Procopius on Theodora: ancient and new biographical patterns

The Anékdota or Secret History of Procopius of Caesarea tends to raise perplexity among scholars for different reasons, particularly the fact that a courtier wrote this work as well as the Buildings, a clear praise of Justinian through his constructions and foundations, and the Wars, in the most canonical historiographical tradition. It is apparent that the Secret History, as it is usually acknowledged, is related to the tradition of the invective and the pamphlet, even to the earlier classic iambography, but we should try to answer the question with the same analytical tools that have been applied in recent years to the study of ancient biography, whence the author takes inspiration, especially for the portrait of empress Theodora. Here we have identified, alongside the ancient biographical patterns of the classical tradition, new ones, mostly inversions of contemporary hagiographical narratives. Adressen: Dr. Sergi Grau and Oriol Febrer, Department of Classical, Romanic and Semitic Philology, Section of Greek Philology, Faculty of Philology and Communication, University of Barcelona, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585 08007 Barcelona, Spain; s.grau@ub.edu and o.febrer.i.vilaseca@umail.leidenuniv.nl Around 550,1 a couple of years after Theodora’s death, Procopius of Caesarea composed a controversial yet rather minor work. Its interpretation has signifiA preliminary version of this paper was presented at the XVIII Congress on Byzantine Studies, promoted by the Spanish Society of Byzantine Studies (SEB) and held at the University of Barcelona in January . We wish to thank the organisers, and specially Prof. Ernest Marcos, for their kind reception. We also thank the anonymous referees who had informed this paper for their useful suggestions. The research is part of the project entitled La construcción del pasado en la Grecia arcaica y clásica: mecanismos compositivos, genealogías y catálogos, directed by Jesús Carruesco and 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 Logotekhnia. Estudis de cultura grega antiga, directed by Xavier Riu ( SGR ).  The possible dates for the Secret History are / (J. Haury, Procopiana. Augsburg ; B. Rubin, Prokopios von Kaisareia. Stuttgart  [= RE ]; A. Cameron, Procopius and the sixth century. London ; G. Greatrex, The dates of Procopius’ works. BMGS , , DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0034 BZ 2020; 113(3): 769–788

cantlyshaped the modern reception of emperor Justinian, his empire and his entire period: the Anékdota or Secret History (Historia arcana,inLatin),asitisusuallyknown among scholars. Itsa uthor criticises merciless Justinianand Belisarius, the famous general, alongside their wives, Theodoraa nd Antonina. However,t he biographical patterns adopted by Procopius to shape his critique are by no means perspicuousa nd need to be addressed again.² As we wish to elucidatethrough these lines, Procopius, awell-trained and excellentlynurtured author,m akesu se, alongside traditional patterns alreadyf ound in classicalb iography -and, as far as we are aware, not yeti dentifiedb yo thers cholars -, of new ways to conveyh is enmity towardst he reigning couple.

