The world’s oldest profession as an entry level job

Theodora, an actress and sometime prostitute in sixth century Constantinople, won the love of the emperor Justinian and became the powerful empress of the Eastern Roman Empire. Reversing the sequence somewhat, “Kristen,” the call girl whose two hour rendezvous with him inadvertently brought down the powerful governor of the Empire State, is using her new-found fame, via an interview on Larry King (which I haven’t seen yet), to launch a career as a singer.

Correction: According to Mark K., who sent the clip, it’s not Kristen herself who appeared on Larry King, but

her pimp … sorry, my bad, a past employer … and a fellow whore, whoops, sorry, a past peer … testifying to her great personality and essential goodness. Her career sister discussing how one survives in this trade by making the right choices and spiritually\intellectually connecting with the clients.

The sleaze factor appears to have been removed from this industry and it is now a career choice with its own acceptable psychology.

Jeff in England should approve!

- end of initial entry -

LA to Mark K.:

See what I’ve posted. But you seemed to say in your first e-mail that Kristen was on Larry King and was “spectacular.” What did you mean?

Mark K. replies:

Her ex-employer (who had been busted by Spitzer) was on Larry King and said that in the performance of her duties, “she was spectacular.”

In listening to her ex-employer (her first one in the industry), and hearing her peer describe her (and the trade), I’m trying to come to terms with how all this can take place so cheerfully without any pangs of conscience. This is all so “amoral,” as if morality was a question of choice. As her peer Natalie says, “If you go into the industry with the wrong intentions, you’ll suffer bad feelings.” But if you make the relationship with the client into a mental and spiritual “connection,” then the experience is fulfilling for both. It makes those who view this critically as the ones who bring in the bad karma.

N. writes:

This looks to me to be a part of the ongoing “pornification” of society. Consider the series “Sex and the City,” four years ago this rather pathetic show was available only on cable, now it is being broadcast over commercial stations. Consider the social and cultural milieu that a 27-year-old grew up with: when that person was 10 to 15 years old, the availability of porn to anyone with an Internet connection was pretty much a given. Prime time shows in which various illicit sexual relationships, from casual hookups to married people having affairs, were just taken as a given, normal part of the plot were all over the place.

There are a lot of other social changes in which ordinary people are now copying behavior that once was limited to porn videos, that I frankly do not wish to discuss in detail. Suffice to say that when some 20-something women are essentially taking personal tips, from grooming to relationships, from porn stars, it cannot be a surprise that at least a few will regard the “profession” of harlot as a normal one.

At some point, as I read history, people will get sick of this, and a revulsion will set in similar to the changes in credit habits that are already taking hold. At that point in time, it is very important that some socially conservative options besides Islam be very visible.

Adela Gereth writes:

Mark K writes:

“This is all so ‘amoral,’ as if morality was a question of choice.”

To these people, it is. It’s the logical outcome of narcissism flourishing in a moral void, the full flowering of the “If it feels good, do it” and “Express yourself” mentality.

Frankly, I’m less interested in prostitution itself than I am in the larger question of how condemnation of a immoral and illegal act has come to be itself so widely condemned. Increasingly large swaths of the rule of law are flouted, ridiculed or ignored. Judgmentalism is reserved for those who argue in favor of morality and the rule of law and the greatest condemnation is reserved for those who trespass against any of the subsets of identity politics.

I’m betting Jeff from England will be along shortly to applaud the very developments I find so appalling.

LA replies:

Check out these past articles by me on how liberalism suppresses traditional morality and liberates its opposite. In other words, liberalism is liberatory toward liberal things, and tyrannical toward non-liberal things. The supposed double standard that conservatives constantly complain about is not a double standard but a single, liberal standard, aimed at advancing liberalism.

Why is liberalism both liberationist and totalitarian?
The marriage of sexual liberationism and totalitarianism
The tyranny of liberationism, cont.

