In this article, Garland describes family life in Byzantine monasteries, with a particular focus on mother-daughter relationships in convents. She provides an overview of life in monastic institutions with particular attention paid to the typika of these institutions.
Garland begins by noting that women’s monastic institutions are under-represented in Byzantine sources. However, both male and female monastic institutions were “clearly modelled on family groupings” (30). They were quite small and often attracted members from close-knit communities, including blood families. Convents were particularly close to their family origins; unlike the far-flung male monasteries, female monastic institutions were “expected to be settled in a civilised region, … indeed often on family estates” (32). In fact, Garland notes that many women took monastic vows in order to join a female relative who was already a nun. Some even joined the monastic life with their entire family, splitting along gender lines. Couples split fairly frequently, especially after the death of a child. More material motives were also common; Garland says that some monastic institutions were established with “the clearly stated aim of setting up a family property trust and private retirement home” (36) while some people took vows at the end of their lives “in the hope of gaining additional ‘brownie points’ towards salvation” (33).
Garland next examines the typika of five convents founded between 1110 and 1310 in Constantinople. The founders were all imperial women, and Garland believes that four of the five typika “may well have been the work of the founders themselves” (37). Garland traces the influence from earlier typika to later founding documents. For instance, when Theodora Palaiologina refounded Constantine Lips she relied on the previous typikon of Theotokos Kecharitomene. Theodora also restored the Anagyroi monastery along similar lines. Perhaps the most remarkable typikon is that of Christ Philanthropos Soter, which was founded by Irene Choumnaina Palaiologina when she was only 16. Irene was later joined by her parents, who died in the monastery. Garland next mentions a sixth typikon, the only other extant for a Byzantine convent and notable because it was composed in 1400 for an institution in Crete.
In all cases, the typika outline a clear hierarchy. The imperial women “celebrate their status” and reserve significant privileges for themselves and their family. For example, Irene Choumnaina “complained to her adviser Theoleptos that … she did not possess a suitable retinue or equipage, while she even irritated the patriarch by her superciliousness” (41). Indeed, the typika often laid out clear roles for different nuns (including “working” nuns) and also imposed strict punishments on those who didn’t toe the line. In sum, the convents replicated on a small scale “the structure and occupations of aristocratic households” (45). Furthermore, many typika prioritized the commemoration of the founders and their “past, present and future family members” (41). One strategy of commemoration was to order that the typikon be “studied by the inmates of the convent on an equal footing with the Scriptures and the Lives of female saints” (42). Garland analyzes orders like these to reveal the importance of both gendered ideology and literacy in convents. Reading was ordered at all times, including at meals and while performing domestic tasks. Libraries are not explicitly mentioned in the typika, but Garland suggests that the founders may have stocked them themselves. Perhaps the most interesting of Garland’s insights is that “despite their authoritarian and almost arrogant exposition of their own merits and status, the founders pay ‘lip service’ to stereotypes of themselves and their nuns as ‘weak women’, sinners, and in need of protection as a result of their sex” (44). Common gendered phrases and images are present in the typika. Furthermore, relationships are often conceived as explicitly gendered – especially as a mother addressing her daughter. Even the decorations of the convent and its church were explicitly female, often including primarily female saints and rituals like birth, baptism, and wedding that were particularly “feminine.”
Garland concludes by posing an interesting question: just why were convents so attractive, especially to aristocrats? The answer she suggests is that female monastic institutions largely duplicated the functions of the imperial household, including family life and a strict hierarchy. Relatives of the imperial women who founded convents were highly favored, and their own reputations were also heightened. At the same time, women now had more autonomy to live and worship together, exploring their own talents and interests. Byzantine monastic institutions were centered on the family and the continuation of life outside the institution.
Garland’s research is fascinating and quite detailed. Still, I felt that there was too little theory integrated into her arguments. Especially with regards to the hierarchy and gender ideologies expressed in the typika, I couldn’t help but wonder how a feminist or Marxist scholar would approach this material. It seems the field is open for provocative analysis.