An Examination of Empress Theodora

Christian Orthodox churches today still uphold the residuals of male dominance that, of course, pre-date the Byzantine era. However, what the Byzantine era actually produced, nurtured, and ingrained indelibly in the annals of history is also indicative of what women today have, if they choose to acknowledge it, as their foundation for leadership within Orthodox Christian churches. The 21st century Orthodox Christian woman can look to the Empress Theodora’s life as precedence in the continual (and at times, tiresome) debate as to whether or not women have a substantial and legitimate claim to decisive action within ecclesiastical circles. Theodora’s life is also a model for theological inclusiveness. By embracing a branch of the Orthodox Church that was viewed as heretical, the Monophysites, she challenged the status quo. An examination of Empress Theodora’s life from various points of view—subjective and objective—can help illuminate the accomplishments of a woman who made it her life’s work to be inclusive and open-minded in an era that denigrated both of these traits.

Thesis Statement

Examining the Empress Theodora’s life from many different perspectives inevitably demystifies it and creates a complex character analysis from which springs the fabric of a burnished soul whose earned fearlessness enabled her to embrace inclusiveness and open-mindedness.

Sources for Paper

Croke, Brian. Justinian, Theodora, and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus. Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Vol. 60, (2006), pp. 25-63. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. Dumbarton Oaks. Trustees for Harvard University. Print.

This paper illustrates the compassion that Theodora had for the Monophysites during the times they were severely oppressed. It highlights the devotion Theodora had for the church and how her influence helped establish the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus.

I chose this source because it applied to the Empress Theodora’s conversion from the life of a prostitute to a believer and supporter of the Christian faith. I hope to derive an understanding of how faith and works of faith could make such a difference in the life of a very powerful person.

Evans, James Allen. The Empress Theodora: Partner of Justinian. University of Texas Press Austin, 2002. Kindle. 16 Feb. 2014.

This book illuminates the unique partnership between Theodora and Justinian. The book also begins with Theodora’s early life, long before her conversion to Christianity and her becoming an Empress.

I chose this book because it gives insight into why Theodora did the things she did; how her extreme concern for the poor and destitute was reflected in her establishing organizations that bolstered the downtrodden and gave them humane dignity. I hope to derive an understanding of how women throughout history have helped one another and that there was less jealously between them (a common misconception) and more sisterhood.

Herrin, Judith. Unrivalled Influence: Women and Empire in Byzantium. Princeton University Press, 2013. Kindle. 16 Feb. 2014.

This book examines the unique roles that women played in Byzantine culture. The book elaborates on their perseverance in the face of profound discrimination. Operating within the structure of the church, and many outside its constraints, women achieved much more than has previously been acknowledged.

I chose this source because Empress Theodora is mentioned hundreds of times in many of these complex chapters. She was not unique because she was a former courtesan before Justinian married her—there were many women in that position. Theodora was unique in that the partnership between her and her husband was one of equality. I hope to derive an understanding of the lives Byzantine women led. There was much diversity in the Byzantine culture and the sharp class differences had much to do with how much a woman could demand. As an Empress, Theodora must have had a positive influence and impact on the lower classes of women.

Pazdernik, Charles. “Our Most Pious Consort Given Us by God”: Dissident Reactions to the Partnership of Justinian and Theodora, A.D. Classical Antiquity. Vol. 13, No 2. (1994). Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

This paper exemplifies the way in which primary sources can distort historical facts and recreate events. The paper explores how the historian Procopius portrays Theodora in a negative light because of his own hatred toward the Empress, therefore his opinions on Theodora are suspect. I chose this paper because the focus is not so much on Theodora herself, but how she worked in tandem with her husband, Justinian. I hope to derive insight into how one goes about distinguishing between biased historical information and factual, objective information.

The Empress Theodora: Precedent-Setting In the Byzantine Era

In the Byzantine era, women were rarely, if ever sought out for matters of state, much less for matters concerning the church. If they were given permission to speak on any concerns affecting the formation of theological ideas, those ideas quickly became absorbed by that of their male superiors. The Empress Theodora’s life and the impact she had on Orthodox Christianity by supporting one of the two branches of theological philosophy—Monophysitism—remains today one of the most remarkably decisive actions taken by a woman. Examining the Empress Theodora’s life from many different perspectives inevitably demystifies it and creates a complex character analysis from which springs the fabric of a burnished soul whose earned fearlessness enabled her to embrace inclusiveness and open-mindedness.

