Recent work on Procopius and the composition of Wars VIII

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies

Volumn 27, Issue , 2003, Pages 45-67

  Greatrex, Geoffrey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60949721115     PISSN: 03070131     EISSN: 1749625X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/byz.2003.27.1.45     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Emphasis will be placed on works published between 1995 and 2003. A useful résumé of work published up to 1996 may be found in S. Tougher, 'Cameron and Beyond: Review-discussion of Averil Cameron: Procopius and the Sixth century', Histos 1 (1997) [http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1997/ tougher.html]. I am grateful to Juan Signes Codoñer and Anthony Kaldellis for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
2. AnTard 8 (2000).
3. Cf. C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford 1997), 344 n.1: 'The absence of other material for this year (A.M. 6052) must cause some suspicion about the accuracy of Theophanes' dating.'
4. Another recent work on Procopius, J. Signes Codoñer, Procopio de Cesarea - Historia Secreta (Madrid, 2000), 73-6
5. also accepts the later dating of the Buildings, cf. idem, 'Prokops Anecdota und Justinians Nachfolge', JÖB 53 (2003), 47-81.
6. E. Kislinger, 'Ein Angriff zu viel', BZ 91 (1998), 49-58 (not cited by any of the contributors to the AnTard volume).
7. Kislinger, 'Ein Angriff zu viel', 53 and n. 49.
8. Kislinger, 'Ein Angriff zu viel', 54-6.
9. 'Ein Angriff zu viel', 53.
10. See in general E. Stein, Histoire du bas-empire, vol.2 (Paris 1949), 521-35
11. with M. Whitby, "The Balkans and Greece, 420-602' in A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins and M. Whitby, eds, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol.14 (Cambridge 2000), 714-15 (stressing the variety of groups attacking the Balkans during the period).
12. Kislinger, 'Ein Angriff zu viel', 54
13. cf. G. Greatrex, "The composition of Procopius' Persian Wars and John the Cappadocian', Prudentia 17 (1995), 3-4. Note also possible references to other raids, e.g. at Wars VII.14.II (an attack by the Antae in the 540s).
14. Cf. e.g. Stein, Bas-empire, vol.2, 309
15. and G. Greatrex, 'Procopius and Agathias on the defence of the Thracian Chersonese', in C. Mango and G. Dagron, eds, Constantinople and its hinterland (Aldershot 1995), 126.
16. Cf. Greatrex, 'The Composition of Procopius' Persian Wars', 4-9.
17. As noted above in the case of Jeffreys. Kislinger too sets much store by the Sanagarius entry, 'Ein Angriff zu viel', 59 n.56
18. citing Whitby's positive assessment of the chronicler's chronology here ('Justinian's Bridge over the Sangarius and the Date of Procopius' De Aedificiis', JHS 105 (1985), 140).
19. Cf. B. Croke, 'Malalas, the man and his work' in E. Jeffreys, ed., Studies in Malalas (Sydney 1990), 24-5, doubting the likelihood that the chronicle continued beyond 565.
20. See nn.14-15 above. Note also G. Greatrex, 'The dates of Procopius' works', BMGS 18 (1994), 110-11, for other chronological inaccuracies of Theophanes in this period.
21. M. Whitby, 'Pride and prejudice in Procopius' Buildings: imperial images in Constantinople', AnTard 8 (2000), 59-66.
22. It is true, of course, that one cannot put too much weight on such words; Procopius is somewhat vague in his use of chronological indicators. Cf. A. Palmer, 'Procopius and Edessa', AnTard 8 (2000), 135, arguing that Procopius' 'immediately', concerning repairs to the city of Edessa, should not be taken literally, and that work was only undertaken c.540, fifteen years after the flood of 525. See n.11 above on the date of this invasion.
23. For detailed argumentation see Greatrex, 'The dates', 108-9
24. and 'Procopius and the defences of the Thracian Chersonese', 125-7.
25. Kislinger, 'Ein Angriff zu viel', 55 n.56, does not accept this point, but his reasoning is unclear. The implication of this whole section of the Buildings (IV.10.1-23) is that Justinian has vastly improved the defences of this region, which had been proved inadequate. It would therefore be odd indeed for Procopius to fail to report the successful defence of the peninsula by a favoured general of the emperor if he was writing after these events.
26. The second argument could be swept aside if one took the view that Buildings I was composed earlier, as Haury long ago proposed. I fail to see the force of Evans' suggestion, 'The Dates of Procopius' Works: A Recapitulation of the Evidence', GRBS 37 (1996), 306 n.12, that the reference to Justinian's clemency would be more appropriate after the memory of the conspiracy had faded. This might be true (though it is not obvious), but fails to address the accuracy of Procopius' claim.
