102

Boeck

Chapter 4

Archaeology of Decadence: Uncovering Byzantium

in Victorien Sardous Theodora
Elena Boeck

Born in the hovel,

bred in the hippodrome,
Theodora graced the throne.1

Victorien Sardous Theodora (first staged in 1884) introduced mass audiences

to Byzantium and literally created Byzantine realities for its spectators. In the
process of selling scandal, murder, intrigue, grand spectacle, opulent costumes,
and dangerous liaisons, the seductive performance of Byzantine decadence
actively shaped indexical, iconic, and ontological frameworks for the Byzantine empire within Euro-American visual and cultural discourse. Acclaimed as
the greatest spectacle of the nineteenth century, the play also became a major
bane for scholars of Byzantine studies. Contemporary experts defended their
discipline by disputing the authenticity of Sardous recreated Byzantium.
Theodora actively participated in both academic and popular discourses at
the time of Byzantiums modern rediscoveryit introduced Byzantium and its
1 I would like to thank the conference organizers Roland Betancourt and Maria Taroutina for
their invitation to participate in the excellent conference Byzantium/Modernism: Art,
Cultural Heritage, and the Avant-Gardes (Yale University, April 2012) and for organizing this
edited volume. My sincere gratitude to the staff of the Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton
Library, and the Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas, Austin, for granting access
to their archival materials. I would also like to thank Robert S. Nelson for his role in building
the impressive collection of nineteenth-century French publications devoted to the rediscovery of Byzantium for the Regenstein library of the University of Chicago. Bob Ousterhout
joyfully brought Sardous play back to life at the Byzantine Studies Conference in 2011 by
performing a scene as Justinian to Carol Symess Theodora. Last, but not least, I am as always
grateful to Brian Boeck for his unswerving support, critical feedback, and patient proofreading. Unless otherwise noted, translations from French are mine. Souvenir program, Lilian
Olcott in Sardous Theodora, 8. Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas, Austin,
Bernhardt Collection, Box 4.8.

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015|doi 10.1163/9789004300019_006

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

103

most famous empress to numerous nineteenth-century audiences, while its

author claimed absolute archaeological verity and authenticity for his re-
created empire. The following discussion will analyze Sardous contribution to
the epistemological categorization of the Byzantine empire. The play actively
participated in positioning Byzantium within an established system of knowledge. Was it Greek or Roman, familiar or hybrid, barbaric or civilized, Oriental
or another Other? The acclaimed authenticity of the imperial spectacle directly contributed to discourse about Byzantiums place in the system of established knowledge, as well as to its moral and cultural categorization within
historical narratives. The play also played a prominent role in securing Byzantium an enduring place in modernitys cabinet of historical curiosities.
Theodora of the Nineteenth-Century: Collaboration on Iconic Decadence between Victorien Sardou and Sarah Bernhardt
Numerous discursive dichotomies converge in the person of the courtesan
empress, whose life, as maliciously constructed by Procopius in the Secret History, was introduced to French readers in 1856.2 Instead of reconciling these
dichotomies, Sardou reveled in them. At once classical and oriental, civilized
and savage, tender and cruel, sophisticated and primitive, Theodoras pedagogical body revealed all.3
Theodora was the most successful collaboration between Victorien Sardou
and the tremendously celebrated actress Sarah Bernhardt.4 Bernhardts sensational turn as the empress Theodora opened in Paris December 26, 1884, and
had an unprecedented run of 257 consecutive performances.5 (Fig. 4.1) This
success was followed by a world tour, a revival of the play by Bernhardt in 1902,
and multiple imitations on stage, and later, on film. (Fig. 4.2) Theodora has also
2 Fr. A. Isambert, Anekdota, ou Histoire secrte de Justinien, traduite de Procope (Paris, 1856). For
more on the translation of Procopius in nineteenth-century Europe, see Silvia Ronchey, La
femme fatale, source dune byzantinologie austre, in Byzance en Europe, ed. Marie-France
Auzpy (Paris, 2003), 169, n. 2. For an excellent discussion of the revival of interest in Byzantium
in nineteenth-century French print and intellectual culture, see Charles Diehl, Les tudes
Byzantines en France au XIXe sicle, in his tudes Byzantines (Paris, 1905), 2137.
3 The term pedagogical bodies is used by Mark B. Sandberg, Living Pictures, Missing Persons:
Mannequins, Museums, and Modernity (Princeton, 2003), 21. In a discussion of wax museums
he states: these pedagogical bodies achieved their impression of solidity in part through
elaborate theatrical staging effects that helped them to pass as living bodies of real
substance.
4 Bernhardt had an astounding knack for publicity and conspicuous consumption. By the time
of Theodora, Bernhardt was recovering from various flops and financial miscalculations, and
needed to revive her career and coffers.
5 Ticket sales amounted to over 1,654,000 francs. Jerome A. Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays
(Philadelphia; London, 1913), 95.

104

Figure 4.1 Publicity poster for the 1884 staging of Thodora.

Boeck

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

Figure 4.2 Cover illustration of Le Thatre for the 1902 revival of Thodora.

105

106

Boeck

been acclaimed as Bernhardts best performance. Aside from her artistic allurements, Bernhardt shared scandalous biographical elements with the former courtesan Theodora. This piquant detail titillated audiences and lent the
performance a biographical and authoritative air.
Theodoras prodigious success was primarily propelled by its spectacular,
celebrated recreations of Byzantiumfrom the loves and lives of its protagonists, to the evocative sets and exotic costumes. The grand spectacle tapped
directly into the broader fashionable interests of the time: eroticism and historicism.6 The unprecedented complexity of the spectacle, sets, costumes, and
massive stage presence of hundreds of supporting characters was a daring innovation that transformed the presentation of mass spectacle to popular audiences.7
Before analyzing the ontological and epistemological discourses of Byzantium that Victorien Sardou engaged in, let us first briefly discuss Sardou and
the plot of his decadent play. Victorien Sardou had a distinct nose for fashion,
sensation, and marketing. By the time he turned his gaze to Byzantium, he had
been wowing Parisian audiences with numerous historicizing productions for
decades.8 He was acclaimed as the greatest dramatic artisan of the epoch,9
6 According to Richard Bretell, a crucial strand of Salon aesthetics during the first decades of
the Third Republic (18711940): Jules Joseph Lefebvres Odalisque exemplifies Salon eroticism,
and Jean Lon Grmes Chariot Race typifies Salon historicism. Richard R. Bretell, French
Salon Artists, 18001900 (Chicago, New York, 1987), 99.
7 Publicity materials for the play consistently enumerate the types of characters who appear in
mass scenes. For instance, a clipping from a London newspaper of 1890 advertises Theodora
as a Play in six acts, adapted from Sardous masterpiece. After naming 32 characters and
listing the names of the actors, it concludes with the list of characters in mass scenes: Officers.
Lords-in-Waiting, Ostiaries, Scholars of the Emperors Body Guard, Goths, Slaves, Servants,
Eunuchs, Nubian Dancing Girls, Fan Bearers, Maids of Honour, Ladies-in-Waiting, and Incense
Bearers. Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas, Austin, Bernhardt Collection, Box
8.18.
8 The range of historical periods and geographical spaces evoked in his plays is astoundingly
extensive. The following sample list will illustrate the point: Patrie! (1869set in sixteenthcentury Holland), Le roi Carotte (1872set in various locations, including Pompeii before and
during the eruption of Vesuvius), LOncle Sam (1873set in the United States, on a steamboat), Fdora (1882set in Russia), La Tosca (1887set in Italy), Cloptre (1890set in
Egypt), Thermidor (1891set in France during the French Revolution), Gismonda (1894set
in fifteenth-century Athens), La Sorcire (1903set in sixteenth-century Spain), LAffaire des
poisons (1907set in France, during the reign of Louis XIV). For a complete list of his body of
work, see Aline Marchadier, Bibliographie de Victorien Sardou, in Victorien Sardou, un sicle
plus tard, ed. Guy Ducrey (Strasbourg, 2007), 40512.
9 Blanche Roosevelt, Victorien Sardou: Poet, Author, and Member of the Academy of France: A
Personal Study (London, 1892), 81.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

