DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0034 BZ 2020; 113(3): 769–788
Sergi Grau and Oriol Febrer Procopius on Theodora: ancient and new biographical patterns Abstract: The Anékdota or Secret History of Procopius of Caesarea tends to raise perplexity among scholars for different reasons,particularlythe fact thatacour- tier wrote this work as well as the Buildings,aclear praise of Justinianthrough his constructions and foundations, and the Wars,inthe most canonical historio- graphical tradition. It is apparent that the Secret History,asitisusually acknowl- edged, is related to the tradition of the invective and the pamphlet,eventothe earlier classic iambography, but we should try to answer the question with the same analyticaltools that have been applied in recent years to the study of an- cient biography, whencethe author takes inspiration, especiallyfor the portrait of empress Theodora.Herewehaveidentified, alongside the ancientbiograph- ical patterns of the classicaltradition, new ones, mostlyinversions of contempo- rary hagiographical narratives.
Adressen: Dr.Sergi Grau and Oriol Febrer,DepartmentofClassical, Romanic and Semitic Philology,Section of Greek Philology,Faculty of Philology and Communication, University of Barcelona,GranVia de les CortsCatalanes, 585 08007 Barcelona, Spain;[email protected] and [email protected]
Around 550,¹ acouple of yearsafter Theodora’sdeath, Procopius of Caesarea composed acontroversial yetrather minor work. Itsinterpretation has signifi-
Apreliminaryversion of thispaper waspresented at the XVIII Congress on Byzantine Studies, promoted by the Spanish Society of Byzantine Studies (SEB)and held at the UniversityofBar- celona in January .Wewish to thank the organisers,and speciallyProf.Ernest Marcos, for their kind reception. We also thank the anonymous refereeswho had informed thispaper for their useful suggestions. The research is partofthe project entitled La construccióndel pasado en la Grecia arcaica yclásica: mecanismos compositivos, genealogíasycatálogos,directed by Jesús Carruescoand Xavier Riu, and financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (PID–GB-I). It is also registered in the SGR research group Logo- tekhnia. Estudis de culturagrega antiga,directed by Xavier Riu ( SGR ). The possible datesfor the SecretHistory are / (J.Haury,Procopiana. Augsburg ; B. Rubin,Prokopios vonKaisareia. Stuttgart [= RE ]; A. Cameron,Procopius and the sixth century.London ;G.Greatrex,The dates of Procopius’ works. BMGS , , 770 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung cantlyshaped the modern reception of emperor Justinian, his empire and his en- tire period: the Anékdota or Secret History (Historia arcana,inLatin),asitisusu- allyknown among scholars. Itsauthor criticises merciless Justinianand Belisar- ius, the famous general, alongside their wives, Theodoraand Antonina. However,the biographical patterns adopted by Procopius to shape his critique are by no means perspicuousand need to be addressed again.² As we wish to elucidatethrough these lines, Procopius, awell-trained and excellentlynurtured author,makesuse, alongside traditional patterns alreadyfound in classicalbi- ography – and, as far as we are aware, not yetidentifiedbyotherscholars –, of new ways to conveyhis enmity towardsthe reigning couple.
Procopius’ education
Procopius, born in Caesarea Palaestinensis ca. 500 AD to awealthyfamilyfrom this active and multicultural city,whereChristians of different denominations, pagans, Jews and Samaritans livedtogether,although not always in good har- mony, receivedagood education, basedonthe readingofclassical authors, rhet- oric, jurisprudence and asuperficial knowledge of philosophicalideas.³ This up- bringingallowed him to pursue acareer in public service and to apply for administrative posts that granted rich provincials certain privileges. His works show an accurate acquaintance with legal proceedings, although he conceals their arid formulation and technical languagewith amore florid literary style,
–;J.A.S.Evans,The dates of Procopius’ works: arecapitulation of the evidence. GRBS , , –;J.Signes Codoñer,Prokops Anecdota und Justinians Nachfolge. JÖB , , –;A.Kaldellis,The date and structureofProkopios’ SecretHistory and his pro- jected work on Church History. GRBS , , –)and / (R.Scott,Justinian’s coinageand Easterreforms and the date of the Secret History. BMGS , , –; idem, Justinian’snew ageand the second coming,inR.Scott,Byzantine chronicles and the sixth cen- tury.Farnham/Burlington ;B.Croke,Procopius’ SecretHistory:rethinkingthe date. GRBS , , –). We consider the first one to be moreplausible, mostlyafter Kaldellis’ re- sponse (Kaldellis, GRBS , , –)toCroke’sobjections (Croke, GRBS , ), that has not convinced Scott,Justinian’snew age ,however.The sole importance of the char- acterisation of Theodora, whopassed away in ,asanelement of invective makes difficulta latedatingofthe work. For Kaiserkritik in the other works of Procopius,see, especially, J. Signes Codoñer,Kaiserk- ritik in Prokops Kriegsgeschichte. Electrum (), –. G. Greatrex,Perceptions of Procopius in recentscholarship. Histos (), – and, especially, G. Greatrex,L’historien Procope et la vie àCésarée au vie siècle, in G. Greatrex / S. Janniard(eds.), Le monde de Procope/The World of Procopius.Paris , –. S. Grau /O.Febrer, Procopius on Theodora 771 with an antiquarian taste.⁴ The rhetorical usagesthat characterise his style sit- uate him at the end of the so-called Third Sophistic, mostlybecause of his Attic- ism and the use of canonical authors typical of rhetorical handbooks. Those who exerted most influenceonProcopius were Homer,Herodotus and, by far,Thucy- dides, but he shows arather in-depth understanding,beyond the simple quote of aparticularpassage, of the biographies of the great men of Greece⁵ – such as Themistoclesand Alexander the Great.Healso eminently references Roman his- tory – the republican Numa,Camillus,Apius, Hannibal, Pompey;and the impe- rial Augustus, Nero, Vespasian,Titus,Domitian, Trajan, Zenobia, Diocletian and Constantine are all mentioned, onlytoname afew.Moreover,all of them are an- ecdotallyused as areference point,positive or negative,for the contemporary material he is dealingwith.⁶
The strength of tradition: classicalbiographical patterns
With such an education, one should not be surprised that Procopius created, in the Secret History,aportrait of Theodorawhich is so different from her previous imagefound in the Wars. Although discussions about the historicityofboth im- ages have been redebated throughout the decades, it seems that nowadaysa consensus has been reached regardingthe historicalparticipation of Theodora in political and ecclesiastical affairs, thanks mainlytothe use of other sources, even epigraphical evidence. Theodora, as wasexpected from women in the im- perial court,appeared sidebysidewith her husband in court rituals and fi- nanced hospitals for indigents,convents and churches – she had financial means at her disposal to act rather independently.⁷ Likewise, attestations of
