Justinian and the Historian Procopius
Author(s): J. A. S. Evans
Source: Greece & Rome , Oct., 1970, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Oct., 1970), pp. 218-223
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/642766
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome
This content downloaded from
185.14.222.206 on Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:44:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JUSTINIAN AND THE HISTORIAN
PROCOPIUS
By J. A. S. EVANS
THE Emperor Justinian, who succeeded his uncle Ju
throne of Byzantium in A.D. 527, probably never i
mark an epoch. Not, at least, the epoch which the moder
must assign him. For his reign is in a sense a watershed; h
Roman emperor and the first Byzantine one. The reality
Empire embracing the whole Mediterranean had suffered a
Justinian owing to circumstances. Among the Franks in
Visigoths in Spain, it was more fiction than fact, but it w
which was still cherished, and not merely in Constantin
Justinian, the concept was not dead; but it was clearly los
Not that the emperor ever intended any such thing. Bo
donia near the Albanian border,z he was sprung from Illyrian
same race that had given Rome many great emperors in the p
ing Constantine the Great himself, and Justinian was to note
pride that his native language was Latin. He was alm
Byzantine emperor who could say this. His own rise to p
mixture of luck and good management. During the reign of t
Leo Justin, Justinian's uncle, and two other young Illyri
who were probably reduced to poverty by a recent incu
barians into Macedonia, migrated to Constantinople to jo
walking on foot with only their cloaks and some toasted b
brought with them from home. They were three young m
physiques, and the emperor enrolled them in the Excubito
Palace Guards which he was organizing to counterbalance
influence of the Germans in the imperial army. History k
more of Justin's two companions, but Justin himself rose
ranks until he became commander of Excubitors under
Anastasius.3
Anastasius died in 518, almost 90 years of age. He left three nephews,
but he had made no arrangements for his successor, and his nephews
were not serious candidates. One of the chief ministers gave Justin a sum
of money to use as a donative to encourage support among the troops
for a candidate of his choice, but Justin used it for his own purposes, and
I Cf. the remarks of Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Rise of Christian Europe (London,
1965), 69-70.
2 Procopius, De Aedif. iv. I. 17-27.
3 Procopius, Anekdota 6. I-II.
This content downloaded from
185.14.222.206 on Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:44:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JUSTINIAN AND THE HISTORIAN PROCOPIUS 219
became the next emperor himself. He was old, illiterate, and child
but he had already shared his good fortune in the capital with his fam
by bringing at least two of his nephews from his native Macedoni
seeing to their education. One of these, Flavius Petrus Sabb
Justinian, emerged almost immediately as Justin's right-hand man
when Justin died nine years later, he succeeded him to the throne
It was a period of great change, and high hopes which were to
disappointed. That it is so well documented we owe in large part
Procopius of Caesarea, one of the great school of Byzantine hist
writing in the tradition of Thucydides and Herodotus, whom he
his models. He wrote a history of the wars of Justinian as Hero
had written about the Persian wars a thousand years earlier, so th
great deeds of men might not be overwhelmed by oblivion. Also
adds, now reminiscent of Thucydides, he had personal knowledg
what he was writing about, for he had been in a position to obs
events because he had been part of the command structure. He h
been assessor or legal secretary to the greatest general of th
Belisarius.' The Procopius who began the history of the wa
Justinian spoke with the voice of the Establishment.
Yet the writings of Procopius present an intellectual odyssey of
own. It is unlikely that he ever regarded Justinian with any re
thusiasm; the emperor was too much of an upstart, and his mea
were too severe on the large landowners for the historian's taste.
Procopius' work we can trace initial optimism changing to pessi
and guarded criticism; and finally he reaches the conclusion
Justinian was not a true king but a tyrant, not a representative o
as emperors had been since the time of Constantine, but the king
devils, the Antichrist.2
Then, towards the end of the historian's life, we have a last wor
account of Justinian's building programme, written as a panegyr
the emperor. Procopius clearly used sources for this panegyric
were official, and thanks to it we are better informed of Justinian's
structions than we are of those of any other emperor. But just as cle
the work is unfinished.3 The final books are perfunctory, degene
on occasion into long lists of unimportant buildings, and the treatise
without even touching Italy. The churches at Ravenna, which are
valued as some of the best surviving monuments of Justinian's ag
not even mentioned.
I Wars i. 3.
2 Cf. B. Rubin, Zeit. der deutsche Morgenland Gesell. xxxv (1960), 55-63.
3 G. Downey, TAPhA lxxviii (I947), 172. The excellent sources of information
which Procopius had for his De Aedificiis have been emphasized lately by P. A. MacKay,
AJA lxvii (1963), 241-55; presumably he had access to official records, for otherwise
it would be difficult to account for the breadth of his knowledge.