27. Signes Codoñr, 'Prokops Anecdota', 66 n.54, makes the interesting suggestion that it was precisely Justinian's clemency towards these conspirators that inclined Procopius to look more favourably on Justinian's regime and to embark on the Buildings (although he prefers the later dating of the work).
28. See Signes Codoñer, 'Prokops Anekdota', sections 1 and 3; he draws particular attention to the concluding chapters of Wars VII, some sections being written before Germanus' unexpected death, others afterwards. Whether he is right to suppose that the Anecdota could have been added on at the end of Wars VII.39, had Germanus lived and gained the throne, seems more doubtful.
29. E. Kislinger and D. Stathakopoulos, 'Pest und Perserkrieg bei Prokop. Chronologische Überlegungen zum Geschehen 540-545', B 69 (1999), 76-98 at 95-6.
30. They arrive at their conclusion by placing the abortive Roman incursion into Persarmenia in 542, following Khusro's premature withdrawal from Roman territory, cf. pp.94-5. The standard view is still to be found (e.g.) in Whitby, 'Pride and prejudice', 61.
31. For an overview of this campaign, taking into account the new chronology, see G. Greatrex and S. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, A.D. 363-630 (London 2002), 112.
32. Croke, The Chronicle of Marcellinus (Sydney 1995), 137 rejected the continuator's statement out of hand, supposing it to be a year too late.
33. See Kislinger and Stathakopoulos, 'Pest', 97.
34. and Signes Codoñer, Historia Secreta, 33. Procopius refers to the Roman capture of Cumae in the same section, although it was not taken until the following year (as is clear from Agathias): Teias' brother Aligern declined to hand over the city. If we suppose that Procopius was writing up this" section in Constantinople - the usual view - then such an error is quite understandable, since the terms imposed on the Goths by Narses demanded that those south of the Po surrender to them (Proc. loc. cit. and Stein, loc. cit.).
35. J. Martindale, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol.3 (Cambridge 1991), 334.
36. Cf. Croke, The Chronicle of Marcellinus comes, 137.
37. Evans, 'The dates', 306.
38. Strictly speaking, the second truce expired in autumn 556; and one might presume that Roman payments would be made at the start of the year in question, so that a date of spring 556 would be more appropriate. Cf. Menander Protector, ed. Blockley, frg.6.1.148-54 (also in Greatrex and Lieu, Roman Eastern Frontier, 131-2) for the mechanisms of truce payments according to the treaty of 562.
39. While Kislinger, 'Ein Angriff zu viel', 55 n.58
40. and idem, 'Prokops Anecdota', 51 n.17
41. Cf. A. Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century (London, 1985), 241
42. with Tougher, 'Cameron and Beyond'; W. Kaegi, 'Procopius the military historian', BF 15 (1990), 53-85.
43. See G. Greatrex, 'Stephanus, the father of Procopius of Caesarea?', Medieval Prosopography 17/1 (1996), 125-45.
44. Cf. Cameron, Procopius, 8
45. On the role of the assessor see G. Greatrex, 'Assessores kaj historiistoj en la malfrua romia imperio', Jura Tribuno Internacia 2 (1998), 33-50.
46. I have discussed this point in 'Lawyers and Historians in Late Antiquity', in Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. R. Mathisen (Oxford 2001), 148-61.
47. I may have overstated my case in stating that Procopius is 'now generally accepted to have been a lawyer', p.150: Howard-Johnston, 'The education and expertise of Procopius', 22 and n.19
48. is sceptical, although Signes Codoñer, Historia Secreta, 11-12, 95-7, finds evidence in the Anecdota for Procopius' legal interests.
49. F. Tinnefeld, 'Prokopios [3]', in Der Neue Pauly 10 (2001), 391-2
50. also accepts the traditional view, as do two other recent encyclopaedia entries on Procopius - that of J.A.S Evans in G.W. Bowersock, O. Grabar and P. Brown, eds, Late Antiquity. A Guide to the Postclassical World (Cambridge, Mass. 1999), 654
51. and that by G. Greatrex in G. Speake, ed., The Encyclopaedia of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition (London 2000), 1405-6.
52. See, however, C. Pazdernik, 'Procopius and Thucydides on the Labors of War: Belisarius and Brasidas in the Field', Trans. Amer. Philol. Soc. 130 (2000), 149-87 for parallels between the two authors
53. The work of Kate Adshead, 'The Secret History of Procopius and its genesis', B 63 (1993), 13-16, also argues for allusions to Thucydides
54. cf. e.g. eadem, 'Procopius' Poliorcetica: Continuities and discontinuities' in G. Clarke, B. Croke, R. Mortley and A. Emmett Nobbs, Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay 1990), 93-104.
55. Cf. B. Croke in E. Jeffreys, Studies in Malalas, 3 (Evagrius on Malalas). I mistakenly cite this reference as p.5 in 'Lawyers and historians', 151 n.15.
