Theodora (wife of Justinian I)
Critiques of Procopius

Modern historians point out that Procopius is not necessarily a reliable source for understanding Theodora and her historical impact. Procopius is believed to be aligned with many of the senatorial ranks that disagreed with the changes and policies that Justinian and Theodora imposed upon the empire. In the Secret History (12.12-14), Procopius asserts that many in the senatorial class were being "strangled" by tax collectors due to Justinian's (and Theodora's) policy of collecting and retaining the attractive properties and furniture of the wealthy, while "generously" giving back properties that had high taxes to their original owners. At one point, Procopius compares Justinian's rule to the bubonic plague (6.22-23), arguing that the plague was a better option since half the population escaped unscathed.

In the Secret History, Procopius also criticizes Justinian's and Theodora's rule as the antithesis of the rule of "good" emperors and empresses. His portrayal of their emotional balance and power is significantly different. Justinian was even of temperament, "approachable and kindly", even while ordering the confiscation of people's property or their destruction. Conversely, Theodora was described as irrational and driven by her anger, often by minor affronts or insults. For example, Procopius describes two separate incidents where she uses the judicial system to publicly accuse men of having sexual relations with other men. This was considered an inappropriate forum for persons of standing and, in Procopius's narrative, was unappreciated by the people of Constantinople. When one of the accusations is ruled as unsubstantiated, Procopius writes that the entire city celebrated.

One modern researcher suggests that Procopius's writings in the Secret History amount to an apocryphal tale of the dangers of “the rule of women”. Procopius's perspective as a conservative intellectual was that women, with their wily vices, served to vanquish men's otherwise virtuous leadership instincts. Procopius details two examples of Theodora's engagement in the Byzantine Empire's foreign policy that support his perspective. First, Theodora is quoted in a letter to the Persian ambassador, declaring that Emperor Justinian did nothing without her consent. The Persian king used this as an example to his nobles of a failed state since no “real state could exist that was governed by a woman.” Similarly, the Gothic King Theodahad wrote a letter to Theodora, confirming that “you exhort me to bring first to your attention anything I decide to ask from the triumphal prince, your husband.” Before issuing a degree, Justinian is quoted as saying he discussed it with “our most august consort whom God has given us.” All of these examples offend Procopius's sense of propriety. It was not that women could not lead an empire, Procopius believed that only women demonstrating masculine virtues and strengths were appropriate as leaders. The strength of the feminine Theodora was not hers; rather, it was the lack of strength demonstrated by Justinian that created the impression of strength by Theodora.

The definition of “feminine” behavior in the sixth century as used by Procopius is not how modern writers would use it. Feminine behavior in the sixth century would be described as “intriguing” and “interfering” according to researcher Averil Cameron. Procopius found Theodora's efforts to assist “repentant” prostitutes not the actions of a benefactress but instead attempts to interfere with the status quo which he found objectionable. This is also why he includes her speech during the Nika insurrection where she interferes with the actions of the men as they contemplate escaping the rioters. Procopius's intent in describing that scene is to demonstrate that Theodora does not stay in her appropriate role. At his core, Procopius wanted to preserve the social order. Henning Börm, chair of Ancient History at the University of Rostock in Germany, described this social order as a “social hierarchy: people stood over animals, freemen stood over slaves, men stood over eunuchs, and men stood over women. Whenever Procopius denounces the alleged breach of these rules, he is following the rules of historiography."

Although Procopius demonstrates bias, his aggrandized tales and retelling of salacious rumors (compared alongside other historians of the era) provide a glimpse into the changing values and norms of the period, rather than a straightforward biographical study of Theodora's life and character. For example, the portrayal of Justinian and Theodora as demons in the Secret History reflects a common belief held by people during this period. Some stories reflect what educated people wanted to believe about the imperial household, with a good empress being pious and chaste and a bad empress being sexually promiscuous and greedy. Events that were unexplainable by rational means were either a product of divine providence or the result of evil demons. When Procopius cannot explain the actions of the Emperor and Empress according to his beliefs, he falls back on the principle of outside influences being the likely explanation.

Averil Cameron says that describing Procopius as a historian is incorrect. In her view, Procopius is more aptly described as a reporter. He focuses on events and their details far more than analyzing motives and causes. Consequently, his portrayals lack nuance and harshly describe events from a palette of black and white. His rigidity and inability to embrace change make him a suspect voice when pursuing a deeper understanding of how and why events occurred as they did. This may also explain why Procopius' writings are significantly different from the accounts of other contemporary authors. While other writers describe the daily theological battles between the different Christian sects and the efforts of the government to align and subdue them, Procopius remains almost silent on these topics. He maintains an intense and political focus on his writing that prevents a balanced and holistic perspective. This intensity results in his portrayal of Justinian and Theodora as near caricatures. By exaggerating their faults and ignoring their successes, the reader is compelled to see them as villains or heroes.
detectable_format:json_format