ANCH305: Byzantine History AD 330-1056

To what degree does Procopius Secret History give a

realistic account of Justinian and Theodora and their
reign?

Procopius Anecdota, better known as his Secret History is the most widely

known source we have available for the reign of the Emperor Justinian and his

wife Theodora. Procopius was a secretary to Belisarius, Justinians most trusted

general, and knew the public and possibly the private life of his subjects

intimately. However, as respected a historian as Procopius was, the Secret

History still remains a stunning and vicious attack upon Justinian and Theodora,

amongst others, highly critical of his reign and replete with invective and bile.

How accurate a reflection of the reign of Justinian and Theodora it actually is

will be examined by comparing the known facts from other sources, including

two other works by Procopius, History of the Wars and Buildings. His change in

attitude and the reasons behind it, from his earlier works to the Secret History

will be analysed and if possible, a reason for this change determined. Realistic,

or a sustained unsupported attack upon his Emperor, the Secret History still

remains a valuable source written by an eyewitness to the reign of Justinian and

Theodora and therefore must be treated with all due respect.

1
As stated, Procopius of Caesarea was a secretary to Justinians general

Belisarius, and accompanied him on his wars in the Empire in the 6th century. He

was the author of three books, or volumes, regarding Justinians reign, and was a

participant in many of the events he wrote about. His History of the Wars is a

multi-volumed work regarding the Empires wars against the Persians, the

Vandals and the Ostrogoths. Buildings is a history of the building and expansion

program undertaken by Justinian and the Secret History is his final work, an

unedited version of these events and the people who participated in them.

Procopius therefore, was well placed to comment on his subjects.

To begin however, it is his attacks on the Empress Theodora that must be first

examined, as the Secret History is without doubt an assault upon her character

and her actions. In the Secret History, Procopius vilifies Theodora for her

background, as the daughter of an actress and a bear-trainer who herself became

an actress but this is the least of her sins.1 He accuses her in turn of anal

intercourse due to her youth, prostitution, immodesty, public nudity,

lasciviousness, group sex, multiple abortions and infanticide, and hedonistic,

shameless behaviour (9).2 And this was just Theodoras background prior to

meeting Justinian, but in Procopius view, this is the most damning evidence of

her character, despite her later behaviour as Empress. It would appear that he has

1 Procopius, The Secret History, trans. G.A. Williamson, London, 2007 (9),

p.36-37.

2 Ibid., p 37-39.

2
chosen to give such a detailed and vivid description of Theodoras early life to

damn her in the eyes of his audience, who were accustomed to a more gentile

type of Roman matron. Averil Cameron argues that Theodora, in her time as

Empress acted just as an Empress should, so that the only way for Procopius to

attack her was to attack what he knew, or had heard, regarding her private life.3

Elizabeth Fisher expands on this to argue that Procopius relied on gossip and

slander for his background comments on Theodora, and presents them in such a

way that they appear as historical fact. 4

With no other written evidence of her background, Procopius has succeeded in

portraying Theodoras early life in such a monstrous fashion that it has become

accepted as history. That Justinian changed the laws after his aunts death to

allow marriage to courtesans, such as Theodora, is recorded by Procopius and is

well known.5 Judith Herrin states that at this time in Byzantium, actresses and

other entertainers were in fact treated almost as prostitutes in law.6Knowing that

3 Averil Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century, London, 1985, p. 75.

4 Elizabeth.A.Fisher, Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana: History

and/or Fiction?, Arethusa, 11,1973, p. 273-274.

5 Procopius, The Secret History, p. 42.

6 Judith Herrin, In Search of Byzantine Women, in Images of Women in

Antiquity, ed. Averil Cameron & Amlie Kuhrt, London & Canberra, 1983, p.

170.

3
historically actresses were mostly also courtesan and prostitutes, with all the

reputations that those occupations held, his exaggerations were probably

unquestioned.