Rubin, Prokopios (as footnote above), –.Particularlyfor the styleofthe Anékdota,see A. Kaldellis,Introduction, in idem, Prokopios.The Secret Historywith related texts.Indianap- olis/Cambridge ,xxxv-xl. Rubin, Prokopios (as footnote above), . About the uses of ancient historiographybysixth-century historians,see G. Greatrex,Pro- copius and the past in sixth-century Constantinople. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire (), –. C. Pazdernik, “Our most pious consort givenusbyGod”:dissidentreactions to the partner- ship of Justinian and Theodora,A.D. –.Classical Antiquity (), –;C. Foss,The empress Theodora. Byzantion (), –;J.A.Evans,The empress Theo- dora: partner of Justinian. Austin ,passim; and J. A. Evans,The power game in Byzantium: Antonina and the empress Theodora. London ,passim. 772 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung her favour towards the Monophysites, and the ransom for poor youngwomen sold by their parents to brothels and procurers seem trustworthy.⁸ Her likelycon- nection to prostitution prior to her putting on the imperial purple, none the less, has more rhetoricaland literary relevance than historical, as we shall see further on.⁹ Her portrait in the so-called Secret History,onthe other hand,has been rightlyinterpreted as aquitetraditionalmovetobesmirch her husband’srepu- tation through the critique of the character and the habits of his wife.¹⁰ Itsan- cient parallels are countless,but the most striking ones, duetotheir obvious connection to Theodora, are Messalina(Plin. HN 10.172; Juv. 6; Tac. Ann. 11.25– 38), Agrippina (Tac. Ann. 12.3–7),¹¹ and, particularly, Aspasia. The latter was vis- ited even by Socrates,and wascalled awhorebythe comic play-wrights for her sincereand explicit romancewith Pericles – it is transmitted that they tenderly kissed each other every time he came homeorwentout (Plut. Per. 24.8 – 9). More- over her cultured disposition, extraordinary in awoman of her time, probably led the general public to think that she could not be one of the conventional wivesthat abide at their gynaeceum.¹² Similarly,Procopius underlines that Jus- tinian married her out of sheer passion, and it is preciselythis irrational passion that causes the ruin of the Empire (SH 9.30 –32). Further to this, the speech by Theodoraduring the Nikarevolt (Wars 3.24.37) is most likelyaplayofintertex- tuality with Plato’smocking parodyinthe Menexenus – and with other Socratics, such as Aeschines, author of an Aspasia that we have onlyfragmentarilypre- served. The part which mostlyclearlyrelies on these sources is perhapswhen Theodoradeclaresthat it was she herself who wrotethe witty speechesofher husband.¹³
A. McClanan,Representations of earlyByzantine empresses:image and empire. New York , –.For amoredetailed accountofher actions in favour of the Monophysites,C. Foss,The empress Theodora. Byzantion (), –. See p. – below. See, e.g., E.A. Fisher,Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana: History and/or fic- tion? Arethusa (), –;and McClanan,Representations(as footnote above), –. As B. Baldwin,Sexual rhetoric in Procopius. Mnemosyne (), –,accurately points out.See also Fisher,Theodora (as footnote above), –. M. Tulli,Filosofia ecommedia nella biografia di Aspasia, in M. Erler /S.Schorn (eds.), Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit.Berlin , –. Another connection can be made if we believe, as suggested by J. Scarborough,Theodora, Aëtius of Amida and Procopius:some possible connections. GRBS (), –,that Theodora is behind acharacter named Aspasia, whogives gynaecological and contraceptive ad- vice,inthe work of the physician Aëtius of Amida. S. Grau/O. Febrer,Procopius on Theodora 773
In various previous studies, nonetheless, the sources of the literarytreat- ment of Theodorahavealreadybeen highlighted and we find it now convenient to analyseher characterisation within the parameters of the new researchline in biographical traditions.This has been applied with satisfying results to the anal- yses of ancient writers.¹⁴ This is, at least,the starting point of this paper. Some of the common traits of the invective in classical rhetoric, the model for the education of the intellectuals in Procopius’ age, have been already pointed out by scholars. It is apparent that here takes place the traditional inver- sion of the elements of praise and encomium recommended in handbooks:¹⁵ Theodorahas no nobility or birth, nor illustrious parents, good education, friendships or reputation, nor anymoral virtue, exactlythe opposite of features worth praising accordingtoAelius Theon (Prog. 110) and Aphthonius (Prog. 9.28). Moreover,although she might be admired for having become virtuouslybright, in spite of her obscure origin – as among others Theon (Prog. 112)proposed, pre- ciselylike the hetaeraLeontion, who became an Epicurean philosopher in the III century BC –,itseems obvious that this is not the correct reading of the text we are dealing with. Procopius, on the contrary,iswilling to prevent Theodorafrom being read accordingtothis traditionalparadigm, but this is onlypossible, of course, because he knows his wayaround the exact margins of this ancient rhet- orical tradition. The traits of Theodoracorrespond, in fact,ingeneral terms,to the topics of traditionalGreek misogyny: besides her sexual voracity and the ter- rible seductiveness she exerted over everyone, beginning with the emperorhim- self, her excessive affection for embellishing her bodyisunderlined (SH 15.6 – 7). Procopius also highlights her gluttonywith food and beverages(SH 15.8), and her excesses regarding sleeping hours, by night as much as by day(SH
Particularly, J. Fairweather,Fiction in the biographies of ancient writers. Ancient Society (), –,and idem,Traditional narratives, influence and truth in the livesofthe Greek poets. Papers of the LiverpoolLatin Seminar (), –;M.R.Lefkowitz,The livesof the Greek poets.Baltimore ,and idem,Biographical mythology,inU.Dill/Ch. Walde (eds.), AntikeMythen: Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen (Studien in HonoremFritz Graf). Berlin , –;M.Kivilo,EarlyGreek poets’ lives. The shaping of the tradition. Leiden/ Boston ;S.Grau, Tipificación en la biografía griegaantigua de filósofos:laconstrucción de una imagenpreconcebida. Espíritu (), –;K.de Temmerman/K. Demoen (eds.), WritingbiographyinGreece and Rome. Narrative technique and fictionalization. Cambridge . L. Brubaker,Sex, lies and textuality:the Secret History of Prokopios and the rhetoric of gen- der in sixth-century Byzantium, in L. Brubaker/M.H.Smith (eds.), Gender in the earlymedieval world. East and West, –.Cambridge , –,who focuses on the description of the imperial encomium made by Menander Rhetor. 774 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
15.8 – 9), without overlooking her unbearable grumpiness and her incapacity to forgive anyaffront,asinnocent as it might be (SH 15.3 – 4). Also, the loanwords from ancientcomedywhen it comes to describe Theo- dora’ssexual depravityinthe ninth chapter have been studied:¹⁶ it shows not onlyProcopius’ Atticist purism,¹⁷ but here his adherencetoprescriptions of good taste recommended to good speakers,after Aelius Theon who advises re- spect for the boundaries of decency(Prog. 71.27–31):