Procopius' education
Procopius, born in Caesarea Palaestinensis ca. 500 AD to awealthyfamilyf rom this active and multicultural city,w hereC hristians of different denominations, pagans, Jews and Samaritans livedt ogether,a lthough not always in good harmony, receivedagood education, basedonthe readingofclassical authors, rhetoric, jurisprudence and asuperficial knowledge of philosophicalideas.³ This upbringinga llowed him to pursue ac areer 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 languagew ith am ore florid literary style,  -;J .A.S.Evans,The dates of Procopius' works: ar ecapitulation of the evidence. GRBS , ,  -;J .S ignes Codoñer,P rokops Anecdota und Justinians Nachfolge. JÖB , ,  -;A .K aldellis,The date and structureo fP rokopios' SecretH istory and his projected work on Church History. GRBS , ,  -)a nd / (R.S cott,J ustinian'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 century.F arnham/Burlington ;B.Croke,Procopius' SecretHistory:rethinkingt he date. GRBS , ,  -). We consider the first one to be morep lausible, mostlya fter Kaldellis' response (Kaldellis, GRBS , ,  -)t oC roke'so bjections (Croke, GRBS , ), that has not convinced Scott,Justinian'snew age ,however.The sole importance of the characterisation of Theodora, whop assed away in ,a sanelement of invective makes difficulta lated atingo ft he work. with an antiquarian taste.⁴ The rhetorical usagest hat characterise his style situate him at the end of the so-called Third Sophistic, mostlybecause of his Atticism and the use of canonical authors typical of rhetorical handbooks. Those who exerted most influenceonProcopius were Homer,Herodotus and, by far,Thucydides, but he shows arather in-depth understanding,beyond the simple quote of ap articularp assage, of the biographies of the great men of Greece⁵ -such as Themistoclesand Alexander the Great.Healso eminently references Roman history -the republican Numa,Camillus,A pius, Hannibal, Pompey;and the imperial Augustus, Nero, Vespasian,Titus,D omitian, Trajan, Zenobia, Diocletian and Constantine are all mentioned, onlytoname afew.Moreover,all of them are anecdotallyu sed as ar eference point,p ositive or negative,f or the contemporary material he is dealingw ith.⁶

The strength of tradition: classicalb iographical 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 images have been redebated throughout the decades, it seems that nowadaysa consensus has been reached regardingt he historicalp articipation of Theodora in political and ecclesiastical affairs, thanks mainlyt ot he use of other sources, even epigraphical evidence. Theodora, as wase xpected from women in the imperial court,a ppeared sideb ys idew ith her husband in court rituals and financed hospitals for indigents,c onvents 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.Indianapolis/Cambridge ,x xxv-xl.  Rubin, Prokopios (as footnote  above), .  About the uses of ancient historiographyb ys ixth-century historians,s ee G. Greatrex,P rocopius and the past in sixth-century Constantinople. Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire  (),  -.  C. Pazdernik, "Our most pious consort givenu sbyG od":dissidentr eactions to the partnership of Justinian and Theodora,A .D.  -.C lassical Antiquity  (),  -;C . F oss,The empress Theodora. Byzantion  (),  -;J .A.E vans,The empress Theodora: partner of Justinian. Austin ,passim; and J. A. Evans,The power game in Byzantium: Antonina and the empress Theodora. London ,p assim. her favour towards the Monophysites, and the ransom for poor youngw omen sold by their parents to brothels and procurers seem trustworthy.⁸ Her likelyconnection 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,o nt he other hand,h as been rightlyi nterpreted as aq uitet raditionalm ovet ob esmirch her husband'sr eputation through the critique of the character and the habits of his wife.¹⁰ Itsa ncient parallels are countless,b ut the most striking ones, duet ot heir obvious connection to Theodora, are Messalina( Plin. HN 10.172;Juv. 6;, Agrippina (Tac. Ann. 12.3 -7),¹¹ and, particularly, Aspasia. The latter was visited even by Socrates,and wascalled awhorebythe comic play-wrights for her sincerea nd explicit romancew ith Pericles -it is transmitted that they tenderly kissed each other every time he came homeorwentout (Plut. Per. 24.8 -9). Moreover her cultured disposition, extraordinary in aw oman of her time, probably led the general public to think that she could not be one of the conventional wivest hat abide at their gynaeceum.