This content downloaded from
185.14.222.206 on Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:44:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 JUSTINIAN AND THE HISTORIAN PROCOPIUS
Practically all we know of Procopius comes from his ow
was born in Caesarea in Palestine, famous once for its lib
school, but in Procopius' youth it was overshadowed by G
Some historians have attempted to show that he learned
Greek in a schoolroom at Gaza,' but the only evidence
Procopius' style, and this is little to go on. Since he stud
may have attended lectures at Beirut, where one of the great
of the ancient world flourished until 551, when a terrif
followed by a tidal wave and a fire overwhelmed the city
knew, or learned, Latin, for it was still necessary for lega
it seems that he could read Syriac. However, he enters his
when he was appointed private secretary to the young Beli
Justinian had just named commander of the imperial fort
on the eastern frontier, which was a bone of contention
Byzantines and the Persians. The historian introduces hims
brief sentence: 'It was then that Procopius who wrote this
chosen as Belisarius' adviser'.2
From then on we can trace his travels for the next thirteen years or so.
In 530 Belisarius, newly elevated to the post of General of the East, won
the victory over the Persians which made his reputation, and Procopius'
description of it is clearly an eyewitness account. But the next year there
was a reverse, and in January 532 Belisarius and Procopius were back
in Constantinople in time for the Nika riots, which almost toppled
Justinian-which would have done so, had not the Empress Theodora
kept her nerve when everyone else, including the emperor, was ready
to flee for his life.
But Justinian's heart was not in the east. He wanted to reconstitute
the Roman Empire in the west, and the Vandal kingdom in north Africa
was ripe for reconquest. Justinian concluded an 'Endless Peace' with
the Persian king Chosroes in 532 (it lasted until 540) and the next year
Belisarius set sail for Africa.
Procopius went along. In his description of the voyage he tells us a
good deal about himself. At Syracuse he did some scouting for his
general and discovered that the Vandals knew nothing of the danger that
threatened them.3 When the Byzantine army landed on the African
coast and found fresh water, Procopius was on hand to congratulate his
commander,4 and after the Byzantines had routed the Vandals at the
tenth milestone from Carthage and entered the city, Procopius sat down
with Belisarius and the other officers to a royal meal which had been
prepared for the Vandal king, Gelimer. But when Belisarius returned
x On Gaza at this time, see G. Downey, Gaza in the Sixth Century (Norman, Okla.,
1963), 99-116.
2 Wars i. 12. 24. 3 Wars iii. 14. 3. * Wars iii. 15. 35.
This content downloaded from
185.14.222.206 on Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:44:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JUSTINIAN AND THE HISTORIAN PROCOPIUS 221
to Constantinople in triumph the next year, Procopius stayed
Solomon, who took over command in Africa. Thus he wa
when the Byzantine army mutinied in 536, and he narrow
Sicily, to get help from Belisarius, who was there to start
against the Ostrogoths. He remained with Belisarius for t
sweep which took the Byzantine forces up the leg of Italy
the winter of 536, and for the Ostrogothic counter-attack wh
under their new king, Wittigis.
Belisarius returned to Constantinople in 540. Justinian r
coldly, but his services were needed desperately in Syria.
broken the 'Endless Peace' and had swept westwards, sack
and plundering other cities. Outnumbered, Belisarius
holding the Persians at bay more by bluff than military
Procopius, we lose track of him. He may have accompani
to the east, but in 542 he was back in Constantinople to
outbreak of bubonic plague there, which he describes in
manner of Thucydides.' In Italy the Ostrogoths resumed t
under a new king, Totila, and in 544 Belisarius was sent
command, but his forces were inadequate and he could d
years later he was recalled and retired. In Africa the V
destroyed, but the Moors were still formidable. We do n
Procopius returned to Italy or Africa again during this pe
he did. However, most of his spare time must have been taken
ting together his History of the Wars, which appeared about
The History fell into three parts: two books on the Persian
two on the Vandal War and three on the Gothic War in Ita
wars were all brought more or less to the same stopping-p
order of the books cannot represent the order in which
written.
The first book of the Persian Wars must be the earliest, and it deals
with events which Procopius witnessed himself. The tone is optimistic
and the hero is Belisarius; anything which might detract from his hero's
charisma is passed over lightly. The second book deals mostly with
events which took place on the eastern frontier while Procopius was
away in Africa or Italy. The tone has changed; indeed, when Procopius
came to describe the sack of Antioch by Chosroes in 540, he broke out
bitterly that he could not understand how it was that God-for whom
everything should be done according to reason-allowed Antioch to be
destroyed at the hands of a most unholy man. Antioch was a city
Procopius knew, and perhaps loved, and it may be that its destruction
was a turning-point in his intellectual odyssey.
I Wars ii. 22. 9.
Z K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzant. Litt. (Munich, 1897) i. 231.
