and Manuel II, also made speeches, Leo distinguished himself by the number of his own works. Among these speeches, it is the funeral oration that has most held the attention of modern scholars, especially those interested in political ideology.⁵ Theodora Antonopoulou in particular has made enormous contributions to the scholarship on homilies. Beginning with a dissertation defended at Oxford,⁶ she has collected and codified all of this emperor's speeches, thus aiding future studies.⁷ Other Byzantinists have also dedicated numerous works to this subject.⁸ However, such studies, philological or historical, only focus on texts.

Performance theory has significantly broadened the notion of ‘performance’ to all human activities occurring before a particular individual or group in a given space.⁹ In this theoretical context, Leo's delivery of speeches is undoubtedly a performance. As Paul Magdalino notes of imperial orations of the twelfth century, verbal recitation was only part of a total performance in which architecture, decoration, dress, music, and choreography also played a role.¹⁰ Speaking before a particular assembly in numerous churches and imperial palaces, the emperor strove to build a ‘theatre of power’¹¹ not only for convincing his listeners with arguments but also for overwhelming them with visual, auditory, and even olfactory effects. Although a few scholars have drawn attention to such performative elements,¹² Leo VI, the most prolific Byzantine emperor, still lacks such a study. For reasons of space, this article will only deal with the performative aspects of three fundamental factors of the performance: actor, audience and stage. Rhetorical techniques, especially ethopoeia and enargeia, which helped create a virtual theatre, will not be considered here.¹³

Leo VI as lead actor

The protagonist of the ‘theatre of power’, Leo VI, who delivered orations in person, was himself a theatrical element: the public appearance of an emperor had always to be carefully choreographed. A refined face, a fitting costume, and an elegant posture were deemed essential for an imperial orator. In his letter to Khan Boris of Bulgaria, Patriarch Photios urged Boris to maintain an orderly, harmonious and balanced bearing, for such an outward character reflected the wisdom of a ruler, especially for those who could not readily recognize spiritual strength and beauty.¹⁴ Exterior beauty was indispensable in a highly ritualized society: the emperor must appear majestic in public to manifest his supreme power. Neglect of appearance would damage not only the imperial dignity but the ceremonial order with which De ceremoniis is concerned.¹⁵ Solemn ceremonies, aiming at reproducing the heavenly court, were a reflection of one of the most crucial elements of imperial ideology – taxis.¹⁶ And the emperor's public appearances, ‘destinées à manifester l’éclat de la puissance divine dont le souverain tient son pouvoir’,¹⁷ must therefore conform to this fundamental ideology.

The emperor's presence consists in the first instance of his physical appearance. It seems that Leo VI was handsome by nature. In his first banquet speech delivered on the feast of the prophet Elijah, Arethas listed in detail the emperor's outward attributes according to standards set by Aristotle,¹⁸ including bodily strength (rhome) and beauty (kallos).¹⁹ Although aiming primarily at emphasizing spiritual superiority, this oration shows that physical beauty is a mark of the emperor. The author of the Vita Theophano praised the emperor's youth (νεότης), purity (ἁγνεία) and beauty (κάλλος) in referring to his marriage.²⁰ In reality, the three physical characteristics attributed to the emperor are a topos in wedding speeches, as confirmed by an epithalamium dedicated to Leo VI. This poem uses a series of epithets of the emperor's body: rose-like (ῥοδόεις), charming (ἱμερόεις), white-skinned (λευκοκρινόχρους), blooming (θαλέθων), and awe-inspiring (θάμβος ἔχων).²¹ Although these literary pieces provide us with rhetorical praise rather than objective reports, physical beauty, seemingly a mark of the Macedonian dynasty,²² would have naturally been shared by Leo VI.