περιέχεσθαι δεῖ οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ τῆςεὐπρεπείας, ὥστε μὴἐκτοῦεὐθέος γυμνῶσαι τὰ αἰσχρά, περιεσταλμένως δὲἀπαγγέλλειν, ὡςΑἰσχίνης εἰς ἀῤῥητοποιΐαντὸνΔημοσθένην διαβάλλων φησὶναὐτὸνμὴκαθαρεύειν τὸ σῶμα, μήδ’ ὅθεν τὴνφωνὴνπροΐεται. One should no less aim at decorumand not directlylay bare shameful thingsbut cover them over discreetly, as Aeschines,while attackingDemosthenes for an unmentionable vice,saysthat his bodyisnot clean, not even the part from which his voicecomes. (trans. Kennedy)
In the samevein, the priest of Artemis in AchillesTatius’ novel Leucippeand Cli- tophon (8.9), as well as the accuser in Lucian’s Pseudologist (25–26)formulate the same accusations of sexual depravity through puns, with the wit and sharp- ness suitable to arefined person (ἀστείως):
Παρελθὼνδὲὁἱερεὺς (ἦνδὲεἰπεῖνοὐκἀδύνατος, μάλιστα δὲ τὴν ᾿Aριστοφάνους ἐζηλωκὼς κωμῳδίαν) ἤρξατο αὐτὸςλέγειν πάνυ ἀστείως καὶ κωμῳδικῶςεἰςπορνείαν αὐτοῦ καθαπτόμενος. The priest then came forward. He was no poor hand at speaking, and as good at quip and gibe as the plays of Aristophanes,and he began his speech with much humour,tonching in ajestingvein on Thersander’sown lecherous depravity.(trans.Gaselle,slightlymodified)
However,the ἀστείως of the introduction of the priest’sspeech, that is coordi- nated with the κωμῳδικῶς and appears quite close to the reference to Aristo- phanes, has been ground for controversy,since the good taste associated to
Especially, F. Bornmann,Sualcuni passi di Procopio. Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica (), –.This choiceofvocabulary from ancient comedy is particularlysignificant for the description,throughout the first part of the SecretHistory,ofthe kingdom of Justinian as “the rule of women”,asA.Kaldellis,ProcopiusofCaesarea. Tyranny, History,and Philosophyat the End of Antiquity,Philadelphia , –,emphasised. Especially, Rubin, Prokopios(as footnote above), – and Cameron,Procopius (as footnote above), –. S. Grau /O.Febrer, Procopius on Theodora 775 the first adverb seems almost an oxymoronwith the fact thatthe priest takes pleasure in the imitation of Aristophanes,representativeofancientcomedy, to whom, as Romain Brethes explains,¹⁸ rhetorical tradition attributesadegree of rudeness that the new comedyavoids thanks to allusion. Nonetheless, it should be recalledthat,inthe novel, Thersander’sbarrister thinksthat the comical part of the priest’sspeech has been intertwined δι’ αἰνιγμάτων,whereas the tragical part has been built with clarity, φανερῶς (Ach.Tat.10, 4). It seems then that Thersander’sbarrister perceivesthat the priest has not shown in his speech dis- honesttopics with rawness, as Aelius Theon advised and as Procopius does in his work at all times. On the other hand, the accusation made by Procopius against the empress, accordingtowhich she uses all three holes¹⁹ has been directlyextracted, as Fritz Bornmann pointed out,²⁰ from the speech Against Neaira,traditionallyattributed to Demosthenes, although scholars tend to relateittoApollodorus, the so-called eleventh Attic orator. In reality,the quote has not come to us through direct manuscript tradition, whenceitmight have been bowdlerised, but has been pre- served preciselybyarhetorical treatise written by Hermogenes (Id. 2.3):
τοιοῦτόν ἐστι καὶ τὸἐντῷΚατὰ Νεαίρας ὠβελισμένον ὑπό τινων τὸ ‘ἀπὸ τριῶντρυπη- μάτων τὴν ἐργασίαν πεποιῆσθαι’ λέγειν· λίαν γὰρεὐτελές ἐστι, καὶ εἰ σφοδρὸνεἶναι δοκεῖ. Similar tooisthe passage in the speech Against Neaera,which has also been questionedby some critics: “She plied her trade through threeopenings.” This is extremelyvulgar, even though it seems to be vehement.(trans.Wooten)
R. Brethes,Lediscours du prêtre chez Achille Tatius (VIII ), in B. Pouderon/J.Peigney (eds.), Discours et debats dans l’ancien roman: actesducolloque de Tours.Lyon , – . IX : ἡ δὲ κἀκτριῶντρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει. Bornmann, Procopio (as footnote above), –.Infact,the resemblances with the speech Against Neaera areevenmorenumerous and significant,aspointed out J. Signes Codo- ñer,Introducción general, in idem, Procopio de Cesarea, Historia secreta. Madrid , – :Neaera pretended to become acitizen despitethe Athenian legislation preventingprosti- tutes to attain such adignity,exactlyasTheodora came to be empress thanks to the legislative changesintroduced by Justinian. Like Neaera, Theodora is accused of beginning her career even beforeattainingpuberty (In Neaeram and SH .), takespart in symposia to practise her profession (In Neaeram and SH .–)and has intercourse with freemen and, afterwards, even with their slaves(In Neaeram and SH .). D. Spatharas, Liaisons dangereuses: Pro- copius, Lysias and Apollodorus. Classical Quarterly . (), – also puts forwardLy- sias’ On the killing of Eratosthenes as aliterary model for Procopius’ characterisation of Antoni- na, rightlydismissed by Greatrex,Perceptions (as footnote above), note . 776 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
What has not attracted scholarlyattention is that this waytodiscredit someone through chargesofextreme sexual depravityinherent to the practice of fellatio was part,with no doubtwhatsoever,ofadeep-rooted rhetorical topic. As we have previouslyseen in the example proposed by Aelius Theon, Aeschines ac- cused Demosthenes preciselyofimproper use of the mouth (De falsa legatione 23 and 88):
Ὁ δὲ οὐδὲν ἄπρατον ἔχων μέρος τοῦ σώματος, οὐδ’ ὅθεν τὴνφωνὴνπροΐεται, ὡς ὢν ᾿Aριστείδης δυσχεραίνει καὶ καταπτύει δωροδοκίας. But the man whohas not one memberofhis bodyleft unsold, not even the one whencethe voice is produced, posingasasecond Aristeides the Just,isdispleased, and spits on us,as takers of bribes.(trans.Adams,slightlymodified)
Ἆρ’ οὖν, ὦ᾿Aθηναῖοι, δοίητ’ ἄνμοι συγγνώμην, εἰ κίναιδον αὐτὸνπροσειπὼνκαὶμὴ καθαρεύοντα τῷ σώματι, μηδ’ ὅθεν τὴνφωνὴν ἀφίησιν, ἔπειτα τὸ λοιπὸνμέρος τοῦ κατηγορήματος τοῦ περὶ Κερσοβλέπτην ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ δείξαιμι ψεῦδος ὄν; Will youthen, fellow citizens,pardon me, if Icall him alewdrascal, unclean of body, even to the placewhence his voiceissues forth, and if Igoontoprove that the rest of his ac- cusation about Cersobleptes is false on the face of it?(trans.Adams)
Quite similar is the critique Timaeus of Tauromenion addressed to Demochares, arenownedAthenian politician at the end of the fourth century BC,that has been preserved by Polybius (12.13):
Ὅτι Τίμαιόςφησι Δημοχάρην ἡταιρηκέναι μὲντοῖςἄνω μέρεσι τοῦ σώματος, οὐκεἶναι δ’ἄξιον τὸἱερὸνπῦρφυσᾶν, ὑπερβεβηκέναι δὲ τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι τὰ Βότρυος ὑπομνήματα καὶ τὰ Φιλαινίδος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀναισχυντογράφων· Timaeus tellsus²¹ that Demochares prostituted himself with the upper parts of his bodyin such away that he was not afit person to blow the sacrificial flame, and that in his practices he had been moreshameless than the works of Botrys,Philaenis,and other obscene writers. (trans. Paton,modified)
In order to censurethe nastiness of the accused, alongside their lack of aproper education, the improper use of the mouth for sexual purposes is alluded to in the works of Lucian, Achilles Tatius and Procopius. In Lucian’sspeech, it is clearly stated that the pseudologist uses his mouth for those activities for which one em- ploys the hand (25), but the holeaswell (27). Procopius leavesnoroom for doubt when he explains, as it has just been mentioned, that Theodoraused all three holes (SH 9.18). In reality,heintensifies the accusation – following the usual pat-
