Chapter IV: Pre-Imperial Career of Theodora: the Consort of Justinian (8)

[1224] Socrates, v, 18. The punishment of an adultress at this epoch took the ridiculous form of impounding her in a narrow cabinet next the street, where she was forced to prostitute herself to all comers. Every time she received a companion a jingling of little bells was kept up to publish the circumstance to passers by. At the same period immense underground bakeries were run by contractors for the supply of the Steps (see p. 81), and they hit on a remarkable expedient for procuring slaves to work in them. Taverns served by prostitutes were set up contiguous to the vaults; and customers, chiefly strangers, were lured into a compartment, from which they were suddenly lowered into the cavity beneath, by a sinking floor. There they ended their days in enforced labour, being never again allowed to see the light. A bold soldier of Theodosius, however, being thus entrapped, drew a dagger and fought his way out. He then laid information, which brought about the destruction of all such infamous dungeons; _ibid._

[1225] In the Middle Ages the absence of judicious and uniform legislation is one of the most marked features, and in every province the extremes of sociological phenomena are commonly to be observed. Side by side with measures for the total abolition of prostitution we find brothels tolerated as a regular department of royal palaces. In 1546, for example, prostitution was suppressed at Strasbourg, and at Toulouse in 1587. On the other hand, from the eleventh century onwards, a community of courtesans was maintained as part of the establishment of the kings of France. They were placed in the charge of an officer, named _le Roi des Ribauds_. His position, however, was low, and his right to eat at the same board with the other members of the household was disputed; see Rabutaux, La Prostitution (_au moyen âge_), Paris, 1851, ff. 16, 21, 32, 33. Again, it is well authenticated, though almost incredible, that in the sixteenth century nobles and generals of the south of Europe kept in the camp elegantly caparisoned goats for amatory purposes; see Bayle, _sb._ Bathyllus.

[1226] See p. 89.

[1227] Our knowledge of these facts in detail is due to Procopius (Anecdota or Hist. Arcana), but sufficient corroboration from other sources is not wanting. The question as to the authenticity of this work of Procopius has been finally set at rest by the recent researches of Dahn and Haury. It is doubtless as true as all history in detail, _i.e._, vitiated by prejudice, ignorance, and mistakes. The life and literary activity of P. will be noticed later on.

[1228] Procopius, Anecdot., 10.

[1229] This was a staple piece of “gag” for centuries, and is another instance of the uniformity of Byzantine life during long periods; see Tertullian and Gregory Naz., as quoted by Alemannus, _op. cit._, p. 380.

[1230] See Mirecourt (Les Contemporains, Paris, 1855, 78) for an amusing account (with portrait) of Lola Montez, and her bold procedure in dispensing with her _maillots_, “to the delight of the gentlemen of the orchestra,” when dancing at Paris. Some may still remember the popularity of “the Menken,” as Mazeppa at Astley’s, the result of her having been counselled to turn “to account her fine physique”; see Dic. Nat. Biog., _sb. nom._, for her career and distinguished associates. Her apology, protesting against the performance being denounced as an exhibition of nakedness, was published, and is extant. This hetaira approached somewhat to her Greek prototypes, and issued a volume of poems, which, if not equal to Sappho’s, had a merit of their own. The same significance cannot, however, be attached to such displays as at the present day. The indiscriminate bathing was only just passing into disrepute, and ingenuous exhibitions of that kind were still possible. See, for instance, Aristaenetus (i, 7), where a “modest” young lady trips down to the beach, coolly divests herself of her clothing, and asks a young gentleman, who happens to be reclining there, to keep an eye on her things while she is in the water. This author, waiting _c._ 500, could scarcely have deemed such an incident preposterous in his time. As to naked women in the theatre, in addition to the notices already given from Chrysostom, see In Matth. Hom. xix, 4 (in Migne, viii, 120).

