The story of Empress Theodora (c. 500-547ad), wife of Justinian I, Byzantine emperor of Constantinople, has long been based on the misogynistic writings of one man Prokopius (c. 490/507-c560s) and his works, Buildings and Anekdota.  Recently, however, a few scholars have looked beyond the Anekdota and uncovered more accurate information on which to base their study of the Empress. 

            This paper will look at Theodora’s life and how it affected her acts of patronage.  I will show that public opinion of the empress was not negative by examining the portrait mosaic of Theodora in the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna, and how this image enforced her legitimacy as empress.  In addition, I will illustrate how, through her patronage, Theodora followed in the footsteps of previous imperial women and their Christian philanthropia, linking themselves back to Helena, mother of Constantine, first Christian Roman emperor.

I will also suggest an alternative to Prokopius in addressing the empress’ protection of Monophysites in the face of Justinian’s persecution of this religious sect.  Thus, by analyzing Theodora’s religious and architectural patronage within its socio-political context, I am able to argue a rereading of this empress’ life, evoking for her a far more multi-dimensional place in history than scholars have traditionally allowed.

Prokopius’ Anekdota is his unreserved record of the Byzantine court portrayal of Theodora.  In it, Prokopius states that, in her youth, Theodora became a common courtesan and an actor of the low comedies.[i]  He wrote, “She was… [a] comedienne who delights…by letting herself be cuffed and slapped on the cheeks…raising her skirts to reveal to the spectators…feminine secrets.”[ii]  He went so far as to claim that Theodora was sexually veracious “picnick[ing] with ten young men or more…and dall[ying] with them all, the whole night through.”[iii]  When attacking Theodora’s character, Prokopius called her, among other things: perverse, fiendish, and manipulative.[iv] 

These personality traits not withstanding Justinian and Theodora married in 525 ad.  Justinian was made co-emperor in 527, shortly after which Justin I died, leaving Justinian as sole Emperor.  Part of the reason why Theodora remains well known is that she was co-ruler with Justinian, taking an active role in the affairs Constantinople.

            Although Prokopius criticized Theodora because of her past and personality, it is safe to assume that public opinion of the Empress was nevertheless favorable.  For instance, we can analyze the portrait mosaic of Theodora and her attendants, at the church of San Vitale in Ravenna.  A product of imperial propaganda, the portrait helps us to reach conclusions about the role and reception of Theodora as empress.

            To begin it is helpful to compare Justinian and Theodora’s mosaics.  Looking at the mosaic of Justinian (figure 1), one notices the uniform stance of the male figures.  Centrally located in the image, Justinian stands out from the crowd in his full-length purple cloak and nimbed, crowned head.[v]  Yet he does not appear especially larger or taller than the accompanying male figures.  Repetitious vertical lines enforce rigidity and strength equated with the stability and power of these men. 

            In the portrait of Theodora (figure 2), eighty percent of the figures are women.  Again, centrally located in the frame Theodora mirrors Justinian across the apse.  Although the figures in her mosaic are comparatively smaller than the figures in Justinian’s, the empress is taller than the figures in her grouping causing her to stand out from the crowd.  She, too, is cloaked in purple and is heavily adorned with jewels and a diadem.  The curve of the arched niche echoes the nimbus around her head, further accentuating her importance in the mosaic.

            While the medium of mosaic may make emphasizing curves and drapery difficult, this technical limitation helps to separate Theodora from the other women.  Straight lines, squares, and rectangles are traditional symbols of stability and strength—attributes of masculinity.  Conversely, curves and “roundness” imply fragility or weakness, associated with femininity.  The female attendants are dressed in a long, straight tunic or dalmatica, heavily patterned in this case and covered with a cloak or palla.[vi]  The cloaks provide the sense of femaleness by the way they drape across the wearer.  In Theodora’s case however, she does not possess typical female attributes because of the line of the cloak and the visual weightiness of the jeweled headpiece.  She literally parallels the rigidity of Justinian’s portrait. 

Aside from being the tallest figure in the mosaic, a visual sign of importance, empress Theodora’s significance is symbolically emphasized in the embroidered scene in the border of her cloak.  The three Magi are depicted bringing gifts to the Christ child.  The wise men travel in the same direction as Theodora steps to offer the chalice for the communion service.  Theodora’s offering equals in importance the gifts of the Magi.

Small inferences to femininity make her image even more complex.  We can conclude that the mosaic characterized Theodora in the manner in which the public knew her.  As I will now illustrate, her commissions and beneficence confirm this reading of the San Vitale portrait.

Through acts of patronage associated with her newly attained position as empress, Theodora followed in the example of her predecessors’ philanthropia.  Anne McClanan, author of the article “The Empress Theodora and the Tradition of Women’s Patronage in the Early Byzantine Empire” concludes, royal and/or aristocratic women were inclined towards projects such as hospitals and churches.  Therefore, their patronage could be viewed as “extensions of typical Byzantine women’s interest in their families and communities.”[vii] 

One of the earliest female patrons of the Christian empire was empress Helena (d. 330-336), mother of emperor Constantine, founder of Constantinople.  She is attributed with finding the True Cross as well as many other holy relics.  McClanan states that the “magnitude of her [Helena’s] patronage was gradually exaggerated, to the point that she was to have built over thirty churches throughout the Holy land….”[viii] Because of her legendary status, many subsequent women looked to Helena as a symbol, upon whom they built their own image.[ix] 

Examples of dedicatory inscriptions found on or in monuments and buildings commissioned by Byzantine women trace a line of familial validation back to Helena.  One such example is that of Galla Placidia (388-450) in her commissioned church dedicated to S. Giovanni Evangelista in Ravenna.  In the many images throughout the church, there were portraits of Constantine, Valentinian, Gratian, and Theodosius.[x]  These images act as a visual family tree dating back to the time of Constantine and his mother Helena.