LA writes:

In reply to N.’s comment, “Sex and the City,” and the popular glorification of that program and its stars, with Sarah Jessica Parker, its star and producer, being treated as some kind of national or at least New York City iconic “sweetheart,” meant that the mainstream society was embracing and glorifying whoredom.

So there certainly is massive hypocrisy, or some kind of schizophrenia, in a society that glorifies the upscale whory sex of “Sex and the City,” and then furiously denounces and ostracizes a public official who uses high-priced whores. I guess it’s only the illegality of his conduct that is the problem. If Spitzer had kept a stable of mistresses located in several cities whom he visited regularly, I suppose it wouldn’t have been a problem.

If Spitzer had been smart, he would have worked to legalize prostitution, instead of working to legalize illegal aliens.

KPA writes from Canada:

I thought you might be interested in my take on your comparison between the Empress Theodora and the Spitzer call girl.

As Daniel Boorstin writes in The Creators: A History of the Heroes of the Imagination:

Suddenly and unaccountably, Theodora abandoned her lascivious ways, settled in a modest house near the palace, and earned her living by spinning wool. Attracted by Theodora’s beauty, wit, intelligence, and youth, Justinian determined to marry her.

Reading some background on Theodora, it appears to me that it was her Christian conversion that led her to this “unaccountably” modest behavior, renouncing her past activities, to become one of the great Byzantine Empresses.

Spitzer’s escort girl is now “cashing in” on her experience, apparently without any remorse, expiation or change in behavior.

LA replies:

You’re correct about Theodora—I was unfair to her in leaving out the reformation of her life that preceeded Justinian’s interest in her, though I did refer to her as a “sometime” prostitute. However, as I remember from Gibbon, there is, to put it mildly, disagreement about her character. Was she a genuine convert or a woman in trouble looking for the main chance? I’ll find the passage from Gibbon about her and post it here.

LA continues:

As we can see, Gibbon’s account puts Theodora’s elevation to empress in a rather less complimentary light than Boorstin’s. This is from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter XL:

In the exercise of supreme power, the first act of Justinian was to divide it with the woman whom he loved, the famous Theodora, whose strange elevation cannot be applauded as the triumph of female virtue…. As they improved in age and beauty, the three sisters were successively devoted to the public and private pleasures of the Byzantine people: and Theodora, after following Comito on the stage, in the dress of a slave, with a stool on her head, was at length permitted to exercise her independent talents. She neither danced, nor sung, nor played on the flute; her skill was confined to the pantomime arts; she excelled in buffoon characters, and as often as the comedian swelled her cheeks, and complained with a ridiculous tone and gesture of the blows that were inflicted, the whole theatre of Constantinople resounded with laughter and applause. The beauty of Theodora was the subject of more flattering praise, and the source of more exquisite delight. Her features were delicate and regular; her complexion, though somewhat pale, was tinged with a natural color; every sensation was instantly expressed by the vivacity of her eyes; her easy motions displayed the graces of a small but elegant figure; and either love or adulation might proclaim, that painting and poetry were incapable of delineating the matchless excellence of her form. But this form was degraded by the facility with which it was exposed to the public eye, and prostituted to licentious desire. Her venal charms were abandoned to a promiscuous crowd of citizens and strangers of every rank, and of every profession: the fortunate lover who had been promised a night of enjoyment, was often driven from her bed by a stronger or more wealthy favorite; and when she passed through the streets, her presence was avoided by all who wished to escape either the scandal or the temptation. The satirical historian has not blushed to describe the naked scenes which Theodora was not ashamed to exhibit in the theatre…. After reigning for some time, the delight and contempt of the capital, she condescended to accompany Ecebolus, a native of Tyre, who had obtained the government of the African Pentapolis. But this union was frail and transient; Ecebolus soon rejected an expensive or faithless concubine; she was reduced at Alexandria to extreme distress; and in her laborious return to Constantinople, every city of the East admired and enjoyed the fair Cyprian, whose merit appeared to justify her descent from the peculiar island of Venus. The vague commerce of Theodora, and the most detestable precautions, preserved her from the danger which she feared; yet once, and once only, she became a mother. The infant was saved and educated in Arabia, by his father, who imparted to him on his death-bed, that he was the son of an empress. Filled with ambitious hopes, the unsuspecting youth immediately hastened to the palace of Constantinople, and was admitted to the presence of his mother. As he was never more seen, even after the decease of Theodora, she deserves the foul imputation of extinguishing with his life a secret so offensive to her Imperial virtue.