¹² Similarly,P rocopius underlines that Justinian 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 Theodorad uring the Nikar evolt (Wars 3.24.37) is most likelyaplayo fi ntertextuality with Plato'smocking parodyinthe Menexenus -and with other Socratics, such as Aeschines, author of an Aspasia that we have onlyf ragmentarilyp reserved. The part which mostlyc learlyr elies on these sources is perhapsw hen Theodorad eclarest hat it was she herself who wrotet he witty speecheso fh er husband.¹³ In various previous studies, nonetheless, the sources of the literaryt reatment of Theodorah avealreadybeen 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 analyses of ancient writers.¹⁴ This is, at least,t he 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 inversion of the elements of praise and encomium recommended in handbooks:¹⁵ Theodorah as no nobility or birth, nor illustrious parents, good education, friendships or reputation, nor anym oral virtue, exactlyt he opposite of features worth praising accordingtoAelius Theon (Prog. 110) and Aphthonius (Prog. 9.28). Moreover,a lthough she might be admired for having become virtuouslyb right, in spite of her obscure origin -as among others Theon (Prog. 112)proposed, preciselylike 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 accordingt ot his traditionalp aradigm, but this is onlyp ossible, of course, because he knows his wayaround the exact margins of this ancient rhetorical tradition. The traits of Theodorac orrespond, in fact,i ng eneral terms,t o the topics of traditionalGreek misogyny: besides her sexual voracity and the terrible seductiveness she exerted over everyone, beginning with the emperorhimself, her excessive affection for embellishing her bodyisunderlined (SH 15.6 -7). Procopius also highlights her gluttonyw ith food and beverages( SH 15.8), and her excesses regarding sleeping hours, by night as much as by day( SH 15.8 -9), without overlooking her unbearable grumpiness and her incapacity to forgive anya ffront,a si nnocent as it might be .
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,t he ἀστείως of the introduction of the priest'ss peech, that is coordinated with the κωμῳδικῶς and appears quite close to the reference to Aristophanes, has been ground for controversy,s ince the good taste associated to  Especially, F. B ornmann,S ua lcuni passi di Procopio. Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica  (),  -.This choiceofvocabulary from ancient comedy is particularlysignificant for the description,t hroughout the first part of the SecretH istory,o ft he kingdom of Justinian as "the rule of women",a sA .K aldellis,P rocopiuso fC aesarea. Tyranny, History,a nd Philosophya t the End of Antiquity,P hiladelphia ,  -,e mphasised.  Especially, Rubin, Prokopios( as footnote  above),  - and Cameron,P rocopius (as footnote  above),  -. the first adverb seems almost an oxymoronw ith the fact thatt he priest takes pleasure in the imitation of Aristophanes,r epresentativeo fa ncientc omedy, to whom, as Romain Brethes explains,¹⁸ rhetorical tradition attributesadegree of rudeness that the new comedya voids thanks to allusion. Nonetheless, it should be recalledthat,inthe novel, Thersander'sbarrister thinksthat the comical part of the priest'ss peech has been intertwined δι' αἰνιγμάτων,whereas the tragical part has been built with clarity, φανερῶς (Ach.T at.1 0, 4). It seems then that Thersander'sbarrister perceivesthat the priest has not shown in his speech dishonestt opics with rawness, as Aelius Theon advised and as Procopius does in his work at all times.
And in Italy -my word! youg ot that epic nickname of Cyclops,b ecause once, over and aboveyour old bag of tricks,you took anotion to do an obscene parodyonHomer'spoetry itself, and while youl ay there, drunk already, with ab owlo fi vy-woodi ny our hand, a lecherous Polyphemus,ayoungm an whom youh ad hiredc ame at youa sO dysseus, presenting his bar,t horoughlym ade ready, to put out your eye: And that he missed; his shaft was turned aside. Itsp oint drove through beside the jawbone'sr oot.²³ (Ofc ourse it is not at all out of the way, in discussingy ou, to be silly.)W ell, youa st he Cyclops,o peningy our mouth and settingi ta gape as widelya sy ou could, submitted to havingyour jawput out by him, or rather,likeCharybdis,you strovetoengulf your Noman whole, along with his crew, his rudder,a nd his sails.That was seen by other people present.Then the next dayy our onlydefencew as drunkenness,a nd yous oughts anctuary in the unwatered wine. (trans.H armon) We cannot but relatethis scene, significantlypornographic, but built upon atraditional 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 ac ento composed by verses of Il. . and .,f or the first verse, and ., for the second one.  B. Rubin,D as Zeitalter JustiniansI .B erlin , ,believed it so. It seems,i ndeed, that the mime of the Byzantine period depicted loves cenes with gods: see V. C ottas,L et héâtreà Byzance. Paris , .