Elegance of appearance, albeit of secondary importance compared to natural endowments, was understood to contribute to the success of a speech,²³ as confirmed by Nikephoros the Philosopher's funeral oration on Antony II Kauleas. Attributing the peace of the Church to Leo VI, the author evoked his graceful face (χαρίεντι προσώπῳ) and smiling eyes (μειδιῶσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς) because, in his opinion, the emperor's physical charms, like his brilliant virtues and eloquence, had led to the reconciliation of two parties in the Church.²⁴

Imperial garb would further enhance an emperor's image. A range of costumes existed at the Byzantine court, and sovereigns frequently changed their clothes according to the needs of different ceremonies.²⁵ Among these costumes, the chlamys was the most common and helped display imperial greatness.²⁶ The loros, imperial insignia par excellence, was worn on just two feasts, Easter and Pentecost. This garment restricted the emperor's movement and thus made him look like a statue. However, constant change of clothes and our uncertainty of the precise moments when most speeches were delivered prevent us from knowing what clothes the emperor wore when he spoke on a given occasion. But very likely, the emperor did not wear his crown if he made speeches in church, especially in Hagia Sophia, since in most cases – the coronation is an exception – he removed his crown before entering a sacred space.²⁷ The only certainty is that on the Monday of the first week of Lent the emperor wore his skaramangion and gold-trimmed sagion while delivering his speech.²⁸

In addition, two ceremonial manuals can give us some ideas on how the emperor dressed when speaking at a feast. Leo delivered his second homily on St Demetrius after dinner²⁹ in the Chrysotriklinos, where, according to the De Ceremoniis, he had to remove his chlamys.³⁰ At a banquet organized on the feast of the prophet Elijah, the emperor delivered a eulogy for this saint while wearing his divitision.³¹ It is also very likely that Leo preached one of his sermons on Epiphany during the banquet. Arethas, in his speech delivered for the same feast, mentioned that the emperor presided over the banquet with pleasing words.³² We cannot confirm that Leo and Arethas delivered their speeches on the same evening, but it is certain that Leo VI spoke at at least one such banquet. On this occasion, the emperor took off his sagion before the meal³³ and perhaps wore plain garb, given that Arethas in his own speech emphasizes the imperial humility:

The Divine Shepherd left paradise and the Father's arms, clothing himself in sheepskin that was a bait for hunters. On this day, he came to John the Baptist with others and practised humility (ταπείνωσιν) after being baptized by him. Likewise, o audience, now look on the one who has received authority from God to rule over us on earth. Although his power unites all human nobility, he shares his house with us poor men and condescends to approach us and dine with us.³⁴

A chapter concerning the emperor's ceremonial outfits completes our knowledge about the colours of various costumes. At the banquet on the feast of the prophet Elijah, the divitision worn by the emperor is purple.³⁵ The emperor also wore a purple divitision after removing his chlamys at the banquet on the feast of St Demetrios.³⁶ When Leo delivered his second homily on the Epiphany in Hagia Sophia, he combined the chlamys and the purple divitision.³⁷

When it comes to the delivery of a speech, the importance of aural effects is self-evident, and the speaker's voice should have the euphony of music.³⁸ Writing to Boris I of Bulgaria, Photios mentioned the importance of orderly and moderate speech.³⁹ In his commentary on a work of Eunomios, the same author criticized the dissonance (δύσηχον ἦχον) of the text.⁴⁰ A student of Photios, Leo VI would have imbibed the same principles of public speaking and, consequently, known how to increase the charm of his declamation and influence his audience through diction and modulation – whatever the criticism of Psellos that the diction of this emperor lacked brilliance and skill.⁴¹

Praise is recorded of Leo VI's eloquence. A funerary poem compared his flow of words with the sea and with honey.⁴² Nikephoros the Philosopher, in his funeral oration for Patriarch Antony II Kauleas, said that the words from the emperor's mouth, like those of Solomon and David, were sweeter than honey.⁴³ Arethas too notes the pleasing language of Leo VI in his banquet speech delivered on Epiphany:

Does the emperor who presides over the feast not shine with the grace of physical beauty, on the one hand, does he not pour pleasant drops of language (σταγόνας γλώσσης ἡδίστας) that are enough to cover the sacred theatre on the other, either by extending joy as now and rendering our attitude more joyful, or by relieving all the sadness of those who are very distressed and melancholy?⁴⁴

Although such examples, due to their laudatory nature, do not necessarily reflect the reality, it is still difficult to imagine that an emperor who did not excel at speaking could have delivered so many orations.⁴⁵ And an unskilled speaker could bring about a negative outcome: Joseph Bringas, during his struggle with Nikephoros Phocas, ‘was totally incapable of flattering and swaying public opinion in adverse circumstances. It would have been necessary to massage the crowd's attitude with soft and flattering speeches (προσηνέσι λόγοις καὶ θωπευτικοῖς), while he tended rather to prickle and aggravate them (ἐξετράχυνε καὶ ἠγρίωσε).’⁴⁶

Leo VI frequently used rhetorical devices to enhance the sound effects of his speeches.⁴⁷ Considering the large number of these devices, only the most conspicuous cases can be discussed here. Anaphora is the most common such device in Leo's speeches. In his homily on the Annunciation, for example, the imperial orator used a long series of χαιρετισμοί to underline the transport of delight brought by this feast.⁴⁸ We can find the same rhetorical technique in his sermon on the Dormition of the Virgin.⁴⁹ And the homily on Palm Sunday contains an anaphora introduced by ‘blessed art thou’ (εὐλογημένος εἶ).⁵⁰ Parallelism in the word order could strengthen anaphora's aural effect, as shown by a set of short sentences in the homily on the Burial of Christ.⁵¹ Sometimes anaphora starts with a vocative particle (ὦ/ὤ) and thus constitutes a series of exclamations.⁵² Adopting this device, the imperial orator could create an emotional aural effect and manipulate his audience.

Homoioteleuton is also abundant in Leo's orations. His homily on the Transfiguration II includes an abundance of words ending with του/τοῦ in one short clause.⁵³ The aural effect is further enhanced by the same syntactical structure of these expressions (τοῦ… διά…). In the homily on the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, we can see a double homoioteleuton of the ending -ων/-α, which, however, is slightly relieved by ἀνατροπή.⁵⁴

More interesting is the combination of different aural devices. In the homily on the Resurrection, Leo combined homoioteleuton and anaphora. The first clauses of six successive sentences (with the exception of the third) are introduced by verbs ending with -ουσι/οῦσι or -ωσι, while four of the second clauses begin with καὶ οὐκ. Besides, it is easy to recognize two pairs of parallels (καὶ οὐκ ὀργίζῃ — καὶ οὐκ ἀμνύνῃ; καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέφεις τὸ πρόσωπον — καὶ οὐκ ἀνοίγεις τὸ στόμα).⁵⁵ Parallelisms which enhance the sound effects of the combination of anaphora with homoioteleuton are not unusual, as we can see in two homilies.⁵⁶ The homily delivered on the Feast of St Thomas provides an example of the tighter combination of these two devices. The homoioteleuton of the ending -τε is incorporated into a threefold anaphora of ὁρᾶτε.⁵⁷ In an extreme case, the imperial orator combined not only anaphora with homoioteleuton but also parallelism with chiasmus.⁵⁸

Audience performing in the ‘theatre’

The audience played an essential role in the ‘theatre’. To ensure the success of the discourse, the orator had to take into account the expectations of listeners before composing the text. As Antonopoulou notes: ‘as they were composed to be delivered rather than to be read privately, (these speeches) had to take into consideration, more than the other texts, the target audience because their effectiveness was determined by the influence they had on the public.’⁵⁹ But it is difficult to say how reactions on the part of an audience reflect actual emotions: an assembly, at least formally, is always inclined to eliminate differences and create an illusion of homogeneity.⁶⁰ Furthermore, considering that the emperor's speech was almost always framed within a ritual context, listeners could not react arbitrarily. To some extent, they too played a specific role in the performance; even, we may say, along with the speaker, became actors.⁶¹

