The review of Leibnitz's work shows that it is far from satisfying the demands of the problem with which it deals, 'i'lie reason for its failure lies in the philosoph- ical views which that author laiil at the basis of his scheme— his ideas of the monads, of God as the primi- tive monad, of the relations between reason and the will, of freedom and necessity, respecting which see the art. Lkihsitz. Nor is this the place to attempt a new and independent solution of the problem of theodicy, which necessarily must involve the development of an entire system of iihilosophy. Suffice it to say that the gen- eral method of Leibnitz must ever be regulative to those inquirers who approach this problem from the stand- ])oint of Christian theism, and Lliat the main attempt iiuist be to separate more clearly between the concep- tions of phj-sical and moral evil, and connect the former more intimately with morality and the moral consum- mation of the world — to show more clearly the profound reasons for the necessity by whicii the possibility of sin is included in the concept of human freedom, and the existence of the latter is involved in the idea of the f/oi)d — and, finally, to tone down certain theological ex- aggerations of the power of evil, and present freedom and morality in their gradual development out of the natural life and human naturalness, as well as in de- cided negative contrast with nature.
Most of the philosophers of more recent times who have treated this snlyect have approximated more or less closely to Leibnitz, and have endeavored by criti- cism or modification, either avowedly or silently, to cor- rect the faults of his essaj-. We can only name a series of the older writers, e. g. Balguy, Dicine Benevolence Vindicttled (2(1 ed. Lond. 11S0;S, 12nio); Werdermann, Versiic/i ziir Tln-odicee, etc. ( Dessau and Leips. 1784- 93); Benedict, Theodic<va (Annaburg, 1822); Blasche, J)as Bdse,Qtc. (Leips. 1827); Wagner, Theodicee (Bam- berg, 1810); Krichson, Verlidltu. dcr Theod. zur speku- Iddv. Kosinolof/ie ((ireifswald, 18o6); Sigwart, Pi-oblem des Boaeii, etc. (Tiib. 1840); Von Schaden, Theodicee (Carlsruhe, 1842); IMaret, 7'//«>(//cec (Paris, 1857) ; Young, Kril and dad, <i Mystery (2d ed. Lond. 18G1). — Herzog, Redl-h'nciilliip. s. V.
Theodora (1), the wife of the emperor .Justinian. was the daughter of Acacius, who had charge of the wild beasts of the Prasini at Constantinople. The de- cease of her father and remarriage of her mother obliged her to earn her living as an actress, and she also became a notorious courtesan. She accompanied Ecebolns as his mistress to Pentapolis when that wealthy Tyrian was appointed prefect of that government, but was soon deserted by him and obliged to return in poverty to Constantinople. She then altered her mode of living and sought to earn a virtuous name; and while living in retirement she won the favor of the imperial prince .Tusiinian, and so excited his i^assion that on the death of the empress he persuaded the reigning emperor, Jus-
tin, to suspend a law which stood in the way of his mar- riage with Theodora ( see Cud. Just. lib. v, tit. 4. '• De Nuptiis," i, 23). Tiiey were married in A.D. 525; and on Justinian's accession, in 527, Theodora was publicly proclaimed empress and coregcnt of the empire. Her influence over him became unbomuied, and continued even after her decease.
Theodora ])articipate<l actively in the ^lonophvsite controversy, lending herinttuence secretly to the |)ropa- gation of that error, and endeavoring to win her consort from the orthodox view. Colloipiies instituted between bishops of the two conflicting parties in 531 accomplish- ed no substantial result; but the einpress succeeded, in 535, in promoting the iMonophysite bishop Anthimus to the patriarchate of Constantinople, and afterwards, through the assistance of Belisarius, the famous general, in advancing Vigilius to the same position. Slie was twice visited with the ban of the Church, but was not thereby intimidated to such a degree as to prevent her .intervention in the controversy of the Three Chapters. She died, however, before the dispute was determined, at the early age of forty years. Historians describe her as having been proud and tyrannical; but no charge is raised against her chastity after her marriage with the emperor. She bore the latter one child, a daughter, who died early.
Literatu7-e. — Procopius, //w^ Arcana; id. A need. c. 9, 10; id. De ^Jdif. i, 11 ; Nicephorus Callistns, xvi, 37; Mansi, ColUitio Cathul. cum Severian. a. 531, viii, 817 sq. ; id. Jounnis Episc. Asia, in Assemani, Bihl. Orient, ii, 89; Acta Syn. Const, a. 536, in JMansi, viii, 873 sq.; Evagrius, eh. iv; l.ib(-rat. Breviar. p. 21 sq. ; Anastasius, Vitm Pontif.; Vigilii Epist. ad.fustin. et ad Mennam, in Mansi, ix, 35, 38 ; Wernsdorf, De Silrerio et Vifjilio ; Gregor. Nazian. Epist. ix, Stj ; Theophanes, Chron. p. 350; Vict. Tununens. Chron.; Ludewig, Vita .fustiniani Imp. et Theodorw (Hal. 1731, 4to) ; Inver- nizzi, I)e Rebus Gestis Jusliniani (Itotn. 1783) ; Gibbon, iJeciine and f\iU,ch. xl ; Walch, AV/2f>?y/p,«c/;. pt. vi, vii; (iieseler, Monophys. Velf. Vari<e de Chrisli. etc. ((ifitt. 1835-38); and the Church histories. Also Smith, />(rf, of Bio(j. and Jlyihul. s. v., and Herzog, Reul-Eneyklop. s. V.
Theodora (2), wife of the emperor Theophilus, who succeeded his father, Michael H, on the throne in A.D. 829. She obtained the regency of the empire on the death of her husband, in 842, and hastened to restore the worship of images, ^^•hieh had until then been sav- agely repressed. She banished John Grammaticus. the patriarch of Constantinople, and gave his place to Me- thodius, who was in sympathy with her plans, and then called a synod which decreed the restoration of image- worship throughout the empire. To commemorate this event she ordained an animal " festival of orthodoxy." Not content with having thus ended a ilispute which had agitated the empire din-ing 150 years, she inaugu- rated a persecution of the Paulicians (q. v.), and there- by occasioned a succession of wars in w hich entire prov- inces were devastated and depopulated by the allied Paulicians and Saracens (see Cedrenus, p. .541 sq.; Zon- aras, Qhron. xvi, 1 ; Petr. Siculi Hist. Manirh. p. 70 S(). ; Photius, Contra, Maniclt. ix, 23; Constantin. Porphy- rog. Continuator, iv, 16, 23-26).