Two obstacles stood in the way of Justinian when he proposed to make Theodora his wife. In the first place he was confronted by the old law of Constantine which aimed at preserving the aristocratic families of the Empire free from any taint in their blood. It was enacted thereby that no woman of vicious life, actress or courtesan, or even of lowly birth, could become the legal spouse of a man who had attained to the rank of Clarissimus or Senator, the third grade of nobility.[1249] To abrogate this statute was therefore a necessity before he could carry out his design, but he easily prevailed on Justin to give the Imperial sanction to a Constitution which recites at length the expediency of granting to such women, who have repented and abjured their errors, an equality of civil privileges with their unblemished sisters.[1250] A further impediment arose from the opposition of the Empress Euphemia, who withstood the marriage with an obstinacy which neither argument nor entreaty could overcome.[1251] Although her relationship to Justin had until recently been abased, the quondam slave had never deviated from the path of virtue and had imbibed all the prejudices of the strictest matron against women who made a traffic of their persons. A critical delay thus became inevitable, but Theodora passed through it triumphantly, and in 524, by the death of Euphemia, Justinian was freed from all restraint. Their nuptials were then celebrated with official acquiescence and without even popular protest. The Church, the Senate, and the Army at once accepted the former actress as their mistress, and the populace, who had contemplated her extravagances on the theatre, now implored her protection with outstretched hands.[1252] The crown with the title of Augusta was bestowed on her by Justinian at the time of his own coronation;[1253] and she acquired an authority in the Empire almost superior to that of her husband. After her elevation Theodora became a zealous churchwoman, and extended her protection far and wide to ecclesiastics and monks who had fallen into distress or disrepute through being worsted in the theological feuds which were characteristic of the age. But she was always bitterly hostile to those who opposed her particular religious views or political plans, and proceeded to the last extremity to subject them to her will.[1254]

Antonina sprang from the same coterie as Theodora, but her birth was more disreputable. Her father was a charioteer of the Circus at Thessalonica, and her mother a stage-strumpet.[1255] The two women were not, however, companions, perhaps not even acquainted, as the wife of Belisarius was almost a score of years senior to the Empress, and she also exceeded the age of her husband by an even greater amount. It appears, therefore, that whilst Justinian was probably twenty years older than Theodora, Belisarius was at least as much junior to Antonina. The latter was, in fact, the mother of several illegitimate children before being married, and a son of hers named Photius, not more than eight or ten years junior to his stepfather, is an observable figure in the historic panorama.[1256] We have no details as to the career of Antonina previous to her becoming involved in the current of political affairs, nor can we regret the loss of another story of moral obliquity, but there is evidence to prove that she was a woman of a totally different stamp from the Empress, one disposed by natural propensity to debauchery, and at no time inclined to deny herself the pleasures of incontinency. At the outset of Justinian’s reign Theodora regarded her with the greatest aversion, but whether because the character of Antonina was at variance with her own or that she loathed the presence of one too well informed as to her own antecedents cannot now be determined. In the political vortex they were unavoidably thrown much together, and it will often be necessary to inquire as to how far the course of history may have been modified by their respective activities and temperaments.[1257]

END OF VOL. I.

INDEX

ERRATA

P. 11, peninsula; p. 17, n. 1, Frising.; p. 24, note, Beylié; p. 55, n. 3, Lethaby; p. 118, n. 4, Lactant., i, 20; p. 158, n. 3, Berg-; p. 188, herd; p. 225, n. 1, cadavérique; p. 256, note, und.

ADDITIONS

P. 20, n. 1. The date of the dialogue Philopatris has been the subject of much argument, notably in Byzant. Zeitschrift, vols. v and vi, 1896-7. It has been placed under Carus, Julian, Heraclius, and John Zimisces. The matter is unintelligible unless at an early period of Christianity, and I should be inclined to maintain that interpolations in one or two places by late copyists (see [p. 256]) have given it a false semblance of recency.

P. 24, note. John Malala was unknown to Ducange (not having been published till 1691), and hence has been neglected to a great extent by later writers on Byzantine antiquities. He is the earliest authority for much of what is to be found in the later chronographers. According to Conybeare the Paschal Chronicle did not copy Malala, but an original common to both; Byzant. Zeitsch., 1902.