It is in his detail of Theodoras role as Empress, however, that his misogynistic

opinions truly are shown. Cameron argues that he was deeply suspicious of

women but especially powerful ones like Theodora, and therein lies his hostility

toward her.7 Cameron goes on to state that Procopius disliked the feminine,

disliked women in power so intensely that it offended his sensibilities and

caused him to write in a one-sided and biased manner that in fact weakens, and

not strengthens, his argument.8Fisher agrees, stating that his portrayal of

Theodora, and in turn Belarius wife Antonina, were indicative of the stereotype

of powerful women in the 6th century, and this would have made his attack

acceptable to many at that time.9 This literary device, of invective,

generalisation and exaggeration, was in fact a common technique used by

Procopius contemporaries and therefore quite acceptable.10 That Theodoras

background is accepted now as historically accurate, as seen in movies and

7 Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century, p. 81.

8 Ibid., p. 82-83.

9 Fisher, Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana, p. 275.

10 P. Allen, Contemporary Portrayals of the Empress Theodora, in Garlick, B.

et al, (ed), Stereotypes of Women in Power, New York, 1992, p. 96.

4
novelisations of her life11, seem to indicate that Procopius was successful in his

aims.

Procopius main objections to Theodora however, seem to be that she wielded

power over Justinian inappropriately. His criticism of Theodora includes being

perpetually fixed upon inhumanity (15), clearly lacking in mercy and acting in

an autocratic manner. She was vain and frivolous, spending hours upon her

appearance (15) to the detriment of the Empire. To ascertain just how accurate

his portrayals of Theodora, and by extension Justinian, are, however, it is

necessary to examine how he portrayed them in his earlier works and also how

other sources viewed the couple. Generally, both Justinian and Theodora come

off favourably in both circumstances. Agapetus, a deacon in the Church in the 6th

century, praises Justinians office as being illustrious, tempering the pomp of

authority with your gentleness, and vanquishing the fears of those who approach

you by your goodness.12Of course, he was advising his Emperor, so one would

expect flattery of this kind. Yet other sources also praise the

11 See Theodora: Slave Empress (1954) at

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047567/, Theodora (1921 ) at

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0010764/ and Theodora: Actress, Empress, Whore

by Stella Duffy as evidence of her modern reputation.

12 Agapetus, Philosophical Advice to the Emperor Justinian (c.530) in

HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.1.

5
Emperor. John the Lydian, who also held high positions in Justinians

administration, called him a good and fair ruler.13And finally, Malalas, a Greek

chronicler, gives us a very different view again from Procopius in his

Chronicles. Roger Scott argues that Malalas bland but generally favourable

account14is important as it supports many of Procopius claims as fact but

presents an alternative view to his criticisms of Justinian, as we shall see when

examining his actions in more detail.15

Malalas, argues Scott, supports many of the facts in the Secret History but

presents an alternative assessment of those events, which in itself, is just an

alternative propaganda.16 An example of this is the way in which both Procopius

and Malalas interpret Justinians treatment of heretics, Hellenes, pagans, Jews,

homosexual and astrologers. Procopius is damning in Justinians treatment

13 John the Lydian, John the Lydian gives a Public Servants View of

Justinians Administration, in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013,

Doc. 5.9.

14 Roger.D.Scott, Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinians Propaganda,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol.39 (1985), p. 99.

15 Scott, Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinians Propaganda,p. 102.

16 Ibid.,p.104.

6
(11)17 yet Malalas sees this reign of terror as proper and right, arguing that

fear exists along with such blessings as peace and security.18 One could argue

that the two interpretations represent the opposing pro and anti-Justinian camps

in the Empire, depending of course on where one was placed in that society.

This, in fact, is a common criticism of Procopius, that ultimately Justinians

reforms threatened the position of many within the Byzantine establishment.

Scott continues to state that Procopius wrote the Secret History to criticise what

he saw as a challenge to the authority of the Byzantine ruling

establishment.19J.A.S Evans supports this argument, stating that Procopius was

speaking with the voice of the Establishment.20 By his reforms, it does appear

that Justinian may have offended the ruling aristocracy in Byzantine society,

particularly by his elevation of Theodora. Timothy Gregory agrees with this

theory, arguing that Procopius objected to the way that the newcomers acted

without consideration to the privileges and sensitivities of the contemporary

17 Procopius, The Secret History, p.45-50.

18 Scott, Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinians Propaganda, p.103.

19 Scott, Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinians Propaganda,p. 106.

20 J.A.S.Evans, Justinian and the Historian Procopius, in Greece and Rome,

Second Series,Vol. 17, No. 2 (Oct, 1970), p. 219.