107

and Napoleon of the dramatic arts (qualified as the young and victorious
Napoleon).10 He became a very rich man, was loved by the masses, and scorned
by the intellectuals such as Bernard Shaw.11 What is particularly pertinent for
this discussion is that Sardou cultivated an image of a scholar and intellectual,
engaging in thorough historical research for the writing and staging of his
plays.12 He was called a man of deep historical research and a certain literary
attainment.13 He was also a man in complete control of his stage productions,
coordinating and overseeing the staging, sets, and movement of the performers on stage by articulating the movement and development of each scene in
sketchbooks, frame by frame, similar to the manner in which a cartoonist
would have worked in the twentieth century:
The amazing mise en scne book, a huge volume in itself, which contains
scarcely a word of dialogue, is like a generals plan of campaign. Every
movement, every gesture, almost every thought that the player is to
reproduce, is designated in fullthe furniture, the walls, the doors, the
windows, all have their role clearly marked out. This is the most wonderful book I have ever seen, and shows the trouble the maitre takes over his
plays. It is an inductive sort of study, and demonstrates, even more than
the completed drama, the perfection of the completed dramatic scenario. This scenario, as he calls it, is an absolutely speaking score; and
once, when submitting a scene to M. Sardou, I complained of not finding
some words I wanted. He smiled grimly, and said: Le geste fait naitre la
parole, trouvez le geste, et vous en aurez mme de trop.14
10
11

12

13
14

Victorien Sardou, Thodora, LIllustration Thatrale: Journal dactualits dramatiques,

September 7, 1907, i.
Shaw termed Sardous spectacles Sardoodledom. See Phyllis Hartnoll, ed., The Oxford
Companion to the Theatre (London, 1951), 701. Shaw called Theodora a vile degradation of
the actress, of the stage, of the drama, and of the playgoing public. Quoted in Michel W.
Pharand, The Siren on the Rock: Bernard Shaw vs. Sarah Bernhardt, Shaw 18 (1998): 34.
Later, the Sardou spectacle would be associated with the bourgeois spectacle: Theodora
obviously presaged the bourgeois theatre so much derided by Brecht, what Roland
Barthes called the debauch of imitation, which achieved pandemonium of costume.
The Diseases of Costume, trans. Richard Howard (Evanston, Ill., 1972), 42.
Jerome Hart, writing just a few years after Sardous death, noted: The selection of such a
subject as Justinian, Theodora, and the Byzantine Court afforded an unique opportunity
for spectacular effects, and also enabled Sardou to indulge his taste for historical and
archaeological research. But he did not escape severe criticism on this very score Hart,
Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 94.
Roosevelt, Victorien Sardou, 9.
Ibid., 3536.

108

Boeck

Sardou also had a keen nose for changes in fashion and in the publics taste:
Sardou is a barometer dramatist, rising and falling with the weather, as it
changes or is about to change.15 He built his own legend with successful exaggerations and appropriations: he was in the company of Baron Haussmann
when his old flat was destroyed by the wrecking ball of Haussmanns modernity,16
for his summer residence he built a house in Nice that looked like a medieval
castle, while during the year he resided in Marly, having restored a residence of
the French kings and decorated it with statues of sphinxes.
For Theodora Sardou insistently claimed complete archaeological verity,
thorough knowledge of scholarship, and exhaustive research. As we will see
below, these declarations, his reputation as a savant, and the breathtaking success of the grand, revisionist spectacle caused a great deal of consternation to
scholars. Because Sardou was credited with introducing Byzantium to wide audiences for the first time, he literally constructed the material world of the
empire and shaped the subsequent discourse:
In 1884, few but professional scholars knew much about Byzantium.
When Duquesnel [the manager of the production] read the names of the
personages of the play he was quite taken back. What a singular epoch!
he exclaimed with a not unnatural distrust. Justinian! Byzantium! It
made one rather think of the institutes than of an historical drama. Sardou was at that time almost the only author in Paris who had studied the
period in detail.17
The play, the star, and the author contributed to the construction of modernitys image of Byzantium. They were simultaneously reactive and proactive
they built on the established foundations of knowledge, they concocted from
some known facts and layers of fiction. In the process, they also actively constructed discourse of a novel empire to the public at large. Sardous Theodora
participated in and contributed to the discovery of Byzantium. Rome was not
15

16
17

Brander Matthews, French Dramatists of the 19th century, 5th ed. (New York, 1919), 201.
Therefore, it is not coincidental that following decades of Haussmanns brutal modernization of Paris, Sardou embraced the recreation of rich historical contexts and cultivated
an image of a savant and restorer of the past heritage.
Roosevelt, Victorien Sardou, 6064.
Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 93. In the more academic French circles Byzantium
had been generating interest by the 1840s. See Robert S. Nelson, Hagia Sophia, 18501950:
Holy Wisdom Modern Monument (Chicago and London, 2004), 4650; J.-M. Spieser,
Hellnisme et connaissance de lart byzantin au XIXe sicle, in : Quelques
jalons pour une histoire de lidentit grecque, ed. S. Said (Leiden, 1991), 33762.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

109

new, Egypt was no longer fresh, and Byzantium offered an opportunity for a
new type of spectacle and a bit of Parisian introspection. Byzantium gave the
play its fashionable decadence, which was then au courant, for the decade of
the 1880s was a veritable cult of late classical antiquity.18
The narrative of the play reveals tensions, passions, and the depravity of
Theodoras character. Those who think they know the story of Theodora from
the Byzantine sources, including the Secret History of Procopius, would only
partially recognize the narrative as told by Victorien Sardou.19 The play is set
around 532 (before the Nika riot). Although Theodora is an empress, she has
not forgotten her adventurous and colorful roots. Every night she leaves the
palace in disguise to roam the city and look for adventure. One night she goes
to the bowels of the Hippodrome, in order to see the animals and to relive her
days as a circus entertainer. Another night she finds true love, with an Athenian sculptor by the name of Andreas, who thinks she is just a young local
widow named Myrta and falls in love with her stupendous beauty. Following
evenings of passion with Andreas, Theodora returns to the palace, to Justinian,
where she successfully carries out the role of the empress, all the while yearning for her freedom and her beloved Andreas. Incidentally, she despises Justinian (who is also not terribly bright). Meanwhile, Andreas (as a good Athenian)
believes in good and just government and together with his friend Marcellus
(head of the palace guards) he plots to murder the tyrannical Justinian, in order to establish just government. When Theodora learns of the plot, she rushes
to warn Justinian of the impending attempt (Justinian has grown suspicious of
her absences), and she tries to prevent the conspirators from carrying out their
plan (because she loves one of them). As the conspirators burst into the palace,
she manages to stash her beloved behind a secret door, but Marcellus gets in
and is captured by Justinians guards. As he is about to be tortured in the imperial chambers, Theodora asks for a moment with him (worried that he would
reveal her identity). When Marcellus recognizes her as Andreass girlfriend,
Theodora stabs him through the heart with her golden hair-pin, both so that he
cannot divulge her secret and to spare him from torture. The body of Marcellus
is later interred in Andreass garden (which overlooks the Bosphorus). Andreas
18

19

According to Philip Stephan, [d]ecadent Rome became pertinent to them as Frenchmen

found in it analogies with their own world. Philip Stephan, Paul Verlaine and the
Decadence 188290 (Manchester, 1975), 19. See also J.-M. Spieser, Hellnisme et connaissance de lart byzantin au XIXe sicle, 350.
Sardous play was directly indebted to A. Marrast, La Vie byzantine au VIe sicle (Paris,
1881). For further discussion, see Silvia Ronchey, La femme fatale, source dune byzantinologie austre, 15859.