In the most abject state of her fortune, and reputation, some vision, either of sleep or of fancy, had whispered to Theodora the pleasing assurance that she was destined to become the spouse of a potent monarch. Conscious of her approaching greatness, she returned from Paphlagonia to Constantinople; assumed, like a skilful actress, a more decent character; relieved her poverty by the laudable industry of spinning wool; and affected a life of chastity and solitude in a small house, which she afterwards changed into a magnificent temple. Her beauty, assisted by art or accident, soon attracted, captivated, and fixed, the patrician Justinian, who already reigned with absolute sway under the name of his uncle. Perhaps she contrived to enhance the value of a gift which she had so often lavished on the meanest of mankind; perhaps she inflamed, at first by modest delays, and at last by sensual allurements, the desires of a lover, who, from nature or devotion, was addicted to long vigils and abstemious diet. When his first transports had subsided, she still maintained the same ascendant over his mind, by the more solid merit of temper and understanding. Justinian delighted to ennoble and enrich the object of his affection; the treasures of the East were poured at her feet, and the nephew of Justin was determined, perhaps by religious scruples, to bestow on his concubine the sacred and legal character of a wife. But the laws of Rome expressly prohibited the marriage of a senator with any female who had been dishonored by a servile origin or theatrical profession: the empress Lupicina, or Euphemia, a Barbarian of rustic manners, but of irreproachable virtue, refused to accept a prostitute for her niece; and even Vigilantia, the superstitious mother of Justinian, though she acknowledged the wit and beauty of Theodora, was seriously apprehensive, lest the levity and arrogance of that artful paramour might corrupt the piety and happiness of her son. These obstacles were removed by the inflexible constancy of Justinian. He patiently expected the death of the empress; he despised the tears of his mother, who soon sunk under the weight of her affliction; and a law was promulgated in the name of the emperor Justin, which abolished the rigid jurisprudence of antiquity. A glorious repentance (the words of the edict) was left open for the unhappy females who had prostituted their persons on the theatre, and they were permitted to contract a legal union with the most illustrious of the Romans. This indulgence was speedily followed by the solemn nuptials of Justinian and Theodora; her dignity was gradually exalted with that of her lover, and, as soon as Justin had invested his nephew with the purple, the patriarch of Constantinople placed the diadem on the heads of the emperor and empress of the East. But the usual honors which the severity of Roman manners had allowed to the wives of princes, could not satisfy either the ambition of Theodora or the fondness of Justinian. He seated her on the throne as an equal and independent colleague in the sovereignty of the empire, and an oath of allegiance was imposed on the governors of the provinces in the joint names of Justinian and Theodora. The Eastern world fell prostrate before the genius and fortune of the daughter of Acacius. The prostitute who, in the presence of innumerable spectators, had polluted the theatre of Constantinople, was adored as a queen in the same city, by grave magistrates, orthodox bishops, victorious generals, and captive monarchs.

KPA replies:

I just read the Gibson entry on Theodora.

Apart from her callous denial of her illegitimate son, which Theodora could have done for a number of reasons (many monarchs have denied illegitimate children), Gibson’s account seems to verge on speculation. For example, he continues to call her a prostitute, even after her marriage to Justinian, and her faithfulness to him.

The other thing, he seems to verge on some kind of misogyny or even some kind of envious malice. Why shouldn’t Justinian appoint his Queen as an equal? He was attracted to her intelligence and wit after all, as well as her beauty.

Actually, if you look at these two mosaics of Justinian and Theodora, you will notice that even in her capacity as an “equal” Empress, she still has to subjugate herself to male authority and rule—here she is giving a chalice to male clergy—whereas Justinian does not defer at all to any women.