Often in the theatretoo, and with the entirepopulaceasher audience, she would strip and stand naked at the very centero fa ttention, havingo nlyaloincloth 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. Wearingt his outfit,t hen, she would lie down on her back and spread herself out on the floor whereupon certain menials,w ho wereh ired 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 at ime with their beaks and atet hem. (trans.K aldellis)

New biographical patternsI :aresponse to Justinian'sp olicies
It is then quite evident that Procopius has unsurprisingly,r egardingh is education, followed traditional patterns of classicalrhetoric, also common throughout the Second Sophistic, for the narrative construction of Theodora'sd issipated youth and character.The remaininga necdotes have been shaped as ad irect attack against Justinian'sl egislative endeavour,perceiveda saperniciousn ovelty, and Theodoraworks,thus, as the incarnationand cause of all the evil unleashed by Justinian'sreforms.²⁵ It has oftenbeen underlined thatProcopius probablybelonged to aresentful senatorial class and thathis invective might be the expression of an opposition against the sovereign'sp olicies, damagingt othe interests of this class, whose main trait would be the possession of immensel atifundia, excessively taxed, accordingt oP rocopius, by Justinian.²⁶ This seems the way  The passages in the SecretH istory where Procopius' reluctancyt owards Justinian'si nnovations can be clearlyf elt arem any: .; .; .; .; .; .; . … It is, therefore, apparent that this was one of the main reasonsf or the instinctive rejection that the emperor caused amongt he nobility.  See Rubin, Prokopios (as footnote  above),  and A. Cameron,Procopius (as footnote  above),  -.S ome passagesw ith complaints about Justinian'st ax policies: . -; . -,  -; . -.F or ac ollection of parallels between Justinian'sb iographemes and Novellae related to inheritance, properties and economic transactions, see R. Scott,M alalas, to thus interpret the most of us,among whom Procopius should be counted too, in the following passage : ἐπεὶ δὲ ταύτην, ὥσπερ μοι ἐντ ο ῖ ςἔ μπροσθεν λόγοις ἐρρήθη, γενέσθαι ξυνέβη, τότε δὴ ἀθρόας σχεδόντ ιε ἰ πεῖν ἁπάντων τῶν ἀπὸ τῆςσ υγκλήτου βουλῆςτ ὰ ςο ὐ σ ί ας δημοσιώσαντες, τὰ μὲν ἔπιπλα πάντα καὶ τῶνχ ωρίων ὅσα κάλλιστα ἦν ᾗπερ ἐβούλοντο διεχείρισαν, ἀπολέξαντες δὲ τὰ φόρου πικροῦ τε καὶ βαρυτάτου ὑποτελῆὄντα, φιλανθρωπίας προσχήματι τοῖςπ ά λαι κεκτημένοις ἀπέδοντο. διὸ δὴ πρόςτ ετ ῶ νφ ορολόγων ἀγχόμενοι καὶἀποκναιόμενοι τόκοις ὀφλημάτων ἀειρρύτοις τισὶ δυσθανατοῦντες ἀκούσιοι διεβίωσαν. διὸ δὴἐ μοί τε καὶ τοῖςπ ολλοῖς ἡμῶνο ὐ δεπώποτε ἔδοξαν οὗτοι ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, ἀλλὰ δαίμονες παλαμναῖοί τινες καὶὥ σπερ οἱ ποιηταὶ λέγουσι βροτολοιγὼἤ στην … At anyrate, until the so-called Nikariots they [sc. Theodora and Justinian] were content to pick off the properties of the wealthyo ne 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 furnituret hat they fancied and all the best lands,whilew ith 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".A saresult,t hese senators were strangled by the tax collectors and wornd own by the ever-flowingi nterest on their debts, longing for death in the miserable life that they unwillinglyendured. Therefore,both to me and also to manyo fu st hese twon ever seemed to be human beings at all but rather murderous demons of some kind, or as the poets would say, "abaneful pair they weref or all mortal men"²⁷ … (trans. Kaldellis) Apart from the issue of tax rates,the critique of the administrative centralisation   Be that as it may, the fact is that certain especiallyinnovative laws -without ad oubt very controversial for the old senatorial class -can be placed side by side with manyb iographical anecdotes concerning Theodora.