110

Boeck

swears vengeance upon Theodora, the empress whom he detests, for he still
does not know the identity of his lover. Meanwhile, Theodora manages to have
Andreas smuggled out of the palace. Andreas soon learns Theodoras true
identity, when he beholds her in the imperial box of the Hippodrome (the
kathisma). Once Andreas learns who she actually is, he believes that she has
betrayed the rebellion, and he curses her. So what is the empress in love to do
now that her lover hates her? Theodora goes to the resident Constantinopolitan gypsy woman to obtain a love potion to win Andreas back. The gypsy brews
the potion and gives it to Theodora. In the interim, Andreas has been arrested
(through no fault of Theodoras). The final meeting between the star-crossed
lovers takes place in the palace, where he rebukes her and rejects her love. She
proclaims her love to no avail, for he does not listen. Since by now he has been
wounded, he cannot physically resist her. She is able to pour the potion into his
mouth. Andreas dies in terrible agony, for the gypsy accidentally gave Theodora the wrong potion. The gypsy had brewed two potionsa love potion for
Theodora and poison for Justinian (whom the gypsy planned to assassinate for
the murder of her son). After Andreas dies, Theodora is vanquished. Justinian
now knows her secret and has summoned a eunuch to strangle her. Theodora,
who no longer has any reason to live, does not resist the execution. She takes
off her pearls, and hands them over to Justinians servants. She bravely bares
her neck for the red silk cord, and announces that she is ready to die; the cord
winds around her neck, and the curtain falls as Constantinople is engulfed in
flames.
This narrative of Theodoras love and death was, of course, fictional. It also
included extensive explications of Byzantium, its rituals, customs, and practices. This was achieved by means of Caribert, a newly arrived blond, mus
tachioed, and sympathetic Franc from Lutce (i.e., Paris), who receives a
crash-course introduction to the Byzantine capital and its inhabitants throughout the play (Theodoras colorful past, imperial titulature, court structure, etc.).
This noble character is immediately foregroundedhe appears at the beginning of the first act, speaks the second line of the play, and by means of his
diplomatic mission (which includes a gift of superlative blond tresses for Theodora) positions France as a notable medieval kingdom ruled by Childebert,
son of Clovis (the purported founder of the Merovingian dynasty and the unifier of French territories under one rule).20 Using this character, Sardou was
able to simultaneously educate and validate his French audiences.

20

Sardou, Thodora, 2. The text of the entire play was published in Thodora, LIllustration
Thatrale.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

111

Theodora closely followed the recipe of successful dramatic plays that Sardou wrote for Sarah Bernhardt. The necessary ingredients included the dramatic central role of a vulnerable, transgressive, contradictory heroine (the
fallen, but simultaneously pure Theodora here),21 centrality of spectacle in the
form of elaborate sets and costumes (creation of the tableau vivant),22 and the
spectacular death of the heroine at the end (as a nod to Bernhardts fascination
with death scenes).23
The melodramatic fiction was highly persuasive, not least because of the
Sarah/Theodora nexus. The character of the courtesan-empress was quite
close to Sarah Bernhardts own humble origins (as a daughter of a prostitute,
and a kept woman herself earlier in life), and triumphant rise to thespian power.24 Bernhardts granddaughter wrote that her famous grandmother loved the
role of Theodorait was purportedly her favorite.25 In order to connect with
the subject, Bernhardt made a pilgrimage to the church of San Vitale in
Ravenna,26 and even made sketches for costumes based on frescoes and
mosaics.27 (Fig. 4.3) She evidently did further research in order to get into the
21

22

23

24

25
26
27

According to Gerda Taranow, Sardous texts were constructed to illustrate the actresss
talents by providing her with situations in which she could reveal the maximum degree of
femininity. Gerda Taranow, Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend (Princeton, 1972),
114, 203.
Taranow noted: When a tableau vivant is struck, the actor becomes a scenic element,
and his costumed attitudes contribute to his transformation into a figure. Taranow, Sarah
Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend, 147. She also stated: The actor served the dual
function of dramatic character and painterly figure. Ibid., 146. See also Cline Lormier,
Les Costumes: Accessoires ou actionnaires du thtre historique de Victorien Sardou?
in Victorien Sardou, un sicle plus tard, 35767.
Taranow, Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend, 91, 208. Taranow observed: An
important aspect of pantomime, the death scene concludes five of the seven plays which
Victorien Sardou wrote for Sarah Bernhardt. Ibid., 205.
In addition to the role of Theodora, Sarah Bernhardt enjoyed success in nine other roles
as a fallen/redeemed woman. Her predilection for such roles can be credited to her early,
spectacular success in La Dame aux camlias. Taranow, Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within
the Legend, 197.
A Glimpse of Bernhardt Off the Stage, Sunday Herald, Sunday April 17, 1887. Harvard
Theatre Collection, Houghton Library, Box 2, Bernhardt, Sarah, folder Clippings 1880s.
Lysiane Bernhardt, Sarah Bernhardt: Ma grandmre (Paris, 1945), 26263.
G.G.Geller, Sarah Bernhardt Divine Eccentric, trans. E.S.G.Potter (New York, 1971), 226.
Cordelia Otis Skinner, Madame Sarah (Boston, 1967), reports the following: Weeks before
ordering her costumes, she journeyed to Ravenna and stood long hours in the Church of
San Vitale studying the magnificent mosaics with their startling portraits of Theodora
and Justinian staring menacingly forth from barbaric gold. She made sketches of every
robe, every fold, every detail or ornamentation. When she returned to Paris she had com-

112

Boeck

Figure 4.3 Mosaic panel of Theodora with attendants. San Vitale, Ravenna (6th century).

role by reading the works of the renowned Byzantinist Gustave Schlumberger,

who was one of her, and Sardous, friends.28 This small cluster of facts heralded
in publicity and accounts for posterity illuminate its claims of authority in direct encounters with authentic relics of the historical past.
An observant contemporary consumer testified to the enormous power of
Sardous play, Bernhardts charisma, and their grand spectacle in enticing the
public with forgotten historical personages, decisively proclaiming their vices,
and affixing their places in grand narratives of history:
How far the poet, by the manner in which he makes or establishes reputation, deserves his name of the maker, I will not pretend to decide. It is
certain, however, that the historian has but a poor chance of reversing
the decision of a dramatist concerning any great character of history. To

28

pleted in detail a dressmakers design for each outfit, as well as those for her stage jeweler,
even to that death-dealing hairpin.
Nolle Guibert, ed., Portrait(s) de Sarah Bernhardt (Paris, 2000), 55. For Schlumbergers
recollection of the play, the author, and the star, see Ronchey, La femme fatale, 15556.
Incidentally, Schlumberger was very impressed with the play and with Sardous knowledge of Byzantium.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

113

the list of those whom a writer has condemned to infamy may now be
added Justinian the Great, the eminent emperor and legist, and his
spouse, Theodora. The talent of M. Sardou, and the genius of Madame
Sarah Bernhardt, have finally disposed of these charactersthe latter
especially. Those who have seen the magnificent rendering of Theodora
by Madame Bernhardtthe ripest, most sustained, and greatest piece of
acting ever set before the present generationwill be content that, for
the sake of such an impersonation, the character of a woman who has
been twelve hundred years dead shall suffer. As a fact, the worst accusations against Justinian and Theodora rest upon the secret history which,
in direct contradiction of his avowed works, Procopius, who was secretary to Belisarius, and so thrown into closest association with the emperor
and his consort, is supposed to have written. It is a natural result of tyranny that men who are compulsorily servile will betray the vices associated with the slave. The Anecdota may accordingly be by Procopius. The
estimate therein formed of Theodora places the empress in infamy below
Messalina. Without the play of M. Sardou, and the exceptional vivacity
assigned the heroine in the interpretation of Madame Bernhardt, the
character of Theodora might have remained in doubt. Henceforward,
however, her place in popular estimation is fixed on the lowest rung of
the moral ladder. There is this to be said, however; the creator of the
Theodora of the future is at least a member of the same profession as was
originally the woman she presents.29
The Theodora of history was thus assassinated by the Sardou-Bernhardt duo
well before the curtain finally fell on the performance. A new discursive reality
was created by Bernhardts charismatic impersonation of the fallen empress
and Sardous opulent evocation of the unfamiliar and exotic Byzantium. These
theatrical pioneers of Byzantium were able to fix the empires visual form, articulate its moral character, establish its cultural identity, and place it within
the body of historical knowledge. In doing so, they not only superseded the
academic rediscovery of Byzantine history, art, and culture, but were also able
to affect the subsequent discourse.30
29
30

Madame Bernhardt and Theodora, The Gentlemans Magazine (1885): 31011.