FGH Fb. S. Grau /O.Febrer, Procopius on Theodora 777 terns of rhetorical amplification – when he specifies thatthe empress even wishedtohaveanother hole, between the breasts,tomake room for another co- ital variety (SH 9.18):
ἡ δὲ κἀκτριῶντρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺςτιτθοὺςαὐτῇεὐρύτερον ἢ νῦνεἰσι τρυπῴη, ὅπως καὶἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτε- χνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. Even though she put threeofher orifices to work she would impatientlyreproach Naturefor not makingthe holes in her nipples biggerthan they were so that she could devise ad- ditional sexual positions involvingthem as well. (trans.Kaldellis)
In depraved individuals,the mouth is the symbolofshame, and it manifests it- self in the face, the place where this organ is found. This is the reason whytheir face reflects, specificallyinthe mouth, their shame: “Treated deliberatelylike a hand rather than atongue, insulted as if Iwerenothing to you, overwhelmed with so manyinjuries” (καὶἀντὶ γλώττης ὅσα καὶ χειρὶ χρῆσθαι διέγνωκας καὶ ὥσπερ ἀλλοτρίαν ὑβρίζεις καὶἐπικλύζεις τοσούτοιςκακοῖς,tr. A. M. Harmon), complains the tongue of Lucian’spseudologist (25). “His shamelessness appear- ing openlyonhis countenance” (ἐπὶ τῶνπροσώπων φέρων τὴν ἀναίδειαν,trans. Gaselee), says the priest of Artemis in Achilles Tatius (8.9). “Thus she abused her own bodylicentiously, making it seem that she had genitals not in the place wherenature ordained for all other women, but in her face! All who wereintimate with her wereinstantlyknown, by that very fact,tobemen who did not have sex accordingtothe laws of nature” (οὕτω δὲἀκολάστως ἐςτὸ σῶμα τὸ αὑτῆς ὕβριζεν, ὥστε τὴναἰδῶοὐκἐντῇτῆςφύσεως χώρᾳ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ταῖς ἄλλαις γυναιξὶν, ἀλλ’ ἐντῷπροσώπῳἔχειν ἐδόκει. οἱ μὲνοὖναὐτῇ πλησιάζοντες ἔνδηλοι εὐθὺς ἀπ’ αὐτοῦἦσαν, ὅτι δὴ οὐ κατὰ νόμον τῆςφύσεως τὰςμίξεις ποιοῦνται,trans. Kaldellis), asseverates Procopius about Theodora (SH 9.24–25), in acombination of motifsofthe two preceding quotations. The rhetorical tradition in Theodora’scharacterisation does not end here: the priest of AchillesTatius’ novel likens Thersander,whom he is accusing of the depraved activities we have just commented on, to asortofactor belonging to the sphere of mimes or dancers, all of them accused by intellectual elites of practising prostitution.²² This accusation of belongingtoagroup – that of
Foraccusations of prostitution receivedbymime and pantomime actors, see Libanius, Speech .For arecent studyonthis question, see also R. Webb,Demons and dancers: performance in lateantiquity.Cambridge,MA.For the Byzantine period, see S. Leontsini, Die Prostitution im frühen Byzanz. Vienna ,and J. Beaucamp,Lestatut de la femme àBy- zance(e–esiècle), vol. I: Le droitimpérial. Paris , –. 778 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung mime artists, dancers,etc. – despised by intellectuals and considered to be be- yond anydignity is clearlyformulated by Procopius, who specifiesthatTheodora was amime artist(SH 9.11–13), and by the accuser of Lucian’s Pseudologist (25) too. In this last speech, in fact,itisrelatedthat the character playedthe role of the Cyclops in aslightlyaltered mime scene (27):
ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ δέ, βαβαί, ἡρωϊκὸν ἐκεῖνο ἐπεκλήθης, ὁ Κύκλωψ, ἐπειδή ποτε καὶ πρὸς ἀρχαίαν διασκευὴνπαρ’ αὐτὰ τὰ τοῦὉμήρου ῥαψῳδῆσαι καὶ σὺ τὴναἰσχρουργίαν ἐπεθύμησας. καὶ αὐτὸςμὲνἔκεισο μεθύων ἤδη, κισσύβιον ἔχων ἐντῇχειρί, βινητιῶνΠολύφημος, νεανίας δὲ ὑπόμισθος ὀρθὸν ἔχων τὸνμοχλὸνεὖμάλα ἠκονημένον ἐπὶ σὲὈδυσσεύςτις ἐπῄει ὡς ἐκκόψων τὸν ὀφθαλμόν· κἀκείνου μὲν ἅμαρτε, παραὶ δέ οἱἐτράπετ’ ἔγχος, αἰχμὴ δ’ ἐξελύθη παρὰ νείατον ἀνθερεῶνα. καὶ γὰροὐδὲνἄτοπον ὑπὲρσοῦλέγοντα ψυχρολογεῖν. σὺ δὲὁΚύκλωψ, ἀναπετάσας τὸ στόμα καὶὡςἔνι πλατύτατον κεχηνώς, ἠνείχου τυφλούμενος ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τὴνγνάθον, μᾶλλον δὲὥσπερ ἡ Χάρυβδις αὐτοῖςναύταις καὶ πηδαλίοις καὶἱστίοις ὅλον ζητῶνκαταπιεῖν τὸνΟὖτιν. καὶ ταῦτα ἑώρων καὶἄλλοι παρόντες. εἶτά σοι ἐςτὴνὑστεραίαν μία ἦν ἀπολογία ἡ μέθη καὶἐςτὸνἄκρατον ἐνέφευγες. And in Italy – my word! yougot that epic nickname of Cyclops,because once, over and aboveyour old bag of tricks,you took anotion to do an obscene parodyonHomer’spoetry itself, and while youlay there, drunk already, with abowlofivy-woodinyour hand, a lecherous Polyphemus,ayoungman whom youhad hiredcame at youasOdysseus, presenting his bar,thoroughlymade ready, to put out your eye: And that he missed; his shaft was turned aside. Itspoint drove through beside the jawbone’sroot.²³ (Ofcourse it is not at all out of the way, in discussingyou, to be silly.)Well, youasthe Cyclops,openingyour mouth and settingitagape as widelyasyou could, submitted to havingyour jawput out by him, or rather,likeCharybdis,you strovetoengulf your Noman whole, along with his crew, his rudder,and his sails.That was seen by other people pre- sent.Then the next dayyour onlydefencewas drunkenness,and yousoughtsanctuary in the unwatered wine. (trans.Harmon)
We cannot but relatethis scene, significantlypornographic, but built upon atra- ditional mythological image, to the famous act of the goose playedbyTheodora in theatres,that also seems apornographic version, as has been pointed out by some scholars,²⁴ of Leda’sintercourse with Zeus metamorphosed into aswan (SH 9.20–21):
This is acento composed by verses of Il. . and .,for the first verse, and ., for the second one. B. Rubin,Das Zeitalter JustiniansI.Berlin , ,believed it so. It seems,indeed, that the mime of the Byzantine period depicted lovescenes with gods: see V. Cottas,Lethéâtreà Byzance. Paris , . S. Grau/O.Febrer, Procopius on Theodora 779
Πολλάκις δὲ κἀντῷθεάτρῳὑπὸθεατῇ παντὶ τῷ δήμῳἀπεδύσατό τε καὶ γυμνὴ διὰ μέσου ἐγένετο, ἀμφὶ τὰ αἰδοῖακαὶτοὺςβουβῶνας διάζωμα ἔχουσα μόνον, οὐχ ὅτι μέντοι ᾐσχύνετο καὶ ταῦτα τῷ δήμῳ δεικνύναι, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐνταῦθα γυμνῷ παντάπασι παριέναι οὐδενὶἔξεστιν ὅτι μὴ τῷἀμφὶ τοὺςβουβῶνας διάζωμα ἔχοντι. οὕτω μέντοι τοῦ σχήματος ἔχουσα, ἀνα- πεπτωκυῖά τε ἐντῷἐδάφει ὑπτία ἔκειτο. θῆτες δέ τινες, οἷςδὴτὸἔργον τόδε ἐνέκειτο, κριθὰςαὐτῇὕπερθεν τῶναἰδοίων ἐρρίπτουν, ἃςδὴοἱχῆνες, οἳἐςτοῦτο παρεσκευασμένοι ἐτύγχανον, τοῖςστόμασιν ἐνθένδε κατὰ μίαν ἀνελόμενοι ἤσθιον. Often in the theatretoo, and with the entirepopulaceasher audience, she would strip and stand naked at the very centerofattention, havingonlyaloincloth about the groin – not that she would have ashamed to flaunt those beforethe whole city too, but onlybecause it was not permitted for anyone to be entirelynaked in the theater, that is without aloincloth about the groin. Wearingthis outfit,then, she would lie down on her back and spread herself out on the floor whereupon certain menials,who werehired to do this very job, would sprinkle barley grains all over her genitals.Then the geese, which were trained for this purpose, pecked them off one at atime with their beaks and atethem. (trans.Kal- dellis)
New biographical patternsI:aresponse to Justinian’spolicies