²⁸ To begin with, an ew lawe nacted by Justinian (Cod. Iust. 5.4.23)g ranted formera ctressest he right to legallyg et 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 Romanl egislation decreed, ever since Tacitus' times, who refers to it in the Annales (2.85), that as enator can under no circumstances marry a scaenica, scaenicae filia, lenonis aut harenarii filia. Of course, the biographical readingo ft his legislative changei sw hat allows Procopius to build up the entire story about Theodora'sp ast: the enactment of such as hameful lawi nt he eyes of the nobility was maliciously explained if the emperore nacted it with the sole goal of marryingh er.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 without aw ill (Cod. Iust. 5.27.1;5 .5.7.2). Once again, such ap olemical lawo btains in Procopius' story ab iographical justification: the emperor Justin would have enacted it in order to marry Euphemia, who was aslave with the name, very eloquent about her profession, of Lupicina (SH 6.17). Both the new lawofJ ustinian against the procurers (Nov. 14)and his intention to end the business of prostitution, also attested by other sources,³⁰ quite directlyrelatetothe passageinwhich Theodoraa ssemblesm ore thanf iveh undred street harlots and closes them in the convent of Metanoia so that they repent -as it is alreadys uggested by the  And with other criticism of Justinian'sp oliciesp resent throughout the entirew ork, liket he end of an autonomous municipal taxation (SH . = Nov. .; .; .), the repression of pagans( SH . - = Cod. Iust. ... )o rt he recruitment of slaves( SH .;s ee R. González Fernández,L as estructuras ideológicas del Código de Justiniano. Murcia ,  -), onlyt og iveacouple of examples.F or ac ompletel ist 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 correspondences with the biographyofTheodora,nonetheless,wewould liketoacknowledge here our debt to Dr.R oser Homar,who gentlyg ave us this interpretative clue.  See, for the legalspecificitiesoftheir marriage,D.Daube,The marriage of Justinian and Theodora: legala nd theological reflections. CatholicU niversity of America Legal Review  (),  -.  Procopius, Buildings .. -,p reciselyp raises 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 payingh uges ums of money to procurers and to the girls themselvesw ith the condition not to exert prostitution ever again.J ohn of Nikiu, Chron. .,e venc omest oa ffirm that Theodora eliminated the profession itself. name of the convent -their previous lifestyle. Someofthem, however,ended up jumpingo ff the convent'st owers (SH 17.5 -6): πόρνας ἀμέλει πλέον ἢ πεντακοσίας ἀγείρασα ἐν ἀγορᾷ μέσῃἐ ςτ ριώβολον, ὅσον ἀποζῆν μισθαρνούσας, ἔςτ ετ ὴ νἀ ντιπέρας ἤπειρον στείλασα ἐντ ῷκαλουμένῳ <Μετανοίᾳ> μοναστηρίῳ καθεῖρξε τὸνβίον μεταμφιέσασθαι ἀναγκάζουσα. ὧνδήτινες ἐρρίπτουν αὑτὰς ἀφ' ὑψηλοῦ νύκτωρ, ταύτῃ τε τῆς ἀκουσίου μεταβολῆς ἀπηλλάσσοντο.