This is nicely confirmed by the opening sentences of an academic article from 1887: The
courageous attempt recently made by M. Debidour to vindicate the reputation of the
empress Theodora has opened up again the stubborn controversy of which Procopius
Secret History is the theme. Stimulated, it would seem, by the appearance of M. Sardous
drama in Paris, M. Debidour has revised and republished his earlier essay, and has boldly

114

Boeck

The visual world of Byzantine decadence was concocted from archaeological knowledge, elaborate fantasy, costly fabrics, opulent gems, and highly publicized debates with scholars. The promotion of the spectacles authenticity
had a three-pronged strategy: Sardou-the-savant, the complete authority of
sets and costumes created by Theophile Thomas from Sardous precise instructions, and Sarah Bernhardts immersion into the character and re-creation of
Theodora.
Sardou had insistently cultivated an image of a savant,31 who controlled and
authenticated every aspect of production with his encyclopedic knowledge:
Sardou designs pictures, costumes, houses, stage scenes, gardens. He has
a knowledge of every century and its customs since the flood at his fingerends. This was demonstrated in a famous controversy with Theodora;
and all Paris remembers how Mr. Darcel, a professional archaeologist,
vainly contested the historic correctness of the fork used by Theodora
[losing] the battle with this terrible and infallible authority, Sardou.32
Following the opening of Theodora, his argument with Alfred Darcel (discussed below) was quite sensational, and public opinion acclaimed Sardou as
the winner. This, in turn, further burnished his credentials as the encyclopedic
purveyor of authentic Byzantium. Thus, in his memoirs, Schlumberger even
compared Sardou to Charles Dufresne Ducange (the great seventeenth-century philologist and historian of the medieval period, especially of Byzantium).33
This victory over Darcel was no small matter, for the authenticity of the spectacle, as brought to life in costumes, sets, and selective use of Byzantine cultural terms, offered his audiences the immersive totality of a complete
civilization, while providing the author with the marketing edge of connoisseurship and novelty.
The archaeological authenticity of the spectacle, the notion that the true
and unfamiliar world of Byzantium was revealed for the first time to mass audiences, was eagerly embraced by the producers and consumers of the

31

32
33

challenged a comparison between the Theodora of history and the Theodora of the stage.
The verdict of public opinion has, it is true, long since been given to the other side
C.E.Mallet, The Empress Theodora, The English Historical Review 5 (1887): 1.
See, for instance, Jules Claretie: [Sardou] knows the smallest turns, the stones of Acro
polis, as well as he was acquainted with the subterranean passages of Byzantium, at the
time when he wrote Theodora. Jules Claretie, My Contemporaries: Souvenirs of Some
Celebrated People of the Times, The North American Review 159, no. 453 (1894): 173.
Roosevelt, Victorien Sardou, 6566.
Ronchey, La femme fatale, 156. For a succinct introduction to the scholarly contributions of Du Cange, see Diehl, Les tudes Byzantines en France au XIXe sicle, 2122.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

115

Figure 4.4 Set of tableau 6, the kathisma ( from the 1902 revival).

spectacle. From various publicity materials, such as a souvenir program for an

American production of the play, we learn about the central importance of the
costumes and the sets:
America has demanded this play since its first presentation. Miss Olcott
[who played the title role], in securing the rights also purchased in Paris
exact duplicates of the costumes, properties and all other material, as the
French express it, as used in the original production. As to the correctness of these M. Sardou himself testifies on the inventory of the articles
supplied by J. Duquesnel, Manager of the Theatre Porte de la St. Martin in
these words (in French of course): I have looked into the present inventory, and I declare it satisfactory in every point, and if I were going to
produce Theodora at this moment at the Porte St. Martin, I would not ask
of M. Duquesnel any other material than that which is here set forth in
detail. Signed Victorien Sardou.34
The perceived authority and authenticity of Sardous Byzantium is demonstrated by such acts of faithful duplication. Sardous historical reconstitution
had now become iconic.
34

Souvenir Program, Lilian Olcott in Sardous Theodora, 78. The Harry Ransom Center of
the University of Texas, Austin. Bernhardt Collection, Box 4.8.

116

Boeck

The celebration of the sets, spectacle, and costumes as sensational (and the
strongest aspects of the production) is attested by numerous newspaper accounts, which often offer descriptions of the plays nine scenes (Fig. 4.4). The
sets and costumes occasionally superseded the plot and acting in the reviews.
Here is a perfect example from a British preview of the play:
The scenic accessories of Sardous latest work, Theodora, are thus
described. There are two scenes in the first act. The first is a magnificent
audience chamber in the imperial palace at Byzantium, with a view of
the gardens and golden dome of St. Sophia. The second is the Imperial
Hippodrome at sunset. Thousands of spectators are seen descending a
splendid staircase. In the second act there is shown a reception room in
the house of Andreas. The decoration is according to the most accurate
Greek frescoes. The rooms open upon a series of gardens. The picture is
especially fascinating, owing to the admirable effect of moonlight. In the
third act is seen the cabinet of the Emperor Justinian, splendidly decorated with rich Byzantine mosaics on a golden groundwork. The model
from which this was designed is the famous Galla-Paludia [sic] Chapel at
Ravenna. In the fourth act the first scene shows gardens and terraces of
rose bushes on the Bosphorus under a dazzling midday sun. The second
scene is the Emperor Justinians grand state loge (called the Cathisma)
at the Hippodrome. The interior of the Hippodrome is disclosed just as
the games are about to begin. The first scene in the fifth act is a hall in the
imperial palace, with large folding doors wide open, disclosing the conflagration of the city of Byzantium. The second scene represents the
vaults under the Hippodrome, where the keepers of wild beasts are
lodged.35
The authenticity of the circus experience and Theodoras past life was enlivened by the inclusion of live animals: A fine lion and lioness are displayed in a
cage in the second scene of the first act, and it is an agreeable sight to see the
former yawn and stretch, and the latter lap up milk porridge from a ladle.36
Sardou shaped the discourse on Byzantium and was shaped by the burgeoning archaeology of knowledge. He professed familiarity with the work of

35
36

Article clipping dated December 23, 1884, Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library,
clippings folder Theodora (2) Sardou.
Miss Lillian Olcott at the Globe in Theodora, article clipping, Harvard Theatre
Collection, Houghton Library, clippings folder Theodora (2) Sardou.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

117

Melchior de Vogu,37 Edouard Gerspach,38 Edward Gibbon,39 Alfred Rambaud,40

Jules Labarte,41 Charles Bayet, and others. His claims of connoisseurship can
be corroborated by some elements in the sets and costumes. He had tapped
into the academic discourse in France and incorporated newly discovered
Eastern Orthodox culture through a myriad of publications, which included
travels to Mt. Athos, engravings of select Byzantine mosaics, and the publication of Byzantine objects in French collections (also as engravings) which had
begun in the preceding couple of decades, and, perhaps not coincidentally,
intensified after the staging of Theodora in 1884/5.
Some of the costumes and sets of Sardous Byzantium were, in fact, quite
abreast with the latest scholarship by selectively incorporating the newest
publications and illustrations of Byzantine art. Contemporary archaeological
publications directly inspired the set designs. For instance, Gerspachs illustrations in La Mosaique display parallels to the facial expression, jewelry, and costumes of Justinian.42 Bayets Lart Byzantin served as inspiration for the church
in the background of the first scene in act one (where Theodora luxuriated on
her modernist peacock throne/bed).43 A number of background figures represented on the walls of the palace were also inspired by illustrations from Bayet.44 (Fig. 4.5, Fig. 4.6) Furthermore, newly discovered Coptic textiles were an
inspiration for one of Theodoras costumes in the 1902 revival.45
37