[1231] Her proceedings are described by Procopius, with the openness and detail which was natural to the age in which he lived. For this, however, he has been censured, to the damage of his historical credit, as if he thereby proved himself to be a dissolute person, unusually experienced in the vices of the times. But the charge is unjust, and might be urged with greater force against almost all of the Christian fathers who continually inveigh against abuses of the sexual instinct, in the intricacies of which they show themselves to be far better versed. Beginning with the Epistle of Barnabas they never tire of decrying circumstantially all sexual relations, especially those who “medios viros lambunt, libidinoso ore inguinibus inhaerescunt”; Minucius Felix, 28; cf. Arnobius, Adv. Gen., ii; Lactantius, Div. Inst., vi, 23, etc. Their rigid text is “genitalem corporis partem nulla alia causa nisi efficiendae sobolis accepimus”; _ibid._ Nor was it regarded as proper that the knowledge and discussion of such matters should be ordinarily thrust out of sight; on the contrary they were included in the category of topics habitually invested with interest to “society.” Thus the polished Agathias in an amatory epigram (28), after lamenting the pangs and torments of love, makes his point with:

Πάντ’ ἄρα Διογένης ἔφυγεν τάδε, τὸν δ’ Ὑμέναιον
ἤειδεν παλάμῃ, Λαΐδος οὐ χατέων.

This graphic effusion duly found its place in that book of “elegant extracts,” compiled for the delectation of the Byzantine drawing-room, the Greek Anthology, where it remains enshrined amid a crowd of companions, at least ten times as remote as itself from modern ideas of decency.

[1232] One example of her unusual turpitude may be reproduced. After enlivening a party of ten or more young men for a whole evening, she “παρὰ τοὺς ἐκείνων οἰκέτας ἰοῦσα τριάκοντα ὄντας ἂν οὕτω τύχοι, ξυνεδυαζετο μὲν τούτων ἑκάστῳ”; Procopius, Anecdot., 9. Unconsciously she was emulating the activities of the Empress Messalina five centuries previously:

Claudius audi
Quae tulerit: dormire virum cum senserat uxor ...
Intravit calidum veteri centone lupanar ...
Excepit blanda intrantes, atque aera poposcit:
Mox lenone suas jam dimittente puellas,
Tristis abit; etc.
Juvenal, Sat. vi, 115, _et seq._

Pliny discusses her proclivities in the inquiring mood of a physiologist; Hist. Nat., x, 83.

[1233] This is in direct opposition to the established views of Byzantine superstition; see p. 119.

[1234] The age of Theodora is nowhere mentioned, but Ludewig and Isambert favour 497. Nicephorus Cal. (xvi, 39) says that she was born in Cyprus, an assertion which cannot be contradicted, but which is, on the whole unlikely, and some of his collateral statements are erroneous. The following information _pour rire_ has found its way into so considerable a work as Hefner-Altneck’s Trachten: “Theodora was the daughter of Acacius, Patriarch of CP., and was trained by her mother (!) for the theatre, in which she distinguished herself by her art as a pantomimist”; i, p. 124. The Patriarch Acacius was doubtless a celibate. The whitewashing of Theodora has, of course, been undertaken, but late, not till 1731, by Ludewig. She was, in fact, in bad odour with the Church, and the worst that could be said of her was acceptable. Recently a further attempt has been made by Débidour (L’Impératrice Theodora, Paris, 1885, Latin Thesis, 1877), called forth by Sardou’s well-known play of _Theodora_, in which she is undoubtedly misrepresented. A pendant to this _brochure_, containing all the facts of the defence, will be found in Eng. Hist. Rev., 1887 (Mallet). Present flatterers were, of course, ready to swear that she was an Anician! See p. 308.

[1235] Procopius, Anecdot., 10, 17. His horror at the practice of abortion teaches us that a great revulsion of public sentiment must have taken place since the time of Aristotle, who counsels resorting to it when over-population is threatened; Politics, vii, 16.

[1236] Procopius, Anecdot., 17.

[1237] _Ibid._, 9.

[1238] Codinus, p. 104 (Anon. of Banduri). This information dates from the early part of the eleventh century, but must have been copied from some earlier document. It is in general agreement with Procopius, Anecdot., 9.

[1239] Socrates, iv, 28. The Novation purists made great headway there; _ibid._, ii, 30, etc.