Listeners started their performance by dressing in strict accordance with ritual requirements. As reported in the Kletorologion of Philotheos, when Leo VI spoke on the feast of the Decollation of St John the Baptist, courtiers went to the Holy Apostles wearing skaramangia.⁶² When he delivered his speech at the Epiphany banquet, all those in holy orders should wear their white phélônia, while employees of the bureau, cantors and readers their kamisia.⁶³ During the banquet held on the feast of the prophet Elijah where Leo also made an address, the same ceremonial manual stipulated that all guests had to wear formal attire without the chlamys.⁶⁴

When the emperor was about to speak, the audience must remain silent. Even for an orator other than the emperor, the audience's silence was a prerequisite for a successful speech. Niketas the Paphlagonian, in his encomium on St Paul, asked listeners to remain silent.⁶⁵ It follows that the imperial orator had to call for silence even more strictly before starting his own discourse. Since the emperor's speeches always conformed to particular ceremonial settings, the audience's silence was certainly ritualized. As noted above, the emperor delivered his homily at the Beginning of Lent at a silention at the Magnaura. In Byzantium, the term σελεντίον, derived from the Latin silentium that originally means silence, refers to a solemn sitting where the dignitaries assembled and the silentiary, a eunuch, imposed silence in the presence of rulers.⁶⁶ The praipositos who controlled the ritual process might be accompanied by a silentiary, as during the celebration of the Epiphany.⁶⁷ The detailed process of this ceremony also informs us that the sovereign only began his words after everyone had fallen silent.⁶⁸ Although the De Ceremoniis does not speak of other similar occasions, it is reasonable to imagine that the emperor always created a silention before speaking and thus began his address in a quiet atmosphere. In an uproar, the orator sometimes gave up his speech even before delivering it, as Leo VI did when the relics of St Lazarus were arriving at Hagia Sophia.⁶⁹ However, we cannot say that the renunciation implies the emperor's inability to control his audience and the weakness of imperial majesty. During the reign of Leo VI, a particular ideology – the resemblance between the terrestrial king and Christ – would have been deliberately developed within the imperial court. In his ekphrasis of the arrival of the relics of St Lazarus, Arethas considered Leo VI as Christ because he mingled with everyone and was surrounded by a great crowd.⁷⁰ Therefore, it is more appropriate to say that Leo VI changed his mind on his initiative because he believed that, more than an address, a public celebration was effective in propagating his ideology.

Obviously, silence is not always beneficial for the success of an oration: the audience, as Marie-France Auzépy has noted, is easily carried away by the flood of words.⁷¹ We frequently see Leo VI guide his audience to make an active response. A skilful rhetorician, he knew how to arouse the audience's emotion to propagate his political ideas. In many religious speeches, he expressed the desire to rejoice with his audience by using first-person plural imperatives, such as ‘celebrate’ (ἑορτάσωμεν), ‘rejoice’ (εὐφρανθῶμεν), and ‘exult’ (ἀγαλλιασώμεθα).⁷²

Delivering speeches prepared for three particular occasions, Leo VI also called on the audience to react passionately. At the beginning of his homily on the prophet Elijah, the emperor invited listeners to stay with him and share his exultation and thanksgiving.⁷³ In the speech on the consecration of Patriarch Stephen, Leo VI first addressed a group which had a good relationship with him and rejoiced with them.⁷⁴ Then, in a short allocution to his brother, Leo called him to rejoice and enjoy (εὐφραίνου καὶ κατατέρπου).⁷⁵ To commemorate his dead father, Leo also encouraged the audience to rejoice and not to mourn,⁷⁶ despite the fact that tears seem more fitting the occasion.⁷⁷ We see the audience's tears in many rhetorical pieces concerning deceased persons. Three elegies dedicated to Leo VI and Constantine VII asked their audience to cry.⁷⁸ The author of the third monody for Christopher Lekapenos did the same.⁷⁹ Listeners shed tears not only for defunct emperors but also for suffering ones. Skylitzes recorded in his chronicle an investiture speech of Leo: listening to this address given by a gravely ill emperor, senators lamented and regretted the coming loss of such a sovereign.⁸⁰ Moreover, when Leo mentioned his imprisonment in the homily on the prophet Elijah, the audience's mood turned gloomy:

I wish, o congregation of my honourable friends and fathers, that my words could continue longer. For reason, having gladly undergone these trials – for sweet is the experience of pain once deliverance comes – is loath to part with them and considers separation from them to be harm. But I see on your faces, friendly to me, a dark colour (στυγνὸν χρῶμα) which probably is due to your affection for me, and I cannot bear to see you saddened. That is why I believe my words to be sufficient.⁸¹

Powerful emotions could show through acclamations which apparently intended to give the impression of the spontaneous outburst of feeling. They endowed the ‘theatre’ with solemn sound effects and gave performative recognition to the imperial power. In fact, unanimity and unison was deemed evidence not only of the audience's loyalty but also of the divine inspiration.⁸² At the beginning of Lent, the people, at a sign from the praipositos, had to pray for the sovereign before and after his address.⁸³ In the sermon on the Annunciation, Leo VI repeatedly called on his audience to ‘utter a cry’ (βοῶμεν).⁸⁴ The shift from acclamation to silence demonstrates the imperial ability to wield control over sound. Although not always silent, the audience could only enunciate certain formalized words or phrases at the appointed times. Such expressions combined various rhetorical strategies and could create impressive sound effects in the ‘theatre’. The acclamations recited at a silention include homoioteleuton of the ending -ων/ῶν, anaphora of ὁ δεῖνα καὶ ὁ δεῖνα and that of υἱὲ Θεοῦ, and epiphora of πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη.⁸⁵

Mise-en-scène of Leo VI's speeches

The various special occasions or religious festivals to which Leo VI dedicated his speeches were celebrated with complex and solemn ceremony. Although the De Ceremoniis presents ideal regulations rather than actual situations, the Byzantine court was undoubtedly attached to pomp. Even if an emperor was temporarily absent on the front, a smaller court might accompany him to ensure the uninterrupted organization of ceremonies.⁸⁶ In this case, it is necessary to interpret the emperor's speeches within relevant ritual frames.

The venue of the oration is the first factor governing the performative. Leo VI gave most of his speeches in churches in Constantinople, notably Hagia Sophia. Unfortunately, sermons delivered in the Great Church include no description of the scene before the listeners’ eyes. But Arethas, in his speech delivered on the anniversary of the translation of the relics of St. Lazarus, provides some clues, recalling the lighting in Hagia Sophia.⁸⁷ It is quite possible that the emperor too manipulated lights, natural or artificial, to amaze his listeners and make them experience his majesty. In fact, lamps and candles were vital elements in almost all ceremonies.⁸⁸ The emperor was well aware of the effect of a splendid building on the audience, as he indicated in his sermon for the consecration of a church in the Kauleas monastery.⁸⁹

In the second most important church in Constantinople, the Holy Apostles, the emperor would have delivered the funeral oration to his parents on the second anniversary of the death of Basil I,⁹⁰ 29 August. On this day, according to the Kletorologion of Philotheos, the emperor had to visit this church with great pomp and organize a banquet in the Triklinos of Justinian to commemorate his father.⁹¹ Compared to the Triklinos of Justinian, the Church of the Holy Apostles was a more suitable space for this speech. In this church lay the sarcophagus of Basil I and Eudocia;⁹² it is highly probable that a funeral oration was delivered near the tomb. Moreover, unless the text read at church was shorter, and what we possess represents a complete version published for official reasons, this work seems too long for a banquet speech: all ninth- and tenth-century addresses of this genre are relatively short.

