the official cuit of the Virgin began before the sixth
Century and thus refuting the concept of its later
beginnings.23 At least one can assert that the shrine
in Blachernai obtained importance by the reign of
Justin I (518 — 527) who erected a big basilica at the
site. One of the most important public Speeches on
Virgin was given in St. Sophia, the imperial church
of Constantinople, by Proklus, an outstanding pulpit
orátor, in 430. His homily was praising the tide of
Theotokos, bringing to listeners whole range of asso-
ciations and metaphors for Mary, such as the Ark,
New Eve, Temple of Solomon, Unopened Gâte etc.,
which will become standard imagery in homelitic
literatuře.24 Proclus worked passionately to promote
the rising cult of the “Godbearing Virgin” grounding
his teaching on historical, theological and philologi-
cal approaches that was embodied in the exceptional
panegyrical sermon. His conscious attempt to align
Trinitarian theology and Christology guided him to
the teaching of the role of Theotokos as one of the
defining moment in the history of Christianity.
A special relationship in supporting and spread-
ing dévotion to Mary was enforced by imperial
family in the fifth and sixth centuries, which was
the formative period of Mary’s iconography. Some
empresses’ strong dévotion to Mary was in Early
Byzantium equated with power, prestige and author-
ity. This is primarily related to the role of empresses
Pulcheria (399 — 453), Eudokia (401 — 460) and
Verina (died 484) who had a particular dévotion to
Mary, who was considered the light on the way of
their pious and pure lives, and to who they devoted
shrines in Constantinople introducing Mary in the

23 CAMERON, A.: The Virgin’s Robe. In: Ryqantion, 49, 1979,
p. 45. For yet another approach, see much debated article
by BAYNES, N. H.: The Finding of the Virgin’s Robe. In:
Ryqanline Studies and Other Essays. Ed. N. H. BAYNES. London
1955.
24 CONSTAS 2003 (see in note 8); CONSTAS, N. P.: Weaving
the Body of God: Proclus of Constantinople, the Theotokos
and the Loom of the Flesh. In: Journalof Early Christian Studies,
3,1995, No. 2, pp. 169-194.
25 HOLUM, K.: Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Domi-
nation in Eate Antiquity. Berkeley 1982.
26 LIMBERIS, V.: Divine Heiress. The Virgin Mary and the Creation
of Christian Constantinople. London 1994. It is interesting to

imperial ceremonies and, therefore, in the public
sphere endorsed by the imperial family.25 Ideal of
virginity and purity, which was defined as guidelines
for young women, Pulcheria used to accentuate her
position on the court, presenting herseif as a “bride
of Christ” which, according to some researchers,
tied her relationship with Mary as her représenta-
tive on earth, in a way as the emperor was Christ’s
représentative.26 However, studies suggest that all this
is only hypothetical and very problematic. Pulcheria’s
involvement with the relies of Mary and her shrines
are subjected to severe criticism. The foundation of
churches in Blachernai and Chalkoprateia as well as
the discovery of the Virgin’s robe are linked to the
emperor Leo (457 — 474) and empress Verina, while
the church in Hodegoi appears in sources only in
the ninth Century.27 The relationship of Byzantine
empresses with Mary in the early period is still dif-
ficult to define but there are records in several written
sources about spécifie situations in which empresses
turned to the Virgin for help. When Basiliscus became
emperor in 475, he attempted to murder his sister Ve-
rina, who sought shelter in Balchernai and remained
there until Basiliscus died. Among the female, or
better, couple imperial dedications of churches in
Constantinople from the fifth to the eighth Century,
only the ones in Blachernai and Chalkoprateia are
mentioned. Rather, greater presence of Mary in the
liturgical texts, imperial ceremony and dedication
of churches is noted from the sixth Century under
the patronage of emperors.28 In the writings of So-
zomen, a highly educated man of Constantinople,
in the 440s, there were no mention of the churches
study in this context the relationship between Pulcheria and
Nestorius, and his refusai to award the title of Theotokos to
Mary, what brings him into direct conflict with Pulcheria and,
finally, to his exile. His Statement was interpreted as an attack
on the empress and the threat to her authority. — COOPER,
K.: Contesting the Nativity: Wives, Virgins and Pulcheria’s
Imitatio Mariae. In: Scottish Journalof Religions Studies, 19,1998,
pp. 31-43.
27 BAYNES 1955 (see in note 23); MANGO 1998 (see in note
21), pp. 61-76.
28 JAMES, L.: The Empress and the Virgin in Early Byzantium:
Piety, Authority, Devotion. In: Images of the Mother of God (see
in note 9), 2005, pp. 145-152.

8