Within the ranks of scholarly journals and books whose focus is Orthodox Christianity, it is still difficult to find an objective viewpoint pertaining to the impact Empress Theodora had on the Christian Orthodox Church. Anecdotally speaking, a quick perusal of academic, “peer-reviewed” articles and books, for example, the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies ( http://ocabs.org/journal.html, 2012), reveal entire staffs comprised of male scholars. Though these scholars give credence to Theodora’s compassion to the poor, they have missed an important point. Theodora’s life is singular and very different than what most women experienced in the 6th century Byzantine Empire. This is an important point to keep in mind when studying women’s history through a male scholar’s eyes, solely (Herrin 13). The zeal to show examples of women who rose to the top of the ruling classes is skewed and the person who best knew of the incredible odds of a woman (of any rank or class) accomplishing anything, was none other than Theodora herself. This was exemplified over and over again by Theodora who never forgot that she had come from the lower classes and continually and deliberately included and invited those whom she had known in her former life into the imperial fold (Evans Chap. 2). These acts of deliberate inclusiveness had no precedence.

Theodora knew what life was like for the very poor and she had no misgivings about the fact that it was pure luck as to what station in life you were born into. From the beginning of her conscious life, Theodora was literally shoved into the spotlight. The spotlight was most definitely not proverbial and can be viewed as a symbol, or metaphor for the harshness with which lower-class women were treated. For example, if a lower-class woman during the Byzantine Era lost her husband, she was vulnerable to all manner of dangers. If she had no source of income or nothing was left to her, and she had no son, she had only two choices: become a prostitute or become a nun. To have only two choices in life seems incomprehensible to 21st-century women, but these were the choices that Theodora’s mother had after her husband and Theodora’s father died, leaving them all destitute. Theodora’s mother immediately made the decision to place her three daughters, who she herself had taught to sing and dance, in the theater, which in those days was synonymous with prostitution. Indeed, prostitution was part and parcel of that particular lifestyle. The daughters were brought to the Hippodrome in Constantinople and offered as suppliants (Evans Chap. 2). Procopius, in his book, Secret History, reports that Theodora was sexually active with dozens of men from an early age and recounts a story of her accompanying men to a banquet where Theodora supposedly gave sexual favors to all of the men and their attendants. The sad part of the story is that it was probably true—with one exception—Theodora was more than likely gang-raped, because, according to Evans, “ … gang rapes must have been a not uncommon hazard of an actress’s profession” (Evans Chap. 2).

Theodora’s sister became the “star” dancer and Theodora became her handmaid. Theodora did not have a natural talent to sing or dance, but it was discovered that she had a propensity to mime. According to the prejudiced historian, yet primary source, Procopius, Theodora engaged in a mime act of lewd proportions. These facts are only important in that the experiences Theodora endured throughout her youth left an indelible mark on her personality. This mark, surprisingly enough, was that Theodora had extreme concern and empathy for vulnerable women and even established a “safe house,” if you will, for those who wanted to leave behind the life of prostitution and become “oned” with God. The shelter was called the Convent of Repentance (Evans Chap. 3). What is remarkable about Theodora’s early life, is that her personality was not marred or made bitter.

History is replete with women who somehow, through their beauty and wit, manage to rise to the top and harness power. This is not something that is necessarily noteworthy. However, to rise above others while still harboring great compassion for those who could not rise is noteworthy. This was the path that Theodora forged, with her husband at her side, in complete union with what his wife wanted. Even this transparent relationship was cause for disrespectful gossip, which was carried on even after Theodora’s death. Procopius, who disliked Theodora, intensely, never believed that the Emperor Justinian and the Empress Theodora were working in tandem and that they were each other’s equal (Pazdernik 270).

Procopius was correct about the equality of their relationship in some respect. As a woman, Theodora “… could shelter and sustain, but she had no freedom or authority to advocate and promote” (Croke 41). Yet, even this statement must be put into context. The situation to which this assertion applies is specific to Theodora’s decision to protect a philosophical and theological group called the Monophysites. The Monophysites were deemed heretics by the church in Rome because they believed that Christ embodied one divine being in God. This directly contradicted the Council of Chalcedon held in 451. The Chalcedonian Creed taught its followers that Christ was of two natures, not one, and they were not divided or separate, but divine.