A newly built church could draw the audience's attention more easily than Hagia Sophia and Holy Apostles that people regularly attended. In his sermon on the consecration of a church in the Kauleas monastery, the imperial orator, quoting the proverb of Solomon, juxtaposed the praise for righteousness and that for the dedication of a church which could both bring joy to people.⁹³ What followed was an ekphrasis of this church that could guide the audience to contemplate its greatness. The discourse dedicated to the consecration of a shrine erected by Stylianos also contains a detailed description of its structure and decoration.⁹⁴ We see in both speeches a combination of word and spectacle: as Leo said himself, ‘but let words go around this work in the company of the eyes’.⁹⁵ The emperor did not multiply epithets to qualify the magnificence of these buildings but invited the audience to feel their beauty personally. The speech served to control the sights of listeners and determined the sequence of visits, and the performance, in turn, could make a speech easier to understand.

Palaces were venues where the emperor could address a more limited audience. As we have noted several times, on the Monday of the first week of Lent, the emperor delivered a speech at a silention at the Magnaura. Though not described in detail by any source, this palace was so magnificent that it offered a spectacle capable of astonishing the diplomat Liudprand of Cremona.⁹⁶ Solomon's throne was without question the most precious object in this hall. Placed at the back and separated from the rest of the space by a barrier, this luxuriously decorated throne could easily catch the eye of spectators. The Chrysotriklinos, where Leo VI delivered his banquet speeches on the prophet Elijah and St Demetrios, surpassed all other parts of the Great Palace in its grandeur and magnificence.⁹⁷ The most prominent visual element in this room was an image of Christ seated on the throne. In the Triklinos of the 19 Couches, Leo VI delivered a speech at the Epiphany banquet. According to Liudprand, this hall was ‘of a wondrous height and beauty’,⁹⁸ although no source can provide a more detailed description.⁹⁹

The venues were of great significance for speeches not only because they could astonish spectators with magnificent structures and elaborate decorations, but also because they allowed the emperor to manipulate space for the display of his sovereignty. No source mentions the spatial arrangements when the emperor made addresses at churches, but the title of a homily on the Epiphany indicates that it was very likely delivered from the holy altar in Hagia Sophia (ὁμιλία ῥηθεῖσα … νεοτεύκτου περιβολῆς τῇ θείᾳ προσενηνεγμένης τραπέζῃ).¹⁰⁰ Ascending the dais, Leo would have been in full view of his audience.¹⁰¹ The choreographed positioning of the orator and his audience in other palaces is much more explicit. On the Monday of the first week of Lent, Leo spoke from the top step of stairs at the Magnaura while the audience stood in two lines from the top step to the bottom.¹⁰² We do not know the precise position of the imperial seat at two banquets held in the Chrysotriklinos, but, logically, the emperor and the image of Christ were in the same line. When Leo VI spoke, the audience who looked at him simultaneously noticed the sacred figure. The Escorial Taktikon recorded the Easter banquet held in the same hall. On this occasion, the emperor sat alone at a small imperial table, placed in the eastern apse containing the image of Christ.¹⁰³ At all events, other tables were inferior to the imperial table (αἱ κάτω τράπεζαι).¹⁰⁴ As for the situation in the Triklinos of the 19 Couches, the emperor spoke in the apse where the imperial table was located, dominating the room and surrounded by the other eighteen tables aligned in two columns. And at the imperial table, the emperor was surrounded by twelve metropolitan bishops, mirroring Jesus and his disciples.¹⁰⁵ In all these cases, the spatial arrangements helped manifest strict hierarchy and the emperor's superiority.

