Eudokia

Intro ...

(1067)

CONSTANTINOPLE

Eudocia (1067). AV Histamenon nomisma. Constantinople mint. Sear 1857.

Obv: + ıᖹꜱ xıꜱ ʀєx ʀєςɴᴀɴᴛınm. Christ enthroned facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, and raising right hand in benediction, in left hand book of Gospels; double border.

Rev: + mıx єᴠΔᴋ ᴋωɴs. Eudocia (center), Michael (left) and Constantine (right), all standing facing; the empress on footstool, wearing crown, saccos and loros, and holding jewelled scepter; her sons, Michael and Constantine are also wearing crown, saccos and loros, each holding globus cruciger and akakia; double border.

…

Eudocia (1067). AV Tetarteron nomisma. Constantinople mint. Sear 1858.

Obv: + ⲑᴋє ʀᴏʜⲑ. Bust of the Virgin facing, wearing pallium and maphorium, and holding before her the infant Christ (nimbate head facing); on either side, ᴍᴘ—ⲑᴠ.

Rev: + єᴠΔᴏᴋıᴀ ꜱ ᴍıxᴀʜᴧ ʀᴄ. Facing busts of Eudocia (left) and Michael, beardless (right), both crowned, holding between them long cross; empress wearing jewelled robe, her son Michael wearing loros.

…

BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY

The constitutional complications of the years 1067-71 arose in part out of Constantine X’s provisions for the succession, in part out of the ambitions of his widow Eudocia. The emperor had four sons—Michael (VI), a boy whose name is unknown and who died young, Andronicus, and Constantius or Constantine—the first three being born before his accession and only the last being a Porphyrogenitus? Eudocia was probably created Augusta on the first convenient occasion after Constantine X’s own accession, i.e. in 1059. Constantius was created Augustus shortly after his birth in 1060, Michael a little later. One might expect Constantius to have been the senior in dignity, since he was both born in the purple and the first to be crowned, but in the text of Eudocia’s oath of 1067 and in the dating clauses of South Italian charters of Eudocia's regency Michael is always named before his brother, and it is probable that he was formally promoted to the senior position when he was crowned. The third brother, Andronicus, was associated co-emperor by Romanus IV, probably at the time of his accession, since he appears on all the histamena of the reign. The fact that he ever held the imperial dignity at all is pointedly and no doubt deliberately ignored by Psellus, but the evidence of Scylitzes and Attaleiates, of charters, and of the coins is on this point quite clear.

The death of Constantine X in May 1067 left Eudocia as Augusta in her own right and regent on behalf of her sons. This situation lasted for seven months, til it became evident that circumstances required someone more competent than either Michael or her advisors in charge of affairs. In December, despite her solemn promise to her late husband that she would not marry again, she resolved to marry Romanus Diogenes, a distinguished soldier many years younger than herself, and on 1 January 1068 Romanus IV became emperor as Eudocia’s husband. Although he undertook to respect the rights of her children and his constitutional inferiority is to some extent reflected in his coins, he was effectively ruler til his defeat and capture at Manzikert on 26 August 1071. When the first confused news of this disaster reached Constantinople it was agreed that Eudocia and her sons should exercise power jointly, and when the further news of Romanus’ release arrived it was resolved, on the advice of the Caesar John Ducas, to resist his attempt to recover his position. Letters were sent out to the provinces instructing them on no account to recognize the defeated emperor. But Michael was as little prepared to tolerate the control of his mother as he was that of his stepfather, and after a month of joint rule, from late September to late October, he was proclaimed autocrator, and Eudocia was dispatched to a monastery and compelled to take vows of religion. Romanus maintained the unequal struggle against Michael until the spring of 1072, when he was forced to surrender, and was blinded with such cruelty that he died shortly afterward (4 August).

COINAGE

The two periods in which Eudocia could conceivably have occupied the leading position on the coins are therefore the months May - December 1067 and September - October 1071, though coins of the later period would be unlikely in view of its brevity and the un- certainty of the constitutional situation. One well-known group of histamena exists in which she takes precedence of two of her children, and there is also a tetarteron on which she is associated with Michael VII and takes precedence of him.