56. Howard-Johnston, 'The education and expertise of Procopius', 24, notes a few passages where Procopius discusses legal matters, arguing that they are few and insignificant. More examples
57. however, may be found in my article, 'Lawyers and historians', 150 n.11
58. and C. Gizewski, Zur Normativität und Struktur der Verfassungsverhältnisse in der späteren römischen Kaiserzeit (Munich 1988), 66-147.
59. 'Procopius the military historian', 83.
60. Cf. G. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 502-532 (Leeds 1998), 61 and n.7 on John's work (referred to at De Mag. III.28.).
61. Recently, however, J. Schamp, 'Les débuts d'un collègue: le cas de Jean le Lydien' in XXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Pré-actes (Paris 2001), III, 64, has argued that John refers rather to a work commemorating Khusro's retreat from Edessa in 540.
62. All these instances noted by Kaegi, 'Procopius the military historian', 69-73.
63. Cf. Adshead, 'The Secret History', 17-19, for this characterisation of these chapters.
64. with Cameron, 'Conclusion', AnTard 8 (2000), 178.
65. Cf. J. Signes Codoñer, 'Prokops Anecdota', 49 n.14.
66. Greatrex, 'The composition of Procopius' Persian Wars', 1-13. B. Rubin long ago noted the Anecdota-like quality of the passage concerning John.
67. G. Greatrex, 'Procopius the Outsider?' in D. Smythe, ed., Strangers to themselves. The Byzantine Outsider (Aldershot 2000), 215-28.
68. with idem, 'Datierung und Zweck von Prokops Geheimgeschichte', XXe Congrès international des Études Byzantines. Préactes (Paris 2001), III, 63
69. now developed as 'Prokops Anecdota'. Signes Codońer, 'Prokops Anecdota', 49 n.14, remains uncertain as to whether all the somewhat disparate material collected in the Anecdota could have been deployed in the Wars.
70. 'Plato's Revenge: Byzantine literary criticism and the Secret History of the sixth century'. See also idem, 'The historical and religious views of Agathias: a reinterpretation', B 69 (1999), 206-52. Quotation from the concluding paragraph of the former paper. I am grateful to Dr Kaldellis for providing me with a copy of his seminar paper (which I was unable to attend); my aim here is merely to draw attention to his arguments and to offer a few counter-remarks. The reader will have to await his forthcoming monographs for a fuller exposition of his arguments.
71. Cf. Cameron, Procopius, ch.7 and 234-5.
72. J.A.S. Evans' article, 'Christianity and Paganism in Procopius of Caesarea', GRBS 12 (1971) is also an important contribution to the debate. His arguments, ibid. 86-93, for Procopius' adherence to Christianity appear compelling.
73. Cf. (e.g.) Damascius, Philosophical History, ed. and tr. P. Athanassiadi (Athens 1999), § 124.
74. Cf. M. Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past (London 1992), 72-3.
75. But note Greatrex, 'Stephanus', 129 and references at n.9 on the question of the depth of knowledge of classical authors (perhaps limited to extracts in handbooks). Kaldellis argues (pers. comm.) that references to Plato are particularly significant since Plato was not part of the standard curriculum in the sixth century. But cf. N.G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983), 8, 19, 24, 50 for study of Plato in late antiquity. He also notes, ibid. 30-1, how the Gaza school, where Procopius might have studied (above, n.36), was particularly influenced by Plato.
76. On Theophylact, see M. Whitby, The Emperor Maurice and his historian (Oxford 1988), 322-9
77. and idem, 'Greek Historical Writing after Procopius: Variety and Vitality' in A. Cameron and L. Conrad, eds, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I, Problems in the Literary Source Material (Princeton 1992), 47-54.
78. Cf. J.A.S. Evans, The Age of Justinian (London 1996), 124.
79. By Evans (n.56 above), cf. idem, "The "Nika" rebellion and the Empress Theodora', B 54 (1984), 380-2, as well as by Kaldellis.
80. Isocrates, Archidamus, 45 for the reference;
81. cf. Diodorus Siculus, XIV.8. Cf. L.J. Sanders, Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyranny (London 1987), 33 n.16 on Isocrates' favourable stance; Sanders also emphasises that pro-Dionysian accounts were not entirely overshadowed by Timaeus' hostile version, ibid. vii, 174-6.
82. Menae Patricii cum Thoma referendario. De scientia politico dialogus, ed. C.M. Mazzuchi (Milan 1982), esp. book V.
83. Theoph. Sim. Dialogue of Philosophy and History 4, Hist. VIII. 10.4, 13.1.
84. On the traditions of good and bad tyrants in archaic Greece, cf. R. Osborne, Greece in the Making, 1200-479 B.C. (London 1996), 193-7.
85. For harsh criticism of Roman emperors in classicising histories, cf. Greatrex, 'Procopius the Outsider?', 217-18.