procopius, the most important of the byzantine historians, was born at caesarea in palestine towards the beginning of the sixth century of the christian era. after having for some time practised as a “rhetorician,” that is, advocate or jurist, in his native land, he seems to have migrated early to byzantium or constantinople. there he gave lessons in elocution, and acted as counsel in several law-cases. his talents soon attracted attention, and he was promoted to official duties in the service of the state. he was commissioned to accompany the famous belisarius during his command of the army in the east, in the capacity of counsellor or assessor: it is not easy to define exactly the meaning of the greek term, and the functions it embraced. the term “judge–advocate” has been suggested1, a legal adviser who had a measure of judicial as well as administrative power. from his vivid description of the early years of justinian’s reign, we may conclude that he spent some considerable time at the byzantine court before setting out for the east, at any rate, until the year 532, when belisarius returned to the capital: he would thus have been an eye-witness of the “nika” sedition, which, had it not been for the courage and firmness displayed by theodora, would probably have resulted in the flight of justinian, and a change of dynasty.
in 533 he accompanied belisarius on his expedition to africa. on the way, he was intrusted with an important mission to sicily. he appears to have returned to byzantium with belisarius in 535. he is heard of again, in 536, as charged with another mission in the neighbourhood of rome, which shows that, at the end of 535, he had accompanied belisarius, who had been despatched to italy and sicily to conquer the territory in the occupation of the goths. this expedition terminated successfully by the surrender of vitiges and his captivity at byzantium in 540.
as the reward of his services, justinian bestowed upon him the title of “illustrious” (illustris), given to the highest class of public officials, raised him to the rank of a senator, and, finally, appointed him praefect of byzantium in 562. he does not, however, seem to have been altogether satisfied: he complains of having been ill-paid for his labours; for several years he was even without employment. this is all that is known of his life. he died shortly before or after the end of the reign of justinian (565), when he would have been over sixty years of age.
his career seems to have been as satisfactory as could be reasonably expected, all things being taken into consideration; but the violent hatred displayed by him against justinian in the “anecdota” or “secret history”—if the work be really his2—appears to show that he must have had some real or imaginary grounds of complaint; but history throws no light upon these incidents of his political career.
another question which has been much discussed by the commentators is: “what were the religious opinions of procopius?”
his own writings do not decide the question; he seems to shew a leaning towards heathenism and christianity alternately. the truth seems to be that, being of a sceptical turn of mind, he was indifferent; but that, living under an orthodox emperor, he affected the forms and language of christianity. had he been an open and avowed adherent of paganism, he would scarcely have been admitted to the senate or appointed to the important official position of praefect of byzantium. his description of the plague of 543, which is exceedingly minute in its details, has given rise to the idea that he was a physician, but there is no proof of this. the same thing might have been with equal justice said of thucydides; or we might assert that procopius was an architect, on the strength of his having written the “buildings.”
procopius, holding a position in a period of transition between classical greek and byzantine literature, is the first and most talented of byzantine historians. his writings are characterized by an energetic combination of the attic models of the affected, but often picturesque style employed by the byzantine writers. although he is not free from errors of taste, he expresses his ideas with great vigour, and his thoughts are often worthy of a better age. the information which he has given us is exceedingly valuable. he had ample opportunities of observation, and his works present us with the best picture of the reign of justinian, so important in greco–roman annals.
his chief work is the “histories,” in eight books: two on the persian wars (408–553), two on the vandal wars (395–545), and four3 on the gothic wars, bringing down the narrative to the beginning of 559. the whole work is very interesting; the descriptions are excellent: in the matter of ethnographical details, procopius may be said to be without a rival among ancient historians.
