How much credence should we give to Procopius' portrayal of the empress Theodora?

Authors Avatar

How much credence should we give to Procopius’ portrayal of the empress Theodora?

If we omit the chroniclers, there are hardly any sources for Theodora that are written without parti pris. The most important, Procopius of Caesarea, who is our only source for the lurid details of Theodora's early life, presented a different Theodora in each of his three works, the History of the Wars of Justinian in seven books to which an eighth was added later, the Anekdota or Secret History, to give it its popular name, an essay purportedly written immediately after the first seven books of the Wars were published and containing data which were too defamatory to circulate openly, and the De Aedificiis or Buildings which is a panegyric on Justinian's building program throughout the empire. All these works were written or at least completed after Theodora's death in 548. In the Wars, Procopius credits the regime's success at suppressing the 'Nika' revolt of 532 to Theodora's courage and imagines a splendid scene which may have some basis in fact, where she declares that she, at least, will not flee the capital city. The Anekdota is full of scurrilous details about Theodora's early life as an actress and courtesan, and her intrigues at court. In the De Aedificiis, however, the picture is uniformly flattering. The emperor and empress shared a common piety, he claims, and her loveliness was such that it was impossible to convey it in words or portray it by a statue (Even in the Anekdota, he concedes that she was attractive, though short and rather sallow in complexion).

Procopius' viewpoint differs in these three works, understandably in the De Aedificiis, which was an encomium and intended to please the emperor, but they do not actually contradict each other. The lurid details of Theodora's early life find corroboration of sorts in an unexpected source: the Syriac historian John of Amida, better known as John of Ephesus for he became the Monophysite bishop of that city, refers to Theodora almost casually as "Theodora from the brothel" (ek tou porneiou). And Justinian's law code (Codex Justinianus V.4.23) provides another morsel of evidence. This is the law that Procopius claims was promulgated by Justin I at Justinian's instance, in order to legalize the marriage privileges of a penitent ex-actress. It declares that a former actress who was admitted to the patriciate would henceforth have all former blemishes wiped out and was free to marry anyone. Thus we are probably right to consider Procopius a trustworthy witness for Theodora's early career, albeit a malicious one when he was writing not for publication.

When she was very young, Theodora’s father, Acacios, died. The mother appeared in the circus one day accompanied by her three daughters and appealed to the crowd to take them in. The Blues were the most receptive of the chariot racing factions, after the Greens had ejected them. Theodora’s eldest sister soon began appearing on stage as a mime, and was often supported by Theodora. Procopius dwells upon this period of Theodora’s life with the neurotic lasciviousness of a prude. However, we need not take Procopius too literally. His source was mainly malicious gossip, and the grave historian hated and feared the empress. Thus, there is only limited credence that can be accredited to this biased portrayal of Theodora’s early life, but as Procopius is the only source for this period of her life, as much fact must be gleaned from all his venom as is possible.

Procopius effectively gives us a tabloid journalist’s reportage of Theodora’s early life, but, except for some legends, it is the only story we have. Most of the information gleaned about Theodora’s background comes from the Anekdota, where Procopius poured out the venom of an insecure elite that despised the powerful upstart empress. He coupled Theodora with Antonina, the wife of the General Belisarius, as two dominant, conniving women, adept at manipulating husbands who were putty in their hands. Procopius granted Theodora no talent, but she had a quick wit, she was an artist in obscenity, and her sexual appetite was insatiable. This is understandable, to a certain extent, as Procopius relates a couple of stories of how Theodora went out of her way to humiliate the old elites. However, as Evans says, we should take these cum grano salis, as with many of the Procopian tales. Procopius did not tell the whole truth where Theodora was concerned. But on one point he was right: under Justinian and Theodora, court ceremony took on increased importance and Theodora in particular used it to assert her new status by demanding that, for the first time, empresses received a salute from the patriciate and visitors to the court. This practice was established only by Theodora and Justinian, and so Procopius’ portrayal of her in this aspect was probably accurate, and so much credence should be awarded to him here.

Join now!

Procopius reports that Theodora herself had a son named John as well, conceived whilst she was still an actress. She failed to abort, and once the unwanted boy was born his father saved him from infanticide by abducting him to Arabia. On his deathbed the father told the boy who is mother was, and he came to Constantinople to introduce himself. The empress entrusted him to reliable attendants and he was never seen again. Procopius has perhaps given us less than the whole truth: “John” sounds like an impostor who tried to impose himself upon the empress. Therefore, less credence ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Avatar

This essay shows a good level of familiarity with Procopius' work and the different put forward in them. The student also shows a reasonable familiarity with the context of the works. the essay could be improved by making clearer use of the historiography on the topic and being more analytical. 4 stars.