The primary reason that Theodora protected the Monophysites, harkened back to her early years, before she was an Empress and before she had been converted. As a young woman, she left the Hippodrome to be the concubine of a man named Hecebolus. He was the governor of Libya and he soon tired of Theodora. She then made her way to Alexandria where she was taken in and sheltered by Monophysites who evidently converted her to Christianity. Theodora was fiercely loyal, devoted, and grateful to people who helped her during the times when she most likely felt very lost. She was not one to forget acts of kindness. This is why, even when her husband, Justinian I, pronounced he was a devout Chalcedonian, Theodora went to great lengths to save Monophysite monks and their followers by housing them at the palace of Hormisdas in Constantinople. John of Ephesus, another primary source, claims that “Theodora was perhaps appointed Queen by God to be a support for the persecuted” (Croke 40). The very fact that an Empress, under the watchful eye of her ruler, her husband and the Emperor of a nation, harbored a sect whose philosophy the Emperor was vehemently against, speaks volumes about their relationship. For Procopius to miss this simple, straight forward fact speaks volumes about his prejudices toward both Empress and Emperor. Procopius did not stop here with his accusations. He claimed that the fact that the two rulers were at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as theology, was due to “genuine conviction … or a mutual understanding” (Pazdernik, 265). What is beneath the surface of this “observation,” is a disguised attack on them, insinuating that the two lovers knew what they were doing. In Procopius’s opinion, the two were carrying out their charade of togetherness in order to purposefully divide the country, and start a sort of revolution, though it is utterly baffling as to what kind of revolution they would have started and for what reason.

Evidently, Procopius believed that the couple wanted world power and would stop at nothing to gain this power. Pazdernik describes Procopius’ thought process:

“In Procopius’s description of the ceiling mosaic in the Chalke Gate of the Great Palace, we find Justinian and Theodora depicted together at the cynosure of a vast representation of imperial victory” (Pazdernik, 266).

Knowing what we know of Theodora through her tireless acts of kindness, this sounds absurd. Perhaps this paranoia was a product of its time and no one can truly blame Procopius since he simply had never seen the type of relationship that Justinian and Theodora had. He could not conceive of the fact that they respected each other and they were on nearly equal footing. Indeed, Theodora was precedent-setting in that no other woman before her had gained that kind of equality if a husband was still living, in control of all his faculties, and was effectual, sharp, and kind in his governing of his country. Yet from all accounts that are objective by nature, it would appear that Theodora and Justinian complemented one another with their differing viewpoints and in this way, they set an example for the world. They put to rest the dire summation by Procopius that in any familial disagreement concerning faith, catastrophe would follow because “fathers are divided against their children, children against their parents, a wife against her own husband, and again a husband against his wife” (Pazdernik 265).

As far as Theodora’s power is concerned, there were two other precedent-setting actions that she took that have made her an incredible role model for women even today. The first was how she took such great care of disadvantaged women; the other action demonstrates her military prowess and her sharp understanding of war strategizing.

In the early years of Theodora’s reign as Empress, she invited many of her exotic and diverse theater friends to stay at the palace. This of course shocked and unnerved many upper-class people who were not accustomed to mingling with what they considered to be riff-raff. Two of the names associated with these theater people are Indaro and Chrysomallo. The names imply a low class of people with blond hair— genuine blond or dyed blond. What Theodora did in direct opposition to the court’s snobbery, was to set the up her women friends with financial help and find husbands for their daughters. This must surely have rocked the stagnant boat of the court and its high-class inhabitants. However she managed to pull this off, it was an act of genius. It put everyone in his/her place, including her own. To Theodora, helping the destitute and inviting them into your house and feeding them was a Christ-centered act. All those who shunned this type of mercy would be shown to be hypocrites. Theodora did not stop at that, however. Both Theodora and Justinian wanted to rid the city of brothel keepers who were quite literally living off the misery of prostitutes who were always poor women. This was how the Convent of Repentance was born. The convent “was given an endowment and adorned with costly buildings so that none of its inmates would want to return to her old life or have to do so for financial reasons” (Evans Chap. 3).