It is then quite evident that Procopius has unsurprisingly,regardinghis educa- tion, followed traditional patterns of classicalrhetoric, also common throughout the Second Sophistic, for the narrative construction of Theodora’sdissipated youth and character.The remaininganecdotes have been shaped as adirect at- tack against Justinian’slegislative endeavour,perceivedasaperniciousnovelty, and Theodoraworks,thus, as the incarnationand cause of all the evil unleashed by Justinian’sreforms.²⁵ It has oftenbeen underlined thatProcopius probablybe- longed to aresentful senatorial class and thathis invective might be the expres- sion of an opposition against the sovereign’spolicies, damagingtothe interests of this class, whose main trait would be the possession of immenselatifundia, excessively taxed, accordingtoProcopius, by Justinian.²⁶ This seems the way
The passages in the SecretHistory where Procopius’ reluctancytowards Justinian’sinnova- tions can be clearlyfelt aremany: .; .; .; .; .; .; . … It is, therefore, apparent that this was one of the main reasonsfor the instinctive rejection that the emperor caused amongthe nobility. See Rubin, Prokopios (as footnote above), and A. Cameron,Procopius (as footnote above), –.Some passageswith complaints about Justinian’stax policies: .–; .–, –; .–.For acollection of parallels between Justinian’sbiographemes and Novellae related to inheritance, properties and economic transactions, see R. Scott,Malalas, 780 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung to thus interpret the most of us,among whom Procopius should be counted too, in the following passage(SH 12.12 – 14):
ἐπεὶ δὲ ταύτην, ὥσπερ μοι ἐντοῖςἔμπροσθεν λόγοις ἐρρήθη, γενέσθαι ξυνέβη, τότε δὴ ἀθρόας σχεδόντιεἰπεῖν ἁπάντων τῶν ἀπὸ τῆςσυγκλήτου βουλῆςτὰςοὐσίας δημο- σιώσαντες, τὰ μὲν ἔπιπλα πάντα καὶ τῶνχωρίων ὅσα κάλλιστα ἦν ᾗπερ ἐβούλοντο διε- χείρισαν, ἀπολέξαντες δὲ τὰ φόρου πικροῦ τε καὶ βαρυτάτου ὑποτελῆὄντα, φιλανθρωπίας προσχήματι τοῖςπάλαι κεκτημένοις ἀπέδοντο. διὸ δὴ πρόςτετῶνφορολόγων ἀγχόμενοι καὶἀποκναιόμενοι τόκοις ὀφλημάτων ἀειρρύτοις τισὶ δυσθανατοῦντες ἀκούσιοι διεβίωσαν. διὸ δὴἐμοί τε καὶ τοῖςπολλοῖς ἡμῶνοὐδεπώποτε ἔδοξαν οὗτοι ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, ἀλλὰ δαίμονες παλαμναῖοί τινες καὶὥσπερ οἱ ποιηταὶ λέγουσι βροτολοιγὼἤστην … At anyrate, until the so-called Nikariots they [sc. Theodora and Justinian] were content to pick off the properties of the wealthyone by one, but after that event occurred, as was explained by me in an earlier book, they confiscated the property of just about all members of the Senatein, so to speak, one fell swoop. With one hand they reached out and seized all the furniturethat they fancied and all the best lands,whilewith the other they discarded those properties that were burdened by harsh and oppressive taxes and gave them back to their previous owners under the guise of “generosity”.Asaresult,these senators were strangled by the tax collectors and worndown by the ever-flowinginterest on their debts, longing for death in the miserable life that they unwillinglyendured. Therefore,both to me and also to manyofusthese twonever seemed to be human beings at all but rather murderous demons of some kind, or as the poets would say, “abaneful pair they werefor all mortal men”²⁷ … (trans. Kaldellis)
Apart from the issue of tax rates,the critique of the administrative centralisation (SH 30.27–31) and the contempt of Justinian’slinguistic barbarousness (SH 14.2) – onlyarudimentary Latin-speaker from the scarcelycivilised Illyrian lands, in the eyes of aman raised in Greek cultureand with an accurate training like Pro- copius – werepresumablyshared by his circle of readers, and they point at this senatorial, Eastern and learned elite too. the SecretHistory,and Justinian’spropaganda. DOP (), –.For Procopius’ sym- pathyfor big landowners, whomight have felt that Justinian’spolicies were favouringthe inter- ests of the Church, see P. Sarris,Landownership and rural society in the writings of Procopius, in C. Lillington-Martin /E.Turquois (ed.), Procopius of Caesarea: literary &historical interpre- tations.Abingdon , –.M.Kruse,Economic thoughtand ideology in Procopiusof Caesarea, in Greatrex/Janniard, Le monde de Procope (as footnote above), –,identifies vicious cycles of economic and political practices inside the SecretHistory. Forthe criticism of Justinian’seconomic policiesasatool to depict him as atyrant,see M.-A. Karantabias,The projection of imperial power in Procopius,inGreatrex/Janniard, ibid., –.For Procopius’ negativeopinion on social mobility,see J. M. Thesz, The pathology of the Roman empire: social transformation and moral degeneration in Procopius’ Secret History,inGreatrex/Janniard, ibid., –. Cf. Hom. Il. . and Eur. Suppl. . S. Grau/O.Febrer, Procopius on Theodora 781
Be that as it may, the fact is that certain especiallyinnovative laws – without adoubt very controversial for the old senatorial class – can be placed side by side with manybiographical anecdotes concerning Theodora.²⁸ To begin with, anew lawenacted by Justinian (Cod. Iust. 5.4.23)granted formeractressesthe right to legallyget married,with the bonus amnesty that if the woman gained access to some social dignity, omnis macula from her previous life was erased. The novelty might have proved very polemical, for Romanlegislation decreed, ever since Tacitus’ times, who refers to it in the Annales (2.85), that asenator can under no circumstances marry a scaenica, scaenicae filia, lenonis aut hare- narii filia. Of course, the biographical readingofthis legislative changeiswhat allows Procopius to build up the entire story about Theodora’spast: the enact- ment of such ashameful lawinthe eyes of the nobility was maliciously ex- plained if the emperorenacted it with the sole goal of marryingher.²⁹ Some laws try to protect women, for example allowing children of slave women and concubines to be recognised as legitimate, at least in some cases of death with- out awill (Cod. Iust. 5.27.1;5.5.7.2). Once again, such apolemical lawobtains in Procopius’ story abiographical justification: the emperor Justin would have enacted it in order to marry Euphemia, who was aslave with the name, very elo- quent about her profession, of Lupicina (SH 6.17). Both the new lawofJustinian against the procurers (Nov. 14)and his intention to end the business of prostitu- tion, also attested by other sources,³⁰ quite directlyrelatetothe passageinwhich Theodoraassemblesmore thanfivehundred street harlots and closes them in the convent of Metanoia so that they repent – as it is alreadysuggested by the