Why is Gibson doubting her “sudden” change of heart, as Boorstin, in a more sympathetic way, also seems to be doing? It is well documented that she did convert to Christianity. Maybe no one wants to look at what that could mean.

Here is a more generous, albeit still restrained, portrait of her by the same author in Reign of Justinian Part II.

LA replies:

I agree that there is something unpleasant in Gibbon’s portrayal of her. It’s hard to believe he’s not overdoing the judgmentalism. But maybe he’s not. We’d have to read more.

The text you linked is actually a continuation of the same chapter in Gibbon that I quoted above. Here it is. While he gives her credit for founding a home for reformed women, and for her faithfulness to her husband, he also portrays her as a cruel and sadistic tyrant:

Those who believe that the female mind is totally depraved by the loss of chastity, will eagerly listen to all the invectives of private envy, or popular resentment which have dissembled the virtues of Theodora, exaggerated her vices, and condemned with rigor the venal or voluntary sins of the youthful harlot. From a motive of shame, or contempt, she often declined the servile homage of the multitude, escaped from the odious light of the capital, and passed the greatest part of the year in the palaces and gardens which were pleasantly seated on the sea-coast of the Propontis and the Bosphorus. Her private hours were devoted to the prudent as well as grateful care of her beauty, the luxury of the bath and table, and the long slumber of the evening and the morning. Her secret apartments were occupied by the favorite women and eunuchs, whose interests and passions she indulged at the expense of justice; the most illustrious person ages of the state were crowded into a dark and sultry antechamber, and when at last, after tedious attendance, they were admitted to kiss the feet of Theodora, they experienced, as her humor might suggest, the silent arrogance of an empress, or the capricious levity of a comedian. Her rapacious avarice to accumulate an immense treasure, may be excused by the apprehension of her husband’s death, which could leave no alternative between ruin and the throne; and fear as well as ambition might exasperate Theodora against two generals, who, during the malady of the emperor, had rashly declared that they were not disposed to acquiesce in the choice of the capital. But the reproach of cruelty, so repugnant even to her softer vices, has left an indelible stain on the memory of Theodora. Her numerous spies observed, and zealously reported, every action, or word, or look, injurious to their royal mistress. Whomsoever they accused were cast into her peculiar prisons, inaccessible to the inquiries of justice; and it was rumored, that the torture of the rack, or scourge, had been inflicted in the presence of the female tyrant, insensible to the voice of prayer or of pity. Some of these unhappy victims perished in deep, unwholesome dungeons, while others were permitted, after the loss of their limbs, their reason, or their fortunes, to appear in the world, the living monuments of her vengeance, which was commonly extended to the children of those whom she had suspected or injured. The senator or bishop, whose death or exile Theodora had pronounced, was delivered to a trusty messenger, and his diligence was quickened by a menace from her own mouth. “If you fail in the execution of my commands, I swear by Him who liveth forever, that your skin shall be flayed from your body.”