The first coins are those histamena having on the obverse a seated figure of Christ and on the reverse the figure of Eudocia standing on a cushion between her two sons Michael and Constantius. According to regular imperial protocol, when three co-emperors are shown standing together and the one in the middle is a woman, precedence as between the two others belongs to the one on the spectator’s left, and so, in this case, to Michael as against Constantius. De Saulcy was of the opinion that the coins should be ascribed to the period after Manzikert, while Wroth attributed them to the regency of 1067. There can be no doubt that this is correct. The coins are too common for an issue lasting barely a month, and in September 1067 it would have been difficult to ignore the fact that Andronicus was technically a co-emperor with his brothers. The fineness of such specimens as have been tested is also about 17 ½ carats, which would correspond better to 1067 than to 1071.

A detail of particular interest in the design of these histamena is the first appearance of what Hendy terms a loros-waist, a decorated panel on the front of the wearer's body where the fold of the loros passes across in front of his body to hang over his outstretched arm. It occurs only on the effigies of the two youthful figures on the reverse and the decoration is a quite simple one of five pellets, intended as ⚄, but with the pellets irregularly placed, since the panel is flattened and highly angular, and has not yet assumed the almost square shape it was to acquire in the future. Up to this time the fold of the loros had not been differentiated from the rest of the garment, and this new way of treating it, in the form of a distinctively designed panel, was to play an important role in twelfth century coinage. Also very conspicuous, but not quite a novelty, is the kite-shaped panel on the lower part of Eudocia’s loros which forms a notable feature of eleventh- century female costume.

The tetarteron is known from a single specimen in the former Prince Cantacuzene collection, sold in London in 1922. Its present whereabouts is unknown to me, but the coin is fortunately illustrated and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. The obverse is a bust of the Virgin, in all respects like that of the tetartera of Romanus IV and Michael VII. The reverse is basically the same as that of Class I of Michael VII, with two facing busts, but their positions are reversed, the one on the left being female and that on the right male and beardless, while the inscription is +ЄVΔ[OK]IA SMIXAHΛRC, i.e. Eὐδoκὶα καὶ Mιχαηλ βασιλεῖς. The sale catalogue dated it 1071 and Goodacre believed it to have been struck in the month following Manzikert. This would fit in well with the sequence of types, but there was a very marked decline in the quality of lettering on the tetartera of this period, and the high standard occurring on this coin, as well as the greater length of time involved, makes me prefer the earlier date. It would be very surprising if Eudocia’s issue of tetartera in 1067 were unaccompanied by a corresponding one of histamena, and the difference in type from the histamena of 1067—and the omission of Constantius—would be natural consequences of the smaller size of the flan.

Mr. Whitting published in 1949 another rather similar tetarteron in his collection in which the positions of the male and female figures had also been reversed, and queried whether it might not belong to 1071. This is out of the question. The type corresponds to that of Michael VII's Class III, which belongs to the late 1070's, and Mr. Whitting failed to note that the inscription and not merely the type had also been reversed from left to right, so that it reads, backward, +MIXAHΛ CM[. The coin belongs, in fact, to a class of faults produced when a die-sinker has inadvertently copied a coin directly for his die instead of making the necessary inversion of inscription and type. This kind of error occurs from time to time in all coin series, and does not merit any particular attention.

The question has been raised by Oikonomidés as to whether Endocia was formally autocrator during her regency, or whether she merely acted in this capacity without actually holding the title. That she did the latter, while being careful to associate her sons in all that she did, is admitted by all, but in his view she was never fully autocrator. To the arguments he adduces one may add that of the order of precedence on her histamena if she had been fully autocrator, one might expect to see Michael, as next in rank, on the right, and Constantius on the left. Against it is the clear title on the tetarteron just discussed and its order of precedence, for on coins of previous regencies—Irene for Constantine VI, Zoe for Irene—the regent had taken second place to her son. Against it also are the dating clauses of South Italian charters, where Eudocia’s name always takes precedence over those of her children and she is often the only one to receive the imperial title While I suspect that he may be formally correct, the distinction is one that would have passed unnoticed by most of her subjects and probably by most of her court. She was as nearly emperor as made no matter.

(from DOC vol. lll)

Coinage