This content downloaded from
185.14.222.206 on Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:44:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 JUSTINIAN AND THE HISTORIAN PROCOPIUS
In the Vandal War too, initial optimism fades and in
there is veiled criticism. There is also an implication,
discernible, that Belisarius, who was wholly loyal to his
the victim of Justinian's jealousy and suspicion. The opt
absent in the Gothic War, but Procopius still was speaki
of the Establishment. The Wars were published about
work, and it does not appear that Procopius planned a
But it did have a sequel, two sequels in fact. Some tim
an eighth book appeared, which brought the history of
down to the destruction of the Ostrogothic nation in Italy
army under the general Narses. The tone is more critica
but not offensively so. Procopius betrays disillusion rath
ness. The other sequel is the famous Secret History, whi
as a commentary on the first seven books of the Histo
It is a libellous attack on Belisarius and his wife, an
Justinian and Theodora, and it purports to give infor
Procopius had to suppress in the History for fear of th
Although mentioned in the Byzantine lexicon called
Secret History was unknown until the early seventeenth
a manuscript of it was found in the Vatican Library a
is almost certainly genuine. But when did Procopius wr
scholarship is generally agreed that it was in 550,
finishing the History of the Wars. Four times in the Secret
that Justinian had been administering the empire for th
and since it is clear that Procopius regarded Justinian a
during the reign of his uncle, we should count thirty-two
when Justin became emperor. Hence 550. The Secre
remained unpublished in Procopius' desk until he died
years later.'
However, the tone of the Secret History, and some internal evidence,
make it more likely that it was a work of Procopius' old age, although
it was still intended as a commentary on the work which made his
reputation, the History of the Wars. Therefore it was written from the
standpoint of an author annotating his own book as soon as it was
published; it is Procopius' apology for ever having written the History
of the WTars at all, and for having identified himself once with the
policies which had brought disaster on the empire.
For toward the end of his life Procopius was commissioned by the
emperor to write a propaganda piece on the imperial building pro-
gramme. The result was the Buildings, of which the first book must date
On this, see my 'The Dates of the Anekdota and the De Aedificiis of Procopius',
CP, lxiv (1969), 29-30; 'Procopius of Caesarea and the Emperor Justinian', Canadian
Historical Association, Historical Papers, 1968, 126-39,
This content downloaded from
185.14.222.206 on Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:44:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JUSTINIAN AND THE HISTORIAN PROCOPIUS 223
to about 558. Justinian's reign, for all its hopes and military glor
been disastrous. The wars were expensive and the financial reser
built up by Anastasius had soon been exhausted. Plague had redu
the population of the empire to about sixty per cent of its former to
and the treasury was desperate for revenue. The empire was rent
heresy, and Justinian spent increasing amounts of time on theol
problems. The Buildings was probably part of an imperial propa
effort, a work commissioned in praise of a regime which needed
badly. Procopius must have undertaken it with secret irony, and
one cross-reference it appears that, as he was writing it, he was se
composing his bitter commentary on the History of the Wars.2 A
we owe to the Secret History the picture of the Empress Theodora wh
novels and films have popularized, the prostitute become empre
may be true. The source is not above suspicion.3
In any case, the Secret History and the Buildings present diametric
opposed pictures of the emperor. In the Buildings Justinian is the
king. Inspired by God, he solved problems which baffled the arch
of Haghia Sophia. He is the protector of his people. In the S
History he is a tyrant and, far from being inspired by God, he
king of the devils, who is responsible not only for high tax
rapacious officials, but also for the natural calamities which fel
the empire. The Justinian of the Secret History is the Justinian
Buildings turned backwards.
The Buildings is unfinished. Perhaps the emperor lost interes
Procopius abandoned the work. But it is more probable that, soon
560, he died, although we do know of a Procopius, possibly the histor
who held public office in 562. If so, the author of the Secret H
was still, to all appearances, one of Justinian's supporters. Y
must have had friends whose secret feelings about Justinian coin
with his own, and who were willing to act as his literary executo
some risk to themselves. For it is not likely that Procopius surviv
emperor he hated, who lived on until 14 November 565.4
I Cf. J. C. Russell, 'Late Ancient and Mediaeval Population', Trans. of the Am.
Philosophical Soc., new ser. xlviii (1958), 37-42.
2 Anek. 18. 38 and De Aedif. ii. 7. 2-I6. On this see CP lxiv (1969), 29-30.
3 Yet the general tendency among modern historians is to accept Procopius' account
of Theodora's early life as generally accurate, but to note that even Procopius does not
accuse the empress of any infidelity after her marriage to Justinian. See in general
Ch. Diehl, Theodora, Imperatrice de Byzance (Paris, 1904).
4 The unfinished state of the De Aedificiis should probably be accounted for by the
death of its author, who therefore must have died about 560. He was probably born
about 500.
This content downloaded from
185.14.222.206 on Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:44:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