7
 aristocracy on which Procopius felt he was a part.21Certainly, the tone of the

Secret History is vastly different from those of the History of the Wars and

Buildings, and one can attribute that in part to the changing attitude, and

possibly position, of Procopius himself.

The differing portrayals of Justinian and Theodora in the Secret History are

glaringly obvious when one examines Procopius earlier works. The most obvious

discrepancy is in his treatment of Theodora. In the History of the Wars, Procopius

has her make a speech during the Nika riots. While Justinian and his generals

were preparing to flee, it is Theodora who rouses the men to action and to honour

the purple by standing their ground.22It is Theodora who is wielding power and

influence and Procopius appears to be praising her for it. Yet in the Secret History,

he damns Theodora and Justinian for their actions, calling them bloodthirsty

demons.(12)23 Lynda Garland, as do many modern sources, argue that Theodora

did not actually say the speech Procopius attributes to her in the Wars but goes on

to state that rather than set to praise Theodora it actually was designed to damage

Justinians reputation.24 No one disputes that Theodora wielded power though her

husband but Garland argues that the speech shows Theodora taking on the

21 Timothy Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Oxford, 2005, p. 146.

22 Procopius, Procopius Official Version of the Nika Riot, 1 Jan 532, in

HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.3.

23 Procopius, The Secret History, p. 51-52.

8
masculine role that should have been occupied by her husband.25 This then, rather

than being a piece of pro-Justinian propaganda, could perhaps be interpreted as an

early foreshadowing of Procopius anti-Justinian opinion in the Secret History.

For in his later work, Procopius is very clear that power was shared by both

Justinian and Theodora, and that by allowing this, it was a sign of Justinians

weakness as an Emperor. His marriage to Theodora is, in Procopius view, a sign

of his moral sickness.(10)26 The pair were at one in their rapacity, their

bloodlust and their utter contempt for the truth.(15)27 His vindictive treatment

of Theodora is purely to serve as a sign of Justinians weakness and poor

judgment as an Emperor. Fisher agrees, arguing that by slandering one he can

blacken the name of both.28 Allen argues that by slandering the couple so,

Procopius rounds out his misrepresentation of Theodora and therefore Justinian

in the process.29This is clearly Procopius intent, and signs of his dissatisfaction

can therefore be seen as early as the time he wrote the History of the Wars.

24 Lynda Garland, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium AD

527-1204, London and New York, 2002, p. 32.

25 Ibid., p. 32.

26 Procopius, The Secret History, p. 42.

27 Ibid., p. 62.

28 Fisher, Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana, p. 276.

29 Allen, Contemporary Portrayals of the Empress Theodora, p. 98.

9
Interestingly, Buildings also shows sign of Procopius disillusionment with his

Emperor. Evans states that in Buildings, Justinian is the chosen of God,

building Hagia Sophia and other monuments to the Empire.30 He also argues that

Buildings was in fact a form of propaganda ordered by Justinian to be written by

Procopius, due to rising opposition to Justinians reforms expensive wars,

exhausted financial reserves, plague, lack of revenue and heresy within the

Empire.31 Procopius spends time praising Justinian, his expansion of the empire,

his religious reforms, and his law reforms, wedd(ing) the whole state to a life of

prosperity in a glorifying manner reminiscent of an election campaign.32 Its

sincerity is questionable. In the Secret History, Procopius damns Justinian for

the very measures he has spent time praising in Buildings. So which work is the

most accurate?

30 J.A.S.EvansThe Secret History and the Art of Procopius, Prudentia, vol. 7

(1975), p. 108.