And with other criticism of Justinian’spoliciespresent throughout the entirework, likethe end of an autonomous municipal taxation (SH . = Nov. .; .; .), the repression of pagans(SH .– = Cod. Iust. ... )orthe recruitment of slaves(SH .;see R. González Fernández,Las estructuras ideológicas del Código de Justiniano. Murcia , –), onlytogiveacouple of examples.For acompletelist of correspondences between the topics coveredbyProcopius in the final section of the SH and the specific edicts by Justinian, see Kaldellis,Tyranny(as footnote above), –,and speciallyappendix .For the cor- respondences with the biographyofTheodora,nonetheless,wewould liketoacknowledge here our debt to Dr.Roser Homar,who gentlygave us this interpretative clue. See, for the legalspecificitiesoftheir marriage,D.Daube,The marriage of Justinian and The- odora: legaland theological reflections. CatholicUniversity of America Legal Review (), –. Procopius, Buildings ..–,preciselypraises the imperial determination to close the brothels and host the girls in convents. Io.Malalas, Chron. . Thurn also lauds the empress for buying the freedom of manyagirl by payinghugesums of money to procurers and to the girls themselveswith the condition not to exert prostitution ever again.John of Nikiu, Chron. .,evencomestoaffirm that Theodora eliminated the profession itself. 782 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung name of the convent – their previous lifestyle. Someofthem, however,ended up jumpingoff the convent’stowers (SH 17.5 – 6):
πόρνας ἀμέλει πλέον ἢ πεντακοσίας ἀγείρασα ἐν ἀγορᾷ μέσῃἐςτριώβολον, ὅσον ἀποζῆν μισθαρνούσας, ἔςτετὴνἀντιπέρας ἤπειρον στείλασα ἐντῷκαλουμένῳ <Μετανοίᾳ> μοναστηρίῳ καθεῖρξε τὸνβίον μεταμφιέσασθαι ἀναγκάζουσα. ὧνδήτινες ἐρρίπτουν αὑτὰς ἀφ’ ὑψηλοῦ νύκτωρ, ταύτῃ τε τῆς ἀκουσίου μεταβολῆς ἀπηλλάσσοντο. Forinstance, she [sc. Theodora] rounded up morethan five hundred whoreswho sold themselvesinthe middle of the marketplace,the “threeobol girls” (though one can barely live off this). She sent them to the oppositeshoreand locked them up in the monastery named Repentance, forcing them to put on and wear adifferent life and habit.But,during the night,some of them would throw themselvesoff the walls, escaping their involuntary conversion in that way. (trans.Kaldellis)
Particularlyworryingfor the more conservative wasthe proclamation of the equalitybetween menand women before the lawasitwas so in the eyes of God (Nov. 5.2; 18.4), so that men and women should be punished in the same manner (Nov. 127.4). This wasexpressed by the defenceofwomen’srights in the cases of adultery or divorceand in the suppression of the dowry as an essen- tial requisitefor marriage.³¹ ForProcopius, this was no more, no less thanater- rible subversion of the customs which led women to unpunished depravity and husbands to suffer their insolence in ashameful silence (SH 17.24–26):
Τότε καὶ ταῖςγυναιξὶ σχεδόντιἁπάσαις τὸντρόπον διεφθάρθαι ξυνέβη. ἐξήμαρτον γὰρ ἐς τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ πάσῃ, οὐ φέροντος αὐταῖςκίνδυνόντινα ἢ βλάβην τοῦἔργου, ἐπεὶ καὶὅσαι μοιχείας ἁλοῖεν, αὗται κακῶν ἀπαθεῖς ἔμενον, παρὰ δὲ τὴνβασιλίδα αὐτίκα ἰοῦσαι ἀντίστροφοί τε γενόμεναι καὶ δίκην οὐ γεγονότων ἐγκλημάτων ἀντιλαχοῦσαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ὑπῆγον. περιῆντεαὐτοῖς ἀνεξελέγκτοις οὖσι τὴνμὲνπροῖκα ἐνδιπλασίῳ ἀποτιννύναι, μεμαστιγωμένοις δὲἐκτοῦἐπὶπλεῖστον ἐςτὸδεσμωτήριον ἀπαχθῆναι, καὶ αὖ πάλιν τὰς μοιχευτρίας ἐπιδεῖνκεκομψευμένας τε καὶ πρὸςτῶνμοιχῶν ἀδεέστερον λαγνευομένας. τῶν δὲ μοιχῶνπολλοὶἀπ’αὐτοῦ τοῦἔργου καὶ τιμῆς ἔτυχον. διόπερ οἱ πλεῖστοι τὸ λοιπὸν πάσχοντες πρὸςτῶνγυναικῶν ἀνόσια ἔργα ἀσμενέστατα ἀμαστίγωτοι σιωπῇἔμενον, τὴν παρρησίαν αὐταῖςτῷμὴπεφωρᾶσθαι δοκεῖν ἐνδιδόντες. It was during this time that the morals of almost all women toowerecorrupted. Forthey weregiven full license to cheat on their husbands and no risk or harm could come to them because of their behavior.Eventhose convicted of adultery remained unpunished, because they would go straight to the empress and turn the tables by haulingtheir husbands into court through acountersuit, despitethe fact that the men had been chargedwith no crime. All the men could do, even though they had not been convicted of anything, was to pay back to their wivesthe dowries that they had received, onlytwofold, to be whipped and
See, mainly, Cod. Iust. ..; ..; ; Nov. .; .; ..; ..; ; .; .. S. Grau/O.Febrer, Procopius on Theodora 783
then, for most of them, led off to prison. Afterthis, they had to look on again as these adultresses preened and lusted after their seducers, onlymoreflagrantlythis time. Manyof these seducers even receivedranks and honors for performing this service. From then on most men were onlytoo happy to endure without protest the unholydeeds of their wives the freedom to do whatever they wished by pretending not to know what was goingon. (trans.Kaldellis)
In fact,the codeofJustinian onlyallowed women to divorcetheir husbands in case of arbitrary abuses or if they caught them in flagrantadultery(Nov. 117.14 and 117.9.5), but the truth is that women wereasked to provide clear evidence (Nov. 117.15). Irrespective of the historical accuracy of these anecdotes and biographical vicissitudes, Theodora obviouslyincarnates in her person, throughout Proco- pius’ account,the pernicious disruption of traditional customs represented by the new legal code of Justinian in the eyes of the nobility.Awoman commeil faut had to be, in that moment and cultural context,asinsomanyothers, chaste, virtuous, submissive and dependent on her husband or on anyother male of her environment,with no voice or will on anyissue.³² Procopius himself describes how the ideal wife of an emperor should have been if he had not bro- ken all rules just to marry Theodora(SH 10.2):
οὐδὲ γὰρτῷγήμαντι ὕβρεώςτις οἴησις γέγονεν, εἴ οἱ παρὸν ἐκπάσης ἀπολεξαμένῳ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆςγαμετὴνγυναῖκα ποιήσασθαι τὴνπασῶνγυναικῶνμάλιστα εὖ τε γεγονυῖαν καὶ τροφῆςκρυφαίου μεταλαχοῦσαν, τοῦ τε αἰδεῖσθαι οὐκ ἀμελέτητον γεγενημένην, καὶ σωφροσύνῃ ξυνῳκισμένην, πρὸςδὲτῷκάλλει ὑπερφυᾶ καὶ παρθένον τινὰ καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον ὀρθότιτθον οὖσαν. The thought never occurredtoher husband that his choice was an outrage, giventhat it was possible for him to have selected aspouse from the whole of the Roman Empire, to have married awoman whowas the most well-born amongall women and had been raised outside the public gaze,who had learned the ways of modesty and liveddiscreetly; moreover,she could have been exceedinglybeautiful and still avirgin and even, as they say, with perky breasts.(trans. Kaldellis)
Contrary to these conventions, Theodoraispresented as an independent woman, active in boththe private and public sphere, with acareer full of sexual debauch- ery beyond anyreasonable limit,and, aboveall, dominantineach and every area of life: alreadyasaprostitute, it was she who seduced her lovers and sex- uallyexhausted them (SH 9.15).³³ Afterwards, as an empress,nobodycould per- suade her to do thingsdifferentlyastowhat she had alreadyestablished (SH
Forexample,Beaucamp,Statut (as footnote above), passim. Baldwin,Sexual rhetoric (as footnote above), –. 784 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
15.2), and manyare the passages whereJustinian’ssubmission is emphasised, like Belisarius’ to Antonina,influenced preciselybythe empress.³⁴ In this sense, some assertionsinJustinian’slegal texts might have been significantly outrageous, when the sovereign affirms thathis spouse shared his decisions, as in Nov. 8, 1, concerning reforms in provincial administration. Procopius uses, therefore, the usual narrative procedureinancient biogra- phies of poetsand philosophers: Solon’slife, for example, is constructed in order to narratively contextualise his poems that have come to us, sometimes even to help clarify the sense of some particularlyobscure passages;³⁵ Empe- docles’ life, in asimilar fashion, has been structured in chapter and verse pursu- ing the sense of the fragments of his work.³⁶ In fact,the majorityofancientbi- ographies follow this same narrative categorisation,³⁷ which would afterwards become usual in medieval hagiographies too.³⁸ In the caseofProcopius, how- ever,the justification of Justinian’sreform is explainednot through Justinian himself, the actual promoter of the vast legal reform, but mostlythrough his wife.