If the creed of Theodora had not been tainted with heresy, her exemplary devotion might have atoned, in the opinion of her contemporaries, for pride, avarice, and cruelty. But, if she employed her influence to assuage the intolerant fury of the emperor, the present age will allow some merit to her religion, and much indulgence to her speculative errors. The name of Theodora was introduced, with equal honor, in all the pious and charitable foundations of Justinian; and the most benevolent institution of his reign may be ascribed to the sympathy of the empress for her less fortunate sisters, who had been seduced or compelled to embrace the trade of prostitution. A palace, on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, was converted into a stately and spacious monastery, and a liberal maintenance was assigned to five hundred women, who had been collected from the streets and brothels of Constantinople. In this safe and holy retreat, they were devoted to perpetual confinement; and the despair of some, who threw themselves headlong into the sea, was lost in the gratitude of the penitents, who had been delivered from sin and misery by their generous benefactress. The prudence of Theodora is celebrated by Justinian himself; and his laws are attributed to the sage counsels of his most reverend wife whom he had received as the gift of the Deity. Her courage was displayed amidst the tumult of the people and the terrors of the court. Her chastity, from the moment of her union with Justinian, is founded on the silence of her implacable enemies; and although the daughter of Acacius might be satiated with love, yet some applause is due to the firmness of a mind which could sacrifice pleasure and habit to the stronger sense either of duty or interest. The wishes and prayers of Theodora could never obtain the blessing of a lawful son, and she buried an infant daughter, the sole offspring of her marriage. Notwithstanding this disappointment, her dominion was permanent and absolute; she preserved, by art or merit, the affections of Justinian; and their seeming dissensions were always fatal to the courtiers who believed them to be sincere. Perhaps her health had been impaired by the licentiousness of her youth; but it was always delicate, and she was directed by her physicians to use the Pythian warm baths. In this journey, the empress was followed by the Praetorian praefect, the great treasurer, several counts and patricians, and a splendid train of four thousand attendants: the highways were repaired at her approach; a palace was erected for her reception; and as she passed through Bithynia, she distributed liberal alms to the churches, the monasteries, and the hospitals, that they might implore Heaven for the restoration of her health. At length, in the twenty-fourth year of her marriage, and the twenty-second of her reign, she was consumed by a cancer; and the irreparable loss was deplored by her husband, who, in the room of a theatrical prostitute, might have selected the purest and most noble virgin of the East.

KPA replies:

Please allow me to speculate a bit.

I would think her ascension to the throne, contested even by Justinian’s aunt/Empress, would not have been an easy feat, nor her new life high up in the hierarchy easy. Her strength becomes her nemesis at times, but like any monarch, male or female, a certain arrogance or self-aggrandizement is necessary to maintain the fearful respect of subjects, especially hers who started off probably by scorning her.

Her beauty may have caused her undue vanity, but then that was one of her attractions to her husband, so maybe she was vulnerable to its loss. Even Gibbon concedes that her “avarice” had something to do with her potential ruin should her husband die before her.

Her “charitable” works toward prostitutes may have been over-eager, but surely she knew the consequences of the behavior better than others?

Gibson briefly mentions her bravery (the other side of her coin), but does not go into her many other historically documented works. Instead, he focuses mostly on her vanity and “cruelty.” I find this unfairly biased.

I also think that the harsh Byzantine court (Byzantine now being an adjective) must have induced harsh behaviors in all their monarchs, in varying degrees.

Finally, her early biographer the Greek Procopius started out by venerating her and Justinian, but later on maligned her and Justinian in his account in “The Secret History,” which is noted for its harshness and even pornographic slant, published only after his death. Gibbon seems to have got some of his sources from there. Procopius later on writes approvingly of Justinian.

LA replies:

Again, I agree that Gibbon’s summary of her life, while vividly written, seems simultaneously prurient and prudish. There is something unpleasant and, it seems, unfair about it.

Lydia M. writes:

I don’t have time to look up the page in Durant right now, but as it happens I read not long ago his discussion of Theodora. He expressly says that there was a contemporary of Theodora and Justinian (I can’t recall his name) who published both an official, highly complimentary, and an unofficial version of their story, the latter coming out after their deaths, of course. Durant does not describe the “tell-all” version in any detail, but it sounds from his vague words an awful lot like Gibbon’s, and I would not be surprised if this is Gibbon’s source. Durant does cast some doubt on the veracity of the unpleasant history. Gibbon had an axe to grind at various points, and therefore when there is reason for doubt, one should probably take him with a grain of salt.

LA replies:

Gibbon is highly condemnatory of sexual sins, even as he paints in lurid sensational colors the very thing he’s condemning.

In other words, he’s like the New York Post.

Ultimate example: The Post this week publishing on its front page and an inside spread several full-page, half naked photos of “Kristen”—Ashley Dupre, after spending a week consigning Eliot Spitzer to the outer darkness for having consorted with her.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 14, 2008 12:14 PM | Send