bon was as follows: "Of these
strange anecdotes a part may be true because probable, and a part true
because improbable. Procopius must have known the former and the latter
he could scarcely invent." Reassured by this argument, and seduced by
the masculine taste for adventure, most historians have complacently
accepted this piquant history and have applied to Theodora the vilest
epithets. But recent writers, especially Debidour, Ranke, Mallet, Bury,
and Diehl, have not regarded the case as proved, and through a careful
analysis of the _Secret History_ have presented convincing arguments
against the reputed authorship of the work and the authenticity of its
narrative.

These later writers have called attention to the internal evidence of
the improbability of the picture of Theodora. There are in the
statements glaring inconsistencies with the other works of Procopius,
and inconsistencies within the anecdotes themselves. Many stories told
of Justinian are obviously overdrawn and dictated by inventive malice,
and these vitiate the entire narrative. Furthermore, the question of the
marriage law is triumphantly set aside. The edict abolishing the Old
Roman law was passed seven years after Justinian's succession, and was
in accordance with other legislation inspired by Theodora, to ameliorate
the condition of woman. The external evidence, also, has been carefully
sifted. The legal maxim, _Testis unus, Testis nullus_, applies in
history as well as in law. A single witness has related the most
incredible stories. Nowhere in other historians is there a shred of
evidence to support the story of Theodora's flagitious life. These
stories could have no basis other than in popular rumors; how is it,
therefore, that no other chronicle alludes to them? Orthodox
ecclesiastics violently attack Theodora's heresy, and speak of her as an
enemy of the Church, but write not a word against her private
reputation. Historians condemn in unmeasured terms certain features of
Justinian's administration, and dwell on other faults of Theodora, but
say never a word about her profligacy. Why are all other writers silent
about the dark passages in Theodora's history? Even the _Secret History_
alleges nothing immoral against her after her marriage: why then should
we take its testimony seriously regarding the earlier period of her
life? The silence of all other chronicles about extraordinary
occurrences, which, if true, must have been generally known, th