It was during this time that the morals of almost all women toow erec orrupted. Fort hey 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 haulingt heir 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 wivest he dowries that they had received, onlyt wofold, to be whipped and then, for most of them, led off to prison. Aftert his, they had to look on again as these adultresses preened and lusted after their seducers, onlymoreflagrantlythis time. Manyof these seducers even receivedr anks and honors for performing this service. From then on most men were onlyt oo happy to endure without protest the unholyd eeds of their wives the freedom to do whatever they wished by pretending not to know what was goingo n. (trans.K aldellis) In fact,t he codeo fJ ustinian onlya llowed women to divorcet heir husbands in case of arbitrary abuses or if they caught them in flagranta dultery( Nov. 117. 14 and 117.9.5), but the truth is that women werea sked to provide clear evidence (Nov. 117. 15).
Irrespective of the historical accuracy of these anecdotes and biographical vicissitudes, Theodora obviouslyi ncarnates in her person, throughout Procopius' account,t he pernicious disruption of traditional customs represented by the new legal code of Justinian in the eyes of the nobility.Awoman commei l faut had to be, in that moment and cultural context,a si ns om anyo thers, chaste, virtuous, submissive and dependent on her husband or on anyo ther 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 broken all rules just to marry Theodora( SH 10.2): οὐδὲ γὰρτ ῷγ ή μαντι ὕβρεώςτ ις οἴησις γέγονεν, εἴ οἱ παρὸν ἐκπ ά σης ἀπολεξαμένῳ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆςγαμετὴνγυναῖκα ποιήσασθαι τὴνπασῶνγυναικῶνμάλιστα εὖ τε γεγονυῖαν καὶ τροφῆςκ ρυφαίου μεταλαχοῦσαν, τοῦ τε αἰδεῖσθαι οὐκ ἀμελέτητον γεγενημένην, καὶ σωφροσύνῃ ξυνῳκισμένην, πρὸςδ ὲτ ῷκ ά λλει ὑπερφυᾶ καὶ παρθένον τινὰ καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον ὀρθότιτθον οὖσαν.
The thought never occurredt oh er husband that his choice was an outrage, givent hat it was possible for him to have selected as pouse 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,w ho had learned the ways of modesty and livedd iscreetly; moreover,s he could have been exceedinglyb eautiful and still av irgin 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 debauchery beyond anyr easonable limit,a nd, abovea ll, dominanti ne ach and every area of life: alreadya saprostitute, it was she who seduced her lovers and sexuallye xhausted them (SH 9.15).³³ Afterwards, as an empress,n obodycould persuade her to do thingsd ifferentlya st ow hat she had alreadye stablished (SH 15.2), and manya re the passages whereJ ustinian'ss ubmission is emphasised, like Belisarius' to Antonina,i nfluenced preciselyb yt he empress.³⁴ In this sense, some assertionsi nJ ustinian'sl egal texts might have been significantly outrageous, when the sovereign affirms thath is spouse shared his decisions, as in Nov. 8, 1, concerning reforms in provincial administration.
Procopius uses, therefore, the usual narrative procedurei na ncient biographies of poetsa nd philosophers: Solon'sl ife, 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 particularlyo bscure passages;³⁵ Empedocles' life, in asimilar fashion, has been structured in chapter and verse pursuing the sense of the fragments of his work.³⁶ In fact,the majorityo fa ncientb iographies follow this same narrative categorisation,³⁷ which would afterwards become usual in medieval hagiographies too.³⁸ In the caseo fP rocopius, however,t he justification of Justinian'sr eform is explainedn ot through Justinian himself, the actual promoter of the vast legal reform, but mostlyt hrough his wife.