31 J.A.S.Evans, Justinian and the Historian Procopius, p. 223.

32 Procopius, Justinian as Perfect Ruler (Procopius later view) in HIST305

Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.2.

10
Much has been debated about the timing of the Secret History and when it was

written, as the tone of that work differs so vastly from his earlier works, on the

whole. Garland argues that Procopius would not have written the Secret History

unless there was in existence a faction hostile to Theodora, and by extension

Justinian.33 This theory is supported by Evans, who states that by the time the

Secret History was written, Procopius was less well-informed and no longer part

of Belarius inner circle.34 The mood of deep disillusionment in the tone of the

Secret History is more than apparent.35 Is the Secret History then, the vindictive

revenge of a man disillusioned by his Emperor and government, or a true and

scathing attack by someone who was once a part of the regime he later professes

to despise?

Therein lies the paradox of the Secret History is it fact or fiction? As Gordon

argues, Procopius was too good a historian, too well-respected, to make up facts,

and while his interpretation of those facts was unfair, short-sighted and

malicious, it may have also reflected the popular feelings of the day, as well as

his own.36Scott agrees, stating that many of the facts presented by both

Procopius in the Secret History and Malalas in his Chronicles align; it is their

33 Garland, Byzantine Empresses, p. 39.

34 Evans, The Secret History and the Art of Procopius, p. 106.

35 K. Adshead, . The Secret History of Procopius and its Genesis, Byzantion

63 (1993), p. 6.

11
attitudes and interpretations that are counter to each other.37 One has to ask then,

when and why did Procopius attitude change, if at all. As the secretary to

Justinians most trusted general, job security for Procopius would obviously

mean professing opinions in favour of Justinian. But it may be that in secret,

Procopius was disillusioned and possibly disgusted by the actions of his

Emperor and Empress. Evans argues that he had to supress information he later

published in the Secret History for fear of the secret police and claims it is his

apology for ever having written the History of the Wars, and having identified

himself once with the policies which had brought disaster on the empire.38There

may be some truth in this theory, as Procopius himself tells us that in his earlier

writings he had to conceal the truth while those responsible for what happened

were still alive and while he felt far from safe.(1)39 In other words, Procopius

wrote what was required of him by his employer; on the side, he kept a record of

what he perceived to be the true story.

Of the success or failure of Justinians reign, opinion is of course divided, and

much of this can be attributed to Procopius. Gregory argues that Justinian was

one of the few Byzantine Emperors whose ideas about his power were matched

36 C.D.Gordon, Procopius and Justinians Financial Policies, Phoenix, Vol.13,

No.1 (Spring, 1959), p. 29.

37 Scott, Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinians Propaganda, p. 104.

38 Evans, Justinian and the Historian Procopius, p. 222.

39 Procopius, The Secret History, p.1.

12
by a considerable degree of reality.40 This is the paradox of Justinians reign

some view it as a great period of art and building, culture and preservation of an

Empire while others view it as an age of tyranny and fiscal excess that laid the

seeds for collapse in the decades to come.41 Just as Procopius presents binary

opposites to the history of Justinians reign so is opinion divided amongst

historians. While History of the Wars and Buildings proclaimed the glory of

Justinian and Theodora, the Secret History is a behind-the-scenes look, perhaps,

at the Empire, pointing out the shortcomings of the regime.42 One could argue

that the bitter invective shown by Procopius may have been in part because he

was forced to bend the truth and present a certain viewpoint in his earlier works

to protect his own position.

Where this theory collapses however, is ultimately in his treatment of Theodora.