Perhaps the action that Theodora was best known for was her handling of the Nika riots. These riots began on a Tuesday, January 13th. Originally, they began as a quarrel between two political/theological factions: the Greens and the Blues. Then the rioters turned on the Empress and Emperor, identifying them as being held responsible for the poverty and frustration that had been building. The rioters turned into a mob of violently angry people who broke into the Praetorium and “freed the inmates, killed some guards and then set the Praetorium ablaze” (Evans). Justinian prepared to leave knowing that the angry and hungry mob wanted to kill another leader. Theodora held fast and with a calm voice she gave the following speech:

As for the belief that a woman ought not show daring in the presence of men, or act boldly when men hesitate, in the present crisis, I think, we have no time left to ask if we accept it or not. For when what we hold is in extreme peril, we are left with no course of action except to make the best plan we can to deal with the plight we face. As for me, I believe that flight is not the correct course to take now, if ever, even if it serves to save our lives. For no person who has been born can escape death, but for a man who has once been emperor to become a runaway —that we cannot bear! I hope that I never have the imperial purple stripped from me nor live to the day when people I meet fail to address me as empress! …. Ask yourself if the time has come, once you are safe, when you would gladly give up security for death. As for me, there is an ancient maxim I hold true, that says kingship makes a good burial shroud (Evans Chap. 4).

By speaking these fearless words, Theodora established herself as a warrior Empress. After her speech, Theodora brought together a small cohort of loyalists, battle-hardened guards, and barbarian Herulians. They attacked the mob and 35 thousand were killed and the riots were ended. Using such brave and decisive action was how Theodora became legendary. Yet, her bravery can be directly traced to how she grew up. She derived her strength for everyday living and surviving in a world that held no mercy for women and children—its most vulnerable creatures. Theodora’s life should be held up as a model for all women, but if we were to look through Theodora’s eyes we wouldn’t accept such a skewed vision of women’s history. What we would see would be the thousands and thousands of women who lived ordinary lives, yet battled every day for their families and themselves. As Judith Herrin notes in Unrivalled Influence, history that is written primarily by men “all share that element of bias inherent in male authors who note the most outrageous, miraculous, and in other ways unexpected aspects of female life, rather than its regular achievements and routines” (Herrin 14). Also, Herrin reminds us that in the Byzantine Empire there were plenty of royal females who were extremely effective rulers. She notes that even though there isn’t much written about these women, there are dozens and dozens of statues. The importance of these statues is that they are artistic depictions of real, flesh and blood women (Herrin 166).

Whether born into poverty or royalty, the women of the Byzantine Era were real and all of them are remarkable in that they had to fend for themselves, every day. Whether noble or peasant, they all shared the same lack of control over their own lives, and yet, many like Theodora’s mother took responsibility to make sure their daughters had a marketable skill (Herrin 99).

As Judith Herrin delves deeper into her study of women in the Byzantine Era, she expands the realm of a woman’s choice insofar as occupations are concerned. She asks the reader to try for just a minute to envision how a woman with children who might have just lost her husband might support herself. And we see Theodora’s mother desperately teaching her girls to dance and sing. We see midwives, wet nurses, mourners. All of these “jobs” were done by ordinary women like Theodora was, and all demanded a certain amount of fearlessness (Herrin 100). Though there is not much written information about ordinary women in the Byzantine Era, the Empress Theodora stands as a shining example of one such woman.

Theodora was extraordinary simply because she had learned to make her relationship with her husband a true partnership in a world that struggled to understand what that meant. Theodora was a visionary who ushered in inclusiveness and open-mindedness, two concepts that would disappear and reappear for countless decades to come.

Works Cited

Croke, Brian. Justinian, Theodora, and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus. Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Vol. 60, (2006), pp. 25-63. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. Dumbarton Oaks. Trustees for Harvard University. Print.

Evans, James Allen. The Empress Theodora: Partner of Justinian. University of Texas Press Austin, 2002. Kindle. 16 Feb. 2014.

Herrin, Judith. Unrivalled Influence: Women and Empire in Byzantium. Princeton University Press, 2013. Kindle. 16 Feb. 2014.

Pazdernik, Charles. “Our Most Pious Consort Given Us by God”: Dissident Reactions to the Partnership of Justinian and Theodora, A.D. Classical Antiquity. Vol. 13, No 2. (1994). Web. 16 Feb. 2014.