38
39
40
41

42
43

44
45

Alfred Darcel, Thodora, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit 6 (February 7, 1885): 44.
Some of the major works of de Vogu include Les glises de la Terre Sainte (1860) and Syrie
centrale: Architecture civile et religieuse du ler au VIIe sicle (1865).
Darcel, Thodora, 44.
Victorien Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, in Les papiers de Victorien Sardou,
ed. Georges Mouly (Paris, 1934), 381.
Preface to the 1907 publication of Thodora, ii. Rambauds important article Le Sport et
lHippodrome Constantinople appeared in Revue des Deux Mondes 94 (1871).
Preface to the 1907 publication of Thodora, ii. Labartes richly illustrated Histoire des
arts industriels was first published between 1864 and 1866, while the important Palais
imprial de Constantinople appeared in 1861.
See Edouard Gerspach, La Mosaique (Paris, 1881), portrait of Justinian on page 55.
See Charles Bayet, LArt Byzantin (Paris, 1883), especially figures 20 (drawing of a page
from the Rabbula gospels), 40 (the church of Theotokos in Constantinople), and 46 (the
saints from a drawing of a miniature from the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus [Paris. Gr.
510]). For Darcels general comments on Sardous inspiration from Gerspachs and Bayets
images, see Darcel, Thodora, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit 2 (January 10, 1885):
10.
See Bayet, LArt Byzantin, especially figures 46, 59, 104.
Claudette Joannis, Sarah Bernhardt: Reine de lattitude et princesse des gestes (Paris,
2000), 119.

118

Boeck

Figure 4.5 Set of tableau 4, Justinians study ( from the 1884 staging).

Figure 4.6
Figure 4.6 Charles Bayet. LArt Byzantin.
Figure 59.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

119

Although the sensationalism of Theodoras amorality drove the plot, the

sets and the costumes were also star attractions. Even the plays publicity material, on occasion, acknowledged the imbalance: Though the critics were at
variance concerning the merits of the play from a dramatic and historical point
of view, they were unanimous in the opinion that it was the most remarkable
scenic achievement of the nineteenth century.46 The costumes for Theodora
and the supporting cast captured the public imagination for decades:
Theodora was renowned as much for its Byzantine splendour as for its
action. The costumes worn by the palace guards (observed a dazzled
journalist) cost over 300 francs apiece; even those of the eunuchs cost 125
francs. In the scene set in the Imperial box at the Hippodrome, Sarah
wore a dress of sky-blue satin with a train four yards long, covered with
embroidered peacocks with ruby eyes and feathers of emeralds and sapphires.47
Although the 1902 revival of the play incorporated stage sets and costumes
from the 1884/5 production, several new costumes and accessories were made
for the revival, including an Art Nouveaustyle crown for Theodora. Just as in
1884, the expenditure on the costumes and accessories was incredibly lavish
and included work by famous artists, including Alphonse Fouquet, who created the empresss bracelet.48
Sardou actively promoted the authenticity and historicity of the costumes.
At the very beginning of his recollection about the play, he noted: [Theophile]
Thomas designed the costumes according to the best documents. Never a
historical reconstitution has been offered to the public under such sumptuous
and artistic conditions. The success was prodigious. This evocation of Byzantium was a revelation to the spectators.49 Sardou consistently sidestepped the
inconvenient fact that his star had a predilection for a particular type of costume, regardless of the epoch that she inhabitedan outfit with strong vertical lines that enhanced her serpentine form by means of a prominent,
hip-hugging belt50 (Fig. 4.8).
46

47
48
49
50

Souvenir of Theodora. By Victorien Sardou. Recently Revived by Sarah Bernhardt at Her Own
Theatre in Paris (not dated, presumably 1902). Harry Ransom Center of the University of
Texas, Austin, B.J.Simmons & Co., Portfolio 203.
Joanna Richardson, Sarah Bernhardt and Her World (London, 1977), 114, 117.
Joannis, Sarah Bernhardt, 123.
Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 362.
Taranow, Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend, 1056. The effect of her body movements and this costume design created the impression for one contemporary critic that

120

Boeck

Figure 4.7
Figure 4.7 Thodora, set, tableau 2, Theodora
and the gypsy Tamyris in the
bowels of the Hippodrome (1902
revival).

Although Bernhardts costumes in Theodora were historically problematic,

they became absolutely sensational. The layered costumes of embroidered, bejeweled fabric constituted for audiences representational layers of authenticity: The courtesan appears beneath the golden robes of the Empress.51 In all,
Bernhardt had five different costumes in the play (Figs. 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10). The
costumes also served to emphasize the polarity of her characterthe depraved cruel empress and love-struck girl:
[Theodora] sustained in the palace all the dignity of her position. Cold,
haughty and unfeeling, she ruled with an iron hand, not only her people

51

Bernhardt in Theodora twisted and turned like a serpent upon the cushions of her
throne. Quoted in Taranow, 106.
Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 265. The authenticity of the experience was also propagated by Bernhardts own discussion of her emotional acting: after the scene in Theodora
where I kill Marcellus, I get into such a nervous state that I go to my dressing-room sobbing. And if I dont cry I have a nervous attack much more disagreeable for those near me,
and more dangerous for any object or crockery within reach. Article clipping, Letter
from Madame Sarah Bernhardt, Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library, Box 2,
Bernhardt, Sarah, folder Clippings Plays PZ.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

121

Figure 4.8
Figure 4.8 Sarah Bernhardt in the most sumptuous
costume of the play (tableau 6) ( from the
1884 staging).

but her consort. But in secret she abandoned herself to the life to which
she was born. She hates and loves with equal fierceness.52
Thus, in her imperial role, Bernhardt literally morphed into a jeweled idol. Her
costumes quickly became legendary for the way she carried them off. A Boston
newspaper thus described the most sumptuous costume, which she wore in
the kathisma scene:
gold and silver and set with gems, and were hanging ropes of pearls and
rich jewels about Theodoras neck. Necklace after necklace was hung
upon her shoulders, and then a band and pendants about her waist and
on her arms, and then a splendid jeweled head-dress, that contained
some magnificent precious stones of real and rare Persian workmanship.
On either side of the centre ornament, in front of the head-dress, were
two jeweled medallions of most exquisite Persian design and setting with
choice pearls and countless small rubies, sapphires and emeralds. They
52

Souvenir Program, Lilian Olcott in Sardous Theodora, 89. Harry Ransom Center of the
University of Texas, Austin, Bernhardt Collection, Box 4.8.