New biographical patternsII: subversion of hagiographic motifs
And yet, Procopius finds another subtlerway to slander Justinianand Theodora, which was not aheritageofclassical biography: the subversion of attributes and actionsthatwould usually confer holiness to saintsinthe hagiographic genre. Although Procopius does not denythe existenceofsuch good works accom- plished by the imperial couple, his interpretation of them deprivesthe rulers
Particularly, P. Allen,Contemporary portrayals of the Byzantine empress Theodora (– AD), in B. Garlick/S.Dixon/P.Allen (eds.)Stereotypes of women in power: historical per- spectivesand revisionist views.New York , –. In this sense, particularlyimportantare the studies of Lefkowitz,Lives (as footnote above), passim,and Kivilo,Lives (as footnote above), passim. A. Chitwood,The death of Empedocles. American Journal of Philology (), – ,and, for the same process also in Heraclitus and Empedocles,A.Chitwood,Death by phi- losophy. The biographical tradition in the life and death of the archaic philosophers Empe- docles,Heraclitus,and Democritus. Michigan . Lefkowitz,Biographical Mythology (as footnote above); Grau,Tipificación (as footnote above), –. S. Grau/Á.Narro,Vidas de filósofos yhechos apócrifos de los apóstoles:algunos contactos yelementos comunes. Estudios clásicos (), –. S. Grau/O.Febrer,Procopius on Theodora 785 of anygoodness and points directlytothe opposite of sanctity,adiabolical na- ture. With regard to these new biographical patterns,wewould like to address now the question of Theodora’srelation to prostitution before becomingem- press.John of Nikiu, the Coptic bishop writing at the end of the seventh century, reports (Chron. 90.87)that Theodoraconsidered Timothy, patriarch of Alexan- dria, her spiritual father.One might think that her stayinAlexandria in the com- panyofTimothycould have influenced Theodora’spersonal and spiritual evolu- tion to leave behindher life bound to the theatres and,perhaps,tothe prostitution related to them, in order to become, in the future, asaint empress. As amatter of fact,not even Procopius with his hostility is capable to assignher infidelity towards her husband. Thus, Theodora’svital peripety might fit well in the conventions of the hagiographic subgenre of conversions of prostitutes or of the holyharlots, as it has come to be known in recent scholarship.³⁹ The outline of these hagiographical stories is usuallythe same, though with notable narra- tive variations:agirl, after amoreorless long life full of lust and sexual deprav- ity – sometimes related to the scene, as it is the case with saint Pelagia – con- verts through the intervention of aGod’sminister – or through God without intermediaries, as saint Mary of Egypt – and radicallychanges her lifestyle, through penitence, in order to achieve sanctity.Procopius, therefore, would have tried, with his biographyofTheodora, to set up an inversion of the hagiog- raphies of saint prostitutes that circulated in Byzantium preciselyinthe fifth and sixth centuries,with agreat successamong the readers. It is thus quite telling that John of Ephesus, awriter sympathetic with Theodora, states that “she came from the brothel” (Lives of Thomas and Stephen, PO 17.189 [189]), a πορνεῖον,⁴⁰ in ahagiographyoftwo deacons,Stephen and Thomas, whereThe- odora, as asecondary character,helped both saints through her influenceover her husband and allowed them to pursue their ascetic and holycareer.Other echoes of Theodora’searlycareer as awhoreoutside the Anékdota are found
About this hagiographic subgenre, see, mainly, B. Ward,Harlots of the desert.Astudyof repentanceinearlymonastic sources. Kalamazoo ;R.Mazo Karras,Holyharlots:prosti- tutesaints in medieval legend. Journal of the HistoryofSexuality (), –;L.L.Coon, Sacred fictions.Holywomen and hagiographyinlateantiquity.Philadelphia , –. J. B. Bury,History of the later Roman empirefromthe death of Theodosius to the death of Justinian II. New York , note ,denies anyrelation of Theodora with prostitution, and either rejects the expression as an interpolation or interprets πορνεῖον as areference to Πόρναι, astreet in Constantinoplenear the theatre(Nov. , ). In the same vein, D. Potter,Theodora. Actress,empress,saint,Oxford , states that the word “mayactuallybereferring to her past as an actress”,although in page he presents ateenagerTheodora whohad to supple- ment her income “with money she could make by takinglovers”.Itseems better to understand πορνεῖον at facevalue as brothel, which is simpler and moreadequatetothe narrative. 786 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung in the seventh-century Chronicle of Fredegar (Fredegarius II.62,ed. B. Krusch. MHJ, Scr.Rer.Merov. 2, Berlin 1888, p. 85), whereJustinian and Belisarius marry two sisters from a lupanar – although the empress is named Antonia in- stead of Theodora –,aswell as in the name of Theodora’ssister,Comito, typi- callyused for prostitutes,⁴¹ in Malalas (Chron. 18.10 Thurn).⁴² Herconversion from aprostituteinto ahelperofservants of God through her distant,but caring support might be read as an example of the hagiographic subgenre of the holy harlots and supports the idea thatProcopius was inverting biographical patterns found in contemporary hagiographies. In fact,this kind of biographical subversion of the conventional patterns of praise to turn them into invective works in this respect differs to what was usual in ancient Greece. Although in some cases the critique follows traditional ways, as in the repeated accusations against Justinianbecause of his greed (for his φιλαργυρία,toput it with ancient terms),⁴³ the fact is that the mechanism used more frequentlyand efficientlyinthis work is the inversion of the traits of sanctity thatcould eulogisethe protagonists. Justinian’sasceticism – to give the most apparent example, which materialises in frugality and extraordinary vigils (SH 8.12; 12.27; 13.28–33; 15.11) – is an essential characteristic of asaint; Procopius, however,makessure that nobodyisabletomake the usual inference. Farfrom visiblyshowing alife of sanctity and devotion to God,asitwould be the case in hagiographic sources, his asceticism becomes asign of false εὐσέβεια,of feigned piety,and constitutes, in Procopius’ eyes, aproof of Justinian’sdemonic nature (SH 12.27):
Πῶςδὲοὐκἔμελλεν ὅδε ὁἀνὴρδαίμων τις ἀλιτήριος εἶναι, ὅςγεποτοῦἢσιτίων ἢὕπνου εἰςκόρον οὐδέποτε ἦλθεν, ἀλλ’ ἀμηγέπη τῶνπαρατεθέντων ἀπογευσάμενος ἀωρὶ νύκτωρ περιήρχετο τὰ βασίλεια, καίπερ ἐςτὰἀφροδίσια δαιμονίως ἐσπουδακώς; How, indeed, could this man not have been aloathsomedemon when he never drank, ate, or slept enough to satisfy the needs of ahuman being? He would but occasionallytastea bit of what was set before him and then stalk the palacehalls at odd hours of the night.