he shews equal descriptive talent in his work on the “buildings” of justinian, a curious and useful work, but spoiled by excessive adulation of the emperor. gibbon is of opinion that it was written with the object of conciliating justinian, who had been dissatisfied with the too independent judgment of the “histories.” if this be the case, we can understand why the historian avenged himself in the “secret history,” which is a veritable chronique scandaleuse of the byzantine court from 549–562. justinian and theodora, belisarius and his wife antonina, are painted in the blackest colours. belisarius, who is treated with the least severity, is nevertheless represented as weak and avaricious, capable of any meanness in order to retain the favour of the court and his military commands, which afforded him the opportunity of amassing enormous wealth. as for antonina and theodora, the revelations of the “secret history” exhibit a mixture of crime and debauchery not less hideous than that displayed by messalina. justinian is represented as a monstrous tyrant, at once cunning and stupid, “like an ass,” in the the words of the historian, and as the wickedest man that ever lived. the author declares that he and his wife are spirits or demons, who have assumed the form of human beings in order to inflict the greatest possible evils upon mankind. these accusations seem to be founded sometimes upon fact, sometimes upon vague rumours and blind gossip. generally speaking, the author of the “secret history” seems sincere, but at the same time he shows a narrowness by confounding all justinian’s acts in one sweeping censure, and in attributing to him the most incredible refinements of political perversity. critics have asked the question whether the author of such a work can be procopius of caesarea, the impartial historian of the wars. direct proofs of authenticity are wanting, since the most ancient authors who attribute it to him—suidas and nicephorus callistus—lived centuries later.4 but it is easy to understand that a work of this kind could not be acknowledged by its author, or published during the lifetime of justinian. in later times, it circulated privately, until the lapse of time had rendered the byzantine court indifferent to the hideous picture of the vices of a previous age. the work is evidently that of a contemporary of justinian; it can only have been written by a functionary familiar with the ins and outs of court intrigue, who had private grievances of his own to avenge. it is true that it sheds little lustre upon the character of procopius, since it exhibits him as defaming the character of the masters whom he had formerly served and flattered. but this kind of inconsistency is not uncommon in writers of memoirs, who often revenge themselves posthumously by blackening the reputation of their former masters. although the author writes under the influence of the most violent resentment, there seems no reason to doubt that, although details may be exaggerated, the work on the whole gives a faithful picture of the byzantine court of the period.
the following sketch of the “character and histories of procopius” from gibbon,5 although modern authorities have taken exception to it in certain points, will be read with interest: “the events of justinian’s reign, which excite our curious attention by their number, variety, and importance, are diligently related by the secretary of belisarius, a rhetorician, whom eloquence had promoted to the rank of senator and praefect of constantinople. according to the vicissitudes of courage or servitude, of favour or disgrace, procopius successively composed the history, the panegyric, and the satire of his own times. the eight books of the persian, vandalic, and gothic wars, which are continued in the five books of agathias, deserve our esteem as a laborious and successful imitation of the attic, or at least of the asiatic, writers of ancient greece. his facts are collected from the personal experience and free conversations of a soldier, a statesman, and a traveller; his style continually aspires, and often attains, to the merit of strength and elegance; his reflections, more especially in the speeches which he too frequently inserts, contain a rich fund of political knowledge; and the historian, excited by the generous ambition of pleasing and instructing posterity, appears to disdain the prejudices of the people and the flattery of courts. the writings of procopius were read and applauded by his contemporaries; but, although he respectfully laid them at the foot of the throne, the pride of justinian must have been wounded by the praise of an hero who perpetually eclipses the glory of his inactive sovereign. the conscious dignity of independence was subdued by the hopes and fears of a slave, and the secretary of belisarius laboured for pardon and reward in the six books of imperial edifices.6 he had dexterously chosen a subject of apparent splendour, in which he could loudly celebrate the genius, the magnificence, and the piety of a prince, who, both as a conqueror and legislator, had surpassed the puerile virtues of cyrus and themistocles. disappointment might urge the flatterer to secret revenge, and the first glance of favour might again tempt him to suspend and suppress a libel, in which the roman cyrus is degraded into an odious and contemptible tyrant, in which both the emperor and his consort theodora are seriously represented as two demons, who had assumed a human form for the destruction of mankind. such base inconsistency must doubtless sully the reputation and detract from the credit of procopius; yet, after the venom of his malignity has been suffered to exhale, the residue of the ‘anecdotes,’ even the most disgraceful facts, some of which had been tenderly hinted in his public history, are established by their internal evidence, or the authentic monuments of the times.”7 it remains to add that in some passages, owing to imperfections in the text or the involved nature of the sentences, it is difficult to feel sure as to the meaning. in these the translator can only hope to have given a rendering which harmonises with the context and is generally intelligible, even if the greek does not seem to have been strictly followed.
for a clear and succinct account of the reign of justinian, the four chapters in gibbon (xl.-xliv.), which are generally admitted to be the most successful in his great work, should be read.