122

Boeck

were about as large as an American silver dollar, and were presented to

the famous actress during her last engagement in London by the Prince
of Wales. They are very old, very rare and very valuable.53
Theodoras body shares profound commonalities with the scenographic materialization of the Byzantine body politic. Just as the lead protagonist vacillates
between goodness and corruption, simplicity and ostentation, love and hate,
so is the reconstituted Byzantium made up of ideological and moral oppo
sitions. It is discursively ambivalent and visually divided. Ultimately, though,
just like Theodora, it is impure. The viewers are treated to opulent excess,
which was driven not only by publicity, but also by a discursive association
with moral corruption and the Orient.54 The Byzantine protagonists are as ignoble as their taste: Byzantine decadence is conveyed by an overabundance of
ornament, polychromy, and barbaric aesthetics.
The aesthetic and ontological tension pivots between overwrought palatial
aesthetics and the simplicity of the Greek nobility.55 In Sardous reconstitution,
only in the character of the pure Athenian Andreas was there stability of representation and ideology, which reflected the long-established place of ancient
Athens in the European cultural discourse. The heros admirably tyrannocidal
(though ultimately homicidal) predilection, his purity of thought and occupation, were reflected in the sets of his housea sculpture of Athena, a bust of a
bearded man (perhaps Socrates? Pericles? Homer?), the preponderance of
white in its architecture, as well as the noble simplicity of a friendly meal56
(Fig. 4.9). Contemporary audiences embraced the contrasting styles as power53

54

55

56

A Glimpse of Bernhardt Off the Stage, Sunday Herald, Sunday April 17, 1887. Harvard
Theatre Collection, Houghton Library, Box 2, Bernhardt, Sarah, folder Clippings 1880s.
Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 268, notably characterized the long train worn by
Bernhardt in this scene as the work of the most cunning embroiderers in Paris, and a
perfect mosaic [emphasis mine] of precious stones.
It is not surprising that the noble Andreas is given the lines that definitively consign
Byzantium to the Orient: Nos matrons grecques et romaines allaient jadis par les rues,
tte haute et front dcouvert; mais, depuis que nos satrapes byzantins ont adopt les
moeurs de lOrient, leurs femmes vivent clotres et ne sortent plus quen litire. Sardou,
Thodora, 13.
This opposition was noted by Darcel: M. Victorien Sardou opposant le caractre dun
Grec de vieille roche celui des Byzantins, javais cru quil avait eu galement lintention
dopposer interieur dune maison grecque dancien style, appartenant la Byzance de
Septime-Svre, une sale de palais construite et dcore dans le style nouveau. Darcel,
Thodora, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit 6 (February 7, 1885): 44.
A contemporary commentator commented that in Andreas home the furniture is the
purest Pompeian. Article clipping, Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library, Box 2,
Bernhardt, Sarah, folder Clippings Plays PZ.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

123

Figure 4.10 Set of tableau 3, the house of Andreas ( from the 1884 staging).

ful moral signifiers. The opposition between the good Athenian style and the
pervasive Byzantine degeneracy was occasionally articulated very directly: in
the atrium of Andreas, the simple lines of its pure Greek architecture
contrast[ed] strongly with the bastard Byzantine of the other scenes.57
Much Ado About the Fork: The Authenticity Debates and the
Burgeoning Archaeology of Knowledge
Sardou staked his reputation on the complete authenticity of his spectacle.
Although from a scholarly perspective his claims of authenticity are highly
problematic, a close analysis of his spirited defense of his connoisseurship reveals his extensive familiarity with ancient material culture, selective knowledge of the primary sources, and engagement with contemporary scholarship.
However, whenever necessary, scholarship was subordinated to the requirements of his artistic vision and the sartorial preferences of his star.
Theodoras Byzantium was troubling enough to some scholars that they
challenged the veracity of the production in public debates over the verbal and
visual aspects of the play. Many scholars perceived that Sardous historical reconstitution was hijacking the nascent field, seemingly without extensive recourse to the specialized knowledge of academics.58 Their criticism of the play
57
58

Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 266.

For instance, Charles Diehl noted: la curiosit dun ingnieux crivain [Sardou], le talent
dune grande actrice [Bernhardt] auront plus fait que beaucoup de savants livres pour

124

Boeck

crystallized around the central issue of archaeological veracity and historical

authorityof Theodoras character and of the re-imagined Byzantium.
A few years after Theodoras premier, a great Byzantinist, Charles Diehl, accused Sardou of violating historical truth: he was displeased that the Theodora
of Sardou was not the Theodora of history. Diehl particularly objected to two
pivotal aspects of Sardous Theodora: the protagonists continued licentiousness after her elevation to imperial dignity and her violent death. Sardous reply was astute. He responded to Diehls charges by asking the scholar what he
meant by the Theodora of history.59 For, Sardou noted, the historical sources
contradict each other (especially Procopius).60 Then, going on the rhetorical
offensive, he claimed that there were only three historical certainties about
Theodoraher marriage, her behavior in the Nika rebellion, and her death.61
He further claimed that his Theodora did not exceed the liberties of a dramatic
author, despite the different end that he gave her. Sardou here invoked established discursive characterizations of Byzantium as a justification for providing his Theodora with a proper Byzantine end:
It would evidently be absurd to make Mary Stuart die of consumption,
Marie Antoinette of poison, Jeanne dArc in her bed. But an end so
obscure as that of Theodora authorizes me, I suppose, in imagining for
her a death more Byzantine than the real one.62
Sardou also challenged Diehls assumption that Theodora behaved properly in
her marriage and that therefore her nocturnal adventures would have been
unfathomable. Armed with strategic knowledge of Byzantine imperial scandals, Sardou responded to his eminent critic by pointing out that not all Byzantine empresses cared about etiquette, citing the empress Theophano as an
example, who snuck her lover in through a window to murder her husband.63

59

60
61
62
63

rhabiliter parmi nous lempire grec dOrient. Diehl, tudes Byzantines: Introduction a
lhistoire de Byzance, in his tudes Byzantines, 18.
Sardous recollection of the debate with Diehl was published as the preface to the 1907
publication of Sardou, Thodora, iv. It was also published as a letter-preface to the novel
Theodora by Ptros Botzars, which was based on the play. Ptros Botzars, Thodora,
roman tir du drame de Victorien Sardou (Paris, n.d.), ii.
Ibid. In the defense of his Theodora, Sardou referenced not only the Secret History of
Procopius, but also Paul the Silentary, Baronius, Gibbon, and John of Ephesus.
Ibid., iiiiv.
Quoted in Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 95. This is a verbatim translation from the
preface to Thodora, iv.
Thodora, iv; Letter-preface, v.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

125

Sardous final defense, on the subject of Theodoras lover, was witty, contemporary, and demagogical. He defended the plot by stating that he only gave his
Theodora a single lover. He concluded: Under those circumstances, in the
sixth century as in our [century], this almost [makes for] an honest woman.64
Therefore, there was no cause to argue about Theodoras virtue. This witticism
reveals Theodora as enactment of modernity. It also helps to explain the plays
enduring popularityalthough the play invoked a different temporal framework, the boundary between past and present was blurred sufficiently for the
audience to simultaneously feel comfortable and feast upon the exotic spectacle.65 By the 1880s European audiences had been actively engaging for some
time with different temporal frameworksfrom art museums to wax museums. Theodoras prodigious success was built on the audiences preparation for
and interest in engaging with a spectacle of the past, what Sardou termed historical reconstitution. And Sardous spectacle was the grandest that had been
witnessed up to that point.66
Sardous other public exchange, which was carried out with Alfred Darcel in
print immediately after Thodoras premier, concerned the authenticity of his
spectacle. It merits serious attention because the debate presents a snapshot of
the epistemological discourse: from the evolving understanding of the physical spaces of the imperial palace to the positioning of the empire as both part
of and apart from the European cultural legacy. The debate revolved around
Byzantine cultural realia, including materials, styles, influences, and relations
to other cultures. It highlights the process of Byzantiums discovery and positioning vis--vis the established body of knowledge. In his memoirs, Victorien
Sardou re-imagined the exchange as a play-like dialogue, giving himself the
best lines,67 and vanquishing his opponent with statements like, If you had
also studied Labarte as seriously as I have68
Only a few days after the play opened, an established archaeologist and the
director of the Gobelins, Alfred Darcel, wrote a critique of the sets, furniture,
64
65

66

67
68

Thodora, iv; Letter-preface, x.

Mark Sandberg, speaking about late-nineteenth-century mobility, noted: The impression of simultaneous presence in multiple places or durable presence through time
sparked a collective, public imagination of access and visual availability Sandberg,
Living Pictures, Missing Persons, 6.
Hart stated: [Theodora] has been described as the greatest effort of mise-en-scene of
the century, only surpassed on its revival by Sarah Bernhardt in 1902, some seventeen
years after its original production. Sardou always spoke of this piece with special affection. Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 95.
Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 36283.
Ibid., 372.