By dwelling on her early life with the neurotic lasciviousness of a prude he

almost discredits how own work.43His hatred of Theodora is obvious and he uses

her past against her to discredit not only Theodora herself but her husband. But

it is the tone and language he uses that damage his work, as they are obviously

not based wholly on fact but on gossip, rumour and possibly Procopius own

40 Gregory, A History of Byzantium, p. 119.

41 Ibid., p. 140.

42 Evans, The Secret History and the Art of Procopius, p.109.

43 Robert Browning, Justinian and Theodora, London, 1971, p. 65.

13
 vivid imagination. While many parts of the Secret History appear to be based in

historical fact, and can be balanced and legitimised through his earlier works

and those of others, his depiction of Theodora is so savage and full of vitriol that

it is hard to accept it as anything but a vastly exaggerated version of Theodora. A

woman described by John the Lydian as

superior in intelligence of any man ever 44, it is difficult not to feel that

Procopius found Theodora threatening purely because of her gender. His portrait

of her was designed for an audience of his peers, who would be as disgusted as

he was by her behaviour. That is was not published until after her death speaks

volumes there was no way for her to refute his claims, even if she had cared

to.

The Secret History, in conclusion, has much to say about the reign of Justinian

and Theodora and doubtless therein lays much truth and fact. That Justinian

divided his critics is unquestioned; whether or not he was successful or not as an

Emperor is highly debated. What cannot be denied is that Theodora was obviously

an intelligent woman who rose to the rank of Empress despite her questionable

past, and whom must have been accepted by much of Byzantine society.

Procopius character assassination in the Secret History does much to weaken his

argument, but unfortunately, it is this image of her, as an immoral whore who used

her wiles to seduce and ultimately rule through Justinian, that has prevailed. In

that at least, Procopius has succeeded in his aims. To some extent, the Secret

44 John the Lydian, in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.9.

14
History is a realistic account of events and, if nothing else, provides an alternative

view of the events presented in the History of the Wars and Buildings. Viewed

alongside those works, the Secret History does provide a unique balance into two

fascinating individuals, but as always, must be read in the context of the

circumstances of the man who wrote it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Agapetus, Philosophical Advice to the Emperor Justinian (c.530) in HIST305

Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.1.

John the Lydian, John the Lydian gives a Public Servants View of Justinians
Administration, in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.9.

Procopius, Procopius Official Version of the Nika Riot, 1 Jan 532, in HIST305
Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.3.

Procopius, Justinian as Perfect Ruler (Procopius later view) in HIST305

Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.2

Procopius. The Secret History, trans. G.A. Williamson, Penguin, London, 2007.

Secondary Sources

Allen, P. Contemporary Portrayals of the Empress Theodora, in Garlick, B. et al,

(ed), Stereotypes of Women in Power, New York, Routledge, 1992, pp. 93-103.

15
Adshead, K. The Secret History of Procopius and its Genesis, Byzantion 63
(1993), pp. 5-28.

Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity: from Marcus Aurelius to Muhammad.
London, Thames and Hudson, 1971.

Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora, London, Praeger Publishers, 1971.

Cameron, Averil. Procopius and the Sixth Century, London, Duckworth, 1985.

Diehl, Ch. Byzantine Empresses (trans. by H. Bell & T. deKerpely), New York,
1973.

Duffy, Stella. Theodora: Actress. Empress. Whore., London, Virago, 2010.

Evans, J.A.S. Justinian and the Historian Procopius in Greece and Rome, Second
Series, Vol 17, No. 2 (Oct, 1970), pp. 218-223.

.Evans, J.A.S. The Secret History and the Art of Procopius, Prudentia, vol. 7
(1975). pp.105-109.

Evans, J.A.S. The Nika Rebellion and the Empress Theodora, Byzantion, 54
(1984), pp. 380-2.

Fisher, Elizabeth.A. Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana: History

and/or Fiction?, Arethusa, 11,1973, pp. 253-279.

Garland, L. Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium AD 527-1204,

London and New York, Routledge, 2002.

Gordon, C.D. Procopius and Justinians Financial Policies, Phoenix, Vol.13,

No.1 (Spring, 1959), pp. 23-30.

16
Gregory, Timothy E. A History of Byzantium, Oxford, Blackwell, 2005.

Herrin, Judith. In Search of Byzantine Women, in Images of Women in

Antiquity, ed. Averil Cameron & Amlie Kuhrt, London & Canberra, 1983.

Scott, Roger.D. Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinians Propaganda,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol.39 (1985), pp. 99-109.

Vasiliev, A.A., History of the Byzantine Empire, Madison, 1928

17