[1240] Contiguous to the church of St. Panteleemon, which stood on the Propontis to the east of the Theodosian Port; see Notitia, reg. ix and Ducange _sb. Homonoea_. The suburban St. P. is said to be indicated by ruins still existing at the foot of the “Giant’s Grave,” on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus; see Gyllius, De Bosp., iii, 6; Procop., etc., Notitia, reg. ix; Ducange, _sb. Homonoea_; Procopius, De Aedific., i, 9.

[1241] Codinus, _loc. cit._

[1242] Procopius, Anecdot., 9.

[1243] _Ibid._, 10. He allows that she was sufficiently well looking, but he also states that her countenance was disfigured by debauchery; _ibid._, 9. At a later date he praises her beauty as something almost superhuman, but this was intended for the eyes of the Court; De Aedific., i, 11.

[1244] In natural gifts she may have had some resemblance to Cleopatra; see Shakespeare’s presentation of the latter:

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale
Her infinite variety, etc.
Act ii, 2.

[1245] Procopius, Anecdot., 9; cf. John of Ephesus, Com. de Beat. Orient. (Van Douven and Land), p. 68, where the words occur, “ad Theodoram τὴν ἐκ τοῦ πορνείου, quae illo tempore patricia erat.” She is often mentioned in this work in a laudatory strain, with which this sentence, as Diehl (_op. cit._) forcibly observes, is decidedly incongruous. Probably, therefore, it has been introduced by a copyist, but of what date I cannot surmise.

[1246] Probably she now took up her residence in the palace of Hormisdas; see pp. 37, 309.

[1247] As shown by subsequent events; Theophanes, an. 6019; Victor Ton., an. 566; Jn. Malala, xviii, p. 430; _ib._, an. 6020.

[1248] Her position was now very similar to that of Caenis under Vespasian; see p. 336.

[1249] See p. 108.

[1250] Procopius, Anecdot., 10; the law itself, Cod., V, iv, 23 (De Nuptiis). This relaxation, however, was quite in accordance with the development of Christian sentiment. Thus Chrysostom expresses it: “Inflamed by this fire (Christian repentance) the prostitute becomes holier than virgins”; In Matth. viii, Hom. vi, 5 (in Migne, vii, 69).

[1251] Procopius, Anecdot., 9. The spurious life by Theophilus (see p. 320) tells us also that Justinian’s mother, her name Biglenitza (Vigilantia), opposed the marriage, not on account of unchastity, but because Theodora was too clever and addicted to magic, etc. There is no historical mention of this Vigilantia.

[1252] _Ibid._, 10.

[1253] Jn. Malala, xvii, etc.

[1254] According to Michael the Syrian, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, Theodora was the daughter of an “orthodox” (_i.e._, Monophysite) priest, who would not part with his daughter until Justinian had pledged his word not to coerce her to conform to Chalcedon! See Chabot’s trans. from the Syriac, 1901, ix, 20. She built St. P. (p. 344) on the site of her chaste pre-nuptial life.

[1255] Procopius, Anecdot., 1. Aimoin (Hist. Franc., ii, 5), a western author of the eleventh century, but in great part fabulous, relates that Belisarius and Justinian entered a brothel and chose there two prostitutes, Antonina and _Antonia_, sisters, whom they subsequently married. If this is not merely loose hearsay emanating originally from a reader of Procopius, it shows the sort of stories which were popularly current on the subject. Although the anecdote is scarcely far-fetched, it is rendered impossible by the fact that the ages of the two men differed by something like a score of years.

[1256] Later we hear from Procopius (De Bel. Goth., i, 5) that in 535 he had just become old enough to receive a separate command in the army; which probably indicates that he had then attained to the age of eighteen, the period when a young Roman was freed from his guardian (_curator_) and became _sui juris_. About nine years earlier (_c._ 526, De Bel. Pers., i, 12) Belisarius is referred to in very similar terms, so that the relative ages of these two characters can be determined with tolerable accuracy. Belisarius was then “πρῶτος ὑπηνήτης.”

[1257] Antonina and her son Photius are personages almost peculiar to Procopius and do not come to light noticeably in the ordinary chronographers.