126

Boeck

and accessories. He contested their authenticity and disputed Sardous knowledge. Darcels essays, originally published in Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit, are dry academic prose, but they advance a forceful argument about the
archaeological errors committed in the staging of Thodora.69 Sardous vigorous response brushed off the criticism as the envy of experts, but it also engaged with the substance of the charges leveled against him. The debate was
the talk of the town and raged particularly intensely over the following issues:
Theodoras use of a fork, the inclusion of pendentives in the re-created architecture of the imperial palace, the presence of stained glass in its dome, the
proper placement of the San Marco horses vis--vis the kathisma, and the exact location of the crypt beneath the palace. While current scholarly consensus would contradict Sardou on most of these questions, public opinion of the
time sided with him. Scholars had to concede that the legacy of the Theodora
of the stage was impervious to learned assaults from academic quarters.
Later recollections of the authenticity debate particularly celebrated the
discussion of the fork. Darcel had objected to Theodoras use of a fork, arguing
that the fork had been completely unknown in Byzantium in her time. Sardou
responded to this charge with a genealogy of the utensil, references to particular objects in specific museums, and a great deal of humor. Sardou claimed to
have proclaimed: The fork is as old as the world! He made references to specific museum objects, such as a prehistoric fork that had been recently discovered in the cave of Fontarnaud and a bronze fork belonging to Helena (the
mother of Constantine I) in the museum of Treves. Sardou further displayed
his erudition by claiming that it was, in fact, the Byzantines who introduced
the fork to the rest of Europe (with a story of the son of Doge Pierre Orseolo
who married the daughter of the emperor Argyle [sic] and who brought the
fork to Venice). He then traced the history of the fork to France and to Renaissance Spain. He also demonstrated his wit when quoting his critics on his manner of arguing: For whose good is it to argue with Sardou? He will only respond
thus: Why should Theodora be served with a fork, when today again, in Constantinople, the Turks eat with their fingers?70 In his discussion of the fork
and his selection of supporting evidence, Sardou positioned Byzantium as part
of Europe not only as it related to this utensil, but also as part of the shared
cultural space in regard to manners, and, therefore, civility. Although contemporary academic views on the subject of the fork in Byzantium are somewhat
69

70

Alfred Darcel, Thodora, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit 1 (January 3, 1885): 45;
Alfred Darcel, Thodora, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit 2 (January 10, 1885):
1012; Alfred Darcel, Thodora: Rponse M. Victorien Sardou, La Chronique des Arts et
de la Curiosit 6 (February 7, 1885): 4346.
Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 368.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

127

ambivalent, the history of the utensil continues to fascinate the reading public.71
Several features of Byzantine architecture, as well as academic narratives
about its attributes, changes, and cultural sources, were also a major source of
discord. His re-creation of Justinians study was considered particularly problematic for its dome with pendentives and stained-glass windows. Sardou declared: Darcel and Henry Harvard would not allow stained-glass windows in
the study of Justinian. The stained-glass windows, they say, were unknown in
Byzantium in the sixth century.72 The current academic consensus on this
question continues to uphold the position of Sardous critics.73
Sardous defense of stained-glass windows in sixth-century Constantinople
rested on Roman, Egyptian, Phoenician, and Assyrian examples,74 as well as on
a paraphrase of the sixth-century Byzantine author, Paul the Silentary.75 The
Roman evidence included windows of Caligulas palace and Plinys house, as
well as archaeological evidence from Pompeii, Herculaneum, Rome, and a museum in Naples. A small bottle of Tutmosis III in the British Museum and a
vase of Sargon from Khorsabad were marshaled as evidence for the widespread
production of ancient colored glass.76 The evidence and the argumentative arc
in this instance aligned Byzantium not only with the old Roman Empire, but
also positioned it as an integral part of the ancient world as conceived by the
contemporary European imagination (or the European historicism of Western Europe, to use Robert Nelsons turn of phrase).77 This was a reenactment
of the fork strategy.
71

72
73

74
75

76
77

For a recent publication, see Bee Wilson, Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and
Eat (New York, 2012). In his version of the subject Giovanni Rebora took the same position
as Sardou, claiming that the fork entered western Europe by means of Byzantium: The
[western] prelates roundly chastised a Byzantine princess who, while a guest in France,
picked up her food with a fork. For her, to the royalty born, it was simply a question of
good Byzantine manners not to touch food with her hands. Giovanni Rebora, Culture of
the Fork: A Brief History of Food in Europe, trans. Albert Sonnenfeld (New York, 2001), 17.
Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 368.
Stained glass is attested with certainty in the decoration of Byzantine churches between
the tenth and twelfth centuries. See Gary Vikan, Glass, Stained, in The Oxford Dictionary
of Byzantium (New York; Oxford, 1991), 85354.
Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 368, 371.
Paulus Silentarius indeed rhapsodizes about rich colors in his poem on the Hagia Sophia.
However, his appreciation is conveyed for the varied and multicolored splendor of marbles on the walls and floors of the church. The text is translated in Cyril Mango, The Art of
the Byzantine Empire 3121453: Sources and Documents (Toronto, Buffalo, London, 2000),
esp. 8586.
Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 371.
Robert Nelson, Hagia Sophia, 18501950, 33.

128

Boeck

The windows stirred significant passion in both the accusing academics and
the defending savant. Sardou was clearly insulted when Henry Harvard recommended that Sardou henceforth consult professional scholars for the historical pieces.78 Sardou insisted that even the shape of the windows was authentic
and was copied exactly from a bronze window found in Bordeaux, even down
to the clasps. The final proof that he cited in defense of his stained-glass windows was Paul the Silentary, who (according to Sardous paraphrase) was enraptured with the marvelous effect produced by the rays of sun streaming
through the windows of Saint Sophiacolors of all hues!79 Sardous deduction from this sentence was as followswhat other substance but stainedglass windows could have produced such an effect? In this exchange Sardou
once again foregrounded his knowledge of physical evidence as well as his familiarity with the primary sources.
The final problem with Justinians study was the dome with pendentives.
The debate on this issue proceeded in a similar vein. Darcel found the presence
of pendentives highly objectionable: With regard to the dome, in the first
scene, wrote Darcel, the scene is in contradiction with facts. This hall is vaulted with a dome on pendentives. But the dome on pendentives was not ushered
in by 522, the date of the rebellion which is the object of this play.80 Sardou
retorted to his critic thus: But the dome on pendentives, which was employed
by Antheimus of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus, was borrowed by them from
Persian art.81 The question of pendentives remains unsettled in the academic
discourse. Both positions are still variously endorsed.82
Although Sardous argumentation is intellectually sophisticated, it also reveals another cultural dimension that suffuses the sets, the plot, and the costumesOrientalism. For instance, the visual relationship to the Near East is
strategically evoked in the ostentatious metal palace tableware, which is didactically contrasted with the red-figure clay Greek drinking vessels in Andreass house, thus pitting tyrannical opulence against democratic modesty.83
Even though in this self-fashioned victorious dialogue, Sardou appeared to
have vanquished his critic, a close look at the surviving images of the sets reveals some notable problems, particularly with the Hagia Sophia. Already Dar78
79
80
81
82
83

Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 368.

Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 371.
Ibid., 371.
Ibid., 371.
For both positions, see William Loerke and Nora E. Laos, Pendentive, in The Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium, 162324.
For this comparison, see the cover image of Theodora in Le Theatre from 1902.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

129

Figure 4.9 Set of tableau 1, room in the imperial palace (two slender minarets visible in the
distance) ( from the 1902 revival).

cel had noted that the Hagia Sophia looked like its current Ottoman incarnation,
including two prominently visible minarets84 (Fig. 4.10). Sardou used a threepronged strategy to defend himself against this very damaging charge. The first
defense was to claim absence of historical knowledge about the appearance of
the earlier basilica and of Justinians church, for Justinians original had been
destroyed in an earthquake.85 The second distancing effect was to simultaneously deny the presence of any minarets and claim that they existed only in
Darcels imagination, and that he had confused the columns of Constantine
and Justinian in the Augousteion with minarets.86 The final strategy was to
blame the set designer, who was more zealous then erudite.87 Sardou claimed
that the minarets only appeared in the 1902 revival, and that he only saw them
at the dress rehearsal. It was too late to change anything, since the sets had already been photographed.88 The finality of the photographic recording, and
therefore archiving of memory, is very important here, for it clearly reveals the
great significance (and anxiety) that Sardou ascribed to recording and preserving memory by means of this new medium.89
84
85
86
87
88
89

Sardou, Polmiques a propos de Thodora, 37273.