New biographical patternsI I: subversion of hagiographic motifs
And yet, Procopius finds another subtlerway to slander Justinianand Theodora, which was not aheritageofclassical biography: the subversion of attributes and actionst hatw ould usually confer holiness to saintsi nt he hagiographic genre. Although Procopius does not denyt he existenceo fs uch good works accomplished by the imperial couple, his interpretation of them deprivest he rulers of anyg oodness and points directlyt ot he opposite of sanctity,adiabolical nature. With regard to these new biographical patterns,wew ould like to address now the question of Theodora'sr elation to prostitution before becominge mpress.John of Nikiu, the Coptic bishop writing at the end of the seventh century, reports (Chron. 90.87)t hat Theodorac onsidered Timothy, patriarch of Alexandria, her spiritual father.One might think that her stayinAlexandria in the com-panyofTimothycould have influenced Theodora'spersonal and spiritual evolution to leave behindh er life bound to the theatres and,p erhaps,t ot he prostitution related to them, in order to become, in the future, as aint 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 usuallyt he same, though with notable narrative variations:agirl, after amoreorless long life full of lust and sexual depravity -sometimes related to the scene, as it is the case with saint Pelagia -converts through the intervention of aG od'sm inister -or through God without intermediaries, as saint Mary of Egypt -and radicallyc hanges her lifestyle, through penitence, in order to achieve sanctity.P rocopius, therefore, would have tried, with his biographyofTheodora, to set up an inversion of the hagiographies of saint prostitutes that circulated in Byzantium preciselyinthe fifth and sixth centuries,with ag reat successa mong the readers. It is thus quite telling that John of Ephesus, aw riter sympathetic with Theodora, states that "she came from the brothel" (Lives of Thomas and Stephen,PO 17.189 [189]), a πορνεῖον,⁴⁰ in ah agiographyoft wo deacons,S tephen and Thomas, whereT heodora, as as econdary character,h elped both saints through her influenceo ver her husband and allowed them to pursue their ascetic and holyc areer.O ther echoes of Theodora'se arlyc areer as aw horeo utside the Anékdota are found in the seventh-century Chronicle of Fredegar (Fredegarius II.62,e d. B. Krusch. MHJ, Scr.R er.M erov. 2, Berlin 1888, p. 85), whereJ ustinian and Belisarius marry two sisters from a lupanar -although the empress is named Antonia instead of Theodora -,a sw ell as in the name of Theodora'ss ister,C omito, typicallyu sed for prostitutes,⁴¹ in Malalas (Chron. 18.10 Thurn).⁴² Herc onversion 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 Justinianb ecause of his greed (for his φιλαργυρία,t op ut it with ancient terms),⁴³ the fact is that the mechanism used more frequentlya nd efficientlyi nt his work is the inversion of the traits of sanctity thatc ould eulogiset he protagonists. Justinian'sa sceticism -to give the most apparent example, which materialises in frugality and extraordinary vigils (SH 8.12;12.27;15.11) -is an essential characteristic of as aint; 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): the previous biographical tradition, invert the meaningo fg ood attitudes or actions typicalt oh agiographies.
It seems ap roven fact that Byzantine classicising authors, particularlyh istorians,constructed their writingsinawaythat their learned readerscould identify their classicalmodels and the precise allusions to the canonical authors that werep art of the education of the intellectual elites of the empire.⁴⁷ This evidence, indeed, should make us consider thatthe Secret History was definitelyintended 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 appropriatef or the largerp ublic -sometimesp erhaps 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'sl egislation in order to be able to properlyr elish the attackso nT heodoraa nd on certain turns of imperial politics. The knowledge that its readership had about contemporaryh agiographies,m arkedlyp opular in tone, is naturallyo bvious, but it is alsot elling:P rocopius constructs ak ind of anti-hagiographyo f' saint Theodora',w ho is not ah arlot turned into a saint,asshe would be presented in aconventional hagiography, but an inverted saint who represents the Antichrist,s imilar to her demonic husband Justinian. These mixed strategies deployed by Procopius in Theodora'sp ortrait make his biographyo ft he empress one of the most classicisinga nd carefullye laborated parts of his entireliterary production, being,atthe same time, effective and correspondingtothe expectations of his own age, thanks to the versatility of its biographical patterns.