The spectacles embracing Leo's speeches were not only visual but also aural. Besides the audience's acclamations, the orator often made addresses in a musical atmosphere. In general, music was indispensable to court ceremonies.¹⁰⁶ At the beginning of the speech on the consecration of Patriarch Stephen, Leo asked the choir to sing.¹⁰⁷ There were also cantors at the Epiphany banquet during which the emperor most likely delivered a sermon. Philotheos, although not mentioning Leo's speech, referred twice to the musical aspect of the occasion. When the dishes called touldia were offered, two servants of the Great Church entered the room with singers and orphans who would invite ‘all participants to sing in chorus an antiphonal melody’.¹⁰⁸ Once the song ended, they brought in the four most famous servants of the Great Church who would sing along with all present.¹⁰⁹

It is noteworthy that in his homily on the Presentation of the Virgin, the emperor mentioned a choir composed of young girls and invited the audience to participate in it.¹¹⁰ In another homily on the Birth of the Virgin, Leo VI also mentioned such a choir.¹¹¹ Despite the correspondence between these young girls and pure daughters of the Hebrews in the Protoevangelium of James,¹¹² this reference is not likely to be a simple diegesis. Women singers were not absent from Byzantium. Corippus mentioned a choir of virgins in Justinian's funeral procession.¹¹³ In the eighth-ninth-century Narratio de S. Sophia, Justinian is attested as having given two convents as domiciles for female singers.¹¹⁴ Michael Psellos, in a letter addressed to Constantine, sebastos and nephew of the Patriarch Michael Keroularios, spoke of the chantresses (αἱ ἀντᾴδουσαι).¹¹⁵ Anna Komnene said that his father, following Solomon's example, had appointed male and female singers to the Church of St Paul.¹¹⁶ The Timarion told us that nuns, divided into two choirs, participated in the Vespers of the forefeast of St Demetrios in Thessalonike.¹¹⁷

Byzantine architects designed buildings with acoustics very much in mind. It is true that the soundscape of Byzantium is indeed lost, and due to the collapse of many churches and palaces in which Leo VI delivered his speeches, it is hard to reconstruct their influence on sound effects precisely. However, studies on the acoustics of Hagia Sophia and a few churches in Thessaloniki could give us some ideas.¹¹⁸ Although churches create different sound effects according to their size, structure and decoration, they generally prolong the reverberation and amplify the sound but lower the clarity and intelligibility of words. Orations delivered in them by Leo VI would be semantically weakened but ritually reinforced. The echoes arrived from different directions, thus creating a heavenly and solemn atmosphere and demonstrating imperial might.

Smell likewise was an indispensable element for the ‘theatre of power’. Hagia Sophia and other churches in Constantinople where Leo VI delivered many of his speeches were filled with pleasant odours.¹¹⁹ Palaces too resorted to fragrances. In accordance with the De Ceremoniis, the eparch of the City had to adorn the imperial exit of the Chrysotriklinos with ‘ivy, laurel, myrtle, rosemary, and a variety of fragrant flowers that the season offers’.¹²⁰ The Book of the Eparch assigned a particular location to perfumers’ counters in order that the scent could permeate the vestibule of the imperial palace.¹²¹ Even for a temporary court stationed on the battlefield, perfumes were indispensable.¹²²

Conclusion

Just as religious rituals offered a multisensory experience to participants,¹²³ Leo VI's speeches created a ‘theatre of power’ to persuade his audience and manifest his supreme authority. Although the emperor delivered his addresses in various places, and we cannot reconstruct with certainty all these ‘theatres’, there were some common characteristics since the public appearance of the emperor was always carefully choreographed. When Leo VI communicated with his listeners to convince them to approve of his interpretations, the grandiose spectacle also played a part. Sparkling lights, fragrances, embellishments and beautiful sounds led the audience to an emotional experience of the greatness of imperial power over and above any intellectual understanding of imperial ideology. Throughout this process, listeners were not passive witnesses but active participants interacting with the emperor, the protagonist in the ‘theatre’.