Ibid.
Ibid., 373.
Ibid.
Ibid.
This attitude was part of the zeitgeist. Sandberg in Living Pictures, Missing Persons, 39,
noted: The association between the wax effigy and other forms of recording was a discursive relationship. Photographs and phonograph recordings could themselves elicit

130

Boeck

Although in his self-presentation of triumph over his critics Sardou clearly

demonstrated his learning and familiarity with scholarship, he glided over one
particularly important problem with the plays archaeological authenticity
the celebrated costumes of Theodora.90 Even though he referenced the Ravenna mosaics for Justinians costume, he did not employ this evidence for the
garments of his star. In a letter to Darcel, Sardou claimed that these mosaics
(which he called frescoes)91 had been familiar to him for a long time, but he
believed them to be too Italian. He found that the representation of Theodora
in the mosaics was problematic: The artist created a Theodora of imagination,
a large, masculine, brute, foul, and to be feared, while she actually was frail,
dainty, delicate This alleged frailty, daintiness, and delicacy were entirely of
his own imagination. He would not admit that Sarah Bernhardts fashion was
the ultimate measure for the authenticity of his own Theodora, and that historical evidence could be easily sacrificed in order to please the star.
Despite Sardous vigorous defense of his authentic reconstitution of Byzantium, his Constantinople was amusingly inaccurate, but became discursively
iconic.92 While his other critics argued about the placement of the San Marco
horses in the kathisma, I would draw attention to the ahistorical bricolage of its
interior space. It simultaneously incorporated the Arch of Constantine in
Rome, as well as the Parthenon frieze from Athens, not to mention prototypical Art Nouveau thrones and nude winged sculptures surmounting the structure. The character of Byzantium in a single scene vacillated between Greece,
Rome, the Orient, and nineteenth-century Paris. Images like these truly expose
the extent to which the past is a foreign country. The contradictions encapsulated in this (and other sets) also reveal the ontological complexities of Byzantiums discursive journey among its possible ancestries and genealogies. An
influential article by a modern Byzantinist suggests that even today these complexities have not been fully resolved in the academic discourse.93

90

91
92
93

effects of both unusual presence and absence because of their privileged reputation as
indexical traces.
Jerome Hart, Sardous supporter and admirer, continued to insist on the authenticity of
Theodoras costume, even after Sardous death: [In the first act Theodoras] costume is a
replica of the celebrated mosaic of the Byzantine Virgin [sic!] in the Church of Ravenna.
Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays, 265.
Alfred Darcel, Messalina, La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosit 9 (February 28, 1885): 70.
Charles Diehl quoted a contemporary characterization of Constantinople as le Paris du
moyen ge. Diehl, tudes Byzantines: introduction a lhistoire de Byzance, 13.
See Robert S. Nelson, Living on the Byzantine Borders of Western Art, Gesta 35/1 (1996):
311.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

131

Conclusion

The image of Theodora perpetuated by Sardou would become firmly ensconced in the popular imagination, despite the best efforts of his critics. Sardous dazzling and decadent Byzantium was evoked by artists, high society,
print culture, and film. Benjamin Constant, a popular artist of his day, submitted to the Salon images of Theodora and Justinian to the great acclaim of the
press.94 Performing Theodora at society fancy-dress balls would become a piquant fashion for sophisticated aristocrats for decades to come. Lady Randolph
Churchill, Winston Churchills mother, made a spectacular appearance as Theodora for the fancy-dress ball at the Devonshire house on July 2, 1897.95 She
even carried a white lily, a direct reference to the staged Theodora of Sarah
Bernhardt.96 Winston Churchill found that invocation of his mother particularly endearing and wrote to her asking for some photos of you in Theodora
costumefor my table.97 Celebrities enraptured by Bernhardts Theodora
would also include Sigmund Freud, who kept a photo of the actress in this role
in his office.98
94

95

96

97
98

I am preparing a study, which will analyze this topic in greater depth. In the meantime,
see Elena N. Boeck, Byzantine Decadence, Ottoman Triumph, and French Orientalism:
Benjamin Constant Constructs Byzantium, Abstracts of the Thirty-Third Annual Byzantine
Studies Conference, University of Toronto, October 1114, 2007 (Toronto, 2007), 74.
The discourse of authenticity was also applied to this costume: It was a heavily embroidered Byzantine robe, apparently copied from the mosaic portrait in the apse of the
church in Ravenna. Ralph G. Martin, Jennie: The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill, vol. 2:
The Dramatic Years 18951921 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1969), 111.
Martin, Jennie: The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill, 112; Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays,
265. A rather bad poem by Douglas Ainslie, Sarah Bernhardt as Theodora Enthroned,
also exemplifies this point. Here is a stanza from the poem, which appeared in Douglas
Ainslie, Escarlamonde; and Other Poems (London; New York, 1893), 130.
What further incense can my trembling plume
Waft with those clouds that are your heraldry?
The Orient lightens in your pearls, and by
The tiger couchant neath the lilys bloom
You sceptre love and symbolize the doom
That blinded him who dared, with bleary eye,
Gaze where above, in height of empery,
Throned the last scion of Slavonian groom.
Letter dated to December 11, 1897, quoted in Martin, Jennie: The Life of Lady Randolph
Churchill, 112.
Silvia Ronchey, Teodora e i Visionari, in Humana sapit: tudes d antiquit tardive offertes Lellia Cracco Ruggini, ed. Jean-Michel Carri and Rita Lizzi Testa (Turnhout, 2002),
450.

132

Boeck

Sardou, Sarah Bernhardt, and their sumptuous Byzantine spectacle created

a long-lasting impression upon the popular and academic imagination. The
Sardou paradigm for Byzantium would remain powerful, as testified, for instance, by the reconstitution of Sardous Theodora on the silver screen in 1922.99
The new vision of Byzantium worthily celebrated Sardous memory with a
Greek, Roman, Oriental, decadent pastiche that included such features as ethnographic nudity, decoration of the shields of imperial soldiers with the ChiRho (a nod to the Ravenna mosaics), Greek and Roman reliefs in the
Hippodrome, and a belly-dancing outfit for the imperial seductress.
Rather than scorn Sardous play for its warped vision of Byzantium, Byzantinists should embrace it as a didactic example for probing how we, too, frame,
claim, and re-frame Byzantium based on our own fashions, scholarly preoccupations, and shifting paradigms. By exposing the gaps in historical knowledge
and proposing creative ways of filling them, Sardou created a space for constructing multiple Theodoras from the fragmentary sources and skewed contemporary representations of her. Sardou serves as a useful reminder that,
ultimately, we all create our own vision of Byzantium and we all get the Theodora we deserve.
The play and its visual world, though shaped by the emerging knowledge of
Byzantium, perpetuated the old dichotomies of Byzantiums split character between Greek purity (and honesty) and Oriental opulence (and decadence). But
Sardous aesthetics of decadence, ornament, gleaming surfaces, and rich textures profoundly affected numerous artists from Benjamin Constant to Gustave Moreau to Alphonse Mucha. Scholars have yet to unravel the extent to
which Sardous perversely enticing Thodora directly contributed to emerging
visions of modernity.
99

For a brief discussion of this film, see Ronchey, La femme fatale, 160.

Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardous Theodora

Section 3
Byzantine Tactics, Modernist Strategies
in Architectural Discourse

133

134

Boeck