Leontsini,Prostitution (as footnote above), f. C. Foss,The empress Theodora. Byzantion (), , . Simonides, for example, often appears in biographiesinsuch terms (see J. M. Bell,Simo- nides in the anecdotal tradition. Quaderni Urbinati di CulturaClassica , , –), but also philosophers likeAeschines,Xenophanes, Speusippus,Lacydes,Menippus and Zeno of Cit- ium arecharacterisedasmisers in the biographical tradition (see S. Grau,Laimatgedel filòsof i de l’activitat filosòfica alaGrècia antiga. Anàlisi dels tòpics biogràfics presents en les Vides i doctrines dels filòsofs més il·lustres de Diògenes Laerci. Barcelona , –). S. Grau/O.Febrer,Procopius on Theodora 787
And yet, despiteall of this, he was infernallyaddicted to the pleasures of sex. (trans. Kaldellis)
Moreover,apart from the inverted asceticism, throughout the Secret History there is anarrative around Justinian that inevitablyrelated him, in the eyes of his con- temporaries, to the figure of the Antichrist and that contributes to present the re- forming endeavour of the emperor as asign of the irreversible decadence of the empire. Indeed, the Christians of the fifth and sixth centuries, following the pa- rameters of Byzantine apocalyptic, focused on the succession of empires,⁴⁴ and expectedanAntichrist that would be apretendedlypious emperor who would apparentlycorrect the bad customs until his nature was discovered, thanks to aconjunction of catastrophes, such as plagues, famines, droughts and wars against foreign nations – all of them present in the Secret History.⁴⁵ The fact that Justinian’spublic imagewas,indeed, that of an extremelypious ruler, adorned with all the virtuesthe Byzantine tradition attributed to agood sovereign,⁴⁶ offered Procopius – or perhaps onlyleft him with – subversion as the (sole) waytobuild his invective,either by equating him to the Antichrist or by vituperating him through his imperial spouse, literarilyfrustrated in her path to sanctity.
We can conclude, therefore, thatProcopius uses in his workall these biograph- ical patterns on which we have brieflycommented, classicaland contemporary, to build up empress Theodora’scharacter in the Secret History. Some patterns de- rive directlyfrom the ancient classical biography; thereare others which, similar to the classical tradition, biographicallyexplain and account for texts – Justi- nian’slegal reforms, in this case -; and, finally,thosethat,being absent from
D. Olster,Byzantine apocalypses,inJ.J.Collins/B.McGinn/S.J. Stein (eds.), The Encyclo- pedia of Apocalypticism. VolII: Apocalypticism in western history and culture. New York , . See Scott,Malalas (as footnote above), ,and idem,Justinian’sNew Age(as footnote above), –.The fact that Justinian is not labelled as ᾿Aντίχριστος,but onlyasδαίμων, might be justified if one takes intoaccount that the latter is aclassical word and the former not (ibid., ); nonetheless, one ought not overlook that Procopius did not pretend to write an apocalypse! This perception can be, for example, fullyappreciatedwith Agapetus’ speculum principum, the Ἔκθεσις,wherethe initial letters of its chapters form the followingacrostic dedicationtoJus- tinian: “τῷ θειοτάτῳ καὶ εὐσεβεστάτῳ βασιλεῖἡμῶνἸουστινιανῷ᾿Aγαπητὸς ὁἐλάχιστος διάκονος” (“to our most divine and pious emperor,Justinian, from Agapetus,the most insignif- icant of your servants”). 788 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung the previous biographical tradition, invert the meaningofgood attitudes or ac- tions typicaltohagiographies. It seems aproven fact that Byzantine classicising authors, particularlyhis- torians,constructed their writingsinawaythat their learned readerscould iden- tify their classicalmodels and the precise allusions to the canonical authors that werepart of the education of the intellectual elites of the empire.⁴⁷ This evi- dence, indeed, should make us consider thatthe Secret History was definitelyin- tended to be published,inwhatever manneritmight have been, and thatits title must rather refer to what the term ἀνέκδοτα usually meant in antiquity,when a work could be limited to asole privatecopy.This might be seen as the equivalent to being left unpublished,because the author did not consider it appropriatefor the largerpublic – sometimesperhaps because it contained indiscreet or risqué stories,which is how the term anecdote has come to its present meaning for us.⁴⁸ In anycase, the readers of the Secret History had to be necessarilyfamiliar with the novelties of Justinian’slegislation in order to be able to properlyrelish the attacksonTheodoraand on certain turns of imperial politics. The knowledge that its readership had about contemporaryhagiographies,markedlypopular in tone, is naturallyobvious, but it is alsotelling:Procopius constructs akind of anti-hagiographyof‘saint Theodora’,who is not aharlot turned into a saint,asshe would be presented in aconventional hagiography, but an inverted saint who represents the Antichrist,similar to her demonic husband Justinian. These mixed strategies deployed by Procopius in Theodora’sportrait make his biographyofthe empress one of the most classicisingand carefullyelaborated parts of his entireliterary production, being,atthe same time, effective and cor- respondingtothe expectations of his own age, thanks to the versatility of its bio- graphical patterns.
Mainly, H. Hunger,Onthe imitation (μίμησις)ofantiquity in Byzantine literature. DOP / (–), –. T. Dorandi,Nell’officinadei classici. Come lavoravanogli autoriantichi. Roma , – .