Another important female patron of the early Byzantine empire was Eudokia Augusta (d. 430), known for commissioning a number of churches, hospices and monuments.  One of the churches attributed to her is the Church of St. Polyeuktos in Constantinople.   The foundation of this church shows a clear definition of expected philanthropic behavior for Byzantine empresses.  Although originally a small church, a descendant of Eudokia’s, Anicia Juliana (d. 527-9), later embellished St. Polyeuktos in the early sixth century.

A contemporary of Theodora, Anicia Juliana, great-granddaughter of both Eudokia Augusta and Galla Placidia, was responsible for the expansion and glorification of St. Polyeuktos (524-27).  This major undertaking also exemplifies the importance of familial ties through architectural commission, as is seen in the building’s dedication:

Eudokia the empress, eager to honour God, first built here a temple of Polyeuktos the servant of God.  But she did not make it as great and as beautiful as it is, not from any economy or lack of possessions – what doth a queen lack? – but because her prophetic soul told her that she should leave a family well knowing how better to adorn it.  Whence Juliana, the glory of her blessed parents, inheriting their royal blood in the fourth generation, did not defeat the hopes of the Queen, the mother of a noble race, but raised this from a small temple to its present size and beauty, increasing the glory of her many-sceptered ancestors.[xi]

 

The ties to Eudokia are evident in the references to her by name and genealogy.  An example of the grandeur of the work that Anicia Juliana commissioned for this church can be seen in the sculpted pier (figures 3, 4) once found in the Church of St. Polyeuktos but reused in Piazzetta, Venice.[xii]

Examples like these showed Theodora where and what to commission.  Even though male-oriented history often omits Theodora as patron and focus only on Justinian, it is probable that Theodora was the driving force behind some of the commissions attributed to Justinian.  The church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus (c. 531-36), contains an inscription identifying Justinian and Theodora in the entablature, but focuses especially on Theodora’s role in the dedication (figure 5).  “God-crowned Theodora whose mind is adorned with piety, whose constant toil lies in unsparing efforts to nourish the destitute.”  Furthermore, Sergius and Bacchus were Syrian saints important to the Monophysite community.  As Theodora was a protector and patron of the Monophysite sect, whereas Justinian was of Orthodox ideals, it is improbable that Justinian would spearhead a commission such as this. 

            Justinian and Theodora set about rebuilding Constantinople in the aftermath of riots staged in 532 ad.  The foundations of many structures still existed but the royal couple built on these as well as making grandiose additions, such as Hagia Sophia and Hagia Eirene.  Cyril Mango suggests that these two churches are contemporary to one another; and McClanan believes that it was the empress who sponsored Hagia Eirene.[xiii]  Because Justinian was consumed with the massive architectural project of Hagia Sophia and numerous other buildings, Theodora oversaw the construction of this imperial church.  Thus we can view Eirene’s reconstruction as a token of the power held by Theodora.

            Another example of Theodora’s beneficence is of the Hospice or Convent of Repentance, created to shelter former prostitutes and/or actresses.  It is well known that during Justinian’s reign, laws regarding prostitution were drastically changed.  We might even see Theodora’s hand in Justinian’s ban on the sale of daughters into prostitution.  Even if Theodora were not as promiscuous as Prokopius portrayed her, she would have known the conditions to which poor women were accustomed.  Prokopius views both these acts as proof of Theodora’s manipulative character, but a feminist rereading of his criticism proves Theodora’s autonomy and active participation in the rule of the empire. 

We must also investigate the protection of the Monophysite community as an example of Theodora’s patronage.  Theodora established a sanctuary in the palace for Monophysite monks.  She was so involved with the Monophysites that Theodora received blessings from each of the over 500 monks on a daily basis.[xiv]  Another act of patronage by Theodora concerning Monophysitism, was the reconstructions of the city of Antioch, which had been devastated by numerous earthquakes and tragedies.[xv]  Antioch was the home of the Monophysite patriarch Severus, which might indicate Theodora’s belief that this was an appropriate place to show her support for this religious sect.[xvi]  I find these foundations highly improbable if Justinian did not support the empress’ wishes. 

Throughout history, portrayals of the empress have been skewed by her reputation as painted by Prokopius.  Some scholars see her as a domineering woman, who controlled the actions of her husband.  Others have placed Theodora in admirable light, stating that she is a strong and independent woman.  It is possible that she contained elements of both.  Visual representations of the empress, as seen in the mosaic at San Vitale, identify her as a powerful woman at a time when women were considered weak. 

More evidence of her benefaction is exemplified in her continuous acts of protection and patronage of the Monophysite community.  I believe, despite the public view of Justinian and Theodora’s schism over Monophysitism, that this was instead a political ploy to ensure the approval of the entire empire.  In Prokopius’ terms “By such well-planned hypocrisies they confused the public and…were able to establish a firm and mutual tyranny.”[xvii]  The cooperation of the emperor and empress need not be publicly announced for the idea to work. 

Finally we can gather a sense of Theodora’s personality from various architectural commissions either originated or co-sponsored by the empress.  Further investigation into original documents will enable us to change the history of Theodora.  A feminist rereading, combined with an art historical investigation of Theodora’s works, shifts our focus from the dominating presence of male patrons, making evident this woman’s importance to the Byzantine empire.