Weaponizing the Male Gaze

Theodora, the empress of Byzantium, has often been remembered as a controversial and morally ambiguous figure in history. Through the lens of Prokopios’s Secret History, a text with a harsh and scandalous portrayal of her, the reputation only worsens. Prokopios was a historian who wrote extensively about Theodora and how he viewed her as a threat to traditional Byzantine values. Described as manipulative and sexually promiscuous, Theodora’s portrayals seemed destined to discredit her power and reduce her to an object of the male gaze. However, behind this narrative there exists a different reality: Theodora wasn’t simply passive to the male gaze—she wielded it as a tool. Theodora’s manipulation of the male gaze not only defied norms of female authority but also flipped the sexism that tried to limit her, exposing the biases of those like Prokopios who feared powerful women. 

Theodora’s rise to power, as described in Prokopios’s Secret History, wasn’t just due to her background—it was also about how she used her image to gain influence. Prokopios makes a point to emphasize her past as an actress, suggesting that her rise was based on her ability to manipulate men through her beauty and sexuality. But his perspective misses the deliberate way Theodora used her visibility. As Judith Herrin points out, empresses in Byzantium were aware of the power their public roles had. Herrin says that "imperial authority could adopt feminine forms" in Theodora’s time, and women like her learned how to "exploit resources" to consolidate their powers. While Herrin notes the importance of these dynamics, Theodora showed that women could also harness power through the manipulation of their personas. Instead of hiding from the male gaze, Theodora turned it into an advantage. What Prokopios saw as a moral flaw was actually a tool for her strategy to challenge the rules of a male-dominated society. While Herrin mentions how some cases allowed women to "adopt a male exploitation of forces within the imperial court," Theodora used her allure to reinforce her authority within those spaces. Her approach showed that women like her could navigate the gaps left by traditional power structures.

Aside from her image, Theodora also wielded power through religious authority (or imagery). While Prokopios’s narrative focuses on her background and how it was a flaw that undermined her, Theodora’s lasting impact can also be seen in the role she played restoring icons. As Herrin explains, Byzantine empresses, including Theodora, "played a significant role in promoting the cult of [icons]," which gave them a unique access to spiritual authority—one typically reserved for men. Theodora’s involvement in ending iconoclasm (the rejection or destruction of religious miscellanea) wasn’t just an act of religious devotion—it was a strategic move that made her a protector of the faith, which secured her influence over both the church and the state. By taking on this religious role, Theodora was able to circumvent the traditional male-dominated power and carve out a space for her own female leadership. Through Herrin’s "the imperial feminine", I believe women like Theodora were able to exploit religious symbols and authority in a way that was just unavailable to their male counterparts. This connection between religion and influence became another tool through which she could maintain her power, further revealing her ability to navigate and manipulate the structures of a patriarchal society.  

Another important aspect to consider about Prokopios’s harsh portrayal of Theodora is how it can be seen as an indictment of his character, instead of hers. If one places his text in a gendered framework, the criticisms actually reveal his deeper anxieties regarding shifting gender dynamics in Byzantium. As Leslie Brubaker notes in Sex, Lies, and Textuality, Prokopios portrays Theodora as the "perfect anti-woman”. She embodied the opposite of typical Roman virtues like modesty, chastity, and domesticity, and in doing so, she revealed that female power did not have to conform to those ideals. Instead of merely attacking her actions, Prokopios seemed troubled by the fact that Theodora is a woman—it made for a disruption of the traditional gender roles. Her ability to take on roles typically done by men—whether in politics or religion—posed a threat to the patriarchal values that he wanted to protect. By labeling her "shameless" and "immodest," Prokopios wasn’t just attacking Theodora personally, he was projecting a broader societal fear of female authority. His accounts then change from an accurate story of her life to more a reflection of the anxieties surrounding powerful women in Byzantium in general. Ultimately, Theodora’s ability to manipulate the male gaze and redefine power reveals that she not only survived, but thrived in a world designed to marginalize her. Her story proves that the real problem was not herself, but the structures that she was confined in.