Procopius's shift in attitude toward Justinian in The Secret History

Procopius, The Secret History

The Secret History: A Review

The Secret History of Procopius tells the tale of three Roman wars, one against the Persians, one against the Vandals, and one against the Goths. The text was written in the 32nd year of Justinian, which various scholars translate as between 524 and 550 (Dewing). It is agreed by many that the writing is by Procopius and is consistent in style and content of his other works of the time (Dewing). Procopius is considered a major historian of the time and his works provide valuable insight into the Roman Empire. This research uses evidence from the work to explore the reasons for Procopius' apparent change in attitude towards Justinian and his wife, as compared to his first two histories. This research will support the thesis that The Secret History is an attempt to undermine the political power of Justinian in favor of the emerging forms of early Christianity and that his plea that this work reflects his true feelings is insincere. It will support the political motivation of the work.

Background

What we know of Procopius will help the reader to better understand his viewpoint. Procopius is formally known as Procopius of Caesarea, and is of the family Procopius (Atwater, Introduction). He received a formal education in Greek classics and rhetoric (Wars of Justinian I.18.1-56). He is thought to have lived between 500-565 AD (Atwater, Introduction). He personally witnessed and was a participant in the wars of the Emperor Justinian (Atwater, Introduction). Much of Procopius' writing took place while accompanying Belisarius on various campaigns.

Although Procopius was a first-hand witness to the events that took place in his works, this does not mean that his work is without bias. Procopius was the official historian of Belisarius and was a staff member. This position influenced his writings. It was in Procopius' best interest to write favorably about Belisarius and his campaigns. One must consider The Secret History an "uncensored" version of the events that took place, as it would have bee detrimental to include anything that placed Belisarius in a bad light. The Secret History reads as an inflammatory account of the lives of Justinian and Theodora. This is a contrast to the highly complimentary accounts found in his previous works written while in service to Belisarius.

Thesis Analysis

In comparison to the first two works by Procopius that were written while in service to Belisarius, The Secret History is difficult to believe. The thesis of Procopius is the Belisarius, Justinian and Theodora is the most horrible ruler ever to rule the Roman Empire. It is convincing only by its length. However, many of the stories told to support the thesis of the author are difficult to believe, especially in the context of glowing reports contained in his earlier works. The arguments presented are impassioned and inflammatory. The bias contained within is evident. From a modern perspective, the argument presented by Procopius is unbelievable, even if provable argument had been presented to support it.

The argument presented by Procopius is unsupported by unbiased opinion. The question that weighs on the minds of researchers and readers alike is why he chose to write it. If one were simply angry and seeking revenge, one could understand an inflammatory letter, but to dedicate this much time and effort to the task appears to be unreasonable. The time that was dedicated to the writing of this work supports the existence of a larger motive than simply anger. This is supported by the glowing comments in the historical volumes that came before it.

There are two plausible explanations for this change in personality on the part of Procopius. The first is that in deed there has been a change in attitude towards the ruler and his wife. Nothing could be found in the historical record to support this possibility, but the tone of the writing itself contains an obvious element of anger and angst. The author addresses this issue himself in the opening paragraphs of the work. Procopius says,

If I had, their hordes of spies would have found out about it, and they would have put me to a most horrible death... That is why I was compelled to hide the real explanation of many matters glossed over in my previous books" (Procopius, Atwater translation, p. 23).

This statement leads the reader to believe and is meant to convince the reader that the words contained within reflect the authors true feelings. The real question is if the reader believes these words to be sincere. It is easy to believe that one had to hide works as inflammatory as this for fear of one's life in the Roman Empire. However, is it is difficult to believe that there is not an ounce of sincerity in the previous volumes. This work is a complete retraction of the other two.

At the end of this explanation, Procopius explains," These secrets it is now my duty to tell" (Procopius, Atwater translation, p. 23). Use of the word "duty" may imply a greater meaning to the work. The writer himself fears that no one will believe his stories in light of his previous works (Procopius, Atwater translation, p. 21). Procopius feels an apparent desperation to convince the reader that his is sincere, again another indication that the work may have been intended to produce a certain result.

One of the key clues in the text is Procopius treatment of various political factions that existed at the time. For instance, Procopius criticizes Justinian for protecting the interests of the Christians, one of the greatest threats to the Empire at the time. However, he appears to be a Jewish sympathizer in chapter 28 when he criticizes Justinian for fining Jews for celebrating their holidays.

As if it were not enough to do away with the laws of the Romans daily, the Emperor also exerted himself to destroy the traditions of the Jews. For whenever in their calendar Passover came before the Christian Easter, he forbade the Jews to celebrate it on their proper day, to make then any sacrifices to God or perform any of their customs. Many of them were heavily fined by the magistrates for eating lamb at such times, as if this were against the laws of the State" (Procopius, Atwater translation, p. 260).

This quote summarizes Procopius' feelings about various factions in Roman Empire at the time. This quote is the most persuasive argument for the insincerity of Procopius' argument and supporting evidence for a political motive behind the work.

Procopius knew that writing this work was dangerous. Therefore, it was not published until after the death of Justinian. To publish it before his death would have meant certain public execution for Procopius for defying the authority of the ruler. However, publishing it after his death would have undermined his authority and those that followed him. Publishing these inflammatory statements after Justinians death would help to assure that the next ruler was of higher quality than the previous one. The people would have demanded it. The political undertones of Procopius are apparent throughout the work.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Procopius was careful in the military histories that preceded The Secret History to write a diplomatically correct account of the occurrences. Procopius hinted at injustices in the earlier works, but had to temper them, to do otherwise, would have been a threat to his safety, as he states in his introduction. However, one must also wonder why he decided to write The Secret History. It may be noted that The Secret History was not published until after Justinian's death (Atwater).

The author does provide clues to changing attitudes surrounding newly emerging political factions, particularly Christians and Jews. Considering the influences of these factions of Procopius' writing, it is recommended that the reader treat The Secret History not as a history and accurate account of the truth, but rather as a glimpse into the tensions that existed among Christians, Jews, and the Roman Empire of the time. It is a valuable historical work of the time, but not because of its accuracy of events, but because of its glimpse into the passions of the time.